Mr Nicholas Smith

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Nicholas Smith

Location teacher worked: Nottinghamshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 28 April to 29 April 2025

Outcome type: no order made

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Nicholas Smith, formerly employed in Nottinghamshire, East Midlands.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Nicholas Smith: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Nicholas Smith TRA reference: 21425 Date of determination: 29 April 2025 Former employer: Southwark Primary School (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by way of a virtual hearing on 28 and 29 April 2025 to consider the case of Mr Nicholas Smith. The panel members were Dr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist) and Mrs Beverley Williams (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr Smith was present and was represented by Miss Jessica Edmonds of NASUWT. The hearing took place in in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 24 January 2025 It was alleged that Mr Smith was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as assistant head teacher at Southwark Primary School: 1. Between August 2020 and October 2022, he used methamphetamine, a Class A illegal substance, on one or more occasions. Mr Smith admitted the alleged facts and admitted that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response form – pages 7 to 18 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 19 to 36 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 37 to 379 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 380 to 399. In addition, the panel agreed to accept a timeline prepared by the presenting officer. There was no objection by the teacher’s representative to the provision of this timeline to the panel. It was not necessary for the panel to consider whether to admit this document as late evidence, since it did not contain evidence, and was a document akin to submissions. Similarly, the panel and the teacher’s representative also received a written closing submission from the presenting officer. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. The panel also read the timeline provided by the presenting officer and his written closing submission. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 5 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] Mr Smith also gave oral evidence and called the following witness: Witness C – [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Smith was employed at the School from 1 September 2016, originally as a class teacher, before being promoted to assistant headteacher on 30 August 2019. Following a disclosure by Mr Smith on 7 July 2021, during a period of sick leave, Mr Smith returned to work on 31 August 2021. Following a further disclosure on 31 January 2022, Mr Smith was suspended from work. Mr Smith returned to work on 23 May 2022. On 25 May 2022, a disciplinary hearing took place. Mr Smith remained in work until his resignation on 31 October 2022. Mr Smith has subsequently been employed by Globe Primary School from 5 June 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: Whilst working as assistant head teacher at Southwark Primary School: 1. Between August 2020 and October 2022, you used methamphetamine, a Class A illegal substance, on one or more occasions. Mr Smith admitted this allegation. Witness B gave evidence that on 7 July 2021, Mr Smith sent an email to him, Witness A, the [REDACTED]. A copy of that email was provided to the panel. [REDACTED]. 6 I want to be clear that I have never used the substance on site. I have also never used the substance on a term time weeknight. This has been a weekend problem. [REDACTED]. Witness B stated that he arranged to meet with Mr Smith, [REDACTED], at Mr Smith’s home on 19 July 2021. Witness B provided a copy of the note of that meeting and confirmed the accuracy of it. Witness B stated that during the meeting Mr Smith disclosed that he had [REDACTED] that he was using the drug at weekends only, in a social group setting. The panel reviewed the meeting notes and noted that they referred to Mr Smith’s drug use [REDACTED].There was no specific reference to crystal methamphetamine within the notes. Witness B confirmed in oral evidence that during this meeting Mr Smith had informed him that he had been using crystal methamphetamine. In Witness A’s evidence, he stated that whilst Mr Smith’s email of 7 July 2021 had not indicated which substance Mr Smith had been using, he later became aware, because Mr Smith told him, that it was crystal methamphetamine. Witness A stated that there had been nothing in relation to Mr Smith’s appearance or professional behaviour that was indicative that Mr Smith may have been using any illegal substances. Witness B stated that, following a number of risk assessments, and an action plan being formulated, it was agreed that Mr Smith could return to work, subject to regular monitoring and drug testing. Witness B confirmed that Mr Smith only provided negative drug tests during the time period that the drug tests were being completed. Witness A stated that, on 31 January 2022, Mr Smith did not arrive at work. Witness A stated that he called Mr Smith who informed him that he was too unwell to attend work, and that he had relapsed over the weekend. Witness B stated that, following this relapse, the School’s disciplinary policy was invoked and an investigation carried out, resulting in a disciplinary hearing. Witness B stated that there had been no suggestion whatsoever that Mr Smith was taking illicit substances [REDACTED] prior to himself disclosing the issue to the School. Witness A stated that it was determined that Mr Smith could return to work, as risk assessments were put in place, [REDACTED] and was completing regular drug tests. He stated that Mr Smith returned to work on 23 May 2022 and remained in work until his resignation on 31 October 2022. Mr Smith confirmed in oral evidence that he had first used crystal methamphetamine towards the end of 2019 and that he had last used the drug in January 2022. [REDACTED]. A letter from Mr Smith’s current employer confirmed that Mr Smith had disclosed his previous use of “hard” drugs prior to applying for a position. 7 [REDACTED]. The panel was satisfied that methylamphetamine is listed as a Class A drug in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 having been inserted into the Schedule by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2006 and that this is commonly referred to as methamphetamine. The panel considered that it had been proven that between August 2020 and October 2022, Mr Smith used methamphetamine, a Class A illegal substance, on one or more occasions, whilst a teacher at the School. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of that proved allegation amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Smith, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Smith was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o not undermining fundamental British values, including … the rule of law… • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance... The panel noted that the School’s Code of Conduct stated that “in certain situations the Trust may deem that a zero-tolerance approach is best suited. Examples include… illegal activity.” Mr Smith had signed a checklist to confirm that he had read and understood this Code of Conduct. The panel also considered whether Mr Smith’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 8 The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional condu