Suhayr Dhorat

Introduction

Suhayr Dhorat is a former humanities teacher at The Radcliffe School in Wolverton, Milton Keynes, who was banned from the profession after a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found he failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with pupils and acted dishonestly. In a decision published in March 2026, the panel concluded that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and behaviour likely to bring the profession into disrepute, and a prohibition order now prevents him from teaching indefinitely.

Background Information

Dhorat had been employed at The Radcliffe School from September 2021 and was, at the time of the events, an early career teacher with no previous disciplinary record. The case that ended his career involved no allegation of physical or sexual misconduct. It grew instead out of the gradual erosion of the boundary between a teacher and his students: a personal mobile number passed to one pupil and then shared more widely among students, followed by a pattern of WhatsApp and social media messaging that the panel found was in places over-familiar and inappropriate.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. Everything described below consists of findings by a TRA professional conduct panel, decided on the civil standard and set out in a published decision reported in March 2026. Dhorat made admissions to most of the allegations; the account attributes conclusions to the panel and marks his admissions and mitigation where the record carries them.

The panel found that in July 2022 Dhorat gave his personal mobile number to a pupil, and that the number was later shared more widely among students. He also sent and received messages with pupils via WhatsApp and social media platforms, some of which were described as over-familiar and inappropriate. Evidence showed he responded to pupils late at night, used a nickname by which he was known in school, and engaged in informal exchanges outside official school channels. He gave the same pupil a card and a personalised gift, which the panel said singled the student out and crossed professional boundaries. The panel accepted that he initially shared his number out of concern for a pupil’s wellbeing, but said this did not justify breaching clear safeguarding policies that prohibit personal contact with students.

The dishonesty findings sat at the centre of the case. The panel determined that Dhorat asked pupils to “keep quiet” about having his phone number and, in some cases, to deny that he had replied to their messages if questioned by the school. He also continued contacting pupils after being explicitly instructed to stop and after being suspended — including, in one instance, sending a video of himself vaping to a pupil after his suspension. The panel said this behaviour amounted to “a course of dishonest conduct” aimed at covering up wrongdoing, and concluded that he lacked integrity and had encouraged pupils to mislead staff.

The panel further found that Dhorat failed to report safeguarding concerns: he did not inform senior staff that his number had been shared among pupils or that he had received messages and calls from them. This, the panel said, breached statutory guidance, including “Keeping Children Safe in Education”, and showed a disregard for established procedures designed to protect pupils, at a time when teachers are expected to act as role models and maintain clear professional boundaries at all times.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel identified a strong public interest in protecting pupils, maintaining confidence in the teaching profession, and upholding standards, and concluded that a prohibition order was proportionate given the seriousness of the misconduct — particularly the elements of dishonesty and the breach of trust. The Secretary of State’s representative accepted the panel’s findings and imposed the order, and the decision was endorsed on behalf of the Secretary of State, who said a ban was necessary to prevent future risk and maintain public confidence.

The panel also weighed mitigation. It noted that Dhorat was an early career teacher with no previous disciplinary record, that he had shown some remorse, and that he had cooperated with the investigation and made admissions to most of the allegations. In written evidence he apologised for his actions and said he had “learned from my mistakes”, telling the panel the case had had a significant impact on his personal and professional life. The panel found, however, that there was limited evidence he had developed sufficient understanding of safeguarding responsibilities since the incident, raising concerns about the risk of repetition.

Current Status

Dhorat is subject to a prohibition order preventing him from teaching indefinitely. The ruling means he cannot work in any school, sixth form college, or relevant youth setting in England. He can apply for the ban to be reviewed after four years, from March 2030, and at the time of the decision he had the right to appeal to the High Court within 28 days. The four-year review period, the panel said, reflects the seriousness of the case, particularly the sustained nature of the dishonest conduct.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The prohibition order ended Dhorat’s teaching career barely three years after it began in September 2021. His own account to the panel was that the case had had a significant impact on his personal and professional life, and he apologised and said he had “learned from my mistakes”. The case is a study in how concealment compounds boundary-crossing: the original decision to share a personal number arose, on the panel’s own finding, from concern for a pupil’s wellbeing, yet the requests that pupils “keep quiet” and deny his replies, the continued contact after explicit instructions to stop, and the failure to tell senior staff that pupils had his number converted a safeguarding lapse into a finding of a course of dishonest conduct that the panel treated as the decisive aggravating factor. Because the panel saw limited evidence of developed understanding of safeguarding responsibilities, the remorse and cooperation he offered did not produce a sanction short of a ban, and he remains barred from teaching in England at least until the review period opens in March 2030.