Dr Zara Merali

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Dr Zara Merali

Teacher reference number: 1557560

Teacher's date of birth: 28 December 1970

Location teacher worked: east of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 September 2022 to 13 September 2022

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Dr Zara Merali, formerly employed in east of England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Dr Zara Merali: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Dr Zara Merali Teacher ref number: 1557560 Teacher date of birth: 28 December 1970 TRA reference: 18554 Date of determination: 13 September 2022 Former employer: Steps Teachers Ltd Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 12 to 13 September 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Dr Zara Merali. The panel members were Mrs Valerie Purnell-Simpson (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist) and Mrs Christine Cunniffe (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Sam Haldane of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Andrew Cullen of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Dr Merali was not present and was not represented The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 13 July 2022. It was alleged that Dr Merali was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a supply teacher via Steps Teachers Ltd: 1. At Acle Academy (‘Academy 1’) in March 2019 on one or more occasions: a) She brought alcohol on to school premises; b) She consumed alcohol prior to and/or during teaching hours; and c) As a result of 1(b) or in any event, she was inappropriately inebriated during teaching hours. 2. At Attleborough Academy (‘Academy 2’) in May 2019 on one or more occasions: a) She brought alcohol on to school premises; b) She consumed alcohol prior to and/or during teaching hours; and c) As a result of 2(b) or in any event, she was inappropriately inebriated during teaching hours. d) She vaped: i. On school premises; and ii. During lesson periods. 3. She claimed to her employing agency and/or school(s) that her presentation resulting from 1(c) and/or 2(c) was the result of a medical condition and not associated with the consumption of alcohol when this was not the case. 4. Her conduct, as may be found proven at 3 above, was dishonest and/or lacked integrity Dr Merali provided no admission of fact. 5 Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Dr Merali was not present at the hearing nor was she represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Dr Merali. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to in it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Dr Merali in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel concluded that Dr Merali’s absence was voluntary and that she was aware that the matter would proceed in her absence. The panel noted that Dr Merali had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure her attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Dr Merali was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Dr Merali was neither present nor represented. The panel noted that since the date of the referral (15 July 2019) to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the ‘May 2020 Procedures’). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the Procedures apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: 6 • Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 5 to 7 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 9 to 15 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 17 to 45 • Section 4: Medico-legal report – pages 47 to 56 • Section 5: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 58 to 110 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Application to proceed in absence • Proceed in absence bundle • Letter to Dr Merali dated 5 September 2022 • Email delivery confirmation The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing, and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • [redacted] • [redacted] • [redacted] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Dr Merali began working as a supply teacher with Step Teachers Ltd (‘the Agency’) on 5 January 2017. On 1 November 2018, Dr Merali began a long term placement at Acle Academy which was due to end in July 2019. On 15 March 2019, concerns were raised about Dr Merali by [redacted] at Acle Academy to the Agency. Dr Merali’s placement was terminated. 7 On 19 March 2019, an informal meeting was held between Dr Merali and the Agency. As a result of the meeting Dr Merali was not offered further work and was given a leave of absence. On 10 April 2019, Dr Merali began working for the Agency again and later began working at Attleborough Academy on 9 May 2019. On 16 May 2019, Attleborough Academy reported concerns to the Agency that Dr Merali had been drinking alcohol on school premises during teaching hours. On May 23, 2019, an investigatory meeting took place between Dr Merali and the Agency. Thereafter the Agency contacted LADO to express their concerns. On 9 July 2019, as a result of LADO’s involvement, Dr Merali was asked to provide evidence of her reported medical conditions. Dr Merali initially agreed and later submitted that she was not willing to do so, and that she did not want to teach anymore. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. At Acle Academy (‘Academy 1’) in March 2019 on one or more occasions: a) You brought alcohol on to school premises; b) You consumed alcohol prior to and/or during teaching hours; and c) As a result of 1(b) or in any event, you were inappropriately inebriated during teaching hours. The panel noted the witness statement and oral evidence of [redacted]. [redacted] submitted that she did not work directly with Dr Merali but would encounter her during meetings with staff such as briefings. Once during a briefing, [redacted] noticed that Dr Merali was giggling, which seemed strange as there was nothing that appeared to be humorous. On a separate occasion, [redacted] thought that Dr Merali was overly concerned about something that had been said; Dr Merali’s response did not seem appropriate. On 8 March 2019, [redacted] observed Dr Merali teaching a lesson during an informal walk around the Academy. Dr Merali was teaching a lesson on the reproductive system and [redacted] noticed that the children were really laughing and giggling. [redacted] thought that the subject may have been the reason as children are often embarrassed by this topic. However, [redacted] submitted that Dr Merali was also inappropriately laughing; when the children were saying things like “willy”, she was bursting into laughter. [redacted] also observed that Dr Merali’s resource on the board did not relate to the 8 questions which she was asking. After the lesson [redacted] spoke to the head of department, [redacted], about her concerns. On 14 March 2019, there was a governor’s monitoring day. On the day, vice principal [redacted] went into Dr Merali’s lesson with a governor. [redacted] later reported to [redacted] that they observed the teaching assistant, [redacted], leading a dissection while Dr Merali was sitting in the corner eating a sandwich. [redacted] reported in that Governors’ meeting that Dr Merali was sitting in the doorway to a cupboard, not fully physically present in the room. It appeared that she was not monitoring the lesson. [redacted] was concerned about the Health & Safety implications of Dr Merali eating food in a science lab; that she was not monitoring the Health & Safety of the children; and that she had asked someone without Health & Safety training or appropriate level of teaching qualification to lead. Dr Merali was spoken to after the lesson; Dr Merali explained that because [redacted]