The banning of former Marland School teacher Joseph Luttman from the classroom has brought renewed attention to safeguarding responsibilities within educational settings and the serious professional consequences of breaching them. The case centres on an incident at the Barnstaple school in which a pupil was physically removed from a classroom and thrown into an outdoor playground area, an act later deemed to be far beyond any acceptable standard of conduct.
Through admissions made by the teacher himself, corroborating CCTV footage, and findings by the Teaching Regulation Agency, the case outlines a clear sequence of events that ultimately led to an indefinite prohibition from teaching. It also raises significant questions about reporting procedures, institutional responses, and the duty of care owed to children by those entrusted with their education.
The classroom incident and immediate aftermath
The events that led to Joseph Luttman’s prohibition took place during a lesson at Marland School, where he was teaching at the time. According to agreed facts later submitted to regulators, two pupils, referred to as Pupil A and Pupil B, were chasing each other around the classroom. Mr Luttman admitted that he intervened physically, initially pushing Pupil A in a manner that caused the child to fall to the floor. After the pupil got back up, he pushed them again, this time into Pupil B on two separate occasions.
The situation escalated when Mr Luttman picked Pupil A up by the right arm and shoulder, using both arms to lift the child before throwing them through an open doorway into the playground or garden area outside the classroom. The pupil landed on their back. CCTV footage later reviewed by the Teaching Regulation Agency panel showed that the force used could not be considered reasonable or proportionate in any context. The footage played a crucial role in establishing the physical nature of the incident and in contradicting any suggestion that the contact was accidental or minimal.
Concerns were formally raised when Pupil A’s mother contacted the school on 7 September 2023, asking for an explanation of what had happened and questioning why she had not been asked to sign an accident form. The following day, she sent a further email alleging that her son had reported being hurt by a member of staff and that he had visible bruises, scrapes, and marks on his body and head.
These communications prompted a more serious response, including a multi-agency strategy meeting involving the school, the Local Authority Designated Officer, and the police. In the days following the incident, conflicting accounts emerged from within the school. An assistant head teacher responded to the mother’s concerns by stating that no accidents had been reported and suggesting that the closest explanation was a minor bump between Mr Luttman and the pupil in the garden, which allegedly caused no injury and was treated lightly at the time.
Read : 20-Year-Old Woman Gets Addicted to Drinking Petrol: “It Cures the Depression”
However, a subsequent email clarified that Mr Luttman had not formally reported any such bump and noted that when Pupil A attempted to inform his mother about what had happened, the teacher distracted him by tickling. This behaviour later became a significant factor in the professional misconduct findings.
Police involvement, admissions, and regulatory proceedings
As the investigation progressed, the seriousness of the incident became clearer. In January 2024, Mr Luttman accepted a police caution in relation to an assault by beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The caution related directly to his conduct towards Pupil A on the date of the incident. Acceptance of the caution amounted to an acknowledgement that his actions met the legal threshold for a criminal offence, even though the matter did not proceed to court.
Parallel to the police process, the Teaching Regulation Agency initiated professional misconduct proceedings. Mr Luttman requested that the allegations be considered without a formal hearing, a request that was agreed by the regulator. He provided a signed statement of agreed facts in which he admitted unacceptable professional conduct. This approach removed any dispute about the core events and allowed the panel to focus on the seriousness of the behaviour and the appropriate sanction.
In his statement, Mr Luttman confirmed the sequence of physical actions he had taken against Pupil A, including the initial push, the subsequent pushing into another pupil, and the act of lifting and throwing the child out of the classroom. He also admitted that when the pupil later tried to communicate with his mother about the incident while seated in a car, he poked and tickled the child. The Teaching Regulation Agency found this conduct particularly concerning, as it appeared to be an attempt to distract the pupil from reporting what had happened.
The panel concluded that Mr Luttman’s actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that could bring the teaching profession into disrepute. It found that he had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of teachers and had breached safeguarding guidance, including the statutory guidance set out in Keeping Children Safe in Education. The physical actions were described as threatening and intimidating, particularly given the imbalance of power between an adult teacher and a young child.
Safeguarding failures and the decision to prohibit teaching
Safeguarding considerations were central to the panel’s final decision. Teachers are permitted to use reasonable force in limited circumstances, such as to prevent injury or serious disruption, but the Teaching Regulation Agency made clear that the actions captured on CCTV went far beyond any such justification. The panel stated explicitly that Mr Luttman had not used reasonable force and that his behaviour posed a risk to pupils.
Read : Texas Teacher Kaci Spampinato Adopts Former Student’s Son After Facebook Plea for Help
The attempt to distract Pupil A from reporting the incident to his mother further undermined trust in Mr Luttman’s professional judgement. The panel found it inappropriate and inconsistent with safeguarding responsibilities, as it interfered with a child’s ability to disclose harm. This aspect of the case reinforced concerns about insight, accountability, and the likelihood of repetition.
In determining the sanction, the Teaching Regulation Agency considered aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the pupil, the deliberate nature of the physical actions, and the effort to minimise or conceal the incident afterwards. While Mr Luttman had admitted the facts and accepted a police caution, the panel concluded that these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct. The cumulative effect of the actions demonstrated a fundamental incompatibility with the role of a teacher.
As a result, Mr Luttman was prohibited from teaching indefinitely. The prohibition order specified that he would not be entitled to apply for the restoration of his eligibility to teach at any point in the future. This represents the most severe professional sanction available and reflects the panel’s view that public confidence in the profession, as well as the safety of pupils, required permanent exclusion from teaching.
The case serves as a stark reminder of the high standards imposed on those working with children and the consequences of breaching them. It also highlights the importance of transparent reporting, prompt safeguarding responses, and the role of regulatory bodies in upholding professional integrity within education.