Mr Tahir Khawaja

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 Tahir Khawaja

Teacher reference number: 1680848

Teacher's date of birth: 14 July 1962

Location teacher worked: Northampton, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 to 20 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 Tahir Khawaja formerly employed in Northampton, East 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 Tahir Khawaja: Professional conduct panel 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 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Tahir Khawaja Teacher ref number: 1680848 Teacher date of birth: 14 July 1962 TRA reference: 24135 Date of determination: 20 January 2026 Former employer: Wendover Online School, Northampton Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 19 January 2026 to 20 January 2026 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Tahir Khawaja. The panel members were Mrs Emma Hendry (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Tim Cole (lay panellist – in the chair) and Mrs Yvonne Weston (teacher panellist) The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Trencher of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Amalea Bourne of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Khawaja was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 26 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Khawaja was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Whilst employed as a Maths teacher at Pensby High School between September 2018 and 31 August 2019 he engaged in unprofessional behaviour towards and/or failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils and/or former pupils, in that he: a. initiated and/or maintained a conversation with Pupil A by way of text and/or social media messaging; b. engaged in conversations with one or more female pupils encouraging them to take up modelling and/or suggesting that he could take photographs. Mr Khawaja admitted to the facts to allegations 1(a) and 1(b) and he accepted that his conduct set out in allegations 1(a) and 1(b) amounted to unacceptable conduct and 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 anonymised pupil list – pages 6 to 7 Section 2: Notice of referral and proceedings – pages 9 to 30 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 33 to 93 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 95 to 222 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 225 to 327 Section 6: Teacher mitigation documents – pages 328 to 330. The two documents at Section 6, namely an email from [REDACTED] dated 20 January 2026 and an email chain between Mr Khawaja and Pupil A’s [REDACTED] between 25 July 2019 and 30 July 2019, were provided by Mr Khawaja to the presenting officer and the panel at the sanction part of the proceedings as evidence of mitigation. 5 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing, and in respect of those at section 6 in advance of the sanction stage of the proceedings. 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 witness called by the presenting officer: Witness A – Pupil A Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: In September 2018, Mr Khawaja commenced employment at the School as a mathematics teacher on a one-year contract. On 12 June 2019, the Head of PSHE at the School disclosed information relating to Mr Khawaja to the School’s [REDACTED]. It subsequently came to light that Mr Khawaja had allegedly initiated and maintained social media conversations with a pupil and encouraged one or more pupils to take up modelling. On 31 August 2019, Mr Khawaja ended his employment at the School. On 5 September 2022, Mr Khawaja commenced employment at the Wendover Online School as a maths teacher. On 1 July 2024, Wendover Online School was notified that Mr Khawaja allegedly contacted pupils of the School out of school hours. On 18 July 2024, the matter was referred to the TRA. 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: 1. Whilst employed as a Maths teacher at Pensby High School between September 2018 and 31 August 2019 you engaged in unprofessional behaviour towards 6 and/or failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils and/or former pupils in that you: a. initiated and/or maintained a conversation with Pupil A by way of text and/or social media messaging; Mr Khawaja admitted allegation 1(a). Notwithstanding Mr Khawaja’s admission, the panel made its own determination as to the facts. The panel considered the 18 pages of photographs of Pupil A’s mobile telephone showing the numerous Facebook Messenger messages that had been exchanged between Pupil A and Mr Khawaja between June and October 2019. Mr Khawaja’s communications with Pupil A via Facebook Messenger began towards the end of the academic year 2018/19 [REDACTED]. The messages took place whilst Mr Khawaja was employed by the School, up until the end of his employment on 31 August 2019, and continued beyond this time. They occurred during both the school term and the school holidays, and on numerous occasions took place late in the evening. The panel also noted that further communications took place between Mr Khawaja and Pupil A, via Facebook Messenger, between November 2023 and February 2024, which were initiated by Mr Khawaja four years after the initial communications which are the subject of this allegation. In respect of allegation 1(a), whilst it was not clear who had initiated the first communication, it was clearly evidenced that Mr Khawaja had proactively maintained the messaging with Pupil A. Having considered all the evidence before it, the panel found allegation 1(a) proven. b. engaged in conversations with one or more female pupils encouraging them to take up modelling and/or suggesting that you could take photographs. Mr Khawaja admitted allegation 1(b). Notwithstanding Mr Khawaja’s admission, the panel made its own determination as to the facts. The panel had regard to photographs of Facebook Messenger messages exchanged between Mr Khawaja and Pupil A between 30 July and 31 August 2019, which showed that: • Mr Khawaja raised the topic of modelling with Pupil A on numerous occasions, despite acknowledging that Pupil A’s [REDACTED] had said that Pupil A did not want to try modelling. 7 • Across multiple dates, Pupil A expressed discomfort or reluctance about modelling, and Mr Khawaja continued to encourage Pupil A to participate. • Mr Khawaja explained that modelling would involve taking “head shots”, potentially at Pupil A’s home, and stated that he would be with Pupil A “all the way” and would “protect” and “look after” Pupil A. • He suggested that other pupils (Pupil E and Pupil F) could take part and discussed the need for parental consent. • He indicated that he could undertake the initial photographs himself once consent was obtained. • He continued to message Pupil A about the modelling opportunity late at night and over an extended period despite Pupil A having communicated on 3 August 2019: “Not doing the modelling”. On 9 August 2019, Pupil A wrote: “just do not feel comfortable doing modelling”. When Mr Khawaja continued to attempt to persuade Pupil A, Pupil A wrote later on 9 August 2019: “Okay, I will tell you if I want to do it” and later on that same day Pupil A wrote: “Okay, but I don’t know if I want to do it yet”. The panel noted that these conversations were not isolated; they occurred repeatedly over several weeks. The content of the messages showed that modelling was introduced and promoted by Mr Khawaja and not by Pupil A. The panel also considered Pupil A’s Incident Report dated 5 November 2019, which Pupil A had prepared for the School, which was consistent with the messages and recorded that: • Mr Khawaja had asked Pupil A to stay behind after class when he asked Pupil A, when they were alone together, whether Pupil A was interested in modelling for his [REDACTED] agency. • Pupil A felt he was trying to persuade them. • Mr Khawaja had commented that Pupil A had the “perfect body” for modelling. • Pupil A reported that he continued texting them. The panel further considered the incident reports of two other pupils (Pupil E and Pupil F), made in November 2019, which were consistent with each other and corroborated Pupil A’s account. The panel considered Mr Khawaja’s written and oral evidence, including his explanations that the communications were predominantly for teaching purposes, and that he only questioned Pupil A about their reluctance to pursue a possible modelling opportunity at 8 the behest of Pupil A’s [REDACTED]. However, his account was inconsistent with the documentary evidence and the pupils’ incident reports. The panel found the pupils’ accounts to be consistent with each other and supported by the Facebook Messenger messages. The panel was also concerned by two particular responses Mr Khawaja gave to questions put to him by members of the panel. First, he confirmed that the modelling opportunity he discussed with Pupil A could have led to financial gain for both him and