Mr Suhayr Dhorat

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 Suhayr Dhorat

Teacher reference number: 2045100

Teacher's date of birth: 24 March 1995

Location teacher worked: Wolverton, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 21 to 23 January 2026 and 3 March 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 Suhayr Dhorat formerly employed in Wolverton, West Midlands.

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 Suhayr Dhorat: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Suhayr Dhorat Teacher ref number: 2045100 Teacher date of birth: 24 March 1995 TRA reference: 21321 Date of determination: 3 March 2026 Former employer: The Radcliffe School, Wolverton Introduction A professional conduct panel (the “panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 21 to 23 January 2026 and 3 March 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Suhayr Dhorat. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Phillip Jolowicz (lay panellist) and Mrs Bernie Whittle (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Kim Findlow of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Harriet Dixon of QEB Hollis Whiteman instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Dhorat was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in 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 4 November 2025, as amended pursuant to an application by the presenting officer. Y ou are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher at The Radcliffe School (the “School”): 1. In or around July 2022, you did not maintain professional boundaries with pupils by: a) Providing your personal mobile number to Pupil A; b) Giving Pupil A a thank you card signed off with a ‘x’; c) Giving Pupil A a keyring via another pupil; d) Sending inappropriate and/or over-familiar messages and/or photos and/or videos to pupils via text/iMessage and/or on one or more social media platforms; and/or 2. In or around July 2022, you: a) Asked pupils to lie about and / or misrepresent your message exchanges you had with them in that you: i. Asked pupils to “keep quiet” about having your number; and / or ii. Told Pupil C if they are questioned, they should say that you had not replied to their messages. b) Continued to communicate with pupils via text/iMessage and/or on one or more social media platforms, despite explicitly being told not to do so. 3. In or around July 2022, you did not report the following to the Headteacher and/or the Designated Safeguarding Lead and/or the appropriate Head of House: a) That your personal mobile number had been shared on social media with other pupils at the School by Pupil A; b) That you had received telephone calls and/or messages and/or photos and/or videos from pupils at the School. 4. Your conduct at paragraph 2a and/or 2b above was: a) Dishonest; and/or b) Lacked integrity. M r Dhorat admitted allegations 1a,1d, 2a(i), 2a(ii), 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a and 4b. Mr Dhorat did not admit allegation 1b and allegation 1c. 5 Mr Dhorat admitted that his conduct in relation to the admitted allegations would amount 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 and List of Key People – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 8 to 14 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 15 to 21 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 39 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 486 to 487 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Statement of Mr Dhorat Follow up submissions of Mr Dhorat following an investigation meeting during July 2022 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED]; and Witness B – [REDACTED]; Mr Dhorat also gave oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: 6 The panel carefully considered the case before it a nd reached a decision. The teacher had been employed at The Radcliffe School, Wolverton (“the School”) since 1 September 2021 as a teacher of humanities. On 11 July 2022, concerns were initially raised and an investigation was undertaken by the School. Mr Dhorat resigned from the School on 10 May 2022 with his last day of employment being 31 August 2022. The headteacher reported their concerns to the TRA on 6 December 2022. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher at The Radcliffe School (‘the School’): 1 . In or around July 2022, you did not maintain professional boundaries with pupils by: a) Providing your personal mobile number to Pupil A; Mr Dhorat admitted in oral evidence that he provided his personal telephone number to Pupil A [REDACTED]. Mr Dhorat’s evidence as to why he did this was [REDACTED]. The panel considered the evidence before it to corroborate that the phone number was indeed given to Pupil A. The panel was provided with an image of the post containing the phone number. In Pupils C, B, M and F’s statements provided as part of the School’s investigation, they all stated that Pupil A had Mr Dhorat’s phone number. The statement taken from Mr Dhorat on 12 July 2022 also sets out an early account of events in which Mr Dhorat stated “On Monday 27th June 2022 I gave a written copy of my personal mobile phone number to Pupil A in case she "needed to talk to someone”. The panel was satisfied that Mr Dhorat’s motives were out of genuine concern for Pupil A but found that his action did not maintain professional boundaries with pupils. In reaching this conclusion the panel considered that there was a clear policy in the School in relation to communicating with pupils that prohibited this: 7 “Staff should not communicate with students except in a professional context. Staff should not email, telephone or text students outside of school and if they are contacted in this manner by a student, the member of staff should refer to the appropriate Head of House for advice. Personal contact with students should be avoided (eg through social networking sites) and staff should not give their personal contact details to students, such as mobile or home numbers, email or home addresses. In the event of students needing to email work to you, they must use your school email address”. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat was an early career teacher (“ECT”) and inexperienced. However, it was clear from the evidence provided by Mr Dhorat himself and Witnesses A and B that Mr Dhorat was fully aware of this policy and the safeguarding policies in place in the School. The panel noted that the School’s safeguarding processes were robust as evidenced by Witnesses A and B, and that Mr Dhorat chose not to follow them. The panel found the allegation was proven. b) Giving Pupil A a thank you card signed off with a ‘x’; Mr Dhorat admitted giving the card to Pupil A. His oral evidence was that other teachers gave cards to pupils and he had received cards from pupils and believed it to be common practice. In terms of the ‘x’, Mr Dhorat maintained that this was not meant to signify a kiss. On this basis, Mr Dhorat denied that this constituted a failure to maintain professional boundaries. Pupil J confirmed in their statement taken during the investigation process that they were aware that Mr Dhorat had given Pupil A a card on Pupil A’s last day of school and that Pupil J had seen the card. The panel reviewed the picture of the card and considered that the card itself was worded in a way that appeared to the panel to be over familiar: “…you always brightened my day and sometimes a smile is all it took…” The panel considered that, in this context, it would appear more likely than not that the x was intended to denote a kiss. The panel found that even if Mr Dhorat had intended it to be just an ‘x’ and not a kiss then he should have been aware that this would most likely be interpreted as a kiss. The panel found that this was a failure to maintain professional boundaries and therefore that the allegation was proven. c) Giving Pupil A a keyring via another pupil; Mr Dhorat admitted that he bought a gift for Pupil A and gave it to another pupil to pass to Pupil A, as Pupil A had left the school when the gift arrived. His evidence was that other 8 teachers gave gifts to pupils. Mr Dhorat gave evidence that it was only Pupil A [REDACTED] and that this was why it was only Pupil A who had been given a gift. On this basis, Mr Dhorat denied that this constituted a failure to maintain professional boundaries. The panel saw evidence that Pupil M stated, when interviewed by the School, that Mr Dhorat had stopped Pupil M on the way out of school and asked if Pupil M could give a present to Pupil A. This statement also referred to CCTV having showed this conversation took place however the panel was cognisant that they had not been presented with any CCTV to corroborate this. The following day Mr Dhorat gave Pupil M a [REDACTED]. The panel reviewed the notes from the school investigation process with Mr Dhorat in which he stated: “On previous occasions when students from my form class had left the school I, along with my [REDACTED], decided to give them leaving presents. These were chosen based on the students’ personal interests, cricket etc. I also intended to buy things for the rest of the class since I planned on leaving at the end of the year. The choice of gift I gave to Pupil A, [REDACTED].” The panel found that this was a failure to maintain professional boundaries as the gift was personal and singled out Pupil A. This was found by the panel to be different to the explanation provided by Mr Dhorat as this related to groups of [REDACTED] students leaving at the end of their time at school. In that explanation individual pupils were unlikely to be singled out. On this basis the allegation was proven. d) Sending inappropriate and/or over-familiar messages and/or photos and/or videos to pupils via text/iMessage and/or on one or more social media platforms Mr Dhorat admitted this allegation in full. It was clear from the evidence provided from Witnesses A and B that any contact with pupils should only take place on school platforms. However, the evidence before the panel was that after Pupil A had received Mr Dhorat’s telephone number, she had shared this on snapchat and then shared it on a WhatsApp group of 38 pupils. As a result, pupils from the School had contacted Mr Dhorat via WhatsApp and social media channels. Mr Dhorat also agreed that he had received 3 calls which he did not answer. 9 Pupil C’s statement indicated that Pupil F exchanged messages with Mr Dhorat. Pupil C also stated in their statement that Mr Dhorat had exchanged messages whereby he had asked Pupil A if she wanted to go out on his motorbike. Pupil B referred to Pupil A commenting in a group chat that Mr Dhorat had wanted Pupil A to go on his motorbike for a ride. Pupil I stated that she found Mr Dhorat on TikTok and made comments on his TikTok posts. She stated that a comment was added asking Mr Dhorat to do a “face reveal” and Mr Dhorat responded to the post stating “you already know what I look like” with an emoji. Pupil H stated that they sent a message to Mr Dhorat saying “hello, is that Mr Dhorat?” and Mr Dhorat replied “yes” and that an exchange took place about where Pupil H sat in the classroom. The panel noted that some of the messages were sent and received by Mr Dhorat late on a Sunday night. In addition some messages sent from Mr Dhorat referred to Mr Dhorat as ‘SID’ - which Mr Dhorat confirmed was a nickname used at school for himself. Pupil C also stated in the School investigation process that the name ‘SID’ had been used and came from a conversation during a lunchtime with Mr Dhorat. Further evidence was presented that showed that Mr Dhorat had engaged in message exchanges asking that pupils kept quiet about the communications. In particular Mr Dhorat stated in interview on 18 July 2022 that he had messaged who he had believed to be Pupil F saying “keep quiet”. Upon receiving a message from a pupil saying “I know your secret” Mr Dhorat responded with a “shushing” emoji and said “I’ve only got 2 weeks left and don’t want to lose my teaching licence. You need to stop taking [sic] so loud”. There was also a video sent from Mr Dhorat to Pupil C of Mr Dhorat vaping after he was suspended from school. Mr Dhorat accepted that he had sent all of the messages referred to in evidence and accepted that these messages were inappropriate and/or over familiar. The panel found the allegation proven. In particular the panel found that the messages were inappropriate and/or showed an over familiarity by using a nickname, because there were messages sent late at night and given the content of messages telling pupils to keep secrets. In sending the messages, Mr Dhorat did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with pupils. The panel found this allegation proven. 2. In or around July 2022, you: 10 a) Asked pupils to lie about and / or misrepresent your message exchanges you had with them in that you: i. Asked pupils to “keep quiet” about having your number; and / or Mr Dhorat admitted this allegation. The panel was also provided with the evidence referred to in the findings at allegation 1d above. Specifically the panel were provided with a screenshot of messages whereby a pupil says “I know your secret” Mr Dhorat responded with a “shushing” emoji and said “I’ve only got 2 weeks left and don’t want to lose my teaching licence. You need to stop taking [sic] so loud”. This exchange was understood from the evidence of Mr Dhorat and Pupil F to be messages exchanged with Pupil F or possibly a friend that was with Pupil F but using Pupil F’s phone. There was also evidence that Mr Dhorat had verbally told two female pupils to keep quiet. Specifically, the notes from the school’s investigation process understood to be in or around July 2022 stated: “Mr Dhorat stated that Pupil C had been to see him and that he had told her to “keep quiet”. He also stated that he had said the same to Pupil D when he saw her at the [REDACTED]. He confirmed that he had asked both girls to keep quiet about having his number”. In oral evidence Mr Dhorat admitted this version of events. The panel considered that it was proven that Mr Dhorat had asked pupils to “keep quiet” about having his number and that he had thereby asked pupils to lie about and/or misrepresent the message exchanges he had with them. The panel found this allegation proven. ii. Told Pupil C if they are questioned, they should say that you had not replied to their messages. Mr Dhorat admitted this allegation. In Mr Dhorat’s interview in the disciplinary process it stated as follows: “He stated that he sent Pupil C the last two paragraphs of his statement as he wanted her to know what to say and lie for him. He told Pupil C the school were aware and that Pupil C has been referred to in his statement”. and “Mr Dhorat said he had messaged to say “If you are questioned you sent me messages but say I didn’t reply”. Mr Dhorat also stated that he asked to say the same to four other students and for them to lie in the same way”. 11 In oral evidence Mr Dhorat admitted this, explaining that this meant that he had sent two paragraphs of his statement that he gave to the School during the disciplinary process in order to let Pupil C know what story to stick to when questioned. He agreed that he had asked these pupils to lie for him and accepted that this was inappropriate. The panel considered that it had been proven that Mr Dhorat told Pupil C that if they were questioned, they should say that Mr Dhorat had not replied to their messages. Mr Dhorat had thereby asked pupils to lie about and / or misrepresent the message exchanges he had with them. The panel found this allegation proven. b) Continued to communicate with pupils via text/iMessage and/or on one or more social media platforms, despite explicitly being told not to do so. Mr Dhorat admitted this allegation. Witness A’s evidence was that after being alerted that a number of pupils had Mr Dhorat’s telephone number, Witness A and Witness B met with Mr Dhorat on 11 July 2022 and he was advised to “to stop communicating with pupils; to stop answering calls from them; and to get rid of his SIM card, buy a new one and stop all contact with pupils”. Witness A also confirmed that Mr Dhorat was suspended on 12 July 2022. A suspension letter was sent on the same date saying “During your suspension, you are not permitted under any circumstances to visit the school without my prior permission or to contact any other member of staff, student, parent or Governing Body”. Witness B’s evidence was that they were told by a [REDACTED] that they had heard from a pupil that Mr Dhorat was communicating with a pupil via a telephone number. Witness B stated that both Witness A and B went to see Mr Dhorat and discussed with him how pupils had obtained his telephone number and what had happened subsequently. Witness B stated they asked him if a pupil had his number and he confirmed that they had. Mr Dhorat said that he had given his telephone number out of concern. Witness B stated that he informed Mr Dhorat that this was completely inappropriate and informed him that he should get rid of his SIM card and buy a new one so that the pupils did not have his number anymore. Mr Dhorat gave oral evidence that he was taking down decorations in his classroom on 11 July 2022 when Witness B visited the classroom to ask if a pupil had his telephone number. Mr Dhorat stated that it was not in this meeting when he was told to stop contacting pupils. He stated that there was a later meeting the same day and he was then told that it was inappropriate to give out his telephone number to a pupil. 12 Evidence was presented by the TRA that Mr Dhorat continued to message pupils. In particular a message was sent to Pupil A at 2pm on 11 July 2022. Mr Dhorat accepted this in oral evidence but stated that he had not been told not to message pupils at this point. Mr Dhorat stated in oral evidence that whilst he did purchase a new SIM card he messaged Pupil C using his new SIM card. He also admitted that he continued to communicate with pupils including sending a video of himself vaping on the day of his suspension on 12 July 2022. In the school investigation meeting notes, it stated: “Mr Dhorat stated that on Tuesday he had gone for a ride to clear his head following his suspension. He stopped near some water and took a photograph of his bike near the water with some geese in the picture. Mr Dhorat said he still had the student numbers, not as contacts. He unblocked Pupil C and saved her to his contacts. He then WhatsApp messaged Pupil C an emoji of a monkey which Mr Dhorat says “[REDACTED]”. That way she would “know it was me”. He had used this emoji previously last week. Pupil C replied with “Hi SID”. Mr Dhorat then messaged “Top secret, suspended from school”. He stated that he sent Pupil C the last two paragraphs of his statement as he wanted her to know what to say and lie for him. He told Pupil C the school were aware and that Pupil C had been referred to in his statement.” The panel found that it was more likely than not that it was later in the day on the 11 July 2022 when Mr Dhorat was told that messaging pupils was not appropriate. In any event, this was not strictly relevant to the allegation itself as it was clear on the evidence and on the admissions from Mr Dhorat that a number of communications continued despite being told not to communicate by the School. The panel found this allegation proven. 3. In or around July 2022, you did not report the following to the Headteacher and/or the Designated Safeguarding Lead and/or the appropriate Head of House: a) That your personal mobile number had been shared on social media with other pupils at the School by Pupil A; Mr Dhorat’s evidence was that he did discuss safeguarding concerns around Pupil A with the [REDACTED]. He stated that the context of these conversations was around [REDACTED]. Mr Dhorat stated that the [REDACTED] appeared to share his concerns. 13 Mr Dhorat however admitted that he did not report that he had passed his phone number to Pupil A. This was corroborated by Mr Dhorat when he gave his version of events to the School in July 2022 and November 2022. Witnesses A and B also gave evidence that Mr Dhorat had confirmed that he had given his number to Pupil A and had not reported this in line with School policies and safeguarding requirements. The panel found this allegation proven. b) That you had received telephone calls and/or messages and/or photos and/or videos from pupils at the School. Mr Dhorat admitted that he did not report that he had received telephone calls (that he did not answer) and messages from pupils. This was corroborated by Mr Dhorat when he gave his version of events to the School in July 2022 and November 2022. Witnesses A and B also gave evidence that Mr Dhorat had not reported these messages and phone calls in line with School policies and safeguarding requirements. The panel found this allegation proven on the basis that there was evidence that telephone calls and messages were received and that these were not reported to the School. 4. Your conduct at paragraph 2a and/or 2b above was: a) Dishonest; and/or Mr Dhorat admitted this allegation. Mr Dhorat stated that the reason he had done this (as set out in 2a and 2b above) was because he was trying to cover his tracks in fear of repercussions at work. He stated in oral evidence that he was not thinking clearly and that once the phone number spread, he panicked. He stated he did not know how to respond. He said that he knew he should not have done those things and was trying to mitigate harm that may have come from them. Mr Dhorat explained in oral evidence that [REDACTED]. The panel considered the various messages that were presented to it, the school’s investigation and disciplinary notes in which Mr Dhorat made various admissions around these events, including the details at 2a and 2b. 14 The panel considered Mr Dhorat’s state of mind at the time he had acted as he did, as found at 2a i, and found that Mr Dhorat understood that he was asking the pupils not to reveal information rather than lie. The panel considered that this in itself was dishonest and that the ordinary decent person would find these actions dishonest. Specifically as this indicated that Mr Dhorat’s frame of mind was one of intentionally covering up his actions. The panel considered Mr Dhorat’s state of mind at the time he had acted as he did, as found at 2a ii, and found that Mr Dhorat clearly understood that what he was asking the pupils to do was dishonest. The panel also considered that the ordinary decent person would find these actions dishonest. Specifically as this asked the pupils to provide a false version of events with the intention of misleading the School. The panel considered Mr Dhorat’s state of mind at the time he had acted as he did, as found at 2b, and found that Mr Dhorat clearly understood that he had been told not to continue the contact but that he had done so in full knowledge that he has was breaking the suspension terms and was continuing to breach safeguarding obligations. The panel considered that the ordinary decent person would find this action was part of a dishonest course of conduct. In particular Mr Dhorat confirmed in oral evidence that the reason for continuing this communication with pupils was that he was seeking to cover up his actions after he realised the seriousness of what he had done and accordingly the panel find he was acting dishonestly. Therefore the panel found that this allegation was proven in that Mr Dhorat’s actions at 2ai, 2aii and 2b was dishonest. b) Lacked integrity. Mr Dhorat admitted that this actions in relation to the proven allegations at 2a and 2b lacked integrity. The panel considered that in each of 2ai, 2aii and 2b these actions were actions that go against the ethos of the teaching profession. Whilst the panel noted that teachers do not have to be paragons of virtue, they should teach children the difference between right and wrong and act as a moral compass. Mr Dhorat’s actions flagrantly and immorally disregarded all boundaries put in place and terms of his suspension, not least because he asked pupils not to reveal information and to lie for him all for self-serving purposes. The panel therefore found this allegation proven. 15 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 Dhorat, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Dhorat 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, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position 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, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • 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 Dhorat, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mr Dhorat was in breach of the following provisions: • Part one :Safeguarding information for all staff: paragraph 9 “Any staff member who has any concerns about a child’s welfare should follow the processes set out in paragraphs 55-70. Staff should expect to support social workers and other agencies following any referral”. and “If staff have any concerns about a child’s welfare, they should act on them immediately. See page 23 for a flow chart setting out the process for staff when they have concerns about a child”. 16 and “If staff have a concern, they should follow their own organisation’s child protection policy and speak to the designated safeguarding lead (or deputy)”. The panel was not satisfied that the conduct of Mr Dhorat in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel also considered whether Mr Dhorat 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 serious dishonesty was relevant. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat’s conduct was a course of dishonest conduct to seek to cover up wrongdoings and was not a one off incident. The panel found that Mr Dhorat knew fully what he was asking pupils to do. The panel found that each of the allegations found proven taken alone and/or as a whole amounted to misconduct of a serious nature. Whilst the panel accepted that Mr Dhorat had given Pupil A his number due to genuine concerns, he should not have done so. Mr Dhorat did not seem to understand that if he had safeguarding concerns he could not simply take matters into his own hands and put [REDACTED] into a harmful situation. Safeguarding rules are in place to protect pupils and Mr Dhorat flagrantly disregarded these. In relation to what followed Mr Dhorat providing his number to Pupil A, the panel considered that Mr Dhorat was seeking to cover up his actions and this was a self- serving course of conduct which made it all the more serious in the panel’s view. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Dhorat 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 Dhorat was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Dhorat 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. 17 In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Dhorat’s 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 Dhorat was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of serious dishonesty was relevant. The panel found that teachers should show a high standard of behaviour and act as a role model to pupils. The panel found that to interact in the way Mr Dhorat had done was completely inappropriate. The panel found whilst his intention in giving the number to Pupil A was misplaced, the events beyond that were not how teachers are expected to behave and lead the way. The panel took into account the uniquely influential role teachers have on pupils and Mr Dhorat’s behaviour was in fact delivering poor behaviours onto these pupils’ door by asking them to lie for him. The panel found that Mr Dhorat was actively engaged in asking pupils to follow his poor lead. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Dhorat’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 protection of other members of the public, 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 Dhorat, which involved a failure to maintain professional boundaries, dishonesty and a lack of integrity, there was a strong public 18 interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, particularly given the serious nature of the conduct of breaching both school procedures and KCSIE. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat had put his own reputation first rather than the pupils themselves. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Dhorat 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 Dhorat 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 Dhorat in the profession. There was no evidence of Mr Dhorat’s ability as an educator, thus the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Dhorat in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. 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. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils, and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat had acted in a way that was an abuse of his position in asking the pupils to lie for him. 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 Dhorat. 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, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils); 19 • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE); • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences, or involved the coercion of another person to act in a way contrary to their own interests; • collusion or concealment including: o encouraging others to break rules; o lying to prevent the identification of wrongdoing; 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. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was evidence that Mr Dhorat’s actions were deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Dhorat was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. There was no evidence that Mr Dhorat had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel recognised, however, that Mr Dhorat was an ECT and was accordingly inexperienced. The panel took into account that, since leaving employment as a teacher, Mr Dhorat has been undertaking workshops in higher education for students in his own time, without remuneration showing his passion for teaching. The panel did not see any evidence that showed Mr Dhorat was previously subject to disciplinary proceedings/warnings. The panel noted that Mr Dhorat fully co-operated with the TRA and school investigation processes and made frank and honest admissions during these processes. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat showed insight and remorse. In Mr Dhorat’s statement presented in the bundle it stated: “Since being [REDACTED] on 26th September 2022 I have been out of work. [REDACTED] and lack of communication from both [REDACTED] and the [REDACTED] have had a serious impact [REDACTED]. My personal, family and social life have all suffered as a result. [REDACTED] and path to financial independence have all been put on hold. During the past 2 years I gained a qualification in mental health studies and had considered returning to higher education, but given the uncertainty of the outcome of the 20 [REDACTED], TRA and [REDACTED] investigations I was unable to make any commitments. I regret my actions and am sorry for whatever emotional harm I may have caused to anyone involved. This was never my intention, and I have learned from my mistakes. The past 25 months have left me exhausted with no personal or professional progress to show for it. I want to start a new chapter and move forward but having a record does not reflect the person who I am”. In oral evidence, Mr Dhorat stated that, at the time of the allegations, [REDACTED]. Mr Dhorat provided the panel with a closing statement prior to a decision being reached in relation to sanction in which Mr Dhorat stated that he now realises that what he did was wrong. He admitted that at the time of the allegations he was not “acting as a teacher” should and thereby recognised the deficiencies in his conduct. 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, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Dhorat of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Dhorat. The necessary protection of pupils was a significant factor in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. 21 These include: • fraud or serious dishonesty; The panel consider that the dishonesty in this case weighed in favour of a longer review period, particularly given the sustained period over which Mr Dhorat’s dishonest conduct occurred. The panel noted that Mr Dhorat was an ECT and accordingly was inexperienced. As referred to above, the panel also took into account that after he left employment as a teacher, Mr Dhorat has been undertaking workshops in higher education for students in his own time without remuneration showing a passion for teaching. Mr Dhorat did not provide any evidence that since the allegations occurred he has developed his understanding of safeguarding and child protection issues. The panel considered it was necessary that the review period was sufficient in order to allow time for Mr Dhorat to develop his understanding and to allay any concerns of risk of repetition of dishonest behaviour. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period of 4 years. 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 both sanction and review period. 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 Mr Suhayr Dhorat should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of four years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Dhorat 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 22 o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position 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, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • 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 Dhorat involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’ (KCSIE). The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Dhorat fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a finding of a teacher behaving in a way with was both dishonest and lacked integrity. Mr Dhorat has also been found to have acted in a manner which did not comply with safeguarding requirements. 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 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 Dhorat, 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 offers this observation: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Dhorat, which involved a failure to maintain professional boundaries, dishonesty and a lack of integrity, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, particularly given the serious nature of the conduct of breaching both school procedures and KCSIE. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat had put his own reputation first rather than the pupils themselves.” 23 A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel considered that Mr Dhorat showed insight and remorse. In Mr Dhorat’s statement presented in the bundle it stated: “Since being [REDACTED] on 26th September 2022 I have been out of work. [REDACTED] and lack of communication from both [REDACTED] and the [REDACTED] have had a serious impact [REDACTED]. My personal, family and social life have all suffered as a result. [REDACTED] and path to financial independence have all been put on hold. During the past 2 years I gained a qualification in mental health studies and had considered returning to higher education, but given the uncertainty of the outcome of the [REDACTED], TRA and [REDACTED] investigations I was unable to make any commitments. I regret my actions and am sorry for whatever emotional harm I may have caused to anyone involved. This was never my intention, and I have learned from my mistakes. The past 25 months have left me exhausted with no personal or professional progress to show for it. I want to start a new chapter and move forward but having a record does not reflect the person who I am”.” The panel also records the following: “Mr Dhorat provided the panel with a closing statement prior to a decision being reached in relation to sanction in which Mr Dhorat stated that he now realises that what he did was wrong. He admitted that at the time of the allegations he was not “acting as a teacher” should and thereby recognised the deficiencies in his conduct.” However, the panel goes on to state that: “Mr Dhorat did not provide any evidence that since the allegations occurred he has developed his understanding of safeguarding and child protection issues.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence of full insight on Mr Dhorat’s part, and particularly his failure to take steps to develop his understanding of the importance of safeguarding and child protection issues, means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable 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 comments: “The panel found that teachers should show a high standard of behaviour and act as a role model to pupils. The panel found that to interact in the way Mr Dhorat had done was completely inappropriate. The panel found whilst his intention in giving the number to Pupil A was misplaced, the events beyond that were not how teachers are 24 expected to behave and lead the way. The panel took into account the uniquely influential role teachers have on pupils and Mr Dhorat’s behaviour was in fact delivering poor behaviours onto these pupils’ door by asking them to lie for him. The panel found that Mr Dhorat was actively engaged in asking pupils to follow his poor lead. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Dhorat’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty in this case and the negative impact that such a finding may 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.” 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 Dhorat himself: “There was no evidence that Mr Dhorat had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel recognised, however, that Mr Dhorat was an ECT and was accordingly inexperienced. The panel took into account that, since leaving employment as a teacher, Mr Dhorat has been undertaking workshops in higher education for students in his own time, without remuneration showing his passion for teaching. The panel did not see any evidence that showed Mr Dhorat was previously subject to disciplinary proceedings/warnings.” I have also noted the mitigating evidence recorded by the panel. A prohibition order would prevent Mr Dhorat 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. 25 In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the seriousness of the panel’s findings: “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. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils, and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. The panel considered that Mr Dhorat had acted in a way that was an abuse of his position in asking the pupils to lie for him.” I have also placed considerable weight on the lack of evidence that Mr Dhorat has developed full insight and the consequent risk of repetition, as well as the findings that his behaviour was both deliberate and that there was no evidence that he was subject to extreme duress. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Dhorat has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a four-year year review period. In doing so, it has made reference to the Advice as follows: “The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. These include: • fraud or serious dishonesty; 26 The panel consider that the dishonesty in this case weighed in favour of a longer review period, particularly given the sustained period over which Mr Dhorat’s dishonest conduct occurred.” I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “The panel noted that Mr Dhorat was an ECT and accordingly was inexperienced. As referred to above, the panel also took into account that after he left employment as a teacher, Mr Dhorat has been undertaking workshops in higher education for students in his own time without remuneration showing a passion for teaching. Mr Dhorat did not provide any evidence that since the allegations occurred he has developed his understanding of safeguarding and child protection issues. The panel considered it was necessary that the review period was sufficient in order to allow time for Mr Dhorat to develop his understanding and to allay any concerns of risk of repetition of dishonest behaviour. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period of 4 years.” I have considered whether a four-year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that I concur with the panel that allowing such a review period is sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious nature of the misconduct found, including dishonesty, as well the lack of evidence of full insight and the consequent risk of future harm to pupils. I consider therefore that a four-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mr Suhayr Dhorat is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 9 March 2030, four years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Dhorat remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Dhorat has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. 27 Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 4 March 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.