Mr Joseph Luttman

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 Joseph Luttman

Teacher reference number: 1168296

Teacher's date of birth: 6 September 1985

Location teacher worked: Great Torrington, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 December 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 Joseph Luttman, formerly employed in Great Torrington, South 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.

Mr Joseph Luttman: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Joseph Luttman Teacher ref number: 1168296 Teacher date of birth: 6 September 1985 TRA reference: 22909 Date of determination: 12 December 2025 Former employer: Marland School, Torrington Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 December 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Joseph Luttman. The panel members were Mr Tom Snowdon (teacher panellist – in the chair), Dr Sian Rees-Evans lay panellist) and Mrs Victoria Kelly (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) 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 Luttman that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Luttman 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 Ms Sophie Allen of Kingsley Napley LLP or Mr Luttman. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 29 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Luttman was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a class teacher at Marland School (“the School”): 1. On or around 7 September 2023, he behaved in a threatening and/or intimidating and/or inappropriate manner, in that he: a. Pushed Pupil A causing him to fall on the floor; and/or b. Pushed Pupil A away for a second time; and /or c. Picked up Pupil A and/or physically threw him out of an open doorway onto the playground area outside causing him to land on his back; and/or d. Tickled and/or poked Pupil A. 2. On or around 7 September 2023, he incorrectly and/or inadequately reported the incident involving Pupil A on the School’s reporting database “Behaviourwatch”. 3. On or around 7 September 2023, he did not follow the School’s safeguarding procedures, in that he did not report the incident involving Pupil A to the School’s safeguarding lead and/ or the headteacher immediately and/or in a timely manner. 4. His conduct at paragraph 2 was misleading and/or dishonest. Mr Luttman admitted the alleged facts and admitted 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 and list of key people – pages 4 to 5 Section 2: Notice of referral and response to notice of referral – pages 6 to 11 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and representations – pages 12 to 16 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 17 to 227 5 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 228 to 232 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”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Luttman on 4 June 2025. 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 Luttman 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. Mr Luttman was employed at the School as a class teacher from 5 September 2018. Whilst employed at the School, [REDACTED]. On 7 September 2023, the parent of a pupil emailed the school asking for a summary of what had taken place that day and asked why she had not been asked to sign an accident form. The following day she sent an email alleging that there had been an incident the previous day which involved Pupil A being hurt by a member of staff. On 12 September 2023, a multi-agency Strategy meeting was convened involving officers of the School, the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) and the police. On 1 November 2023, Mr Luttman attended an investigation meeting. On 8 December 2023, he attended a disciplinary hearing and he ceased to be employed by the School. Findings of fact Whilst working as a class teacher at Marland School (“the School”): 1. On or around 7 September 2023, you behaved in a threatening and/or intimidating and/or inappropriate manner, in that you: 6 a. Pushed Pupil A causing him to fall on the floor; and/or b. Pushed Pupil A away for a second time; and /or c. Picked up Pupil A and/or physically threw him out of an open doorway onto the playground area outside causing him to land on his back; and/or d. Tickled and/or poked Pupil A. Mr Luttman admitted the above allegations in his response to a notice of referral dated 29 April 2025. He further admitted the allegations in the statement of agreed facts. In the statement of agreed facts, he admitted that on 7 September 2023, Pupil A and Pupil B were chasing each other around a classroom during a lesson that he was teaching. He admitted that he pushed Pupil A causing Pupil A to fall to the floor. He admitted that when Pupil A got up, he then pushed Pupil A again towards Pupil B. He admitted that he picked Pupil A up by the right arm and shoulder, and using both arms lifted Pupil A up and physically threw him out of an open doorway onto the garden area outside. He also admitted that when Pupil A tried to let Mother A know about the incident, he poked and tickled Pupil A whilst he was in his car seat. Mr Luttman also admitted that on or around 10 January 2024 he had accepted a police caution in relation to this conduct. The panel was provided with a copy of the caution and noted that it related to an assault by beating contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 that had taken place on 7 September 2023 at the School. In accepting the caution, Mr Luttman admitted to committing the offence. The panel viewed two relevant portions of CCTV footage and noted that the admitted facts represent the events that were recorded in the classroom. The panel noted that the other member of staff present displayed signs of shock at what she had witnessed. The panel noted that the assistant headteacher responded to Pupil A’s mother on 8 September with a summary of the previous day, having spoken with Mr Luttman. No information was contained within the email of the incidents referred to in allegation 1. The email stated that “No accidents were reported, the closest thing Joe could think of to this was when he and Pupil A bumped into each other in the garden, as reported to you, but there was no injury and they had a giggle about it.” The panel noted an email from Pupil A’s mother in response at 8:42 stating that her son had told her there had been an incident the previous day which involved Pupil A being hurt by a member of staff resulting in bruises, scrapes and marks on his body, including his head. She sent a further email at 09:04 which stated that Mr Luttman had not reported bumping into Pupil A. Her email also stated that Pupil A had tried to let her know what happened and that Mr Luttman had distracted Pupil A by tickling him. 7 On 8 September 2023 at 16:30, Pupil A’s mother provided a statement of what happened when she collected Pupil A. This stated that Mr Luttman had told her that Pupil A had no screen time and that Pupil A had been quite distressed and upset by this. She stated that Pupil A then said “yes and you threw me into the garden didn’t you.” The mother stated that Mr Luttman tried to continue talking about Pupil A not lying to his mother regarding screen time. She stated that she had said “pardon” to Pupil A who repeated the same sentence. She stated that Mr Luttman then started poking and tickling Pupil A and said something about him being a tickle monster, and that he had never met a child so ticklish. She stated that Pupil A’s father had showered Pupil A and called his mother upstairs to show her the bruises, marks and scrapes on Pupil A. She stated that Pupil A had said that his teacher had “done this” to him and explained that he had a disagreement with a boy in his class and that he was thrown outside by the teacher. She stated that one of the marks was on Pupil A’s forehead and that Pupil A had been complaining of a headache after the incident and asked staff for help and an “icepole” but was ignored. Pupil A’s mother stated that she was told when she collected Pupil A that he was given an “icepole” for good behaviour. Pupil A’s mother attached to her email a statement from Pupil A’s father which stated that when he was showering Pupil A he found marks on Pupil A’s side, head, lower back and both arms. He stated that Pupil A had said tha