Mr Umar 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 Umar Haque

Teacher reference number: 2242164

Teacher's date of birth: 4 June 1992

Location teacher worked: Leyton, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 20 to 22 June 2023

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 Umar Haque, formerly employed in Leyton, 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 Umar Haque: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Umar Haque Teacher ref number: 2242164 Teacher date of birth: 4 June 1992 TRA reference: 18836 Date of determination: 22 June 2023 Former employer: The Lantern of Knowledge School, London (‘the School’) Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 20 to 22 June 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Umar Haque. The panel members were Ms Maxine Cole (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Laura Flynn (teacher panellist) and Mr Richard Young (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Hubert of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Sarah Vince of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Haque was present at the hearing for day one but was not represented. On day two and three of the hearing Mr Haque was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 30 January 2023. It was alleged that Mr Haque was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 2 March 2018, he was convicted by a jury sitting at Central Criminal Court of: a) Engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts, contrary to Section 5(1)A of the Terrorism Act 2006, in that on or before 17 May 2017, with the intention of committing acts of terrorism, he engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to that intention, namely: i. Researched methods of terrorist attack; and/or ii. Had planned a terrorist attack within the United Kingdom. b) Engaging in preparatory acts with the intention of assisting others to commit acts of terrorism, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, in that he led physical exercises and role play at Ripple Road Mosque. 2. On or around 15 January 2018, he was convicted by guilty plea on the first day of trial at Central Criminal Court of: a) Disseminating a terrorist publication, contrary to Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006, in that he disseminated a terrorist publication relating to video recordings shown to children in his charge at Ripple Road Mosque; and b) Four offences relating to the collection of information contrary to Section 58(1)B of the Terrorism Act 2000, namely copies of three issues of the Islamic State publication ‘Rumiyah’ with detailed terrorist advice and links to a series of web- based video recordings with information about the preparation of explosive substances, and possession of a USB device containing five video files downloaded from YouTube, featuring practical instructions that could be useful in manufacturing explosives. It was also alleged that Mr Haque was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a Maktab class, Physical Education class and General Supervision Teacher at the Lantern of Knowledge School from around July 2015 to 11 January 2016 he: 5 1. Engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour by exposing Pupils to Islamic State propaganda and/or information by: a) Informing the Pupils about Islamic State propaganda; b) Showing Pupils social media video(s) and/or featuring people with guns and/or burning passports and/or beheading; c) Showing videos and/or explaining Islamic State in a positive manner; and d) Discouraging Pupils from disclosing what you had shown and/or taught them about Islamic State, to others. 2. His conduct at allegation 1d was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. 3. His conduct as may be found proven at 1 above demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or hatred on the grounds of race/religion and/or undermine fundamental British values. Mr Haque denied the allegations. Preliminary applications Application for statement of witness to be admitted as hearsay. The TRA made an application that the accounts of children that have assisted the criminal prosecution of Mr Haque in relation to the unproven count 4, be admitted as hearsay evidence in the absence of the witnesses. This application was not opposed by Mr Haque. After receiving submissions from the presenting officer and Mr Haque, and receiving legal advice, the panel made the following decision. The panel carefully considered the submissions made in determining whether it would be fair to admit the accounts as hearsay evidence. The panel noted that the evidence of the children was not the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the allegations. Furthermore, the evidence was not such that the panel felt that it would be unable to test its reliability in the absence of the witnesses. The panel also considered the submissions made regarding the importance of safeguarding the child witnesses and the risk of re-traumatisation should they be required to give evidence on highly emotive and sensitive events that happened over seven years ago. The panel concluded that the balance of fairness was in favour of admitting the statement as hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the statements of the witnesses were admitted and were considered in the panel’s deliberations. 6 Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Haque attended day one of the hearing unrepresented. Before day two of the hearing commenced, he confirmed that he would not be attending day two or three. Therefore, he was not present at the hearing nor was he represented at day two or day three of the hearing. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Haque at the start of the hearing on day two. The panel considered the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Haque in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession April 2018 (the ‘Procedures’). Further, Mr Haque had responded to the Notice of Proceedings on 9 February 2023. The panel noted that Mr Haque had participated in the hearing on day one and concluded that his absence from the remainder of the hearing was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel also noted that Mr Haque had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a future hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Haque was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to continue. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Haque was neither present nor represented. The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the ‘May 2020 Procedures’). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the Procedures apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Summary of evidence 7 Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of proceedings – pages 5 to 36 • Section 2: TRA witness statements – pages 38 to 85 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 87 to 190 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 192 to 194 • Section 5: Further correspondence sent to teacher – pages 196 to 198 • Section 6: Hearsay application documents – pages 200 to 208 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A • Witness B • Witness C 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 25 May 2017, Mr Haque, along with three co-defendants, was charged and subsequently convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act 2006. In summary, over a period of two months between March to May 2017, Mr Haque planned a variety of differing styles of attack with either the direct or indirect assistance of his associates. During the course of the police investigation and subsequent criminal trial, evidence was gathered and presented to the court which demonstrated that, whilst employed in a teaching role, Mr Haque had intentionally exposed his pupils to extremist material to inculcate them with the ideology of Islamic State and persuade them into action in due course. It is thought that Mr Haque had contact with upwards of 220 children during this time, betwe