Mr Daniel Whitley

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Daniel Whitley

Teacher reference number: 1965533

Teacher's date of birth: 23 January 2001

Location teacher worked: Manchester, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 1 May 2026

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Daniel Whitley formerly employed in Manchester, North West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Mr Daniel Whitley: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Daniel Whitley Teacher ref number: 1965533 Teacher date of birth: 23 January 2001 TRA reference: 24612 Date of determination: 1 May 2026 Former employer: Beaver Road Primary School, Manchester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 1 May 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Daniel Whitley. The panel members were Ms Aisha Miller (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Emma Billing (lay panellist) and Mr Adam Michie-Carr (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Corrish of Birketts LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Whitley that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Whitley provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Mr Jon Walters of Brabners LLP solicitors, Mr Whitley, or his representative Ms Nuala Lavery-Noon. The meeting took place in private. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 3 February 2026. It was alleged that Mr Whitley was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed by Beaver Road Primary School (‘the School’) as a teacher: 1. On or around 28 February 2024 he: a. Caused Pupil A to bump their head; b. Failed to inform Pupil A’s parent that Pupil A had bumped their head. 2. On 4 March 2024, at a Parents’ Evening, he informed Pupil A’s parent that Pupil A’s injury had been caused by an accident in the playground. 3. On or around 5 March 2024 created a falsified accident reporting slip regarding Pupil A in that he: a. Backdated the accident reporting slip. b. Forged a colleague’s signature. 4. His actions as described at paragraph 2 and/or 3 were dishonest. 5. On 6 March 2024 he misled the School about true cause of the Pupil A’s head injury. 6. His actions as described at paragraph 5 were: a. Dishonest; b. Intended to cover up his conduct as described at paragraph 1. The panel noted that Mr Whitley admitted the particulars of allegations 1(a), 1(b), 2, 3(a), 3(b), 4, 5, 6(a), and 6(b) as set out in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Whitley on 26 October 2025. Further, Mr Whitley admitted that his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. . 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Pleadings – pages 3 to 8 Section 2: TRA documents – pages 9 to 62 Section 3: Teacher documents – pages 63 to 66 The panel also had the following: TRA additional note to panel which consisted of four pages – pages 67 to 70 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing as well as the TRA additional note. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Whitley on 26 October 2025 and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 27 October 2025 (the “Statement of Agreed Facts”). Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Whitley for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. On 1 September 2023, Mr Whitley commenced employment as a year 1 class teacher at the School. 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE On 28 February 2024, Pupil A allegedly sustained a bump to the head in Mr Whitley’s classroom, after Mr Whitley caught his foot on a chair causing it to strike the pupil. On 4 March 2024, during a parents’ evening, Parent B queried the absence of an accident reporting slip in connection with the head injury sustained on 28 February 2024. Mr Whitley allegedly stated that the injury had occurred in the playground. On 5 March 2024, Mr Whitley allegedly completed an accident reporting slip and asked a colleague to pass it to Parent B. On 6 March 2024, Parent B complained that the slip he had received did not reflect Pupil A’s account. On 2 October 2024, the School made a referral to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 28 February 2024 you: a. Caused Pupil A to bump their head; b. Failed to inform Pupil A’s parent that Pupil A had bumped their head. The panel noted that Mr Whitley admitted allegations 1(a) and 1(b) in the Statement of Agreed Facts. The panel nevertheless considered the evidence before it and made a determination. In the Statement of Agreed Facts Mr Whitley directly admitted that he accidentally hooked his foot on a chair which had caused a chair to hit Pupil A on the back of the head. He further admitted that he did not administer first aid or make a written record of the incident or produce an accident reporting slip (known as a “Bump Note”) to be sent to Pupil A’s parents. The panel also noted the notice of referral form dated 19 June 2025 where Mr Whitley admitted to this allegation. The panel considered the letter from Parent B dated 29 March 2024. In the letter, Parent B claimed that Pupil A had told them that the head injury he suffered was from Mr Whitley hooking a chair with his foot, and that the chair hit Pupil A on the head. Parent B then 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE said that Pupil A recalled that Mr Whitley had looked at the injury at the time and felt it did not require any ice. In the letter Parent B stated that they checked with Pupil A again if Pupil A was sure the injury was caused by Mr Whitley and the chair and Pupil A said that he was sure. Further in this letter Parent B clarified that he asked Mr Whitley about the head injuries stating that they had never been informed of what happened. He said that Mr Whitley’s response was “yes that happened in the playground”. He stated that when he countered that response with Pupil's A’s recollections Mr Whitley replied that he was “hardly even in school on Wednesday” and was “at his thing”. Parent B indicated that when he pushed the point Mr Whitney said he did recall nipping Pupil A's hand with a chair but that it was very minor. The panel noted that it had an account of a meeting with Mr Whitley and three individuals from the School in the morning of 6 March 2024. The panel noted that within that note of the meeting it was recorded that Mr Whitley said that on his turning the teacher’s chair to face the board the “blue cushioned bit on the side of the chair” hit Pupil A on the left hand side of the head but Mr Whitley stated there was no mark and that he did not think the bump warranted a Bump Note at the time. Mr Whitley said he only noticed a mark on Pupil A’s head on the Monday. Mr Whitley was recorded as saying he did not write any Bump Notes. The panel noted that it had an account of a meeting with Pupil A and two individuals from the School in the afternoon of 6 March 2024. Pupil A was recorded as saying “Mr Whitley hooked his foot on the chair and it hit me. I sit next to a chair and it caught me and hit me… Mr Whitley said he would check it later and would get an ice pack but he forgot”. The panel noted that it had an account of a meeting with Parent B and three individuals from the School in the morning of 6 March 2024. It recorded that Parent B had said that on 28 February 2024 he picked up Pupil A from [REDACTED] and he had a significant bump to his head. He asked Pupil A what happened and Pupil A told him Mr Whitley hooked his foot on the chair and hit him on the head. Parent B went on to say that he asked Mr Whitley about the incident, as to how Pupil A got a bump on his head, at a parents evening on 4 February 2024 (which the panel took to be 4 March 2024) and Mr Whitley said it had happened on the playground. Parent B said he informed Mr Whitley that Pupil A had said it had been done by Mr Whitley and ask where the Bump Note was. Mr Whitley said he would look for the Bump Note. The panel carefully considered the evidence before it. Given Mr Whitley’s clear admissions and given the wider factual circumstances as described by Parent B and Pupil A the panel was satisfied that on or around 28 February 2024 Mr Whitley had 8 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE caused Pupil A to bump their head and had failed to inform Pupil A’s parent that Pupil A had bumped their head. The panel noted that it interpreted “caused” in this context to mean ‘was the causative actor’ behind the bump as distinct from any determination of intent. The panel found allegations 1(a) and 1(b) proven. 2. On 4 March 2024, at a parents’ evening, you informed Pupil A’s parents that Pupil A’s injury had been caused by an accident in the playground. The panel noted that Mr Whitley admitted allegation 2 in the Statement of Agreed Facts. He also specifically agreed the following “On 4 June 2024 at a parents evening the parent of Pupil A (Parent B) queried with the teacher why a bump note had not been sent home regarding the incident on 28 February 2024. The teacher told Parent B that Pupil A sustained a blow to the head in the playground”. The panel considered the letter from Parent B dated 29 March 2024. In the letter it was recorded that Parent B asked about Pupil A’s head injury and Parent B claimed that Mr Whitley immediately replied with conviction, “yes, that happened in the playground”. The panel again considered the account of a meeting with Mr Whitley and three individuals from the School in the morning of 6 March 2024. Within that account Mr Whitley was recorded as saying that he thought an incident must have happened on the playground in which Pupil A had been given a Bump Note and he had lost it. Mr Whitley also recorded that at a parents’ evening Parent B had said to him that Pupil A had told Parent B that Mr Whitley had hit him on the head and Mr Whitley informed Parent B that he did not remember this incident and, if it had happened, he was sorry. The panel carefully considered all the evidence and considered that it had been proven to the standard of the balance of probabilities that Mr Whitley informed Pupil A's parents, specifically Parent B, that Pupil A’s injury had been caused by an accident in the playground. The panel found allegation 2 proven. 3. On or around 5 March 2024 created a falsified accident reporting slip regarding Pupil A in that you: a. Backdated the accident reporting slip. b. Forged a colleague’s signature 9 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel noted that Mr Whitley admitted allegations 3(a) and 3(b) in the Statement of Agreed Facts. Mr Whitley expressly admitted that on the morning of 5 March 2024 he wrote a Bump Note with respect to Pupil A which was backdated to 28 February 2024, stated that Pupil A had received a bump due to falling from a climbing frame in the playground, stated the first aid have been provided to Pupil A, was signed in the name of Colleague A and gave no indication that it had been prepared by Mr Whitley. The panel considered the evidence presented before it and made a determination. The panel also noted the notice of referral form dated 19 June 2025 where Mr Whitley admitted to this allegation expressly. The panel considered the accident slip (Bump Note) dated 28 February 2024, which states that Pupil A “banged head on climbing frame[,] small mark, ice pack given”. The accident slip further stated that the incident occurred in the playground. The slip stated that the first aider was Individual A and indicated that it had been signed by Individual A. The panel also noted that it had been supplied with a sample of what it was satisfied was Mr Whitley’s handwriting and, on conducting a comparison, the panel was satisfied that the accident slip had been, in fact, written by Mr Whitley. The panel again considered the account of a meeting with Mr Whitley and three individuals from the School on the morning of 6 March 2024. In that account Mr Whitley stated that on 5 March 2024 he found a Bump Note which had fallen down the back of Pupil A's tray. Mr Whitley was recorded as stating he could not remember exactly whether it had fallen to the tray above or below but was all crumpled up. Mr Whitley was recorded as stating that he gave the Bump Note to Individual B to give to Parent B that morning and informed Pupil A that he found the note about when he hurt himself while playing and it was in his tray that morning. Mr Whitley stated that Pupil A told him “I did not get it from when I was playing and fell over I got it from when you hit me with a chair”. Mr Whitley was recorded as stating that he did not know who wrote the note or administered first aid for the incident that he had not filled out any Bump Notes and did not know where to find them and that he had no knowledge of how the note had been written. The panel again considered the account of a meeting with Mr Whitley and three individuals from the School in the afternoon of 6 March 2024. In this account it was recorded that Mr Whitley admitted he had in fact written this slip and that he forged Individual A signature. Mr Whitley was recorded as saying that he was sorry and he felt scared and panicked after parents’ evening and wrote the note as he felt the parent had attacked his identity and character. 10 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel considered the account of a meeting with Individual A and three individuals from the School in the morning of 6 March 2024. Individual A was recorded as saying that she did not remember dealing with that instance involving Pupil A in the playground that she did not write or sign the Bump Note nor was it her handwriting. Individual A was recorded as stating that she was very careful about Bump Notes and reminds other teaching assistants never to sign her name on a Bump Note. She said she did not know anything about the incident or the Bump Note. The panel carefully considered the evidence before it. The panel was satisfied that the notes of the investigatory meetings taken with Mr Whitley’s direct admissions and the evidence of the Bump Note itself, which appeared to be in his handwriting, demonstrated that it was proven that on or around 5 March 2024 Mr Whitley created a falsified accident reporting slip regarding Pupil A in that he backdated the accident reporting slip and forged Individual A signature. The panel found allegations 3(a) and 3(b) proven. 4. Your actions as described at paragraph 2 and/or 3 were dishonest. The panel noted that Mr Whitley admitted allegation 4 in the Statement of Agreed Facts, however the panel considered the evidence presented before it and made a determination. The panel considered whether Mr Whitley had acted dishonestly. In doing so, the panel applied the test set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords. The panel first considered Mr Whitley’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts at the relevant time. The panel noted that it found proven that at a parents’ evening, Mr Whitley had informed Parent B that Pupil A’s injury had been caused by an accident in the playground and that Mr Whitley had created a falsified accident reporting slip regarding Pupil A in that he backdated the accident reporting slip and forged a colleague’s signature. The panel noted Mr Whitley’s evidence was that he forged this slip in a situation where he was panicked and fearful but the panel did not consider that realistically he could have had any doubt in his own mind at that point that the actions he was taking, as found proven, constituted lies and a deliberate falsification of a safeguarding document. The panel was sure that in his own mind Mr Whitley would know that what he was doing was wrong. The panel was in no doubt that Mr Whitley would know the School’s safeguarding procedures and the appropriate steps to take. The panel concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Whitley knew that the contents of the accident reporting slip were untrue, knew that it had been backdated and 11 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE falsely signed, and knew that his explanations to both Parent B and the School were inaccurate. The panel also concluded that Mr Whitley’s actions were deliberate and taken with a desire that the true circumstances of the incident should continue to be concealed. Applying the second limb of the Ivey test, the panel considered whether Mr Whitley’s conduct would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. The panel was satisfied that ordinary decent people would consider it dishonest for a teacher to falsify an accident record, forge a colleague’s signature, and mislead a parent about the cause of a child’s injury. The panel therefore concluded that Mr Whitley’s conduct was dishonest and allegation 4 was found proven. 5. On 6 March 2024 you misled the School about true cause of the Pupil A’s head injury. The panel noted that Mr Whitley admitted allegation 5 in the Statement of Agreed Facts, however the panel considered the evidence presented before it and made a determination. The panel noted the false Bump Note which stated the details of the incident: “banged head on climbing frame[,] small mark, ice pack given”. The panel again considered the account of a meeting with Mr Whitley and three individuals from the School in the morning of 6 March 2024. The panel noted that in that account Mr Whitley did acknowledge that he accidentally struck Pupil A on the head with a chair but that he thought an incident must have happened in the playground. In that account Mr Whitley stated that on 5 March 2024 he found a Bump Note which had fallen down the back of Pupil A's tray. Mr Whitley was recorded as stating he could not remember exactly whether it had fallen to the tray above or below but it was all crumpled up. Mr Whitley stated he gave the Bump Note to Individual B to give to Parent B that morning and informed Pupil A that he found the note about when he hurt himself while playing and it was in his tray that morning. Mr Whitley stated that Pupil A told him “I did not get it from when I was playing and fell over I got it from when you hit me with a chair”. Mr Whitley was recorded as directly stating that he did not know who wrote the Bump Note or administered first aid for the incident that he had not filled out any Bump Notes and did not know where to find them and that he had no knowledge of how the note had been written. The panel again considered the account of a meeting with Mr Whitley and three individuals from the School in the afternoon of 6 March 2024. In this account it was recorded that Mr Whitley admitted he had in fact written this slip and that he forged 12 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Individual A signature. Mr Whitley was recorded as saying that he was sorry and he felt scared and panicked after parents’ evening and wrote the note as he felt the parent had attacked his identity and character. The panel considered that, whilst Mr Whitley had acknowledged within the first meeting with the School on 6 March 2024 that he had made contact with Pupil A with a chair he had seemingly maintained the position that Pupil A’s injury had been caused by the incident reported in the Bump Note as part of the wider deception. The panel was clear that it was only in the second School meeting that Mr Whitley acknowledged that the Bump Note was false and drafted by him and therefore effectively admitted that the injury to Pupil A (which the evidence of Parent B was had continued to be shown on Pupil A’s skin five days later) was the consequence of Mr Whitley having struck Pupil A with the chair as described. The panel therefore found that on 6 March 2024 Mr Whitley misled the School about the true cause of the Pupil A’s head injury. The panel found allegation 5 proven. 6. Your actions as described at paragraph 5 were: a. Dishonest; b. Intended to cover up your conduct as described at paragraph 1. The panel noted that Mr Whitley admitted allegations 6(a) and 6(b) in the Statement of Agreed Facts however the panel considered the evidence presented before it and made a determination. The panel considered whether Mr Whitley’s actions, as described in allegation 5, were dishonest and intended to cover up his conduct, as alleged at paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b). In doing so, the panel again applied the test set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords. The panel first considered Mr Whitley’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts at the relevant time. The panel noted that Mr Whitley was aware that the injury to Pupil A had occurred in the classroom as a result of his actions and not in the playground when he misled the School. On any basis he was also aware that Pupil A had been injured but the fact that the injury had been caused by him had not been disclosed. The panel also considered Mr Whitley’s conduct during the School’s fact-finding investigation. The panel noted that Mr Whitley initially denied writing the accident 13 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE reporting slip and provided explanations which were later admitted to be untrue. The panel concluded that these actions demonstrated a conscious intention on Mr Whitley’s part to disguise the true circumstances of the incident. The panel therefore found that Mr Whitley knew that his initial account to the School was false. The panel further concluded that these actions were taken deliberately and for the purpose of concealing the true cause of Pupil A’s injury. Applying the second limb of the Ivey test, the panel considered whether Mr Whitley’s conduct would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. The panel was satisfied that ordinary decent people would consider it dishonest for a teacher to misrepresent the cause of a child’s injury to a parent, to fabricate and falsify safeguarding records, and to mislead a school investigation in order to avoid accountability. The panel therefore concluded that Mr Whitley’s actions were dishonest. The panel therefore concluded that Mr Whitley’s conduct was dishonest and was intended to cover up his conduct at allegation 1. The panel found allegation 6(a) and 6(b) proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Whitley was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. 14 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel also considered whether Mr Whitley conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offence of serious dishonesty was relevant. The panel carefully considered the facts which it had found proven. The panel did not consider it was in a position to make a finding as to whether or not Mr Whitley intended to injure Pupil A and noted that they had no suggestion in the evidence that he did. The panel had though found that he had injured Pupil A and had failed to inform his parents of this fact and in fact lied to them about the cause of the incident. This, of itself, the panel considered to be a safeguarding omission relating to child safety. The panel noted Mr Whitley’s assertions as to his state of anxiety and his alleged concerns about reporting the incident to the senior leadership team (‘SLT’) (arising from fear of how a friend had been dealt with at another school). The panel found though that in order as to maintain the initial fiction about the cause of the injury he had gone so far as to manufacture a false safeguarding document and then to lie to the School repeatedly about that document and about his ignorance of the same. Again this gave rise to serious safeguarding and health and safety concerns. The panel also found that his actions as described in allegations 2, 3 and 5 were seriously dishonest. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Whitley amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Whitley was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Whitley’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Whitley’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. 15 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Whitley was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the panel found that serious dishonesty was relevant. The panel considered that the general public would consider that teachers should and would always put the interests of pupils first and it was clear that in Mr Whitley’s handling of this matter he did not do so. Further the general public would unquestionably expect teachers to behave honestly both in their dealings with parents and with the School. Again clearly Mr Whitley had not been honest. Further the panel considered that Mr Whitley's decision to go so far as to manufacture a safeguarding document to endeavour to maintain his deception would be viewed extremely seriously by the public. The panel considered that Mr Whitley’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Whitley’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils; the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Whitley, which involved his providing repeated misinformation about a pupil’s injury and how it occurred, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Whitley was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. 16 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Whitley was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Whitley in the profession. The panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweighed any interest in retaining Mr Whitley in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Whitley. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils); • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE); • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences, or involved the coercion of another person to act in a way contrary to their own interests; • collusion or concealment including: o failure to challenge inappropriate actions, defending inappropriate actions or concealing inappropriate actions; o lying to prevent the identification of wrongdoing; 17 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The panel considered that: Mr Whitley’s actions were clearly deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Whitley was acting under extreme duress. There was no evidence before the panel that Mr Whitley had demonstrated exceptional high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel had no evidence as to whether the incident was or was not out of character. The panel considered whether there were any other mitigating factors, including insight and remorse. The panel noted that during the School’s investigation Mr Whitley ultimately admitted that he had written and falsified the accident reporting slip, had backdated it, and had forged a colleague’s signature. The panel also noted that Mr Whitley expressed remorse during the internal process apologised for forging the Bump Note, and described feeling scared and panicked following the parents’ evening and sought to explain his fear in reporting the initial incident to the SLT given the treatment of a friend at another school. The panel further noted Mr Whitley’s written apology and offer of resignation in which he acknowledged that his actions were unacceptable, stated he took responsibility for the situation, and recognised that his conduct undermined safeguarding and professional standards. The panel noted in this regard that Mr Whitley was very early in his career but nevertheless considered that he would have been fully aware of appropriate safeguarding practice and that he would, in any event, not have needed to have been aware of any procedure to know that falsifying a safeguarding document was clearly very wrong. Beyond the limited contemporary expressions of remorse though the panel found that it had no evidence of insight in front of it, or any more detailed remorse, nor did it have any evidence that Mr Whitley had since sought to gain an understanding of appropriate safeguarding practices. The panel saw no evidence that Mr Whitley had sought to understand more fully what motivated him in his actions or taken steps to avoid such triggers in the future. The panel saw no evidence that Mr Whitley had identified the 18 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE impact his actions could have had on the pupil or on the School or on the reputation of the profession generally. Given the absence of insight and remorse the panel was simply not in the position to find that there was anything less than a material risk that this behaviour could be repeated. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Whitley of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Whitley. The findings of dishonesty it had reached and its conclusions that Mr Whitley had deliberately misled the School and a pupil’s parent and had falsified a safeguarding document to seek to cover up his own wrongdoing were significant factors in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. The panel found that the offence type of fraud and serious dishonesty was relevant given the serious dishonesty it that found in connection with Mr Whitley’s lies to the School and his manufacturing of a false safeguarding document. In considering whether a review period was appropriate, and if so its length, the panel took into account its findings on mitigation, insight, and remorse. The panel determined 19 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE that Mr Whitley had demonstrated very limited insight or remorse as aforesaid. The panel concluded that the seriousness of the dishonesty and the central importance of safeguarding and honesty in the teaching profession meant that any return to teaching would require clear evidence of sustained reflection and insight and a fuller acceptance of the impact of his actions. The panel also considered that it would need to see a clear demonstration of the steps taken by him to avoid any repetition of such serious wrongdoing. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provision for a 4 year review period. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Daniel Whitley should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of four years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Whitley is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. 20 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Whitley involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Whitley fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher behaving in a way that was dishonest. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Whitley, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel has provided this observation: “In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Whitley, which involved his providing repeated misinformation about a pupil’s injury and how it occurred, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “Beyond the limited contemporary expressions of remorse though the panel found that it had no evidence of insight in front of it, or any more detailed remorse, nor did it have any evidence that Mr Whitley had since sought to gain an understanding of appropriate safeguarding practices. The panel saw no evidence that Mr Whitley had sought to understand more fully what motivated him in his actions or taken steps to avoid such triggers in the future. The panel saw no evidence that Mr Whitley had identified the impact his actions could have had on the pupil or on the School or on the reputation of the profession generally. 21 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Given the absence of insight and remorse the panel was simply not in the position to find that there was anything less than a material risk that this behaviour could be repeated.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Whitley has developed full remorse for and insight into his actions means that I agree with the panel’s assessment that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel comments: “The panel considered that the general public would consider that teachers should and would always put the interests of pupils first and it was clear that in Mr Whitley’s handling of this matter he did not do so. Further the general public would unquestionably expect teachers to behave honestly both in their dealings with parents and with the School. Again clearly Mr Whitley had not been honest. Further the panel considered that Mr Whitley's decision to go so far as to manufacture a safeguarding document to endeavour to maintain his deception would be viewed extremely seriously by the public.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty in this case and the negative impact that such a finding is likely to have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Whitley himself. The panel makes this comment: “There was no evidence before the panel that Mr Whitley had demonstrated exceptional high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel had no evidence as to whether the incident was or was not out of character.” 22 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A prohibition order would prevent Mr Whitley from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the serious nature of the misconduct found by the panel: “The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Whitley. The findings of dishonesty it had reached and its conclusions that Mr Whitley had deliberately misled the School and a pupil’s parent and had falsified a safeguarding document to seek to cover up his own wrongdoing were significant factors in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect.” I have also placed considerable weight on the findings of the panel that Mr Whitley has yet to develop full insight and remorse and the consequent risk of repetition. In addition, I have noted the panel’s findings that, notwithstanding the mitigating evidence it considered, Mr Whitley’s actions were both deliberate and committed free from extreme duress. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Whitley has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a four-year review period. In doing so, the panel has made reference to the Advice: “The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. The panel found that the offence 23 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE type of fraud and serious dishonesty was relevant given the serious dishonesty it that found in connection with Mr Whitley’s lies to the School and his manufacturing of a false safeguarding document.” I have considered the panel’s concluding remarks: “In considering whether a review period was appropriate, and if so its length, the panel took into account its findings on mitigation, insight, and remorse. The panel determined that Mr Whitley had demonstrated very limited insight or remorse as aforesaid. The panel concluded that the seriousness of the dishonesty and the central importance of safeguarding and honesty in the teaching profession meant that any return to teaching would require clear evidence of sustained reflection and insight and a fuller acceptance of the impact of his actions. The panel also considered that it would need to see a clear demonstration of the steps taken by him to avoid any repetition of such serious wrongdoing. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provision for a 4 year review period.” I have considered whether a four-year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that I agree with the panel that allowing such a review period is appropriate and proportionate to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious dishonesty found as well as the lack of evidence of full insight and remorse and the consequent risk of repetition and harm to pupils in the future. I agree with the panel therefore that a four-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. It will also afford Mr Whitley, should he wish to return to teaching in the future, the time to develop full insight into his actions and in doing so provide assurance that the risk of a repetition is negligible. This means that Mr Daniel Whitley 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 prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 11 May 2030, four years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Whitley remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. 24 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Whitley has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 6 May 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.