Rowan Barnicoat
Introduction
Mr Rowan Barnicoat was a Teacher of Mathematics at Pool Academy in Cornwall and an Early Careers Teacher in his second year when a school-organised Christmas party on 7 December 2023 ended his career. Three days later a colleague alleged he had consumed drugs there. A Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) professional conduct panel found he possessed and consumed cocaine that night; a second allegation was proved but too inconsequential to amount to misconduct alone, and others were not proved. On 25 June 2026 the decision maker for the Secretary of State prohibited him from teaching indefinitely, with no set-aside application possible until 30 June 2031 at the earliest.
Background Information
According to the TRA decision, Barnicoat commenced employment at Pool Academy as a Teacher of Mathematics on 1 September 2022. No criticism had been raised about his abilities as an educator, and he had no previous regulatory or disciplinary findings. On 11 December 2023 allegations were made that he had consumed drugs at the party, and the school investigated. Barnicoat resigned on 8 February 2024, during the investigation, which concluded on 29 February 2024 with a safeguarding hearing. He was referred to the TRA on 7 March 2024.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. Findings by a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel are a matter of published regulatory record — findings on the balance of probabilities, not criminal convictions. The panel found proved that Barnicoat possessed and consumed cocaine on the night of the party, and that he made a boastful remark about having cash from dealing, which fell short of misconduct on its own. It did not prove the allegation that he sought to influence a colleague’s account, and the related dishonesty allegation was not considered. Barnicoat denied the allegations, providing nothing further; in his absence, all were treated as denied.
On the night of 7 December 2023, Barnicoat attended a Christmas party organised through the school, with colleagues. Person B gave direct evidence that Barnicoat told him “I’ve got something stronger back in [REDACTED]” during the evening. Afterwards, concerned for Person A’s welfare, Person B followed the group to Barnicoat’s home, where he saw him take two bags of powder from a suitcase, place the powder on the table and break it up with a credit card; Barnicoat then rolled a £5 note into a tube and snorted it. Person B consistently testified that Barnicoat told him the powder was “cocaine”, and that he believed it.
Although Person A did not appear and her account was hearsay, the panel gave it significant weight because Person B’s evidence corroborated it. By her account, Barnicoat had removed two white bags of powder from his wallet and placed them in the suitcase before the party, and told her he was not taking the drugs to the party as members of the senior leadership team were there; she and Person D recalled his multiple references to cocaine through the night. The panel found that a white powdered substance referred to as “cocaine” by at least two witnesses was more likely than not cocaine, and that the two bags and the observed snorting established both possession and consumption. It could not determine whether he had been under the influence.
The panel also found proved that Barnicoat told Person B, refusing his contribution to a taxi fare, “I am never skint. I always have cash from dealing” — Person B gave a “compelling and consistent account” across three statements. With no evidence of actual drug dealing, the panel considered the remark too inconsequential to constitute misconduct standing alone. A further allegation — that he sought to influence Person A’s account to the school by telling her, in words to the effect, that she and another colleague needed to “get your story straight” — was not proved: by Person A’s account the call ended with Barnicoat wishing her well, so the panel could not infer that its purpose was to influence her account.
The panel found Barnicoat in breach of the Teachers’ Standards, but not of Keeping Children Safe in Education or Working Together to Safeguard Children. It found the offence of class A drug possession for personal use relevant, and held that although the conduct took place outside the education setting, it directly affected how he fulfilled his teaching role because it concerned illegal substances and took place at a staff party, in the presence of colleagues. He was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, and his actions on the drugs allegation brought the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
In mitigation, the panel noted Barnicoat’s previous good history, clean regulatory record and uncriticised abilities as an educator. Against that, it found there was no evidence his actions were not deliberate, and that he had shown no insight, remorse or rehabilitative steps — in the investigation and to the TRA he “had simply denied the allegations and had provided nothing further”. That he had consumed illegal drugs in the presence of colleagues was a significant factor in its recommendation. The panel judged the risk of repetition “high”, but noted his conduct did not directly place pupils at risk of harm and may be remediable, and recommended a five-year review — the longer category triggered by class A drug possession for personal use.
Current Status
The panel convened virtually on 22 to 24 June 2026; Barnicoat was not present and was not represented. Its determination is dated 24 June 2026, and the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State was signed by decision maker Stuart Blomfield on 25 June 2026. Barnicoat 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 30 June 2031, and this is not an automatic right. He has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice, and the decision was published in June 2026.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order ends Barnicoat’s teaching career before he had completed two years in the classroom. Because he engaged neither with the hearing nor with any rehabilitative steps, the decision records no mitigation beyond his prior good history. The panel observed that while the risk of repetition remained high, he “could in time take steps to rectify his behaviour” — but until any successful set-aside application, the published decision remains a permanent public record attached to his name.