Kenley Imo

Introduction

Kenley Imo (Senior) is a science teacher who was employed by Lancashire County Council in a Pupil Referral Unit, with Larches High School, Preston, as his former employer — teacher reference number 1333603, born 7 December 1971 and 54 at the time of the decision. In April 2026 a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel found proved the single allegation against him: a conviction for a relevant offence, namely assault occasioning actual bodily harm arising from an incident outside school in which no children were involved. Imo admitted the allegation, and the outcome was an indefinite prohibition from teaching with a two-year review period.

Background Information

Imo had previously worked with children who are vulnerable and have challenging behaviours — a factor the panel held heightened the need for him to act as a positive role model. The case (TRA reference 25434) followed a notice of proceedings dated 19 December 2025. The virtual hearing, in public and recorded, had Imo present and represented by Mr Gurmair Singh before a panel chaired by lay member Mr Duncan Tilley, sitting with Ms Tanya Callman and teacher panellist Mr Stephen Mitchell.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted; convicted of a relevant offence; prohibited indefinitely with a 2-year review period. The panel sat part heard on 24 March 2026 and reconvened on 8 April 2026; the decision was taken on 9 April 2026.

The conviction arose from an altercation on 25 September 2023 in which Imo injured another person. He was convicted at Lancaster Magistrates’ Court in January 2023 of assaulting a person occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours and compensation of £250. Imo admitted the allegation and accepted it was a conviction of a relevant offence; the court extract was treated as conclusive proof and the allegation found proved. Because the offence involved violence, and breached the Part 2 standard that teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, the panel went on to consider prohibition. It noted the offence was committed outside of the school, did not involve children, and did not lead to imprisonment — indicative, it said, that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum.

Video footage, which did not capture the whole incident, led the panel to accept that this was a “scuffle” that appeared to get out of hand. Yet there was some evidence his actions were deliberate: the footage showed at least one example of Imo unilaterally closing the physical separation distance between himself and his victim, who appeared to be stationary, before the scuffle that caused the injury. There was no evidence he had planned to cause the injury, but the panel considered that he had several opportunities to de-escalate the situation and had demonstrated significantly poor lack of judgment. Imo told the panel he felt threatened by the other individual and physically provoked; the panel concluded there was no evidence he was acting under extreme duress and that he should have de-escalated the situation.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found the public interest in maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding proper standards of conduct squarely engaged: confidence could be seriously weakened if such conduct were not treated with the utmost seriousness. Applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it rejected publication of the findings alone as a proportionate response. On insight it was measured: he had demonstrated some — accepting the conviction, admitting the allegation, expressing remorse — but in evidence did not appear to fully accept the incident was his fault and instead sought to blame the other individual. He described remediation of 40 hours of online study via the probation service, including conflict management courses, telling the panel: “I knew what [the other individual] did was wrong, I would have dealt with it better if I had locked myself in the house and let the police deal with it”, and that he was “well equipped” to deal with any conflict “better next time”.

The panel also weighed positive character references — from a Church Pastor, clearly aware of the allegations, noting that Imo had been “re-elected as a Head Elder for 2025”, and from Larches High School, confirming no concerns regarding his professional conduct. Against that stood the finding that his conduct did not model positive behaviours despite the heightened need for him to act as a role model. It recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect. On the review period, the violence conviction weighed in favour of a longer one, but the mitigation — difficult circumstances, some element of provocation, previous good character, remorse, a one-off incident outside the education setting, some insight and a low risk of repetition — made a longer period neither appropriate nor proportionate; it recommended a review period of 2 years.

Current Status

On 9 April 2026 David Oatley, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State, concluded that a prohibition order was proportionate and in the public interest, weighing the seriousness of the violent offence, the lack of full insight and the impact on the profession’s reputation; a 2-year review period, he decided, was sufficient. Imo is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 17 April 2028 at the earliest, and that is not an automatic right. The order takes effect when served, and he may appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice. The published decision is not internally consistent on the conviction date: the notice of proceedings and findings state 13 January 2025, while the court extract records 13 January 2023.

Impact on Their Career/Life

An unblemished teaching record ended not in the classroom but through a single altercation away from it. The panel accepted the evidence of Imo’s ability as an educator and the testimonials confirming no concerns about his professional conduct, yet found the adverse public interest considerations outweighed any interest in retaining him, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. The bar is indefinite, and any return is discretionary. The panel judged the risk of repetition low — the basis for the two-year review period — but the decision maker concluded that nothing short of prohibition would maintain public confidence in the profession.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Kenley Oghenejuvwerhe Imo” — source