Mr Kenley Oghenejuvwerhe Imo

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 Kenley Oghenejuvwerhe Imo

Teacher reference number: 1333603

Teacher's date of birth: 07 December 1971

Location teacher worked: Blackpool, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 March 2026 part heard, reconvened on 8 April 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 Kenley Oghenejuvwerhe Imo formerly employed in Blackpool, North 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.

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Mr Kenley Imo (Senior): Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 1OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 2OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Kenley Imo (Senior) Teacher ref number: 1333603 Teacher date of birth: 7 December 1971 TRA reference: 25434 Date of determination: 8 April 2026 Former employer: Larches High School, Preston Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) was part heard on 24 March 2026 and reconvened on 8 April 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Imo. The panel members were Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Tanya Callman (lay panellist) and Mr Stephen Mitchell (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Jim Olphert of Counsel. Mr Imo (Senior) was present and was represented by Mr Gurmair Singh. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 3OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 19 December 2025. It was alleged that Mr Imo (Senior) was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 13 January 2025, he was convicted at Lancaster Magistrates’ Court of, on 25 September 2023, assaulting a person occasioning them actual bodily harm contrary to Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Mr Imo (Senior) confirmed that he admits the allegation and that it is a conviction of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of Referral – pages 4 to 33 Section 2: Anonymised Person List – page 34 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 35 to 82 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 83 to 136 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”). Witnesses Given the nature of the allegation, no witnesses were called by the presenting officer. Mr Imo (Senior) attended and gave evidence to the panel. 4OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE 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 Imo (Senior) had been employed by Lancashire County Council as a Science Teacher in a Pupil Referral Unit. On 25 September 2023 an incident occurred whereby Mr Imo (Senior) caused an injury to another person following an altercation. On 13 January 2023, Mr Imo (Senior) was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours and compensation in the sum of £250. A referral was subsequently made to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: You have been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 13 January 2025, you were convicted at Lancaster Magistrates’ Court of, on 25 September 2023, assaulting a person occasioning them actual bodily harm contrary to Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The allegation was admitted by Mr Imo (Senior) and was supported by evidence presented to the panel. The panel was provided with a court extract from the Magistrates Court pertaining to this offence. This showed that Mr Imo (Senior) was convicted on 13 January 2023 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It further confirmed that Mr Imo (Senior) received a sentence of a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours and compensation in the sum of £250. The panel was satisfied that it could rely on this as conclusive proof of the commission of the offence. Accordingly, the panel found the allegation proved. 5OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proven allegation amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. 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 Imo (Senior), in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Imo (Senior) 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 The panel noted that Mr Imo (Senior)’s actions were not relevant to teaching, working with children or working in an education setting. The offence was committed outside of the School and did not involve children. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and security of members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Imo (Senior)’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Imo (Senior)’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning an offence involving violence which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel took into account the mitigating circumstances put forward by Mr Imo (Senior). In particular, the panel also took account of Mr Imo (Senior)’s unblemished record as a teacher and the positive testimonials that had been submitted. The panel also took account of Mr Imo (Senior)’s explanation of the incident that led to his conviction. The panel recognised that this was a difficult situation. The panel was provided with some video footage of the incident. However, this did not capture the whole incident. The panel accepted that this was a “scuffle” that appeared to get 6OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE out of hand and resulted in Mr Imo (Senior) injuring another person. Nonetheless the panel acknowledge that Mr Imo (Senior) was convicted of a serious offence resulting in harm. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Imo (Senior)’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, 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 maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Imo (Senior), which related to a conviction for assaulting a person occasioning them actual bodily harm, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Imo (Senior) 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 Imo (Senior) 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 Imo (Senior) in the profession. Whilst there was evidence presented to the panel of Mr Imo (Senior)’s ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above 7OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Imo (Senior) in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breache