Ashington teacher serving prison sentence for sexual offences involving children banned from profession

Davidson pleaded guilty to 18 charges in April 2021, which included multiple counts of sexual activity with a child, inciting sexual activity with a child, making indecent images of a child, possession of extreme pornography, and distributing indecent images.

He preyed on children online and in person for his own sexual gratification from 2004 until his arrest in 2020.

The court heard that he used fake profiles under a number of different aliases, pretending to be both young boys and girls, to develop online relationships with children and deceive them into sharing photographs.

A Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel recommended in May 2023 that he be prevented from becoming a teacher again, which was accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State.

There will be no review period for the prohibition order.

Davidson did not attend the hearing or engage with the case put against him, according to the panel’s report.

The panel decided his convictions would impact confidence in the teaching profession and impact the safety of children.

The report said: “By the standard of the ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen, Mr Davidson’s conduct was far outside that which could be tolerated.

“The length of his sentence of imprisonment emphasised the seriousness of his conduct.

“The remarks of the sentencing judge highlighted the serious impact his actions had on the children involved.”

It went on to say that “public interest considerations far outweighed the interests of Mr Davidson,” citing the nature of the offences and their impact on children as “a significant factor” in reaching that conclusion.

It continued: “The sentencing judge considered that he presented a risk due to the nature and duration of his offending and the number of children he involved.

“Many of those children he either knew, befriended or targeted in his role as a teacher.

“Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect.”

This led the appointed decision maker to conclude it was “proportionate and in the public interest” to issue the prohibition order.