Mr Daniyal Burney

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 Daniyal Burney

Teacher reference number: 1888716

Teacher's date of birth: 21 September 1997

Location teacher worked: Hertfordshire, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 to 26 February 2025

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 Daniyal Burney, formerly employed in Hertfordshire, East of England.

Mr Daniyal Burney: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel hearing decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Daniyal Burney Teacher ref number: 1888716 Teacher date of birth: 21 September 1997 TRA reference: 22480 Date of determination: 26 February 2025 Former employer: St Margaret’s School, Hertfordshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 – 26 February 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Daniyal Burney. The panel members were Mr Terry Hyde (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Beverley Montgomery (lay panellist) and Mrs Bev Williams (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jermel Anderson of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr Daniyal Burney was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 01 October 2024. It was alleged that Mr Daniyal Burney was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a Teacher of Religious Studies at St Margaret’s School (“the School”): 1. Between around December 2022 and July 2023, he exchanged emails of an informal and/or inappropriate nature with: a. Pupil A and/or; b. Pupil C and/or; c. Pupil D. 2. Between around May 2023 and July 2023, he contacted Pupil A on Instagram and/or WhatsApp. 3. In or around July 2023, he searched for Pupil C on Instagram and/or told Pupil C he had found them on Instagram. 4. On or around 25 July 2023, he sent Pupil A messages on WhatsApp, despite being told not to contact individuals at school, including pupils, upon his suspension on 5 July 2023 5. On or around 27 July 2023, he informed Colleague A that the communication with Pupil A had ended about a week before prom and/or on 31 July 2023, he told Colleague A that he had not had contact with Pupil A since before prom, when this was not true. 6. His conduct at paragraphs 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 was sexually motivated; 7. His conduct at paragraph 4 demonstrated a lack of integrity. 8. His conduct at paragraph 5 was a. dishonest; and/or b. demonstrated a lack of integrity. Mr Burney made admissions to Allegation 1a, Allegation 1b, Allegation 1c, Allegation 2, Allegation 3, Allegation 4 and Allegation 5. He denied Allegation 6. He also made admissions to Allegation 7, Allegation 8a and Allegation 8b. 5 Mr Burney also admitted that his actions in respect to the allegations that he accepted, amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and also, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application to conduct proceedings in private The panel considered an application from Mr Burney that the hearing should be held partially in private. The application was supported by the TRA. The panel also heard and accepted legal advice in respect of this application. Mr Burney invited the panel to consider that due to the sensitive nature of some of the material that was due to be heard as part of the proceedings, it would be in the interests of justice for these matters to be dealt with privately. [REDACTED] It was advanced that there was no public interest in this material being heard in public. The TRA agreed with this position. The panel therefore determined that the matter would proceed in public, but that it would be sure to deal with the material as raised by Mr Burney in private. Application for special measures The panel heard an application from the TRA in respect of the witness, Colleague A, whereby it requested for her to have a witness supporter. The application was not opposed by Mr Burney. The TRA heard and accepted legal advice in respect of this application. The TRA invited the panel to consider that it had the discretion to exercise its power to direct that a witness supporter be facilitated, to assist with the quality of the evidence that the witness was to give. The TRA advised that Colleague A had suggested that the presence of a witness supporter would enable her to give better quality evidence than if she were to attend alone, due to her apprehensions. The panel, having heard from the parties, accordingly determined that Colleague A be allowed to attend with her witness supporter. The witness supporter who joined Colleague A during her evidence was [REDACTED] 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and key people list and anonymised pupil list – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 7 to 22 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 23 to 42 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 43 to 676 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 677 to 701 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing [and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit]. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2022, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses who were called by the TRA: Colleague A, [REDACTED] Colleague B, [REDACTED] The panel also heard from Mr Burney who gave oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Burney was employed as a Teacher of Religious Studies at St Margaret’s School on 1 September 2020. Between December 2022 and July 2023, he exchanged a series of emails and messages with Pupil A, Pupil C and Pupil D. Following the school prom which was on 23 June 2023, allegations arose in respect of Mr Burney’s communication with Pupil A. The School referred the concern to the LADO on 30 June 2023. Mr Burney also allegedly searched for Pupil C on Instagram in July 2023. 7 Colleague B met with Pupil A’s parents on 3 July 2023 and a LADO meeting was convened on the same day. Mr Burney was suspended from the school on 5 July 2023 and the school’s investigation began on the same day. A further LADO meeting took place on 2 August 2023. Following a disciplinary meeting on 14 August 2023, the matter was referred to the TRA on 11 September 2023. Evidence The panel heard the live evidence of Colleague A and B, it also heard from Mr Burney and it considered and read the witness statements of the aforementioned parties. In addition, the panel had sight of the witness statement of Amicie Knowles, senior paralegal at Kingsley Napley. In addition, the panel had sight of a range of investigative material, including interviews with the pupils who Mr Burney was alleged to have engaged with. A range of screenshots demonstrating emails, WhatsApp messages and other forms of communication between Mr Burney and pupils were presented as part of the TRA’s case. In considering the allegations, the panel formed its own, independent view based on the evidence presented to it. The panel was mindful of the need to exercise its own independent judgement and not rely upon any opinions recorded. It was for the panel, not anyone else, to draw inferences and conclusions from proven facts in this case. The panel was also mindful that it had seen some hearsay evidence within this case. In the absence of hearing from these individuals, and being able to test their accounts, this evidence was treated with caution by the panel. Where such evidence was relied upon, it is addressed in the panel’s reasons, below. In assessing what weight to attach to this hearsay evidence, the panel considered all of the circumstances, including the extent to which it was supported or contradicted by other oral and documentary evidence in this case. 8 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: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher of Religious Studies at St Margaret’s School (“the School”): 1. Between around December 2022 and July 2023, you exchanged emails of an informal and/or inappropriate nature with: a. Pupil A and/or; b. Pupil C and/or; c. Pupil D. The panel acknowledged that Mr Burney admitted to this allegation in full. Additionally, the panel noted that it had seen significant material that supported the allegation. Notably it had been presented with screenshots of email exchanges between Mr Burney and Pupil A, Pupil C and Pupil D which it was satisfied took place between December 2022 and July 2023. The panel also noted that these screenshots were corroborated by the hearsay accounts of the respective pupils within the investigative reports, it therefore determined that it could afford significant weight to this material. The panel was satisfied that the correspondence was both informal and inappropriate within the conventional meaning of the words. The panel was therefore satisfied