Arfan Munir Rai v Secretary of State for Education

An appeal against a professional prohibition order under Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 proceeds by review, not rehearing. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, intervention requires a decision that is wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Hearsay from absent witnesses may be admitted with reduced weight, and a tribunal may accept the main thrust of evidence despite errors on subsidiary matters. The two-stage dishonesty test in Ivey v. Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2018] AC 391 examines subjective beliefs and ordinary standards. A proportionate prohibition may be maintained despite low-level dishonesty and no direct harm where safeguarding, professional boundaries, public confidence, mitigation and the review period have been considered.

The appellant, a qualified teacher, was dismissed after allegations that he offered private tuition to pupils outside the School’s arrangements and asked pupils not to disclose it. A professional conduct panel found unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute, and recommended a prohibition order with a two-year review period. The Secretary of State accepted the recommendation and imposed the order. On an appeal under regulation 17 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, the appellant challenged procedural fairness, irrationality in the findings of concealment and dishonesty, and proportionality. The central questions were whether the panel’s evidential findings were legally unsafe and whether the sanction was wrong or unjust under the applicable review standard.

Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The prohibition order was upheld and the court made no order as to costs.

1. Procedural applications. The court granted a one-week extension for late service of the appeal papers. Applying the Denton approach, the breach was, at worst, non-grave; the delay was short, caused no prejudice and arose from an inexperienced litigant, so justice favoured an extension. The open-justice principle required anonymity to be refused for the other pupils and adults involved, but justified anonymity for Pupil A because disclosure created a risk of harm to her fragile mental health.
2. Review and evidence. The appeal under the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, governed by Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, was a review without fresh evidence. Intervention required a decision that was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Hearsay in interview notes from absent students could be received because attendance was reasonably dispensable; lack of cross-examination reduced weight. It was not sole and decisive: Pupil A’s cross-examined evidence and documentary material corroborated it. Matters concerning language and subject distinction went to weight, not a rehearing of facts.
3. Findings. The panel was not required to reopen the propriety of a current written warning merely because an earlier grievance produced an apology. A fact-finder may accept the central thrust of a witness’s account while rejecting parts that are inaccurate. Applying the two limbs of Ivey v. Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2018] AC 391, the appellant’s subjective knowledge included offering outside tuition, keeping the School ignorant and having been warned to act transparently; ordinary people would regard that conduct as dishonest. The findings of concealment and breach were therefore rational and well founded.
4. Sanction. The absence of physical or significant psychological harm was mitigating, but concealment and use of pseudonymous email addresses undermined professional boundaries and made safeguarding harder. Mere denial of allegations should not automatically establish lack of insight; here, however, the appellant’s obfuscation about admitted facts went beyond self-defence. The decision-maker balanced the impact on the teacher against safeguarding pupils and public confidence, considered the lesser publication-only sanction, and took account of the teaching record and mitigation. The shortest permitted two-year review period materially tempered the prohibition, which was only indefinite in the sense that a later review might fail. Considerable deference was due, and no serious procedural irregularity or disproportionality was shown.

• TRA professional conduct panel: On 20 February 2026, the panel found unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute. It recommended a prohibition order with a two-year review period.
• Secretary of State for Education: On 2 March 2026, the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation and imposed the prohibition order, subject to review after two years.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under regulation 17 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 was dismissed and the decision upheld. There was no order as to costs: [2026] EWHC 2225 (Admin) .