Background
Arfan Munir Rai, a qualified teacher employed by Kensington Park School, was summarily dismissed after the School found that he had offered pupils private tuition outside school, sought to keep the arrangements from the School and, in some instances, proposed using alternative names for email communications. The conduct occurred while a written warning required him to act openly and transparently when supporting pupils and working with them individually.
Following a five-day hearing, a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel found Rai guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that could bring the teaching profession into disrepute. It recommended a prohibition order with permission to seek review after two years, the shortest review period allowed by the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012. The Secretary of State’s representative accepted that recommendation. Rai appealed under regulation 17, alleging procedural unfairness arising from hearsay evidence, irrational findings concerning concealment and dishonesty, and a disproportionate sanction.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the panel was entitled to receive interview records from pupils who did not attend the hearing, particularly because they were no longer in the United Kingdom, and had properly reduced the weight placed on that hearsay. The hearsay was neither the sole nor decisive evidence: Pupil A testified and was cross-examined, and her account that Rai offered outside tuition and asked her not to tell the School was supported by other pupil evidence and documentary material.
The panel rationally found dishonesty under the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd. Wanting parental consent was compatible with concealing the tuition from the School, and the accepted facts showed that Rai knew he was offering outside tuition, did not want the School informed and had previously been instructed to act transparently. Although the court characterised the conduct as relatively low-level dishonest “moonlighting,” the prohibition order was not disproportionate. The panel and decision-maker considered Rai’s mitigation, teaching record, lack of serious harm, impact of prohibition and the possibility of publishing findings without prohibiting him. The minimum two-year review period appropriately tempered the sanction. The appeal was therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
- A teacher-disciplinary panel may rely on hearsay from absent witnesses when it evaluates the evidence cautiously and the hearsay is not the sole or decisive basis for its findings.
- Seeking parental consent for private tuition does not preclude a finding that the teacher dishonestly concealed the arrangement from the school.
- Low-level dishonesty and boundary failures may justify prohibition even without proven physical or significant psychological harm, particularly where the teacher breached an existing transparency warning.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms the reviewing nature of appeals from teacher-disciplinary decisions: the High Court will not retry factual disputes or reweigh evidence where the panel’s findings had a proper evidential basis. It also distinguishes legitimate denial of disciplinary allegations from obfuscation that may demonstrate a continuing lack of insight.
For education practitioners, the decision shows that undisclosed private tuition can engage safeguarding and public-confidence concerns even when intended to benefit pupils. A minimum review period may make prohibition proportionate where the dishonesty is at the lower end of seriousness and no substantial harm occurred.