Mr Suleyman Folami

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Suleyman Folami

Teacher reference number: 0311848

Teacher's date of birth: 22 September 1961

Location teacher worked: London

Date of professional conduct panel: 26 February 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 Suleyman Folami, formerly employed in 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 Suleyman Folami: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 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 9 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Suleyman Folami Teacher ref number: 0311848 Teacher date of birth: 22 September 1961 TRA reference: 0019349 Date of determination: 26 February 2024 Former employer: Advanced Education Centre, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 26 February 2024, to consider the case of Mr Suleyman Folami. The panel members were Ms Charlotte McCallum (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Aisha Miller (teacher panellist) and Mr Paul Burton (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Claire Watson of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Folami that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Folami provided a signed Statement of Agreed Facts and admitted a conviction, at any time, of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Ian Brook of Capsticks Solicitors LLP, Mr Folami or his representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 23 February 2024. It was alleged that Mr Folami was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence at any time in that: 1. On 4 March 2020, he was convicted of conducting an unregistered independent educational institution contrary to section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 Mr Folami admitted the facts of the allegation, as well as a conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Prior to the start of the meeting, the panel received an updated Notice of Meeting dated 23 February 2024, which stated it was alleged that Mr Folami was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence. The previous Notice of Meeting dated 7 February 2024 alleged that Mr Folami was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute. The panel replaced the previous Notice of Meeting in the bundle with the updated Notice of Meeting. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 17 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and presenting officer representations - pages 18 to 20 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 21 to 75 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 76 to 119 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a Statement of Agreed Facts which was signed by Mr Folami on 10 December 2023. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Folami for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Folami had been employed at Advanced Education Primary School since September 2016 and was a designated safeguarding lead. On 12 December 2018, 5 March 2019 and 6 March 2019, Ofsted inspections were carried out under section 97 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 and concluded that Mr Folami was also involved in the conduct of an unregistered independent school, Advance Education Centre, which was on the first floor of the same premises as the primary school. On 4 March 2020, Mr Folami was convicted of conducting an unregistered independent education institution contrary to section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. 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: 1. On 4 March 2020, you were convicted of conducting an unregistered independent educational institution contrary to section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 The allegation was admitted and was supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. The panel had sight of a signed Statement of Agreed Facts, in which Mr Folami accepted that on 4 March 2020 he was convicted of conducting an unregistered independent educational institution contrary to section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. The panel had sight of a memorandum of conviction. The panel accepted the memorandum of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. 6 Mr Folami was sentenced to a 4 week custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to undertake 120 hours of unpaid work. The allegation was therefore, found proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Folami, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Folami was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting, as the conviction related to conducting an unregistered independent educational institution. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils, as the unregistered institution was unlikely to have been subject to the same Ofsted inspections as a registered school to ensure the safeguarding of pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Folami’s behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Folami was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Folami’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed, and which the Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers (‘the Advice’) states is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. The panel considered the list of offences at pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. Although the offence is not listed, the panel noted that the Advice is not intended to be exhaustive and there may be other offences that panels consider to be “a relevant offence”. The panel considered this offence to be a relevant offence as it related to the running of an educational establishment and Mr Folami received a sentence of imprisonment, albeit that it was suspended. The panel also read Mr Folami’s evidence that he did not knowingly commit the offence. However, the panel noted that the school was subject to three Ofsted inspections and after the first inspection on 12 December 2018, the school was given a warning letter and Mr Folami was told about the potential offence. Mr Folami has acknowledged the importance of safeguarding and was a safeguarding lead. The panel noted that this was a strict liability offence. 7 Although the panel found that the evidence of Mr Folami’s teaching proficiency was of note, the panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Folami’s fitness to be a teacher. 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 is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Mr Folami and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. 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 maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. The panel also found the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession to be relevant. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Folami,