Mrs Mujanet Daniah

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: Mrs Mujanet Daniah

Teacher reference number: 2243217

Teacher's date of birth: 9 June 1978

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 Mrs Mujanet Daniah, 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.

Mrs Mujanet Daniah: Professional conduct panel 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 4 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: Mrs Mujanet Daniah Teacher ref number: 2243217 Teacher date of birth: 09 June 1978 TRA reference: 0019348 Date of determination: 26 February 2024 Former employer: Advance Education Centre, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 26 February 2024 by MS Teams to consider the case of Mrs Mujanet Daniah. The panel members were Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist – in the chair), Miss Lucy Childs (teacher panellist) and Mrs Ashley Emmerson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Anna Marjoram 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 Mrs Daniah that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mrs Daniah provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Mr Ian Brook of Capsticks Solicitors LLP, Mrs Daniah or a representative on her behalf. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 23 February 2024. It was alleged that Mrs Daniah was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On 4 March 2020, she was convicted of conducting an unregistered independent educational institution contrary to section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. Mrs Daniah admitted the facts of the allegation and that she was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 5 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 6 to 18 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 19 to 22 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 23 to 77 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 78 to 262 The panel was also provided with the amended notice of meeting, dated 23 February 2024. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, and the amended notice of meeting, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mrs Daniah on 20 November 2023. 5 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mrs Daniah was at the time of her conviction, and remains, an employee of Advance Education Charity. Advance Education Centre (London) was inspected by Ofsted on 12 December 2018, 5 March 2019 and 6 March 2019. These inspections raised concerns regarding its secondary school function, which formed the basis of criminal proceedings brought by the Crown Prosecution Service for the alleged offence of conducting an unregistered independent educational institution contrary to section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. On 4 March 2020, Mrs Daniah was convicted of conducting an unregistered independent educational institution contrary to section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. Mrs Daniah was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of 12 months, and was ordered to undertake an unpaid work requirement of 120 hours. Mrs Daniah appealed her conviction, and this was heard at the Crown Court at Southwark on 20 January 2022. The Court dismissed her appeal and her sentence was upheld. 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 by Mrs Daniah and supported by evidence presented to the panel. The panel were presented with the memorandum of conviction, and the panel accepted this as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether this amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. 6 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 was satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Daniah, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mrs Daniah 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 having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions; and • 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 Mrs Daniah’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting because her conviction related to operating an unregulated educational institution. The panel considered that this raised issues around the safeguarding of pupils and the promotion of their best interests, as well as according with the rules, regulations and processes of the teaching profession and more widely. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence risked having an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mrs Daniah’s behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession if Mrs Daniah was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mrs Daniah’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offence committed, and which the Advice states is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. The Advice gives examples of what a relevant offence may be, but the offence in this case is not included in that list. However, the panel noted that the advice is not intended to be exhaustive and there may be offences other than those listed that panels consider to be “a relevant offence”. The panel were of the view that the offence raised serious safeguarding issues in respect of children being in an unregistered setting, and therefore it was a relevant offence. Given these concerns, the panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mrs Daniah’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. 7 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 Mrs Daniah 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 protection of other members of the public; the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct; and the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mrs Daniah, which involved a conviction for conducting an unregistered independent educational institution, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mrs Daniah 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 Mrs Daniah was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Whilst there is evidence that Mrs Daniah may have ability as an educator, based on sta