Carl Dixon

Introduction

Carl Dixon is a former primary school teacher at Davies Lane Primary School in London who was banned from teaching for life in February 2026 after a Teaching Regulation Agency panel found that he had lied on his job application about being known to children’s services as a potential risk to children, and that once employed he touched a nine-year-old pupil’s bottom, asked her on a date, and pressured her to hug him. Dixon denied all of the allegations and contested the hearing; the panel proved the key findings, found the bottom-touching sexually motivated, and the Secretary of State imposed a prohibition order with no review period.

The published decision is the primary public record of the findings.

Background Information

Dixon was employed as a teacher at Davies Lane Primary School in east London between 29 November 2017 and 7 January 2020. What the school did not know when it hired him was his history: in July 2013 he had stood trial at Blackfriars Crown Court charged with indecent exposure and was found not guilty — the decision records that the judge directed the acquittal based on the unreliability of the witnesses. But the safeguarding machinery kept him on the radar: in September 2013 the local Safeguarding Children Board wrote to him a letter stating that “it is likely that you may pose a risk to children”, following a LADO strategy meeting held after the trial.

When Dixon applied to Davies Lane in early January 2018, the application form asked: “Have you ever been known to any Children’s Services department or Police as being a risk or potential risk to children?” He answered no. The panel would later find that answer dishonest.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Allegations vs. proved. Dixon denied all the allegations and fought the case at a contested hearing; the panel found some allegations proved and one not proved, and acquitted him of nothing because he was never charged for the conduct found here. The 2013 acquittal stands. All findings below are regulatory findings on the civil standard.

According to the published decision, the panel found proved that Dixon’s “No” answer on the 2018 application was false and misleading — he should have been aware, from the September 2013 letter, that he was known to a children’s services department as a potential risk to children — and found the answer dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people, applying the Ivey v Genting Casinos test. The panel also found proved that between 2017 and 2020 he failed to maintain professional boundaries with pupils: it proved that he asked a pupil, anonymised as Pupil 9, on a date; hugged her; touched her bottom; pressured her to hug him by telling pupils they could do what they wanted if Pupil 9 gave him a hug — conduct the panel characterised as controlling or coercive — and held secret lunch meetings with pupils, telling them to hide if staff approached. It found not proven the claim that he gave Pupil 1 a note saying “I miss you a lot”.

The panel found the bottom-touching and related conduct sexual in nature, and the touching itself sexually motivated, stating it could find “no plausible innocent explanation” for touching Pupil 9’s bottom. It concluded the proven conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The combination — a safeguarding-concealment lie at hiring, then physical misconduct toward a pupil at the school that lie unlocked — drove the recommendation for a ban with no way back.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel recommended a prohibition order without a review period, and the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State agreed, finding no review period “necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest”. The published order states Dixon is “prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England”. The determination is dated 27 February 2026.

The ban was published on GOV.UK in the regulator’s regular stream of panel outcomes. No separate mainstream press coverage of the case has been located; the public record consists of the regulator’s own published decision. The case turns on documents rather than memory: the 2013 letter remained in existence and provable, five years after Dixon denied its substance on a job form.

Current Status

Dixon is barred from teaching for life. The prohibition order carries no review period, so there is no date after which he may apply to have the order set aside; his removal from the register is permanent barring a successful, extraordinary appeal of the order itself. The underlying 2013 acquittal is unaffected — the ban rests on the false application answer and the workplace misconduct, not on the charged offence of which he was found not guilty.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The career impact is total and permanent: a qualified teacher cannot work in any teaching capacity in England. Beyond teaching, the proved dishonesty finding — concealment of a risk-to-children notification to obtain a position of trust — is the kind of regulatory record that follows a person into any child-adjacent regulated work, since DBS checks and employer references now carry the 2026 findings. The case is a template for how TRA panels treat application-form lies about safeguarding history as gatekeeping failures that justify the harshest available sanction.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Carl Dixon,” published 2026 — source