Mr Ikechukwu Ogben

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 Ikechukwu Ogben

Teacher reference number: 2072274

Teacher's date of birth: 23 August 1974

Location teacher worked: Wellingborough, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 January 2026 to 15 January 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 Ikechukwu Ogben formerly employed in Wellingborough, East Midlands.

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 Ikechukwu Ogben: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 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 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations Teacher: Mr Ikechukwu Ogben Teacher ref number: 2072274 Date of Birth: 23 August 1974 TRA reference: 22021 Date of determination: 15 January 2026 Former employer: Weavers Academy, Creative Education Trust, Wellingborough (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 – 15 January 2026 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Ikechukwu Ogben. The panel members were Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist – in the Chair), Ms Amy Barron (lay panellist) and Mr Philip Trendall (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Charlotte Belcher of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks Solicitors LLP. Mr Ogben was present at the hearing and he was not represented, save that the cross examination of Pupil A was undertaken by Special Counsel, Mr Justin Davies, on behalf of Mr Ogben. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 30 October 2025. It was alleged that Mr Ogben was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: While employed as a teacher at Weavers Academy (“the School”): 1. On or around 26 January 2023, he used inappropriate and/or excessive force in that he: a. Grabbed Pupil A; b. Pushed Pupil A against the wall. 2. As a result of his conduct at (a) and/or (b) above, caused Pupil A difficulty in breathing. Mr Ogben denied the facts set out in the allegations. Mr Ogben denied that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 39 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 40 to 44 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 45 to 205 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 206 to 237 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing. 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 on behalf of the TRA: 1. Witness A - [REDACTED] 2. Pupil A – Pupil involved in the alleged incident. Mr Ogben also gave oral evidence to the panel. He did not call any witnesses. 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 Ogben was employed at the School as a teacher from 1 September 2016 until his suspension from the School on 26 January 2023 following the alleged incident between him and Pupil A. The School conducted an investigation and a disciplinary hearing was held on 26 May 2023. A referral was made to the Teaching Regulation Agency (“TRA”) on 24 May 2023. 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: While employed as a teacher at the School: 1. On or around 26 January 2023, you used inappropriate and/or excessive force in that you: a. Grabbed Pupil A. Mr Ogben denied the allegation. In respect of this allegation, the panel heard oral evidence from Mr Ogben and received his written evidence. Mr Ogben admitted that he held on to Pupil A, although this was for a minimum amount of time. Mr Ogben denied that this was an excessive or inappropriate use of force and disputed use of the word ‘grabbed’. He considered that his actions were taken in line with what was permitted. The panel considered that, at times, Mr Ogben’s accounts of the incident, both written and oral, were inconsistent for example in respect of how he was holding Pupil A. 6 The panel heard oral evidence from Pupil A that Mr Ogben took hold of him and that force was used, which the panel considered to be consistent with his written statements. The panel noted that there were differences in Pupil A’s and Mr Ogben’s account in relation to the use of force. However, the panel also noted that it had the benefit of CCTV footage of the altercation in the hallway outside Mr Ogben’s classroom. The panel watched the brief CCTV footage of 26 January 2023 a number of times and carefully considered its contents. The CCTV footage was of a high quality, however the panel was alive to the fact that the CCTV footage could not show all angles and that, at the beginning of the CCTV, Mr Ogben was already holding Pupil A. The panel saw that Mr Ogben used both hands to hold on to Pupil A and pivoted Pupil A back around towards his classroom. Mr Ogben had one hand on the back of Pupil A’s coat and the other hand around his front. The panel considered the footage showed that energy and force were used to bring Pupil A back to the classroom. At one point, Pupil A held on to a window ledge. The panel had regard to the School’s Restraint Policy, which outlined circumstances which would warrant the use of more forceful restraint, for example in attempting to break up a fight between two pupils. It was clear from the policy that such a level of restraint should only be used as a last resort. The panel considered whether the actions taken by Mr Ogben to return Pupil A to the classroom were proportionate to the circumstances. The panel heard in evidence that Pupil A was attempting to leave the classroom. Mr Ogben submitted in oral evidence that he did not know where Pupil A was going, whereas Pupil A submitted in his oral evidence that he was going to the RESET room and that Mr Ogben had asked him to leave. The panel considered the difference in stature between Mr Ogben and Pupil A, who was a [REDACTED] student, which could be seen on the CCTV footage, and the potential imbalance of strength. The panel had regard to the fact that it had heard and read evidence from both Mr Ogben and Pupil A that Mr Ogben had had liquid sprayed in his eyes in the classroom and that this was not acceptable behaviour from a pupil. The panel considered that the level of force used in trying to return Pupil A to the classroom and the nature of the hold used by Mr Ogben, as shown on the CCTV footage, was excessive and disproportionate. Furthermore, the panel was provided with no evidence to indicate that alternative steps to deescalate the situation had been considered or attempted. The panel concluded therefore that Mr Ogben’s actions amounted to “grabbing” Pupil A. The panel assessed the weight and reliability of the evidence and considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Ogben grabbed Pupil A on 26 January 2023. The panel also considered that this action constituted inappropriate and/or excessive force. The panel therefore found allegation 1(a) proven. 7 The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proved, for these reasons: While employed as a teacher at the School: 1. On or around 26 January 2023, you used inappropriate and/or excessive force in that you: b. Pushed Pupil A against the wall. Mr Ogben denied the allegation. The panel heard oral evidence from Pupil A who confirmed he could not recall being pushed against the wall. Pupil A was then shown the CCTV footage, and having seen the footage, confirmed that this did happen. The panel considered that being pushed against the wall was a significant action and therefore something that Pupil A would be likely to have remembered and have recorded in his written evidence or have mentioned in his oral evidence prior to being shown the CCTV footage. The panel also heard oral evidence from Mr Ogben who denied pushing Pupil A into the wall. He stated that when Pupil A approached the glass, and there was a risk to Pupil A’s safety, he released Pupil A. As set out above, the panel had the benefit of CCTV footage of the incident on 26 January 2023. The panel considered that, as Mr Ogben pivoted Pupil A back towards his classroom, they turned to face the wall, which contained a large window, and Pupil A placed his hand on the window ledge. Whilst Mr Ogben did not appear to push Pupil A into the wall, the panel considered force was used to turn Pupil A back. The panel carefully considered the wording of the allegation. The allegation, as phrased, suggests a deliberate act of pushing Pupil A into the wall. The panel did not consider that such a deliberate act was undertaken, but as a result of the pivot action back to the classroom, Pupil A and Mr Ogben were facing the window. The panel did not consider that this action could be described as Mr Ogben having pushed Pupil A against the wall. The panel assessed the weight and reliability of the evidence and, on the balance of probabilities, the panel found that Mr Ogben used inappropriate and excessive force to pivot Pupil A back to the classroom resulting in them facing the window but that there was insufficient eviden