Mr Farooq Ahmed

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 Farooq Ahmed

Teacher reference number: 9139977

Teacher's date of birth: 27 April 1967

Location teacher worked: Bradford, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 September 2025 to 16 September 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 Farooq Ahmed formerly employed in Bradford, Yorkshire and the Humber.

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.

Mr Farooq Ahmed Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Farooq Ahmed Teacher ref number: 9139977 Teacher date of birth: 27 April 1967 TRA reference: 24083 Date of determination: 16 September 2025 Former employer: Oasis Academy Lister Park, Bradford Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 15 September 2025 and 16 September 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Farooq Ahmed. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist) and Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Silas Lee of Mountford Chambers, instructed by Brabners LLP solicitors. Mr Ahmed was not 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 Proceedings dated 19 May 2025. It was alleged that Mr Ahmed was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a teacher at Oasis Academy Lister Park: 1. On 24 November 2023, during a lesson he: a. Pushed and or kicked a chair on which Pupil A was sitting; b. Hit Pupil B with a ruler. 2. His actions as described at paragraph 1 above were in breach of the School’s policy on physical contact with students. 3. On or around 15 January 2024, he accepted a conditional caution from West Yorkshire Police for assault by beating contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. In the absence of the teacher, the allegations are not admitted. Allegation 3 was amended as referred to below. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of Hearing and response – pages 3 to 28 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 29 to 85 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 86 to 103 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 104 to 107 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. The panel also viewed the CCTV footage provided. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 5 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] 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 Ahmed was employed as a teacher at Oasis Academy Lister Park (“the School”) since 1 September 2023. He was suspended from the School on 27 November 2023. On 15 January 2024, Mr Ahmed resigned from his post. 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 24 November 2023, during a lesson you: a. Pushed and or kicked a chair on which Pupil A was sitting; Witness A who [REDACTED] explained the background to how the allegations had come to light. She stated that during a lunch break, two female students had approached the Assistant Principal and alleged that in the previous lesson, Mr Ahmed had struck a student with a ruler on the arm. No statement was taken from those students at the time. The matter was reported to the principal who met with the student and obtained CCTV footage recorded in the classroom. The panel was provided with and watched the CCTV footage of the incident. Witness A confirmed that this CCTV footage seen by the panel was of the incident [REDACTED], although the version seen by the panel covered a longer period and was more blurred. The panel noted that the principal had in her interview notes referred to a police officer having recorded the CCTV footage on his bodycam. The CCTV footage viewed by the panel would correspond with that footage since the recording could be seen being played on a computer screen. 6 Although the quality of the CCTV footage was blurred, the panel observed Mr Ahmed pushing a chair on which a child was sat, causing the child to momentarily adjust his position whilst the chair was pushed in towards the desk. Mr Ahmed gestured with his hand towards the child and then could be seen leaning on the desk to steady himself his leg moved towards the chair and the child flinches and it appeared to the panel to be a reasonable inference that Mr Ahmed had kicked the chair upon which the child was still sitting. The panel considered Mr Ahmed’s explanations for the incident. The panel did not place any weight on the note of the investigation interview of Mr Ahmed dated 23 February 2024. Witness A was asked in oral evidence about this note, and it transpired that no interview had taken place despite the note referring to this having been the case. Witness A confirmed that she had never met Mr Ahmed whether virtually or in person as a set of written questions was provided via a third party to his representative who provided a response on Mr Ahmed’s behalf. Since the note was portrayed as an accurate record of a meeting that had not taken place, the panel was not assured that it was an accurate record, particularly given that it was not signed either by Witness A, or by Mr Ahmed. Similarly the panel placed no weight upon the interview note dated 2 February 2024 of Witness A’s interview with the principal who spoke with Mr Ahmed on the day of the incident. Again, that interview note was not signed by the principal to confirm its accuracy, the principal provided no witness statement for these proceedings, nor did the principal attend the hearing to be questioned regarding this account. Furthermore, there was no contemporaneous note of the discussion between the principal and Mr Ahmed on the day of the incident, the interview with Witness A having taken place over two months later (as the investigation was paused for the police investigation to conclude). The panel largely placed its reliance upon explanations provided directly by Mr Ahmed himself, or those provided by his representative, rather than those conveyed through a third party. In Mr Ahmed’s email of the evening of 24 November 2023, he did not reference having pushed or kicked the chair of a pupil. On 2 October 2024, Mr Ahmed’s representative provided a response to this allegation. It stated that Mr Ahmed accepted that he did move the chair on which Pupil A was sitting, although from the CCTV footage it was clear that Pupil A also lifted themselves up to move the chair under the table, after Mr Ahmed’s initial movement to lift the chair to encourage the pupil to move it in. It is stated that Mr Ahmed accepted that the contact was made by his foot to the chair, but denied that this was a kick. It was denied that the CCTV footage showed him kicking the chair, that it was clear that Pupil A had cooperated with the adjustment of the chair, and that there had been no ill intention from either party or disrespect. 7 Based on the CCTV footage watched by the panel, the panel found it more probable than not that Mr Ahmed had pushed the chair on which a child had been sitting, given that the pupil had to momentarily adjust their position to the new position of the chair. Since there had been no need to move the chair, the panel considered that it was more probable than not that Mr Ahmed’s body movement that the panel subsequently observed was more likely than not a kick to the chair on which the child was sat. The panel found this allegation proven. b. Hit Pupil B with a ruler. The panel carefully observed the CCTV footage and towards the end of the footage noted that Mr Ahmed flicked a ruler, which appeared to make contact with Pupil B’s arm. Shortly before, the ruler had been taken by Mr Ahmed from a pupil sat nearby. Prior to this occurring, the panel noted that Mr Ahmed appeared to be in an agitated state in the confrontational manner in which he moved around the classroom, standing unnecessarily close to the pupils whilst demanding the School’s equipment from them. Whilst Pupil B did not give oral evidence to the panel, the panel noted that its observation of the CCTV footage was consistent with the student statement form provided to the panel. In this account, taken on the same day as the incident, Pupil B explained that at the end of the lesson he was “yelled” at by Mr Ahmed who then “hit me with a ruler”. The panel considered that the CCTV footage had corroborated Pupil B’s contemporaneous account and that the panel was therefore able to place weight on the student statement form completed by Pupil B. As referred to above, during the evening of 24 November, Mr Ahmed sent an email to the principal providing a summary of his account of what happened. This stated that that he had been teaching Art in a lesson between 12:05 and 13:00. At the end of the lesson, he was collecting the equipment from pupils, having asked the students to return the resources to him before they departed for the next lesson. He explained that he was conscious of the fact that the lesson had ended and that students needed to get to their next lesson. He stated that when he approached Pupil B he had to ask him again for the resources, but the pupil had wanted to carry on and refused to hand them back. He stated that he “picked his equipment up quickly and I took the pencil out of his hand, by the top of the pencil. I made no physical contact with him, however, upon reflection I was holding a set of rulers in my hand and there is a slim possibility the ruler may have brushed his hand.” He stated that the child had walked out of the room without making any allegation. As they left he stated “someone was still shouting out ‘child abuser’”. He stated that when he asked that child to repeat what she had said, and to ask whether she had anything to say to him she walked out of the classroom ignoring him, and on her way out shouted “child abuser” laughing once she had met her friends who were waiting outside for her. 8 The panel noted that Mr Ahmed’s explanation of what happened is at odds with that it observed in the CCTV footage. In the CCTV footage it is apparent that Mr Ahmed held only one ruler and that it was not a case of the ruler brushing Pupil B’s hand as Mr Ahmed took the pencil from Pupil B. Instead Mr Ahmed made a deliberate flicking movement of the ruler towards Pupil B. The panel was provided with a summary of a police interview provided by the police along with the conditional caution. The panel considered that it could place some weight upon this document being an accurate summary of the interview that took place with Mr Ahmed. There has been no suggestion by Mr Ahmed’s representatives that it is inaccurate. Furthermore, the police would have understood the use to which such a document would be put when taking its decision as to what to disclose. The summary states that Mr Ahmed had said that Pupil B was the last pupil working, that he walked over to his desk and pulled the pen and ruler from his hands and that he denied using force to do this. He then stated that the student had made a sudden movement spreading both his arms out which caused his arm to hit on the ruler. The panel considered this explanation was not credible when compared with the CCTV footage. There was no sudden movement by Pupil B causing his arm to hit on the ruler. Mr Ahmed also did not take the ruler from Pupil B, he had already been passed it by a pupil nearby. The panel noted that Mr Ahmed was shown the CCTV footage by the police following which Mr Ahmed stated that he did not recall the incident occurring like that at all, that he understood how it looked and was apologetic. Afterwards, Mr Ahmed signed the caution admitting the offence of assault, albeit the panel noted that the caution recorded an assault without any stipulation that it was by beating. The offence could also have been committed by causing Pupil B to believe they were about to be the subject of unlawful violence. In the representations submitted on behalf of Mr Ahmed dated 2 October 2024, it is stated that Pupil B had ignored Mr Ahmed’s instruction to hand his equipment in. It is stated that “While Mr Ahmed was hurriedly trying to collect the materials, the pupil started making exaggerated gestures and noises with his fists going up and down in the air. Mr Ahmed returned to the table as the pupil had not put his name on the assignment. Mr Ahmed draws your attention to the CCTV footage where it can be seen that Pupil B is sitting closer to the camera and the flicking of the ruler is further back from where he is sitting. The CCTV footage does not show Pupil B reacting to the alleged hitting by the ruler. The lack of sound on the CCTV footage fails to show that a girl on the opposite side of the classroom shouted that Mr Ahmed hit Pupil B because she saw his exaggerated fist pumping and wailing noises he was making to attract the attention of others. Mr Ahmed flicked the ruler and tried to explain what it would look like if he had in fact hit the pupil. Mr Ahmed reiterates that the ruler does not touch the pupil.” 9 The panel noted that this explanation was not consistent with Mr Ahmed’s previous written explanation. Mr Ahmed had initially accepted the possibility of the ruler having made accidental contact with the pupil, then in the police interview, he attributed the contact to the pupil’s own actions, and in his latest account he denies any contact at all was made. The panel also considered that this explanation lacked credibility since it is inherently improbable that a teacher would flick a ruler to demonstrate what it would look like if he had hit a pupil. Given Mr Ahmed’s changing explanations and the panel’s own observation of the CCTV footage the panel considered that it was more likely than not that Mr Ahmed had hit Pupil B with a ruler. The panel found this allegation proven. 2. Your actions as described at paragraph 1 above were in breach of the School’s policy on physical contact with students. Witness A exhibited to her witness statement the Oasis Community Learning (“OCL”) Staff Code of Conduct. She confirmed in her witness statement that it is common practice that every new member of staff when inducted are provided with this Code of Conduct and this is publicly available to members of staff on the Trust’s website. In oral evidence Witness A stated that this had been the applicable version at the time of the incident. The panel noted that the version was dated October 2022. The Code of Conduct stated the following in relation to physical contact with students: “Physical contact with a student may be necessary and beneficial to demonstrate a required action or a correct technique in. For example, in singing, music lessons or during PE, sports and games. Any physical contact should be in response to the student’s needs, of limited duration and appropriate to the student’s age, stage of development, gender, ethnicity and background. Physical contact can be easily misinterpreted and should be limited both in extent and duration, to no more than is necessary to achieve the intended legitimate aim.” With respect to the conduct found proven as described at paragraph 1, the panel considered that there had been no legitimate aim. It was unnecessary for Mr Ahmed to have made contact in the manner found proven. The panel therefore considered that Mr Ahmed had breached the School’s policy on physical contact with students. The panel found this allegation proven. 10 3. On or around 15 January 2024, you accepted a conditional caution from West Yorkshire Police for assault contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. The panel has been provided with a copy of the conditional caution issued to Mr Ahmed and signed by him on 15 January 2024. This provided details of the offence stating “On 31/12/2023 at Oasis Academy assaulted [redacted]. In signing the form, Mr Ahmed declared “I admit to the offence(s) set out above. I understand I have the right to legal advice”. Mr Ahmed has not disputed that he signed the caution. On 2 September 2025, he told the firm instructing the presenting officer that he had made a mistake but did not deny that he had accepted the caution and made the comment that he “cannot undo the caution”. The panel found this allegation 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 first considered whether the conduct of Mr Ahmed, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Ahmed 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 treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others 11 ▪ 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. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Ahmed in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mr Ahmed was in breach of the requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in that he failed to protect Pupil A and Pupil B from maltreatment. He also breached his obligation to provide a safe environment in which children can learn. It was evident from the matters found proven in allegation 1 that this was an incident in which Mr Ahmed had lost control of the classroom and that his actions could have caused pupils in the classroom to feel afraid and unsafe. The panel was not satisfied that the conduct of Mr Ahmed in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel also considered whether Mr Ahmed’s 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 noted that it is likely that a panel would consider the acceptance of a caution for an offence involving behaviours associated with any of the offence types listed on page 12 and 13 of the Advice as an admission of behaviours that would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offence of violence was relevant, that Mr Ahmed accepted a caution for such an offence and in doing so admitted behaviours that would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Ahmed 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 Ahmed was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Ahmed’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. 12 In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Ahmed’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The panel noted that it is likely that a panel would consider the acceptance of a caution for an offence involving behaviours associated with any of the offence types listed on page 12 and 13 of the Advice as an admission of behaviours that would amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Ahmed was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of violence was relevant, that Mr Ahmed accepted a caution for such an offence and in doing so admitted behaviours that would amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered that Mr Ahmed’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Ahmed’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. There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of unnecessary physical contact with pupils. 13 Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Ahmed were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. 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 Ahmed 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 Ahmed in the profession. Whilst Mr Ahmed has had a lengthy teaching career and as such has the experience to make a valuable contribution to the profession, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Ahmed in the profession, since his loss of control of a class such that he hit a child with a ruler fundamentally breached the standards 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 Ahmed. 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; ▪ the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are ‘relevant matters’ for the purposes of the Police Act 1997 and criminal record disclosures; ▪ misconduct seriously affecting the education and safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; ▪ 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); ▪ violation of the rights of pupils. 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. 14 Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was evidence that Mr Ahmed’s actions were deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Ahmed was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. Mr Ahmed’s representations of 2 October 2024 refer to him [REDACTED]. The panel noted that the incident took place on 24 November 2023 following Mr Ahmed’s return to work. However, it was Mr Ahmed’s personal responsibility to decide [REDACTED] to be in a classroom environment responsible for the pupils in his care. No evidence was provided that Mr Ahmed had previously been subject to any warnings or disciplinary sanctions. There was no evidence that he had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both his personal and professional conduct or of having contributed significantly to the education sector. Mr Ahmed did not provide any testimonial statements evidencing his character or his teaching ability. In Mr Ahmed’s email to the principal of 24 November 2023 providing his written account of the incident, he referred to feeling isolated and upset, and his view that the allegations were totally unfounded. He referred to never having had any allegations made about him before. At that time, his response was focussed on the conduct of the certain pupils “who believe it is acceptable and funny to make these allegations, which can potentially end a person’s career and reputation.” In the document purporting to be a note of an investigation interview with Witness A, it records that Mr Ahmed provided some responses to what he would do differently. As referred to above, the panel had concerns as to the manner in which these responses were collected, and documented and had not been content to rely upon the document for the purposes of deciding whether the allegations were proven. Nevertheless, for the purpose of assessing insight and remorse, the panel noted that document records that Mr Ahmed explained that he had growing frustrations with the conduct and learning of the pupils in the class. He referred to having been frustrated with Pupil B because he had not written his name on the front of their book and “he may have tossed the book back at him in a frustrated manner”. He referred to being “unhappy that the lesson didn’t go as well as I had planned. On reflection I could have perhaps been more sympathetic. I had done the same lesson with year 7 and it had gone well and I felt that as it was the lesson prior to lunch and on Friday they just weren’t paying proper attention to what was being required of them.” Mr Ahmed stated that he regretted having taken the pencil out of Person A’s hand as “it would have been much better if I had 15 counted down and given a consequence if he had not released the pencil, or some other non-confrontational strategy.” Mr Ahmed’s responses concluded with “I apologise to the Trust and the school as I could have managed the situation much better. It was never my intention to bring the school into any disrepute. It was a difficult lesson and I accept in hindsight that I could have managed the situation better. I will certainly learn from my mistakes to never allow my frustration to get the better of me.” The panel noted that Mr Ahmed had been prepared to accept a caution acknowledging that he had at the least caused Pupil B to believe they were about to be the subject of unlawful violence. The panel noted that in the summary provided by the police of their interview with Mr Ahmed, that following his review of the CCTV, Mr Ahmed had said that he did not recall the incident occurring in the manner depicted, that he understood how it looked and was apologetic. The panel recognised that accepting a caution was a significant step for Mr Ahmed, a teacher with many years of experience. Most recently, Mr Ahmed has stated that he made a mistake in accepting the caution but having done so, has accepted that he has to take the consequences “on the chin”. The panel recognised that this was most likely a one off incident in which Mr Ahmed lost his control in the classroom and that this followed a period of absence [REDACTED]. There was no evidence of similar incidents having occurred previously. The acts of violence were on the lower end of the scale. However, the panel found Mr Ahmed’s loss of control concerning given the context of those actions having occurred in a classroom environment in circumstances where Mr Ahmed ought to have known that physical contact could only be justified where it was necessary. The panel accepted that Mr Ahmed had previously demonstrated some insight that he could have managed the situation better. However, there had been no appreciation of the effect of his actions on the pupils in the classroom, although he did recognise the impact on the School. Subsequently, his written representations of 2 October 2024 effectively deny any misconduct and provide no reflection upon his actions. His latest reference to having made a mistake in accepting the caution appeared to the panel to be borne out of his perception that prohibition was inevitable, but the panel had no current evidence to assure it that there was no risk of repetition. 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 Ahmed of prohibition. 16 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 Ahmed given the loss of control within a classroom and the panel not having received sufficient assurance regarding the risk of repetition. 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. One of these includes violence. The panel noted however, that no injury was caused to either pupil and that the incident was at the lower level of violence. The panel considered that in this case, Mr Ahmed had the capacity to understand and reflect upon his actions, and what he ought to have done differently, given that he had previously demonstrated some understanding of this. 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 provisions for a review period of two years. 17 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 Farooq Ahmed should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of two years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Ahmed 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 treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • 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. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Ahmed, 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 Ahmed fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher engaging in unnecessary and inappropriate physical contact with pupils which involved violence and resulted in the acceptance of a Police Caution. 18 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 Ahmed, 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 makes this observation: “The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Ahmed in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mr Ahmed was in breach of the requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in that he failed to protect Pupil A and Pupil B from maltreatment. He also breached his obligation to provide a safe environment in which children can learn. It was evident from the matters found proven in allegation 1 that this was an incident in which Mr Ahmed had lost control of the classroom and that his actions could have caused pupils in the classroom to feel afraid and unsafe.” 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: “The panel noted that Mr Ahmed had been prepared to accept a caution acknowledging that he had at the least caused Pupil B to believe they were about to be the subject of unlawful violence. The panel noted that in the summary provided by the police of their interview with Mr Ahmed, that following his review of the CCTV, Mr Ahmed had said that he did not recall the incident occurring in the manner depicted, that he understood how it looked and was apologetic. The panel recognised that accepting a caution was a significant step for Mr Ahmed, a teacher with many years of experience.” It then goes on to record this: “Most recently, Mr Ahmed has stated that he made a mistake in accepting the caution but having done so, has accepted that he has to take the consequences “on the chin”.” 19 And this: “The panel accepted that Mr Ahmed had previously demonstrated some insight that he could have managed the situation better. However, there had been no appreciation of the effect of his actions on the pupils in the classroom, although he did recognise the impact on the School. Subsequently, his written representations of 2 October 2024 effectively deny any misconduct and provide no reflection upon his actions. His latest reference to having made a mistake in accepting the caution appeared to the panel to be borne out of his perception that prohibition was inevitable, but the panel had no current evidence to assure it that there was no risk of repetition.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Ahmed has developed full insight means 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 records the following observations: “In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Ahmed’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The panel noted that it is likely that a panel would consider the acceptance of a caution for an offence involving behaviours associated with any of the offence types listed on page 12 and 13 of the Advice as an admission of behaviours that would amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Ahmed was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of violence was relevant, that Mr Ahmed accepted a caution for such an offence and in doing so admitted behaviours that would amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered that Mr Ahmed’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher.” I am particularly mindful of the finding in this case of a teacher engaging in inappropriate conduct towards pupils which resulted in a Police Caution and the negative impact that such a finding may 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.” 20 I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct which may 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 Ahmed himself. The panel provides the following comments: “No evidence was provided that Mr Ahmed had previously been subject to any warnings or disciplinary sanctions. There was no evidence that he had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both his personal and professional conduct or of having contributed significantly to the education sector. Mr Ahmed did not provide any testimonial statements evidencing his character or his teaching ability.” A prohibition order would prevent MrAhmed 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 panel’s comments concerning the seriousness of the misconduct found, which resulted in the teacher accepting a Police Caution, and the risk of repetition. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Ahmed 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. 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 two-year review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “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. One of these includes violence. The 21 panel noted however, that no injury was caused to either pupil and that the incident was at the lower level of violence. The panel considered that in this case, Mr Ahmed had the capacity to understand and reflect upon his actions, and what he ought to have done differently, given that he had previously demonstrated some understanding of this. 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 provisions for a review period of two years.” I have considered whether a two-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, and noting the possible mitigating circumstances noted by the panel, factors mean that I agree with the panel that allowing such a review period is appropriate and sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious nature of the misconduct found and the lack of evidence that Mr Ahmed has developed full insight into his behaviour. I consider therefore that a two-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. I also consider that such a period should provide Mr Ahmed with sufficient time to demonstrate that he has developed the necessary insight so as to provide reassurance that the risk of repetition is negligible. This means that Mr Farooq Ahmed 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 2027, two 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 Ahmed remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Farooq Ahmed 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: 19 September 2025 22 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.