Mr Matthew Oyitch

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 Matthew Oyitch

Teacher reference number: 2457220

Teacher's date of birth: 25 April 1995

Location teacher worked: Boston, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 to 30 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 Matthew Oyitch formerly employed in Boston, East of 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 Matthew Oyitch: Professional conduct panel hearing 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 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 32 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 37 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Matthew Oyitch Teacher ref number: 2457220 Teacher date of birth: 25 April 1995 TRA reference: 21301 Date of determination: 30 January 2026 Former employer: Build A Future Independent School, Boston Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened from 19 January 2026 to 30 January 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Matthew Oyitch. The panel members were Mr Terry Hyde (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist) and Ms Rosemary Joyce (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officers for the TRA were Mr Mark Millin from 19 January 2026 and Mr Lee Bridges for 28 and 29 January 2026, both instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Oyitch was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 17 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Oyitch was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a teacher at Build a Future Independent School (“the School”): 1. Between 28 September 2020 and 28 January 2021, he: a. Engaged in and/or allowed inappropriate behaviour with pupils as set out in Schedule 1; b. Used and/or allowed inappropriate language around and/or about pupils, as set out in Schedule 2; c. Asked Colleague C if she knew any “black jokes”. d. Engaged in the inappropriate behaviour as set out in Schedule 3. 2. By reason of his conduct at allegations 1a and/or 1b, he did not safeguard the welfare of pupils. Schedule 1 i. You allowed a member of staff, namely Colleague A, to lie on Pupil B; ii. You threw stones at or near pupils; iii. You threw and/or allowed the throwing of aerosols on a fire; iv. You threw eggs at or near pupils; v. You sprayed a fire extinguisher in a room where other colleagues were, when this was not required. Schedule 2 i. You called Pupil F “fat tits”, or words to that effect; ii. You referred to and/or allowed other staff to refer to pupils as “mong” and/or “mong face”, or words to that effect; iii. You allowed Colleague D to call pupils “window lickers” and/or “spastics” and/or “soft cunts”, or words to that effect and/or laughed whilst Colleague D said this; 5 iv. You referred to and/or allowed others to say, “special bastard” and/or “retard” and/or “spastics”, or words to that effect; v. You referred to and/or allowed other staff to say, “horse fucker”, or words to that effect; vi. You told one or more pupils that you had sex with their mothers. Schedule 3 i. You threw eggs at Colleague B; ii. You filled Colleague B’s water bottle with dirt and hung it up so that she could not reach it, or allowed this to happen Mr Oyitch denied allegation 1(a) apart from the conduct set out in Schedule 1 paragraph (i) to which he made no admissions and paragraph (v) to which he admitted the facts. Mr Oyitch further denied allegations 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 2 and 3 Schedule 3, paragraph (i). Mr Oyitch made no admissions in relation to allegation 3, Schedule 3, paragraph (ii). Mr Oyitch denied that his conduct set out in allegation 1(a) Schedule 1 paragraph (v) amounted to 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, list of key people and anonymised person list – pages 9 to 13 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 14 to 46 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 47 to 102 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 103 to 1270 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 1271 to 1312 Service Bundle for [REDACTED]– pages 1313 to 1357 Service Bundle for Mr Matthew Oyitch – pages 1358 to 1396 Service Bundle for [REDACTED]– pages 1397 to 1447 Service Bundle for [REDACTED] – pages 1448 to 1498 6 Application to adduce hearsay – pages 1499 to 1819 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 The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] Witness C – [REDACTED] Witness D – [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. On 15 October 2018, Mr Oyitch commenced employment as a tutor at the School. On 28 January 2021, a police investigation commenced as a result of anonymous whistleblowing allegations made against [REDACTED], Mr Oyitch and [REDACTED]. On 3 February 2022, Collinson Grant (previously Watershed) was instructed to conduct an internal investigation into [REDACTED], Mr Oyitch and [REDACTED] following the police investigation. Witness A carried out this investigation. Following these investigations, allegations against Mr Oyitch came to light, which included Mr Oyitch allegedly engaging in inappropriate behaviour with pupils, including allegedly throwing eggs and stones at pupils, swearing at pupils, throwing eggs at staff and failing to adequately safeguard the pupils at the School. On 17 November 2022, the matter was referred to the TRA. The panel noted that [REDACTED] were also facing allegations before this professional conduct panel hearing. 7 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel considered all the evidence, including Mr Oyitch’s statement in response to the TRA dated 29 August 2024 (“written statement”), the first police record of interview with Mr Oyitch dated 27 January 2021, the second police record of interview with him dated 24 March 2021, the notes of the meeting with Witness A and Mr Oyitch on 25 March 2022 (“the investigation meeting notes”), the email from him on 31 May 2022 and his transcript amendments to the investigation meeting notes on 31 May 2022 and 27 June 2022. The panel noted Mr Oyitch did not attend the hearing to give evidence. The panel considered Mr Oyitch’s written statement in response to the TRA dated 29 August 2024. He explained that the situation had been very difficult for him, noting that being accused of certain actions, particularly when he had already given his account in prior interviews or investigations, was not an easy experience. He said he has always considered himself a good person. [REDACTED]. He also stated that he has taken part in multiple charity events and fundraisers to support those less fortunate, including Help for Heroes, Cancer Research, Mind, and Andy’s Man Club. He stressed that such allegations were not in his nature. Mr Oyitch added that one of the most important points he wished to raise was that he was never prosecuted or charged by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service as a result of the allegations. No criminal charges were ever brought against him, meaning he remains an individual of good standing and reputation. He explained that the second interview he attended was undertaken voluntarily under caution so he could give his account and address the allegations. None of his answers were “no comment”. He stated that he would often find himself with more learners than he was timetabled to have. Learners frequently left other, less strong teachers’ classes to come into his classroom, either to calm down and regulate their emotions or because they did not have the same rapport with other teachers. He explained that many learners faced challenging home lives, mental health difficulties, or medical issues, and that working there presented many challenges. He noted that he had been rated a “Good” teacher and had contributed to the school’s “Good” Ofsted rating. He wrote that during his time at the school; he always tried to go above and beyond for learners. For those nearing the end of their placement, he organised sessions to help them prepare for their next steps in education. He assisted with college and apprenticeship applications, helped them draft personal statements, and even contacted colleges to chase start dates, application progress, and potential interviews. He stressed 8 that none of this formed part of his formal job description; he did it because he cared and wanted to support the learners as best he could. Mr Oyitch also wrote that all learners at the school required a less traditional teaching environment due to behavioural difficulties, permanent exclusion from mainstream schools, or because they had developmental challenges requiring specialist educational provision. Learners, therefore, had individual and complex needs that required tailored support to help them reach their full potential. Learners were encouraged to express themselves freely so long as they were safe and developing socially, emotionally, and academically, and they had more freedom than would be typical in a mainstream setting. He stated