Mr Mohammed Haque

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 Mohammed Haque

Location teacher worked: Salford, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 to 11 December 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 Mohammed Haque formerly employed in Salford, 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.

Mr Mohammed Haque: Professional conduct panel 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 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 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mohammed Samiul Haque TRA reference: 23787 Date of determination: 11 December 2025 Former employer: Buile Hill Academy, Salford Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 December 2025 and 11 December 2025 by way of a virtual hearing to consider the case of Mr Mohammed Haque. The panel members were Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Charlotte Kelly (lay panellist) and Mr Tim Foy (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Jordan Wilford of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Haque was 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 hearing dated 15 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Haque was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. Whilst applying for the role of Maths Teacher at Buile Hill Academy and/or following his appointment, he provided false and/or misleading information and/or failed to disclose relevant information in order to improve his prospects of securing and/or retaining a teaching post, in that: a. On or around 07.07.2023 he stated on a School Criminal Self Declaration that he had no cautions when in fact he received a caution on or around 15.10.2017. b. On or around 04.03.2024, during an internal investigation meeting, he provided a false and/or misleading account of the circumstances surrounding his caution. 2. His conduct, as may be found proven at 1 above, lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Haque initially admitted the facts of the allegations, but having heard his opening submissions, the panel concluded that his admissions were equivocal. His submissions made clear that he did not admit that he had done anything with intent to improve his prospects of securing or retaining a teaching post. He also did not admit dishonesty. The panel therefore proceeded on the basis that the facts of the allegations were not admitted. Mr Haque did not admit that the facts 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: Notice of proceedings, response, and statement of agreed and disputed facts – pages 2 to 21 Section 2: Chronology – page 23 5 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 24 to 26 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 102 The panel also received written submissions from the TRA in support of its hearsay application. 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 presenting officer did not call any witnesses. The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Haque and the following witness called by Mr Haque: Witness A 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 2017, Mr Haque received a police caution [REDACTED], on 25 August 2017. He was 18 years old at the time of the offence. In July 2023, he applied for the role of maths teacher at the School. He completed a criminal record self-declaration form but answered “no” to a question asking him whether he had any non-protected cautions. The incorrect information on his form was picked up by the School and Individual A met Mr Haque around or before 1 September 2023 to discuss the caution and complete a disclosure risk assessment. Subsequently, he was allowed to take up his post. In January 2024, an unrelated allegation, which was later found not proved, was raised about Mr Haque. He was suspended and attended an investigation meeting on 4 March 2024. During that meeting, he was asked about the circumstances of his caution. Initially, he said that his caution related to him being caught by police with a baseball bat. He was then told that the School had been given a different account by the police. He revised his account to say that his caution had [REDACTED]. He said that he was eager to distance himself from the past and was reluctant to tarnish his reputation by being open and honest about what actually happened. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 6 The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Whilst applying for the role of Maths Teacher at Buile Hill Academy and/or following your appointment, you provided false and/or misleading information and/or failed to disclose relevant information in order to improve your prospects of securing and/or retaining a teaching post, in that: b. On or around 04.03.2024, during an internal investigation meeting, you provided a false and/or misleading account of the circumstances surrounding your caution. The panel noted that at the time of this investigation meeting, Mr Haque had already given an account of his caution to Individual A and told her that it related to the possession of a bat. Therefore, the panel was satisfied that at the time of the investigation meeting, the School was aware that he had a caution for possession of an offensive weapon in 2017 but was not aware that it related to a [REDACTED]. The panel was also satisfied that at the time of the investigation meeting, Mr Haque had a clear memory of why he had received the caution. He mentioned the [REDACTED] after being told that the version of events he had given was inconsistent with the information the School had been provided by the police. The School did not tell him what information the police had provided or mention a [REDACTED] to Mr Haque. He was the first person to mention a [REDACTED]. From this, the panel inferred that he clearly knew exactly what the caution was for on 4 March 2023. It was not a case of him having forgotten the [REDACTED]and his memory of it being jogged by the School. Mr Haque suggested that his reference to a baseball bat was not deliberate but was a verbal slip. The panel rejected this suggestion, for the following reasons: • The panel noted that he had previously told Individual A that his caution related to possession of a bat and considered that it was highly implausible that he would make the same verbal slip on two occasions. • Further, the panel concluded that there is a clear qualitative difference between a baseball bat and [REDACTED], in that a bat has an innocent recreational purpose, but [REDACTED] only purpose is to cause harm. The panel was satisfied that the initial account from Mr Haque was an attempt by him to minimise the seriousness of his conduct. • This suggestion that he made a verbal slip was inconsistent with the comments he made at the time, which were that he was eager to distance himself from the past, and was reluctant to tarnish his reputation by being open and honest 7 about what actually happened. These comments were recorded in the record of the meeting, which Mr Haque accepted were accurate. The panel concluded that it was more likely than not that Mr Haque deliberately gave a false account of the circumstances of his caution when first asked about it during the meeting on 4 March 2023. Having made that finding, the panel considered whether he had done so in order to improve his prospects of retaining his teaching position. The panel concluded that he had done so. Mr Haque was aware that the investigation meeting could lead to a disciplinary hearing, and therefore his job was at risk. In these circumstances, it was satisfied that he was wholly or partly motivated by a desire to improve his prospects of saving his job. It could identify no other more likely motivation for his conduct in deliberately giving false information that minimised the seriousness of his past caution. 2. Your conduct as may be found proven at 1b above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. The panel found this particular proved in respect of allegation 1b only. The panel was satisfied that Mr Haque was dishonest when he deliberately gave a false account about the circumstances of his caution to the meeting on 4 March 2023. He knew that the information he had given was false, and he did it deliberately in order to improve his prospects of retaining his job. The panel was satisfied that this would be considered dishonest by ordinary decent people. The panel also found that this conduct amounted to a lack of integrity. The purpose of the investigation meeting was to establish the facts, to inform whether any disciplinary action was required under the School’s disciplinary policy. Although the School had been aware that Mr Haque had a caution for possession of an offensive weapon when he was appointed, there is no evidence that it was aware of the circumstances of his offence. In this situation, the panel considered that Mr Haque was under a clear professional duty to give a scrupulously honest and truthful account of th