Nicholas Martin

Introduction

Nicholas Martin, a former Head of Sixth Form at St Edward’s, Cheltenham, who had taught at the independent school since qualifying in 2006, was banned from teaching indefinitely after a Teaching Regulation Agency panel found he had lied about his age, claimed a Cambridge Masters he did not hold, invented a monthly magistracy and forged a degree certificate. The lies surfaced when he applied for a Deputy Head post in February 2025. He admitted the allegations in a signed statement of agreed facts, was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and the Secretary of State’s decision maker prohibited him with a two-year review period.

Background Information

Martin qualified as a teacher in 2006 and took up his post at St Edward’s, Cheltenham that September, remaining there for nearly two decades. In 2024 he applied for and secured promotion to Head of Sixth Form. In February 2025 he applied for Deputy Head (Operations and Compliance); the application was unsuccessful, failing to reach shortlisting. When the school reviewed it against its own records, staff found a different date of birth on the system from the one declared, and the discrepancies multiplied from there.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted, fabrication case. Martin admitted every allegation in a signed statement of agreed facts, including that he forged the Cambridge certificate himself. The case was regulatory rather than criminal: no charge was ever brought, and the panel found the 2012 birth date on his 2024 application was a typographical error, not dishonesty.

The trouble began with his 14 February 2025 application for Deputy Head (Operations and Compliance), on which he gave his date of birth as 17 December 1987 rather than his true date of birth of 17 November 1982, making himself five years younger. The same form claimed a Masters from the University of Cambridge and that he sat as a magistrate around once a month. He repeated the 1987 date to the Headteacher on or around 28 January, 18 February and 6 March 2025. Challenged, he first suggested someone must have confused his handwriting; when his passport, driving licence and qualification records all showed the 1982 date, he claimed an old passport error he had been trying to correct for years. Checks under the 1987 date found no records at all.

Asked to evidence the degree, he produced a purported Cambridge certificate, saying the original was kept at a relative’s home where they “liked to show it off to friends on weekends”. Cambridge confirmed the details on the certificate were not true, including that the relevant college did not offer the course it named. Questioned, he insisted the certificate was genuine; the panel found he had created it himself. His email signature carried “MA (Cantab)” and “JP” post-nominals, and HM Courts and Tribunals Service had no record of him sitting as a magistrate in recent years.

Scrutiny then spread to his earlier paperwork. His successful 2024 application for Head of Sixth Form, dated 7 March 2024, gave his date of birth as 17 November 2012, which would have made him twelve years old, alongside the same monthly-magistrate claim. At a disciplinary hearing on 31 March 2025 he made full and substantial admissions to acting dishonestly: he accepted the false date of birth, admitted fabricating a certificate to further his earlier false declaration about his qualifications, and accepted he had not sat as a magistrate for years. He said he had been trying to pass himself off as “more younger, more dynamic and more fun”.

Before the panel was a statement of agreed facts signed on 20 October 2025 in which he admitted all the allegations; it found allegations 1 to 8 proved in full and described his admissions as unequivocal. It found his actions dishonest in every respect except the 2012 date, which it concluded was entered as a simple typographical error rather than a purposeful misrepresentation. The conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel finding the offence of “fraud or serious dishonesty” relevant.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Martin faced no criminal proceedings; the consequences were employment and regulatory. The school’s investigation became a disciplinary hearing, after which it referred him to the Teaching Regulation Agency on 10 April 2025. Because he admitted the allegations, the TRA agreed to his request that the case be considered without a hearing, and a panel met virtually on 28 January 2026. It noted his two decades at the school without previous misconduct and that the investigator had called him a “good teacher” and “good with the pupils”, but found that none of the mitigating factors listed in the official advice applied. It accepted that he had engaged fully and openly, that his remorse was genuine and that his insight reduced the risk of repetition.

Current Status

Marc Cavey, the decision maker acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, dated his decision 29 January 2026, agreeing with the panel’s recommendation of a prohibition order with immediate effect and a two-year review period. Martin is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 5 February 2028 at the earliest; this is not automatic, and without a successful application he remains prohibited indefinitely. He has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of being given notice of the order. The decision was published on 16 February 2026.

Impact on Their Career/Life

A teaching career of nearly twenty years at a single school ended with the prohibition order, and the senior roles he sought, first Head of Sixth Form and then Deputy Head, are closed to him along with any teaching in England. Any return would require him to apply after 5 February 2028 and persuade a fresh panel that the prohibition order should be set aside, with no guarantee of success. The published decision permanently records findings of serious dishonesty, including the finding that he forged the certificate himself.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Nicholas Martin,” published 16 February 2026 — source