Rai v Secretary of State for Education: teacher's prohibition order appeal dismissed

A teacher dismissed from a London school over undisclosed private tuition offered to pupils has failed in his High Court challenge against a prohibition order barring him from the profession, after a judge found no procedural unfairness or irrationality in the professional conduct panel's findings.

Arfan Munir Rai, a 48 year old teacher of philosophy and sociology, was employed at a London school from February 2023 until his summary dismissal in June 2024. He had been suspended in March that year following allegations that he offered pupils private tuition outside school hours and premises, without the school's knowledge and, on some occasions, without parental consent.

A disciplinary hearing upheld the allegations, and Mr Rai's internal appeal was later dismissed. The Teaching Regulation Agency then referred the matter to a professional conduct panel, which in February 2026 found him guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute. The panel recommended a prohibition order with a two year review period, the minimum permitted under the Teachers' Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, and the Secretary of State's representative accepted that recommendation in March 2026.

Sitting in the Administrative Court, Sir Tim Kerr heard Mr Rai's appeal under regulation 17 of the Regulations, brought on three grounds: procedural unfairness arising from reliance on untested hearsay, irrationality in the panel's findings on concealment and dishonesty, and disproportionality of the sanction imposed.

On the first ground, the judge accepted that hearsay evidence from pupils who did not give oral evidence, several of whom had since left the UK, carried only limited weight, but found it was properly treated by the panel as corroborative rather than decisive. The panel had heard oral evidence, tested in cross-examination, from a pupil referred to as Pupil A, who was granted anonymity given her age at the time and mental health difficulties. Her account that Mr Rai had offered outside tuition and asked her not to inform the school was, the judge found, a sufficient evidential foundation for the panel's conclusions, notwithstanding minor inconsistencies elsewhere in her evidence.

Addressing the second ground, the judge rejected the argument that seeking parental consent for outside tuition was inconsistent with concealing it from the school itself, noting that a parent could agree to both the tuition and to keeping it from the school. He found the panel's application of the dishonesty test set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd was well founded, given Mr Rai's own awareness that he did not want the school informed and had previously been warned in writing to act transparently in his dealings with pupils.

On proportionality, the judge acknowledged the dishonesty involved was at the lower end of seriousness, with no evidence of physical or significant psychological harm to any pupil, and noted the two year review period reflected that. He found, however, that the decision maker had properly weighed the public interest in safeguarding pupils and maintaining confidence in the profession against the impact on Mr Rai, and had not overlooked the possibility of a lesser sanction. The judge also found that Mr Rai's continued minimising of his conduct, despite admitting much of the underlying factual basis, went beyond a legitimate exercise of his right to contest the allegations.

In the judge's judgement, none of the three grounds disclosed any procedural or other irregularity sufficient to unseat the panel's findings, and the appeal was dismissed in full. Mr Rai's application for an extension of time to serve the appeal papers was granted, applying the Denton approach, as was his request for a costs capping order, which the Secretary of State did not oppose. No order for costs was made.