A physics teacher who told a pupil “I would really like to punch your face in” before punching a wall close to the youngster's head has been prohibited from teaching indefinitely in England.
David Hicks was working at Downside School, a Catholic boarding and day school in Somerset, when the incident occurred on February 5, 2025. The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) heard that the incident followed disruptive behaviour during a science lesson, with Hicks becoming “very angry” as he confronted two pupils.
Confrontation with Pupil A
During an encounter with Pupil A, Hicks pushed the youngster against a wall and placed his hand or hands on the pupil's face, both of which he admitted. The panel also found that he grabbed the pupil by their jacket, which Hicks had denied.
Hicks admitted telling Pupil A: “This is called dumb insolence.” He also said: “I am the alpha male.” But his comments then became more threatening.
Hicks admitted saying he would “really like to punch your face in” and told the pupil that once he started hitting him, he would not stop. Hicks also admitted saying that one day he might “snap” and the pupil should hope an adult was nearby who could drag him away.
Wall Punching and Further Threats
He then punched a wall close to Pupil A's head, telling investigators afterwards: “The purpose was to punch the wall to bring their attention to the situation.” But the confrontation did not end there.
The panel found Hicks also grabbed Pupil B by the shoulders and used words to the effect of: “How far do you think you can push me?” and: “What would happen if I hit you?”
It also found he told the pupil words to the effect of: “If I hit you, I would go to jail for two years. If I beat you, I would go to jail for three years. Which one do you think I would prefer?” Hicks also punched the wall close to Pupil B's head.
Panel Findings and Prohibition
The panel found all of the allegations against him proved and concluded his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
It said: “Mr Hicks used aggression towards young pupils and behaved in an intimidating manner.” The panel added: “Mr Hicks’ conduct was wholly incompatible with the standards expected of a teacher and could not be justified.”
There were some mitigating factors. Hicks had not previously faced disciplinary or regulatory proceedings, had shown some remorse, reported himself to his employer shortly after the incident and displayed some, although limited, insight into his actions. However, the panel concluded there was a “significant risk of repetition”.
It said: “The panel was of the view that punching a wall close to two pupils’ heads and making physical threats towards pupils amounts to violent conduct. The panel was also of the view that such conduct is wholly inappropriate in an educational setting.”
Hicks cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children's home and cannot apply for the prohibition order to be set aside until October 1, 2034. Even then, the ban will not automatically be lifted. A panel would have to consider any application and decide whether the prohibition order should be set aside.
