Kevin Davies
Introduction
Kevin Davies, born in 1965, taught at the Harry Carlton School in Leicestershire between 1 September 1993 and 31 August 2001, and later as a physics teacher at Concord College in Shrewsbury from 1 September 2015 to 31 October 2020. On 31 March 2022 he was convicted at Nottingham Crown Court of two counts of indecent assault on a female under 16, offences committed against a former pupil; he was sentenced only on 15 November 2024, receiving eighteen months’ imprisonment. A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found him guilty of unacceptable professional conduct through conviction of a relevant offence, and in December 2025 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely, with no entitlement to apply for restoration.
Background Information
Davies’ career spanned two settings named in the TRA decision: the Harry Carlton School, where he taught for eight years until August 2001, and Concord College, where he taught physics for just over five years until October 2020. He was referred to the TRA on 5 February 2021. The TRA agreed to his request that the allegations be considered without a hearing, and he provided a signed Statement of Agreed Facts dated 8 September 2025 admitting the allegation. When the panel convened by virtual meeting on 17 December 2025, he was not present and was not represented.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Conviction-based prohibition. The findings below rest on criminal convictions recorded at Nottingham Crown Court on 31 March 2022 and a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel’s finding that the teacher was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct through conviction of a relevant offence. The prohibition order is a regulatory sanction, considered at a private virtual meeting on 17 December 2025 without a hearing at Davies’ own request, on his signed statement of agreed facts.
The offending was historic. In his Statement of Agreed Facts, Davies admitted that Pupil X, a former pupil of the Harry Carlton School, performed oral sex on him, and that he continued to have sexual encounters with her until 2002; the panel noted that his conviction relates to indecent assault on a child during a school trip. He was convicted on 31 March 2022 at Nottingham Crown Court of two counts of indecent assault on a female under 16, and the panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the offences.
Sentence had been deferred for more than two years: on 15 November 2024, at Nottingham Crown Court, Davies was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and made subject to a ten-year notification requirement under the Sex Offenders Register. In sentencing remarks dated that day, the judge said Davies was “in a position of trust” and that “as abuses of trust go, it is an extreme example”, adding that “As breaches of trust go, this is about as serious as it gets”, and that he “would be completely failing” in his public duty if he did not impose an immediate custodial sentence.
In a written statement dated 9 April 2025, Davies stated “I accept my offence”. The panel noted that the judge regarded him as “genuinely remorseful”, that he had admitted what he did “at an early stage”, and that he had been in contact with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation about taking his place in society after his sentence. The judge also recorded that Davies had “never offended previously and you have not offended since” and called him “an excellent school teacher”; the panel noted it had no direct evidence attesting to his record as a teacher. It found the allegation proved and the conviction a relevant offence.
The panel found strong public interest considerations in the safeguarding of pupils, since the offences occurred in respect of a pupil during a school trip, in maintaining public confidence in the profession, and in declaring proper standards of conduct. While it acknowledged that Davies had shown some accountability and insight, and that the risk of repetition was “on the lower end of the possible scale”, it was not satisfied that this risk was eliminated. It recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and no review period.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision records no public or media reaction; the documented consequences are criminal and regulatory. Davies’ conviction resulted in eighteen months’ imprisonment and a ten-year Sex Offenders Register notification requirement. On the regulatory side, the panel held that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if such conduct were not treated with the utmost seriousness, and that his behaviour was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Although there was “some evidence that Mr Davies had ability as an educator”, the panel concluded that the adverse public interest considerations outweighed any interest in retaining him, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher and he sought to exploit his position of trust. The Secretary of State’s decision maker agreed that a published decision alone would not suffice.
Current Status
As of the determination dated 17 December 2025 and the decision of Sarah Buxcey, taken on behalf of the Secretary of State and dated 22 December 2025, Mr Davies is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. No review period applies: the decision maker found that allowing one would not maintain public confidence, citing the seriousness of the findings and the risk of repetition, and decided that Davies shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The order takes effect from the date it is served, and he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition permanently ends Davies’ teaching career in England, more than two decades after he left the school where the offences occurred and five years after his last teaching post. The panel saw no evidence beyond the judge’s remarks that he demonstrated exceptionally high standards of personal and professional conduct, received no character references, and did not accept that the incident was out of character. It gave less weight to his contribution to the profession, concluding that any future contribution was outweighed by the seriousness of his conduct. The judge’s acknowledgment of his remorse, early admission and previous good character did not alter the lifetime ban.