Mr Yusuf Musa

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 Yusuf Musa

Teacher reference number: 1987371

Teacher's date of birth: 06 August 1992

Location teacher worked: London

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 May 2025 to 23 May 2025

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 Yusuf Musa 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 Yusuf Musa: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Yusuf Musa Teacher ref number: 1987371 Teacher date of birth: 6 August 1992 TRA reference: 17335 Date of determination: 23 May 2025 Former employer: Darul Uloom London, Chislehurst Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12, 14 to 16, 19, 22 and 23 May and the panel convened privately on 20 and 21 May by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Yusuf Musa and another teacher in this joint hearing. The panel members were Ms Aruna Sharma (teacher panellist - in the chair), Miss Louisa Munton (teacher panellist), and Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Priyesh Dave of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Miss Charlotte Watts of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Yusuf Musa was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey of Cornwall Street Barristers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 12 December 2024. It was alleged that Mr Yusuf Musa was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed and/or whilst seeking employment as a teacher at Darul Uloom London between 19 May 2011 and 31 May 2018: 1. Failed to safeguard one or more pupils at the school adequately or at all in Mr Musa’s role as Designated Safeguarding Lead in that: a. following an allegation that Staff Member D had received an indecent image in or around August 2017 Mr Musa: i. failed to risk assess or manage Staff Member D's continued employment at the school; ii. did 1(a)(i) notwithstanding LADO advice to the contrary; iii. failed to ensure that Staff Member D did not have unsupervised access to pupils; iv. contacted the police for information about their investigation into Staff Member D notwithstanding that Mr Musa was [REDACTED]; v. continued to act a Safeguarding Lead in respect of Staff Member D notwithstanding that he was [REDACTED]; 2. Mr Musa engaged in inappropriate behaviour and/or exposed one or more pupils to harm and/or a risk of harm, in that Mr Musa: a. shouted aggressively at one or more pupils; b. snatched food away from one or more pupils; c. punished a pupil for not attending prayers by i. making them sit by the school office for approximately 13 hours on the day of the incident; ii. preventing them from having breakfast and/or lunch on the day of the incident; iii. making them sit by the school office for approximately 5.5 hours on the following day; d. kept one or more bladed weapons on school premises; 5 e. on or around 30 May 2018, engaged in an altercation with Individual A on school premises which: i. involved Mr Musa threatening Individual A and/or producing a firearm or imitation firearm; ii. involved Mr Musa preventing Individual A from leaving the school by locking the school's gates; iii. resulted in the deployment of armed police to the school; 3. In an application form dated 2 May 2011 Mr Musa failed to declare and/or give details of: a. the police caution Mr Musa received on 9 February 2009 for: i. taking a motor vehicle without consent on 14 January 2009 contrary to s.12 of the Theft Act 1968; ii. possession of a Class C controlled substance (cannabis) on 14 January 2009; b. Mr Musa’s conviction on 3 March 2010 for which Mr Musa was made subject to a 6 month referral order and/or disqualified from driving for 12 months in respect of: i. driving whilst disqualified on 22 February 2010; ii. using a vehicle whilst uninsured on 22 February 2010. 4. Mr Musa’s conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 3 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Teacher’s non-admission of facts and non-admission of 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 was split amongst Mr Musa and the other teacher as part of this joint hearing. Mr Musa’s element of the bundle included: Section 4: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 58 to 66 Section 5: TRA documents – pages 67 to 120 6 Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 121 to 142 Section 7: TRA witness statements – pages 143 to 526 Section 8: TRA documents – pages 527 to 533 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: the Teachers’ bundle and retains its internal numbering from pages 1 to 263 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 document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2018, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] employed by Bromley County Council Witness B – [REDACTED] at Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills Witness C – [REDACTED] at Department for Education Mr Musa also gave oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Musa was employed by Darul-Uloom School (“the School”) from 2011 to 2018, initially as a teacher and later as the Designated Safeguarding Lead. It was alleged that Mr Musa failed to safeguard one or more pupils in August 2017, and that he engaged in inappropriate behaviour and/or exposed one or more pupils to harm and/or risk of harm by shouting aggressively, snatching food away, punishing a pupil for not attending prayers, and keeping bladed weapons on school premises. It was further alleged that Mr Musa failed to declare cautions and convictions for criminal offences on his application form. Finally, it was alleged that his failure to make this declaration was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. 7 As part of an agreement between the School and the Department for Education, Mr Musa was removed as a trustee of the School, ceased to be a teacher, and ended all involvement with the School. 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: Whilst employed and/or whilst seeking employment as a teacher at Darul Uloom London between 2 May 2011 and 31 May 2018: 2. You engaged in inappropriate behaviour and/or exposed one or more pupils to harm and/or a risk of harm, in that you: c. punished a pupil for not attending prayers by i. making them sit by the school office for approximately 13 hours on the day of the incident; ii. preventing them from having breakfast and/or lunch on the day of the incident; iii. making them sit by the school office for approximately 5.5 hours on the following day; In reaching its decision, the panel took account of the legal advisor’s advice regarding the historical nature of the allegations and the reliability of memory as evidence. The panel had at its forefront the time between each separate alleged incident and this hearing. It considered the judgment in Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited, Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited and the broader comments on memories, how memories can be unreliable, the impact on memory caused by the preparation of witness statements and preparing for a hearing. The panel had regard to the court’s observations to place a greater reliance on documentary evidence and known or probable facts. Where documentary evidence was not available, the panel exercised significant caution in assessing witness credibility. Mr Musa denied these allegations. It was alleged that on 19 December 2017, a pupil did not attend prayers. It was decided by Mr Musa and the general manager of the School that the pupil should sit at the school office under supervision and that his parents should be contacted. The decision to place the pupil at the school office was due to his history of poor behaviour, which included damage to school property, accessing unauthorised areas of the School, and bullying 8 behaviour. The pupil’s mother was contacted on 19 December and attended the School the following day. It was alleged that the pupil was made to sit at the school office from early on 19 December until the end of the school day without being provided with breakfast or lunch. It was further alleged that on 20 December, the pupil was again made to sit at the school office from early in the day until his mother arrived to collect him. The matter was referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) via a complaint to Tower Hamlets. The referral included a meeting with the pupil and his mother. The pupil stated that he had attended prayers and was made to sit in the main office, where he was not allowed to have breakfast or lunch. He stated that he was told he could have dinner. Mr Musa stated in his evidence that the pupil had received breakfast, as he was collected during the breakfast period. Mr Musa’s witness statement also stated that the pupil had been observed eating breakfast. Mr Musa, in his witness statement, stated that: “The claim that the pupil sat outside the school office for approximately 13 hours is inaccurate. For this to be true, the pupil would have had to remain there from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm, an assertion that is inconsistent with school operations. The designated waiting area was located near the School Principal’s office, a space that is frequently monitored by staff. Had a pupil been seated there for such an extended period, it would have been noticed, questioned, and addressed.” Mr Musa also stated that the pupil’s parents arrived on 20 December at 11 am. However, the referral made to the LADO recorded that the pupil had been seated from 7 am until his parents arrived at 12:30 pm. The panel saw evidence of email communications from Witness A and Individual D, sent on behalf of the Chair of Trustees of the School. The School stated in an email that: “The incident which led to [REDACTED]’s mother being called in for a meeting happened on 19th December 2017. [REDACTED] was seated in the reception until his parents arrived the following day. [REDACTED] was allowed to go for breaks and meals during this period where he waited in the reception area. He was under the supervision of myself and the other staff during this period and was not neglected in any way. I have provided my statement to reaffirm this. In addition to this, as the parents confirm in her statement to yourself, [REDACTED] was allowed to go for dinner, dinner concludes at 9pm. I am concerned why she has stated that [REDACTED] was at the reception from 7 am to 10 pm, and at the same time [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]’s mother confirms that he was allowed to go for dinner.” 9 The panel saw evidence from Witness A, who emailed the School on 22 March 2018 regarding this matter. In that email, Witness A confirmed that the complaint made was considered “unfounded. However, the length of time remains a worry and I will ask for your sanctions methods to be reviewed…”. It was clear from the account provided by Individual D that the pupil was made to wait at the school office. This contrasted with Mr Musa’s evidence, in which he stated that the pupil would not have been left sitting at the school office for that period of time without intervention. The account from the School to the LADO was considered by the panel to be a contemporaneous record and therefore more likely to reflect what occurred on 19 and 20 December 2017. Based on the information available, the panel found that the pupil was at the school office on 19 December from approximately 8 am to 9 pm (a period of 13 hours), and on 20 December from either 7 am to 12:30 pm (5.5 hours), or, estimating a similar start time to the previous day, from 8 am to 11 am (3 hours). The panel noted that within the School’s Child Protection Policy, under the heading ‘The role of the staff’, the fourth bullet point states that: “To have a responsibility to provide a safe environment in which children can learn” The panel had regard to the correspondence between Individual D and the LADO, which included the Tower Hamlets referral as hearsay evidence. It concluded that it was fair to admit the evidence, as it formed part of the contemporaneous correspondence between the LADO and the School and was relevant to the allegations. However, the panel attributed less weight to it than to any oral evidence it heard. The panel found, based on the information from the referral and the School’s account to the LADO, that the pupil was made to wait for approximately 13 hours. The panel considered that the wait was implemented as a punishment for the pupil not attending prayers. It concluded that this conduct constituted inappropriate behaviour, as it involved requiring a pupil to sit in one place solely to wait for their parents to arrive. The panel therefore found allegation 2(c)(i) proven. The panel preferred the contemporaneous evidence provided within the Tower Hamlets referral, which included details from both the pupil and the pupil’s mother. The panel considered that the wait was implemented as a punishment for the pupil not attending prayers and that this conduct was inappropriate and exposed the pupil to harm or a risk of harm by not allowing the pupil to eat their meals. On this basis, and on the balance of probabilities, the panel found allegation 2(c)(ii) proven. Although it was unclear how long the pupil sat at the school office on 20 December, the panel considered that, whether the period was between 3 to 5.5 hours, it was reasonable 10 to conclude that the duration was approximately 5.5 hours, as set out in allegation 2(c)(iii). The panel considered that the wait was implemented as a punishment for the pupil not attending prayers and that this conduct was inappropriate behaviour, as it involved requiring a pupil to sit in one place solely to wait for their parents to arrive. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the panel found this allegation proven. e. on or around 30 May 2018, engaged in an altercation with Individual A on school premises which: iii. resulted in the deployment of armed police to the school; Mr Musa denied this allegation. On 30 May 2018, it was alleged that Mr Musa had an altercation with two delivery drivers. Mr Musa confirmed in oral evidence that he did not recall swearing but used profanity towards the delivery drivers during the heated altercation. The panel heard that, due to the time of year, the School was closed and pupils were at home. The only pupils on site were those completing their exams, and they were located away from Mr Musa’s flat. Following a call to the police by one of the delivery drivers, officers attended the School. Individual B’s witness statement indicated that firearm units and other police officers from Bromley Police Station were deployed. The panel had regard to Individual B’s witness statement as hearsay evidence and therefore attributed less weight to it than to any oral evidence it heard. The panel was satisfied that armed police were deployed to the School. It concluded that the use of profanity on School premises during what was a heated altercation with Individual A constituted inappropriate behaviour. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proven. 3. In an application form dated 2 May 2011 you failed to declare and/or give details of: a. the police caution you received on 9 February 2009 for: i. taking a motor vehicle without consent on 14 January 2009 contrary to s.12 of the Theft Act 1968; ii. possession of a Class C controlled substance (cannabis) on 14 January 2009; 11 b. Your conviction on 3 March 2010 for which you was made subject to a 6 month referral order and/or disqualified from driving for 12 months in respect of: i. driving whilst disqualified on 22 February 2010; ii. using a vehicle whilst uninsured on 22 February 2010. Mr Musa denied these allegations. The panel reviewed Mr Musa’s application form to the School, dated 2 May 2011. The form was signed by Mr Musa, and he confirmed during oral evidence that he had signed it. Mr Musa stated that he had never completed an application form before, as he was 19 years old at the time, and that a member of the School’s Human Resources team assisted him in completing parts of the form. The section of the form relating to criminal conviction declarations included a ‘yes/no’ option, but no answer was selected. The panel noted that the declaration regarding criminal convictions appeared just below the signature section of the form. It therefore considered it unlikely that Mr Musa would not have seen this section when signing the form in 2011. Mr Musa also stated that he had been open with the School about his criminal convictions and cautions, and that both the principal, [REDACTED], and Individual E were aware of them. Mr Musa stated that Individual E had discussed the convictions and cautions with him. However, in a document submitted in response to a number of allegations, the principal stated via his legal representative that “he did allow the School to employ Staff Member E [Mr Musa] as he was not aware that Staff Member E had criminal convictions.” The panel was satisfied that “Staff Member E” referred to Mr Musa, as the same document earlier identified Staff Member E as [REDACTED] and as the Designated Safeguarding Lead. The panel reviewed the Police National Computer (PNC) record for Mr Musa and confirmed that the cautions and convictions were as stated in the allegation, except that the cautions were issued on 19 February 2009 rather than 9 February 2009. Due to the discrepancy in the date, the panel did not find allegation 3(a) proven. However, the panel found allegation 3(b) proven. 4. You conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 3 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. The panel had regard to the legal adviser’s advice when considering the allegation of dishonesty. It recognised that the assessment involved a two-stage test. First, the panel was required to ascertain, subjectively, Mr Musa’s actual state of knowledge or belief as 12 to the facts. Second, it had to determine whether Mr Musa’s state of mind was honest or dishonest by applying the objective standards of the ordinary honest person. The panel considered the case of Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority in respect of integrity and the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockford in respect of dishonesty. The panel was mindful of the legal advice it received, including that the concepts of dishonesty and integrity are separate and distinct. It noted that integrity is a broader and more nebulous concept than honesty, and that it is not possible to formulate a comprehensive, all-purpose definition of integrity. The panel found allegation 3(b) to be proven. Mr Musa denied this allegation. The panel first considered Mr Musa’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts. Mr Musa stated that the principal was aware of his criminal convictions. However, as noted above, the principal stated in a document that he was not aware of them. Mr Musa knew of his own convictions and chose not to disclose them. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Mr Musa was aware of his convictions at the time he signed the application form. In weighing the evidence, the panel found that if individuals within the School were aware of Mr Musa’s convictions, then Mr Musa should have freely declared them in the application form. The panel concluded that Mr Musa was subjectively dishonest. The panel then considered the objective standard of the ordinary honest person. It was satisfied that an ordinary honest person would regard Mr Musa’s actions as dishonest. The panel noted that acting with integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession that involves more than mere honesty. The panel considered that it was an important tenet of the profession that teachers act with honesty, and that Mr Musa’s failure to do so in this case undermined the School’s recruitment procedures and could have undermined the safeguarding of pupils. Since safeguarding of children is fundamental to the teaching profession, the panel found that Mr Musa’s actions in failing to declare his convictions lacked integrity. The panel therefore found this allegation proven. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proved, for these reasons: 1. Failed to safeguard one or more pupils at the school adequately or at all in your role as Designated Safeguarding Lead in that: a. following an allegation that Staff Member D had received an indecent image in or around August 2017 you: 13 i. failed to risk assess or manage Staff Member D's continued employment at the school; ii. did 1(a)(i) notwithstanding LADO advice to the contrary; iii. failed to ensure that Staff Member D did not have unsupervised access to pupils; iv. contacted the police for information about their investigation into Staff Member D notwithstanding that you were [REDACTED]; v. continued to act a Safeguarding Lead in respect of Staff Member D notwithstanding that he was [REDACTED]; Mr Musa denied these allegations. In this allegation, an indecent image was uploaded from the School’s IP address. The police contacted both the School and Mr Musa. Mr Musa was asked to ascertain whether a specific email address was known to him or to others at the School. The email address was similar to that of Staff Member D, but had a different domain name. Staff Member D was interviewed by the police under caution. The panel first considered the stem of allegation 1(a), specifically whether there was an allegation against Staff Member D. The panel acknowledged that Staff Member D had been interviewed by the police; however, there was no further information regarding the evidence the police may have had or the reasons for conducting the interview under caution. The panel concluded that there was no formal or informal allegation against Staff Member D as described in this allegation. Accordingly, the panel did not find the stem of this allegation proven. 2. You engaged in inappropriate behaviour and/or exposed one or more pupils to harm and/or a risk of harm, in that you: a. shouted aggressively at one or more pupils; b. snatched food away from one or more pupils; Mr Musa denied these allegations. The panel reviewed a document from Ofsted concerning an anonymous complaint made by a parent via a police officer. The complaint alleged that pupils were being tortured at the School, including claims that food was placed in front of them and then snatched away, and that teachers were shouting at children. 14 The panel had regard to this Ofsted document as hearsay evidence. It concluded that it was fair to admit the evidence, as it contained details relevant to the allegations. However, the panel attributed less weight to it than to any oral evidence it heard. The panel noted that the complaint did not refer to Mr Musa. Furthermore, the panel neither heard nor saw any additional evidence indicating that Mr Musa had engaged in the conduct described in this allegation. The panel therefore found this allegation not proven. d. kept one or more bladed weapons on school premises; Mr Musa denied this allegation. Mr Musa had a flat on the School premises. Following an incident in which the police attended Mr Musa’s flat, the following articles were found, as described in the witness statement of Individual B: • A samurai sword; • Two further samurai swords; • A large silver sword; • A hawk handle knife; • A sea horse handle knife; The panel had regard to Individual B’s witness statement as hearsay evidence and therefore attributed less weight to it than to any oral evidence it heard. During his oral evidence, Mr Musa accepted that the items found in his flat were his. He stated that the items had been locked away but were taken out temporarily during the flat renovations. He later stated that some items had been on display on the wall while others remained locked away. The panel was able to see images of the bladed weapons in the bundle. Mr Musa, in his witness statement, stated that: “The items in question were not weapons in the conventional or practical sense, but rather a personal collection of historical and decorative replicas. These items were not in active use, and never intended for use, nor did I ever handle them in a way that could be reasonably perceived as dangerous or threatening.” “This flat in question is situated on the first floor of the building, in a section that was completely off-limits to students and staff. The physical layout of the 15 premises, alongside established school policies, ensured that neither students nor staff had access to this part of the building, either directly or indirectly. Multiple layers of restricted access ensured that the flat was completely out of reach to pupils and the staff even on the working school day. The flat is separated from the main areas, through an administrative office corridor by a sequence of four locked doors, and five locks…” The panel accepted that there were a number of locks between Mr Musa’s flat and the main school building. Although Mr Musa accepted that he kept the items on School premises, the panel considered the stem of allegation 2. It concluded that, given the number of locks in place, the presence of bladed weapons in Mr Musa’s flat did not constitute inappropriate behaviour and did not expose one or more pupils to harm or a risk of harm. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation not proven. e. on or around 30 May 2018, engaged in an altercation with Individual A on school premises which: i. involved you threatening Individual A and/or producing a firearm or imitation firearm; ii. involved you preventing Individual A from leaving the school by locking the school's gates; Mr Musa denied these allegations. The TRA did not provide any evidence in support of these allegations. Accordingly, the panel found these allegations not proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of 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”. For those allegations found proven that post-date 1 July 2011, the panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Musa, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel took note of the Teachers’ Standards and in particular that the preamble states that teachers “act with honesty and integrity”. 16 The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Musa 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, ….  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 Musa, in relation to the facts found proved in allegation 2(c), involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe in Education 2016 (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mr Musa was in breach of the following provisions: 4. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is defined for the purposes of this guidance as: protecting children from maltreatment; preventing impairment of children’s health or development; ensuring that children grow up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care; and taking action to enable all children to have the best outcomes. 7. All school and college staff have a responsibility to provide a safe environment in which children can learn. The panel also considered Annex D of KCSIE the National Minimum Standards for Boarding Schools 2015. The panel found that Mr Musa breached standard 8.3: “In addition to main meals, boarders have access to drinking water and to food or the means of hygienically preparing food at reasonable times. Schools are sensitive to boarder’s individual needs in this respect.” For the allegation found proven that pre-dates 1 July 2011, Mr Musa’s conduct took place prior to the Teachers Standards coming into force. Accordingly, the panel had regard to its knowledge and experience of teaching standards at the time of the conduct. Having done so, it considered that the application process is designed to safeguard children and the School’s application form made it clear that: “You are therefore not entitled to withhold information about convictions which for other purposes are “spent” under the provisions of the Act.” 17 The panel considered this standard to be relevant at the time: • The panel considered honesty and integrity to be a fundamental standard for all professions, especially in teaching, where there is a duty to safeguard children. The panel also considered whether Mr Musa’s 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. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Musa 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 Musa was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Musa’s 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. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Musa’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 Musa was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the panel found that the offence of serious dishonesty was relevant. The panel considered that Mr Musa’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Musa’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 and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to 18 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 and the protection of other members of the public • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Musa, as stated above, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given that Mr Musa was found to have made a pupil sit for an unreasonable period of time waiting for his parents to arrive without breakfast and lunch. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Musa 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 Musa 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 Musa in the profession. Whilst there is evidence that Mr Musa had ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Musa 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. 19 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 Musa. 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;  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);  violation of the rights of pupils;  dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions…. The panel also considered that for those allegations found proven that pre-date 1 July 2011, that there was a serious departure from the professional teaching standards at the time of the conduct. 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 Musa’s actions were deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Musa was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. Mr Musa did have a previously good history. The panel noted that since Mr Musa became the Designated Safeguarding Lead of the School that there was an improvement within the School’s safeguarding processes. Witness B affirmed in his oral evidence that the School did improve in recording and monitoring aspects by the February 2018 Ofsted meeting. Mr Musa was also more open about discussing safeguarding matters and took appropriate actions. Mr Musa did not demonstrate exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel did not accept that the conduct was out of character. 20 The panel considered the good character evidence provided within the bundle. The panel noted eight witness statements on behalf of Mr Musa. The authors of the statements did not give evidence on Mr Musa’s behalf. Of the eight statements, six authors stated that they had sight of the allegations, albeit five of the character statements were dated in 2019. The panel noted the content of the statements and that some of these were from teachers who worked with Mr Musa and others from friends. The statements reference that Mr Musa was a good teacher, a community leader and had a good relationship with the pupils in the School. Statements include: From Individual F: “I have seen Mr Musa grow up and he has always been a person of good morals and character. He is caring, honest and a man of principles. He has always demonstrated good behaviour and respect towards the people around him at the school and in the community.” From Individual G: “I watched him grow, study, graduate and work. As a student of mine, he was an above average pupil. After graduation when he started teaching and taking responsibilities of the school, he excelled. He was able to accomplish things that 3 or 4 staff are now struggling to fulfil. From looking after the students to maintaining the school building, Yusuf helped out in everything.” “He would play with the students and was fully involved with all the staff. Any shortcomings from anyone and he'd fill the void. He presented himself with utmost respect with all the staff as most were his teachers.” “He was very hard working, responsible, reliable, trustworthy and a team leader.” From Individual H: “Due to his position in the school, there have always been high expectations of him, and he has exceeded them to serve as a wonderful role model for both the children at the school and the wider community of which I am a part of. Without a shadow of a doubt, I can state that he is a thoroughly decent boy and is an extremely valuable asset to the school, its pupils and the local community.” From Individual I: “On many occasions I have had an opportunity to assess and understand his character. I am of the opinion that Yusuf Musa is of good and caring character.” “On one of my visits to Darul Uloom I saw that Yusuf was helping one of the students with his lessons during free time. I got the impression that the boy was struggling with a certain aspect of his studies and Yusuf was giving the boy extra help and guidance. 21 “Approximately 8 months after his graduation he joined the teaching staff, along with me, and he started teaching the students who were in the beginning of the Aalimiyyah course. Because Yusuf Musa was very bright, clever and mostly achieved 1st or 2nd place during examinations, he quickly climbed up the ladder and was now fortunate to teach the translation and commentary of the Holy Quraan and Hadeeth.” From Individual J: “Yusuf taught my son Individual K from the age of 8 to 16, my son enjoyed having Yusef as his teacher. Individual K assisted Yusuf with many additional activities around the school including the running of the school tuk shop.” “In my opinion the responsibilities Yusuf faces on a day to day basis are greater than individuals his age and he certainly manages them well. He has always communicated with me maturely and our discussions have always affirmed my confidence in his ability.” From Individual L: “He has been very sincere tutor to students and highly courteous to other staff members and pupils. He not only looked after the welfare of students, but also actively enjoyed playing football with them.” The panel considered all of the statements in their entirety but concluded that they do not believe that Mr Musa has demonstrated insight or reflection or remorse into his behaviours and actions as found proven. In particular, the panel was told that no pupils were harmed by Mr Musa’s actions. However, this cannot be the case for a pupil who was required to sit in the school office and not allowed to eat breakfast and lunch. There was no insight into the harm he may have caused the pupil referred to in allegation 2(c) nor the harm it could have done by not being honest with the School regarding his convictions. Therefore, the panel concluded that with a lack of insight, and remorse to those individuals affected and impacted by his actions and behaviour, the chance for conduct to be repeated remains high. The panel also had in mind that the referral was made to the TRA in 2018 and the hearing took place in 2025. 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 the publication of adverse findings would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Musa of prohibition. 22 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 Musa. The dishonesty and the nature of the safeguarding incident 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. One of these includes: • fraud or serious dishonesty. The panel found that Mr Musa was dishonest in relation to his application form to be a teacher at the School. The panel found that this dishonesty could impact the Safer Recruitment of Teachers and therefore could impact the safeguarding of pupils. The panel noted that these lists are not intended to be exhaustive and panel has considered the case on its individual merits taking into account all the circumstances involved. The panel took into account the issue of mitigation. The lack of insight and genuine remorse shown by Mr Musa meant that the panel could not be satisfied that there would not be repeated behaviours and/or conduct that could put pupils at risk of harm. 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. As such, the panel decided that it would be proportionate for the prohibition order to be recommended with provision for a review period after 3 years. 23 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 some 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. In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Yusuf Musa should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of three years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Musa 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 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, …. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel also note that one of the proven allegations related to misconduct committed prior to the introduction of the Teacher Standards and provides the following comment: “The panel also considered that for those allegations found proven that pre-date 1 July 2011, that there was a serious departure from the professional teaching standards at the time of the conduct.” The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Musa involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. 24 The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Musa fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher engaging in inappropriate behaviour that exposed a pupil to risk of harm as well as conduct that was dishonest. 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 Musa, 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 makes the following observation: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Musa, as stated above, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given that Mr Musa was found to have made a pupil sit for an unreasonable period of time waiting for his parents to arrive without breakfast and lunch.” 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 all of the statements in their entirety but concluded that they do not believe that Mr Musa has demonstrated insight or reflection or remorse into his behaviours and actions as found proven. In particular, the panel was told that no pupils were harmed by Mr Musa’s actions. However, this cannot be the case for a pupil who was required to sit in the school office and not allowed to eat breakfast and lunch. There was no insight into the harm he may have caused the pupil referred to in allegation 2(c) nor the harm it could have done by not being honest with the School regarding his convictions. Therefore, the panel concluded that with a lack of insight, and remorse to those individuals affected and impacted by his actions and behaviour, the chance for conduct to be repeated remains high.” 25 In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Musa has developed full insight 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 records the following comment: “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Musa were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher denying a pupil food (breakfast and lunch) 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 Musa himself. While the panel states that he had not demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or contributed significantly to the education sector, it does record that other than these events he had had a good professional history. It also notes having had the benefit of a number of pieces of character evidence attesting to his good conduct and commitment as a teacher. A prohibition order would prevent Mr Musa 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. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on both the serious nature of the misconduct found, which included behaviour that was dishonest, and the panel’s comments concerning Mr Musa’s lack of insight and the risk of repetition. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Musa 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 26 light of the circumstances in this case, that is not backed up by full remorse or insight, 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 three-year review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “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. One of these includes: • fraud or serious dishonesty. The panel found that Mr Musa was dishonest in relation to his application form to be a teacher at the School. The panel found that this dishonesty could impact the Safer Recruitment of Teachers and therefore could impact the safeguarding of pupils. The panel noted that these lists are not intended to be exhaustive and panel has considered the case on its individual merits taking into account all the circumstances involved. The panel took into account the issue of mitigation. The lack of insight and genuine remorse shown by Mr Musa meant that the panel could not be satisfied that there would not be repeated behaviours and/or conduct that could put pupils at risk of harm. 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. As such, the panel decided that it would be proportionate for the prohibition order to be recommended with provision for a review period after 3 years.” I have considered whether a three-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 allowing a period is, in my judgment, sufficient and appropriate to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious nature of the misconduct found and consequent risk of repetition, as well as the lack of evidence of full insight or remorse. 27 I consider therefore that a three-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mr Yusuf Musa 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 4 June 2028, three 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 Musa remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Musa has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 29 May 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.