Mr Joshua Olutoye

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 Joshua Olutoye

Location teacher worked: Newham, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 to 25 September 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Joshua Olutoye formerly employed in Newham, London.

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 Joshua Olutoye: Professional conduct panel hearing 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 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Joshua Olutoye TRA reference: 23947 Date of determination: 25 September 2025 Former employer: Langdon Academy, Newham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 24 to 25 September by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Joshua Olutoye. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Sarah Daniel (lay panellist) and Mr Ben Greene (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Olutoye 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 proceedings dated 10 July 2025. It was alleged that Mr Olutoye was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that while working as a head of maths at the Langdon Academy (“the School”): 1. On or around 30 June 2022, you provided a reference for Individual A that was false or misleading in that it stated that Individual A worked at the School between January 2003 and June 2006 when she did not. 2. Your behaviour as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above was dishonest and/or lacking in integrity. In the response to the notice of proceedings signed by Mr Olutoye on 6 August 2025, Mr Olutoye admitted allegations 1 and 2. However, during the hearing, Mr Olutoye provided context to his admissions and accordingly the panel, whilst taking into account his admissions, proceeded on the basis of this being a contested hearing in respect of both allegations. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and key persons list – pages 5 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 25 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 26 to 36 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 39 to 77 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 80 to 134 In addition, the panel confirmed that the correct and latest version of the Notice of Hearing document was the version dated 10 July 2025. 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: Witness A, [REDACTED] Witness B, [REDACTED] Mr Olutoye contributed verbally to the hearing but did not give formal evidence under oath during the hearing. 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 Olutoye commenced employment at Langdon Academy (“the School”) on 1 September 2017. Mr Olutoye completed a reference for Individual A stating that she had worked at the School between 2003 and 2005. He emailed this to Peel District School board (based in Canada) on 30 June 2022 from his School email address. On 17 June 2024 the School received an email from Peel District School board seeking to verify details of the reference for Individual A. Mr Olutoye allegedly admitted that the reference was false. The matter was referred to the TRA on 24 June 2024. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On or around 30 June 2022, you provided a reference for Individual A that was false or misleading in that it stated that Individual A worked at the School between January 2003 and June 2006 when she did not. The panel noted that Mr Olutoye admitted allegation 1. Notwithstanding his admission, the panel made its own determination. The panel considered the verification of teaching experience form that Mr Olutoye had completed and signed for Individual A. The panel noted that Mr Olutoye had verified that 6 Individual A worked at the School, teaching full time for 10 months in 2003, 10 months in 2004 and 8 months in 2005. Mr Olutoye had signed the form and confirmed his position as Head of Maths at the School. The panel further noted the email that Mr Olutoye had sent Peel District Education Board confirming that he was attaching the verification of employment form for Individual A. The email was dated 30 June 2022. The panel considered an email from Peel District Council to the TRA which confirmed the email received from Mr Olutoye regarding Individual A’s reference. The panel considered the oral and written evidence of Witness A, who stated that on 17 June 2024 the School received an email from Peel District School board asking them to confirm a reference provided by Mr Olutoye in relation to Individual A. The panel noted that in the reference to Peel District School board Mr Olutoye appeared to have stated that Individual A had worked at the School from 2003 to 2005. Witness A stated that Mr Olutoye could not have validated Individual A working at the School because he was not employed by the School at the relevant time and was not employed by the School until 2017. Witness A stated that the School checked their records and had no record of Individual A having ever worked at the School. Witness A stated that on 18 June 2024 he met with Mr Olutoye asking him to explain the reference following which Witness A raised his concerns and stated that he believed this reference to be false. He stated that at this point, Mr Olutoye told him it was false and apologised for it. The panel considered the written statement of Witness B dated 20 June 2024. The panel was aware that this statement was hearsay but admitted it, including on the basis that it was in the interests of justice that it be admitted and considered. The panel placed reasonable weight on that statement. Witness B set out in this statement that he was present in the meeting with Witness A. Although initially Mr Olutoye stated that he had worked with Individual A, later in the meeting when further questioned on this, he stated that Individual A was his [REDACTED] and that the reference was false. The panel considered the written statement of Mr Olutoye, as well as the oral statements he had made during the hearing. Mr Olutoye stated that he wrote a support statement for Individual A in October 2020 and sent a form via his School email address on 30 June 2022. Mr Olutoye stated that when he sent the form in June 2022 (a signed form setting out Individual A’s alleged employment at the School between 2003 and 2005), he thought he was simply verifying his previous support statement of 2020. He stated that he did not realise that the working experience referred to within the form he signed in 2022 was just relating to experience at the School. He stated that he had not intentionally provided a 7 false reference. The panel noted that Mr Olutoye had stated that he had not entered the dates onto the form. The panel considered the meeting recordings which were recorded by Mr Olutoye during the School’s investigations, seemingly without the other parties’ knowledge. The panel noted Mr Olutoye’s admission, within the recording of the School’s investigation meeting, and verbally within the PCPH, to having filled in the details of the School on the reference. Mr Olutoye admitted having signed and sent the reference form from his School email address. The panel carefully considered the likelihood of Mr Olutoye not having read the middle of the form at the time or having understood that what he was providing was a false reference weighing up all the evidence. The panel found that it was more likely than not that Mr Olutoye would have been fully aware that the reference he was being asked by his [REDACTED] to sign and send was false and that, at least, he had a duty to understand what he was signing and sending. The panel found that Mr Olutoye had knowingly and deliberately provided a reference for Individual A which was false or misleading in that it stated that Individual A worked at the School between January 2003 and June 2006 when she did not. The panel found allegation 1 proven. 2. Your behaviour as may be found to be proven at Allegation 1 above was dishonest and/or lacking in integrity. The panel noted that Mr Olutoye admitted allegation 2. Notwithstanding his admission, the panel made its own determination. The panel considered the written statement of Mr Olutoye as well as the oral statements he had made during the hearing Mr Olutoye stated that he did not intentionally provide the reference of 30 June 2022 and did not realise what he had done until he was called in for a meeting with the headteacher on 18 June 2024. He stated that he did not realise the experience referred to was specifically for the School and thought he was just signing to attest to the support statement of 2020 which he had earlier emailed from his School email address. The panel considered whether Mr Olutoye had failed to act with integrity. The panel considered the case of Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority, in particular the panel considered the comments from the Court of Appeal decision in that “Telling lies about things that matter or committing fraud or stealing are generally regarded as dishonest conduct.” 8 The panel had been provided with evidence that Mr Olutoye had signed a reference for Individual A setting out that she had been employed at the School between 2003 and 2005 when this was not the case. Mr Olutoye had admitted to this and the panel found this allegation proven. The panel was mindful that professionals are not expected to be “paragons of virtue”. However, the panel was satisfied that Mr Olutoye had failed to act within the higher standards expected of a teacher by knowingly providing a false or misleading reference for a family member to a school abroad. The panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Olutoye’s conduct, as found proven, lacked integrity. The panel then went on to consider whether Mr Oluyoye had acted dishonestly and, in doing so, had regard to the legal advice which it had received including the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockford. The panel firstly sought to ascertain the actual state of Mr Olutoye’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The panel took account of Mr Olutoye’s evidence that he did not realise he had signed to confirm that all of the teaching experience listed in the form was relevant to the School. The panel concluded that Mr Olutoye had, on the balance of probabilities, knowingly provided a false reference, and that, in doing so, he had intended to be dishonest. The panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Olutoye had acted dishonestly, and his conduct would be considered dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people. The panel therefore found allegation 2 proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found 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 Olutoye, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Olutoye was in breach of the following standards: 9 • 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. The panel considered KCSIE (paragraphs 226 to 228) and Working Together to Safeguard Children and found that Mr Olutoye’s conduct breached the provisions, specifically in terms of the importance of references and the key role that being able to verify the legitimacy of references plays in safeguarding children in schools. The panel also considered whether Mr Olutoye’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 found that the offence of fraud or serious dishonesty was relevant. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Olutoye 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 Olutoye was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Olutoye’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 Olutoye conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Olutyoe was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the panel found that the offence of fraud or serious dishonesty was relevant irrespective of whether or not Mr Olutoye had faced criminal 10 charges in relation to this conduct found proven. The panel considered that the act of providing false references does not provide a good role model for pupils and that ordinary members of the public would expect teachers not to provide false reference information. The panel found that the act of providing a false or misleading and factually inaccurate reference meant that the employment history of the teacher concerned was unable to be verified which directly undermined necessary safeguarding procedures. The panel considered that Mr Olutoye’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. The public would not expect teachers to provide false references. This action also impacts upon schools’ ability to carry out necessary referencing protocols which undermines important safeguarding measures. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Olutoye’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/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 Olutoye, which involved dishonestly providing a fraudulent reference, there was a strong public interest consideration in 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 the potential impact that providing false references could have on safeguarding and safer recruitment protocols. The panel was however aware of the fact that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Olutoye’s actions had caused a safeguarding impact on pupils or members of the public. 11 Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Olutoye was 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 Olutoye 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 Olutoye in the profession. Mr Olutoye had provided no specific evidence himself to attest to his ability as a teacher. Witness A provided oral and written evidence to confirm that Mr Olutoye was a valued and effective teacher. This was supported by further positive references from two previous employers when he was appointed to the role. The panel decided that there was a public interest consideration in retaining the teacher in the profession, since no significant previous doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an educator and the panel considered that he has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the profession. 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 Olutoye. 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…; • dishonesty or a lack of integrity…; • collusion or concealment including: o any activity that involves knowingly substantiating another person’s statements where they are known to be false. 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. 12 Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was no evidence that Mr Olutoye’s actions were not deliberate. On the contrary, the panel found that Mr Olutoye had acted deliberately in knowingly providing a false reference for a [REDACTED]. There was no evidence that Mr Olutoye was acting under extreme duress. Mr Olutoye did not provide evidence himself that he had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or to having contributed significantly to the education sector. However, the panel did find that Mr Olutoye was a skilled and highly valued practitioner who was on the highest payment level at the School. The panel was not provided with any evidence regarding Mr Olutoye’s character. However, the panel considered the comments of Witness A who commented on Mr Olutoye’s abilities as a valued and effective teacher and the written references provided in Mr Olutoye’s job application for the School. 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, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. The fact that this appeared to be an isolated incident was a significant factor in forming that opinion. The panel also considered it to be relevant that, whilst Mr Olutoye’s actions were incompatible with safer recruitment and safeguarding protocols, there was no evidence that the motivation was to conceal specific safeguarding information in doing so. The panel also noted that Mr Olutoye had commented that he had learned from his behaviour and would not repeat this. Therefore, the panel considered the risk of repetition to be low. However, the panel would expect Mr Olutoye to continue to reflect on his behaviour, on the overall importance of honesty in the profession, especially in the context of safeguarding and safer recruitment protocols. 13 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 sanction. 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 the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Olutoye 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. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Olutoye 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 Olutoye fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher behaving in a manner 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 14 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 Olutoye, 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 provides the following observation: “There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of the potential impact that providing false references could have on safeguarding and safer recruitment protocols. The panel was however aware of the fact that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Olutoye’s actions had caused a safeguarding impact on pupils or members of the public.” I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel also noted that Mr Olutoye had commented that he had learned from his behaviour and would not repeat this. Therefore, the panel considered the risk of repetition to be low. However, the panel would expect Mr Olutoye to continue to reflect on his behaviour, on the overall importance of honesty in the profession, especially in the context of safeguarding and safer recruitment protocols.” Having noted these remarks, and particularly the panels assessment of the risk of repetition as being “low”, I have given this element 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 makes this observation: “The panel considered that Mr Olutoye’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. The public would not expect teachers to provide false references. This action also impacts upon schools’ ability to carry out necessary referencing protocols which undermines important safeguarding measures.” 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.” 15 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 Olutoye himself. The panel notes the following: “Mr Olutoye had provided no specific evidence himself to attest to his ability as a teacher. Witness A provided oral and written evidence to confirm that Mr Olutoye was a valued and effective teacher. This was supported by further positive references from two previous employers when he was appointed to the role. The panel decided that there was a public interest consideration in retaining the teacher in the profession, since no significant previous doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an educator and the panel considered that he has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the profession.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Olutoye 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 concluding comments: “The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. The fact that this appeared to be an isolated incident was a significant factor in forming that opinion. The panel also considered it to be relevant that, whilst Mr Olutoye’s actions were incompatible with safer recruitment and safeguarding protocols, there was no evidence that the motivation was to conceal specific safeguarding information in doing so. The panel also noted that Mr Olutoye had commented that he had learned from his behaviour and would not repeat this. Therefore, the panel considered the risk of repetition to be low. However, the panel would expect Mr Olutoye to continue to reflect on his behaviour, on the overall importance of honesty in the profession, especially in the context of safeguarding and safer recruitment protocols.“ 16 I have also given weight to Mr Olutoye’s otherwise good record and the panel’s comments concerning the potential for him to make a positive contribution to the profession in the future. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that, while the misconduct found was serious and I fully concur with the panel’s advice to Mr Olutoye that he should continue to reflect on his behaviour, the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 29 September 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.