Mujanet Daniah & Anor v Secretary of State for Education: prohibition orders upheld for unregistered school convictions

The High Court has dismissed appeals by two teachers against prohibition orders imposed following their criminal convictions for conducting an unregistered independent educational institution, reinforcing the regulatory framework protecting educational standards and public confidence in the teaching profession.

Under section 96 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, operating an independent educational institution without registration constitutes a criminal offence. The appellants, Mujanet Daniah and Suleyman Folami, were convicted at Westminster Magistrates' Court of running the Advance Education Centre unlawfully between December 2018 and March 2019. Following three Ofsted inspections, the Chief Magistrate found they had continued providing full-time education despite receiving warning letters after the initial inspection. The Crown Court subsequently upheld both convictions and sentences.

The Teaching Regulation Agency convened separate professional conduct panels for each appellant. Both had requested determination without hearings and provided Statements of Agreed Facts admitting conviction of relevant offences breaching Teachers' Standards. Whilst the panel recommended a five-year prohibition order with review for Daniah, it recommended no prohibition order for Folami. The Secretary of State ultimately imposed prohibition orders on both appellants: five years for Daniah and two years for Folami.

Mr Justice Foxton confirmed the appeals proceeded by way of review rather than rehearing, applying established principles that appellate courts should pay proper deference to expert regulatory decision-makers. The court identified five grounds of appeal: insufficient recognition of insight and remorse; no risk of repetition; disproportionality; fresh evidence showing compliance; and procedural irregularity regarding missing Crown Court transcript evidence.

The court found no basis for interference with the professional conduct panels' assessments. Regarding insight and remorse, the panels were entitled to conclude that expressions of contrition came late and failed to demonstrate full appreciation of the conduct's implications. The Secretary of State properly considered the limited evidence of genuine insight when determining prohibition orders were necessary.

On risk of repetition, the panels' findings that both appellants continued operating the school for three months after receiving formal warnings justified conclusions about reoffending risk. The court emphasised these were forward-looking evaluative exercises within the Secretary of State's particular expertise.

The proportionality assessment attracted significant judicial deference. The Secretary of State had conducted detailed analyses weighing public interests in protecting pupils and maintaining professional confidence against the orders' impact on the appellants. Operating unregistered schools raised safeguarding concerns by depriving children of regulatory oversight. The only alternative measure—publishing findings—was properly assessed as insufficient to meet public interest requirements.

The fresh evidence ground failed on multiple bases. Documents from Brent Council and the Department for Education were either already before the panels or could have been submitted with reasonable diligence. Moreover, the correspondence corroborated rather than undermined the prosecution case, confirming warnings given after the initial inspection.

Finally, the procedural irregularity complaint regarding missing witness evidence was rejected. The panels were entitled to rely on the criminal convictions without reviewing their factual basis, particularly given both appellants had admitted the allegations in signed statements.

The judgement reinforces that prohibition orders serve protective rather than punitive purposes. As established in Bolton v Law Society, maintaining collective professional reputation and public confidence may require prohibiting those guilty of serious lapses, notwithstanding personal consequences. The relatively short review periods—permitting applications from March 2026 and 2029 respectively—appropriately balanced regulatory objectives against individual circumstances whilst acknowledging some evidence of good character.