Joseph Luttman
Introduction
Joseph Luttman was a class teacher at Marland School in Torrington, employed from 5 September 2018. On 7 September 2023 he used unreasonable force against a pupil, referred to as Pupil A, during a lesson, then misrecorded the incident, failed to report it to the school’s safeguarding lead or headteacher, and distracted the child from telling his mother. A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found all four allegations against him proved; Luttman had admitted the facts and accepted a police caution for assault by beating. In December 2025, on the panel’s recommendation, he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely, with no review period.
Background Information
Luttman taught at Marland School until his employment ended following a disciplinary hearing on 8 December 2023. The TRA agreed to his request that the allegations be considered without a hearing; the case was decided by a panel — Mr Tom Snowdon in the chair, with Dr Sian Rees-Evans and Mrs Victoria Kelly — at a virtual private meeting on 12 December 2025 that neither Luttman nor the presenting officer attended. He had signed a statement of agreed facts on 4 June 2025, admitting the alleged facts and that they amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Findings, not convictions. The findings below come from a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel which found the allegations proven on the balance of probabilities, the civil standard of more likely than not. They are regulatory adjudications rather than court judgments: Luttman admitted the alleged facts by signed statement of agreed facts, and separately accepted a police caution for assault by beating.
The panel found that on 7 September 2023, Pupil A and Pupil B chased each other around the classroom during a lesson. He admitted pushing Pupil A to the floor, pushing him again towards Pupil B, then picking him up by the right arm and shoulder and physically throwing him out of an open doorway onto the garden outside. When Pupil A tried to tell his mother, Luttman admitted poking and tickling him in his car seat. CCTV footage matched the admitted facts, and the panel noted that the other staff member present showed signs of shock. It found his actions threatening, intimidating and inappropriate, and that throwing a child from a classroom in the manner captured on the footage “could not be considered to be the use of reasonable force”.
Luttman had accepted a police caution for assault by beating, admitting the offence. After Pupil A’s mother emailed the school alleging her son had been hurt by a member of staff, describing bruises, scrapes and marks including to his head, the assistant headteacher replied, having spoken with Luttman, that “No accidents were reported, the closest thing Joe could think of to this was when he and Pupil A bumped into each other in the garden, as reported to you, but there was no injury and they had a giggle about it.” On the school’s Behaviourwatch database Luttman recorded the incident only as “Child A smacked Child B on the head and JL guided to the garden with a hand on the shoulder”, said nothing at the end-of-day debrief and reported it to neither the safeguarding lead nor the headteacher. The panel found the entry concealed his involvement and its seriousness, that he had breached the school’s safeguarding procedures and Keeping Children Safe in Education, and that the ordinary honest person would regard his concealment as dishonest.
The panel found all four allegations proven, with breaches of the Teachers’ Standards and safeguarding guidance: safeguarding is defined as protecting children from maltreatment, “yet Mr Luttman engaged in conduct that constituted maltreatment against Pupil A”. Finding the offences of violence and child cruelty relevant, it concluded his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision records no wider public or media reaction; the documented consequences are institutional and regulatory. Pupil A’s mother’s complaints triggered the multi-agency strategy meeting; Luttman attended an investigation meeting on 1 November 2023 and a disciplinary hearing on 8 December 2023, at which point he ceased to be employed by the school. The panel found a strong public interest in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of using unreasonable force against a child in his care, and that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if such conduct were not treated with the utmost seriousness. Describing itself as “sufficiently shocked by the CCTV footage”, it judged his actions towards the child “cruel” and demonstrating “a complete lack of control and disregard for the safety of the child”, and recommended prohibition with immediate effect and no review period. On 15 December 2025, decision maker David Oatley, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, prohibited Luttman from teaching indefinitely.
Current Status
Luttman is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. No review period was set: the decision maker cited the serious and violent nature of the behaviour towards a pupil, the dishonesty found, the lack of insight and the risk of repetition, and decided that Luttman “shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach”. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him, and he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice; the published record documents no appeal. The panel’s determination is dated 12 December 2025 and the decision 15 December 2025.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order permanently ends Luttman’s teaching career in England. During the school’s investigation he said that he “feel[s] really bad about the situation. It was about moving him to keep him safe and the other boys”, and he acknowledged that he should have written up what had happened on Behaviourwatch. The panel was concerned, however, that there was no evidence of insight into the impact of his actions on Pupil A or the damage done to parents’ trust in the school, and found insufficient evidence of insight to be satisfied that the risk of repetition was low.