Daniyal Burney

Introduction

Daniyal Burney is a former Teacher of Religious Studies at St Margaret’s School in Hertfordshire who was banned from teaching for life in March 2025 after a Teaching Regulation Agency panel found that months of informal messaging with pupils was sexually motivated and that he lied to colleagues about whether it had ended. Between December 2022 and July 2023, Burney exchanged informal emails with three pupils, moved the contact onto Instagram and WhatsApp, searched for one pupil on Instagram, and — after being suspended and told not to contact anyone at the school — messaged a pupil on WhatsApp anyway, then told colleagues the contact had stopped before prom when it had not. He admitted every allegation except sexual motivation, which he denied; the panel found it proved on inference from the volume, intimacy and persistence of the contact. Because the pupils were vulnerable 16-year-old girls and his insight remained limited, he received an indefinite ban with no review period and no right to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Burney taught Religious Studies at St Margaret’s School, a Hertfordshire school, and was 25 when the case reached the panel. From around December 2022 to July 2023 he exchanged emails of an informal nature with Pupil A, Pupil C and Pupil D; the volume with Pupil C was extraordinary — over 200 emails in a single Saturday, sent between 9am and 11pm. By May 2023 he had moved to contacting Pupil A on Instagram and WhatsApp, and in July 2023 he searched for Pupil C on Instagram and told her he had found her there. In his live evidence he admitted obtaining Pupil C’s telephone number through Instagram. A LADO meeting was convened on 3 July 2023 after Pupil A’s parents were met with; Burney was suspended on 5 July 2023, told upon suspension not to contact individuals at the school including pupils, and the school’s investigation began the same day. The pupils involved were known to the school to be vulnerable. He attended the hearing in February 2025 in person but was not represented.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. Burney admitted the contact allegations, the post-suspension WhatsApp messages, and the lies; he denied sexual motivation. The panel found it proved by inference. No criminal proceedings are recorded in the decision.

The panel accepted his admissions and corroborating material: screenshots of the email exchanges with Pupils A, C and D across December 2022 to July 2023, corroborated by the pupils’ investigative accounts. It found the correspondence “both informal and inappropriate within the conventional meaning of the words”. The escalation pattern was treated as significant — from school email, to Instagram, to WhatsApp, to obtaining a pupil’s phone number — and the post-suspension breach was unambiguous: on 25 July 2023, twenty days after being suspended and expressly told not to contact pupils, he messaged Pupil A on WhatsApp anyway. When challenged, he told Colleague A on 27 July 2023 that the communication had ended about a week before prom, and repeated on 31 July that he had not been in contact with Pupil A since before prom; the panel found both statements untrue, and Burney admitted the dishonesty and lack of integrity allegations arising from them.

On sexual motivation — the one allegation he fought — the panel weighed Arunkalaivanan v General Medical Council’s warning not to equate inappropriate conduct with sexual motivation, then found the inference overwhelming on the facts: the “frequency, volume, and intensity” of messages, the 200-email Saturday with Pupil C, the switching of communication methods, the admitted number-obtaining, and “the overfamiliarity with pupils who were known to be vulnerable”. It drew the inference that his perception of the dynamic reflected “a high level of intimacy”, rejected the “friend”-like dynamic he claimed to have with pupils, and concluded the behaviour was “done in the pursuit of a future sexual relationship” — sexually motivated conduct toward vulnerable pupils aged 16, even though the messages themselves were not explicitly sexual. In sanction, the panel noted he showed “a degree of regret and remorse” and engaged with the process, but found his insight limited: he “did not appear to acknowledge the impact of his conduct upon the pupils”, and kept describing his engagement with pupils as “friend-like” even while admitting wrongdoing.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The case received no national press coverage; the consequences are regulatory and internal. Within the school, the sequence was swift: parents met on 3 July 2023, LADO the same day, suspension on 5 July, a disciplinary meeting on 14 August 2023, and referral to the TRA on 11 September 2023. The panel found strong public-interest considerations on pupil safeguarding — “persistent and inappropriate, sexually motivated communication with pupils” that contravened “a series of professional boundaries” — and on public confidence, noting that the sexually motivated behaviour “involved a number of vulnerable teenage girls”. At the hearing Burney applied for parts of the case to be heard in private because of the sensitive material; the panel allowed that material to be dealt with privately but kept the proceedings public. He admitted unacceptable professional conduct and disrepute on the admitted facts, and the panel recommended prohibition with immediate effect with no review period. No criminal charge appears in the decision.

Current Status

The panel’s determination is dated 26 February 2025, following a two-day virtual hearing on 25 and 26 February. On 3 March 2025 Sarah Buxcey, the decision maker appointed by the Secretary of State, prohibited Burney from teaching indefinitely: he cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. “Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Burney shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach” — the permanent tier, with no review window of any kind. He retains a 28-day right of appeal to the High Court; no published record shows an appeal was filed. Unless that appeal had succeeded, the ban is final.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Burney’s case shows how the regulator grades persistence: no message was sexual in content, no meeting was sought, no explicit line was crossed — and the lifetime ban landed anyway, because the panel found the pattern itself was the evidence. Two hundred emails in one Saturday, a number obtained through Instagram, contact channels switched as each was closed off, messages sent from suspension, and lies about whether it had ended added up to a finding of pursuit of a future sexual relationship with vulnerable 16-year-olds. His youth in the profession counted for nothing against the combination of sexual motivation and dishonesty findings, and his continued “friend-like” framing at the hearing — after admitting the facts — was what convinced the panel his insight could not support even a remote review window. A teacher who was 25 when the case came to the regulator is now permanently out of it.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Daniyal Burney” — source