Mr Osman Barkat

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 Osman Barkat

Teacher reference number: 1642357

Teacher's date of birth: 20 March 1990

Location teacher worked: Brent, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 November 2024 to 13 November 2024

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 Osman Barkat formerly employed in Brent, 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 Osman Barkat: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Osman Barkat Teacher ref number: 1642357 Teacher date of birth: 20 March 1990 TRA reference: 20475 Date of determination: 13 November 2024 Former employer: Brentfield Primary School, Neasden, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened from 12 November 2024 to 13 November 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Osman Barkat. The panel members were Paul Millett (lay panellist – in the chair), Rachel Kruger (teacher panellist) and Wendy Shannon (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Helen Kitchen of Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Adam Slack of Capsticks LLP, solicitors. Mr Osman Barkat was not present and was not represented in his absence. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of proceedings dated 21 August 2024. It was alleged that Mr Osman Barkat was guilty of a relevant offence and/or unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that he, whilst working as a teacher: 1. On 18 February 2022 at Willesden Magistrates’ Court, was convicted of on 24 November 2020 assaulting Pupil A at Brentfield Primary School thereby occasioning Pupil A actual bodily harm. 2. In or around February 2019: a. Shouted and swore at Pupil C; b. Pulled Pupil C’s jumper. 3. On or around 15 October 2020, shouted at Pupil D. 4. In or around November 2020: a. Pulled a chair out from underneath Pupil B, causing B to fall to the floor; b. Threw Pupil B’s chair to the front of the classroom. Mr Barkat had made clear admissions to the facts of allegations 1, 2b, 3 and 4a. Mr Barkat did not admit the facts of allegations 2a and 4b, which were taken as being denied by the panel. In relation to allegation 1, Mr Barkat also admitted that the offence was a relevant offence. As regards allegations 2b, 3 and 4a, Mr Barkat admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Admission of a further document Mr Barkat had produced an additional, 2-page statement (the statement) which the panel admitted into evidence in the interests of fairness and justice, no objection being raised by the TRA to the document being admitted. Application to proceed in the absence of Mr Barkat The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Barkat. The panel received into evidence a copy of the Notice of Proceedings dated 21 August 2024. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it. The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been sent in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. Mr Barkat was clearly aware of the proceedings and had engaged with the TRA. He had provided both a statement of agreed facts and produced the statement in regard to the TRA hearing. He had made no statement with regard to his intentions about attending his TRA hearing. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Barkat’s absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 5.47 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Mr Barkat would not be in attendance and would not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. On balance, the panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Barkat for the following reasons: • The panel was satisfied that Mr Barkat’s absence was voluntary, and he had waived his right to attend. There was no medical evidence before the panel indicating he was unfit to attend the hearing, nor had there been any suggestion of this in the statement to the panel. 6 • The extent of any disadvantage to Mr Barkat was mitigated by the fact that he had made clear admissions to allegations 1, 2b, 3 and 4a in the statement of agreed facts and had produced the statement in which he addressed both the admitted and denied allegations. • There was no indication that Mr Barkat might attend at a future date. As such, the panel concluded that no purpose would be served by an adjournment, which had not been requested by Mr Barkat. • Finally, there was a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. These proceedings had been extant for a prolonged period and there was a need for finality. It was also in Mr Barkat’s benefit for these proceedings to reach a conclusion. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Barkat would not be present or represented. Admission of hearsay evidence The panel was invited to consider an application on behalf of the TRA to admit hearsay evidence, namely a signed witness statement and exhibits of Individual A. The TRA submitted that as Mr Barkat had admitted the allegation to which the evidence of this witness related it was not sole and decisive and was demonstrably reliable. The panel noted that within the statement of agreed facts and his own statement that Mr Barkat had admitted allegation 3. The panel took account of the various factors referred to in the legal advice provided to it. The panel found the evidence to be relevant to the case. The panel then went on to carefully consider if it would be fair to admit the evidence of Individual A in all of the circumstances of the case. On balance the panel decided to admit the statement for the following reasons: • That the factual parts of the allegation to which the statement was relevant had been admitted by Mr Barkat and were not in dispute. • That in the particular circumstances of the case, including the admissions made by Mr Barkat, no unfairness would be occasioned to Mr Barkat by the admission of the statement. 7 • That the statement contained some contextual information which may assist in the assessment of whether Mr Barkat’s conduct was unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute, something which had been admitted by Mr Barkat, but which was to be determined by the panel. In all of the circumstances of the case, and taking into account the above factors, it would be in the interests of justice and fairness for the statement to be admitted. Summary of Evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received the following documents: 1. A bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of Referral and Response – pages 7 to 21 (n.b. pages 22 to 27 were blank) Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 28 to 44 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 45 to 384 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 385 to 394 2. A statement of agreed facts (signed by both parties) - pages 1 to 7 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing and had also read the further documents that the panel had agreed to admit. 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]. 8 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it reached a decision Introduction Mr Osman Barkat was employed as a class teacher at Brentfield Primary School, Neasden, London (‘the school’). He worked at the school from 1 September 2014 to 11 May 2021, latterly as a class teacher. The school is a community school with a high number of pupils with special needs and receiving pupil premium. Mr Barkat’s role included requirements to prepare and develop teaching materials, teaching programmes and pastoral arrangements, to be accountable for the attainment, progress and outcomes of his pupils, to make accurate and productive use of assessment to secure pupils’ progress, and to give pupils regular feedback, both orally and through accurate marking. On 24 November 2020 Mr Barkat threw a smartboard pen at Pupil A, causing a cut around his lip and under his nose. The Teaching Assistant who was present at the time raised the concern with the Head Teacher. The subsequent investigation also included a previous incident where it was alleged that Mr Barkat had pulled a chair out from under Pupil B, causing the pupil to fall on the floor, and that Mr Bar