Miss Nadia Ali

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: Miss Nadia Ali

Teacher reference number: 1984275

Teacher's date of birth: 4 April 1981

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 and 13 December 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 Miss Nadia Ali, formerly employed in London, 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.

Miss Nadia Ali: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Nadia Ali Teacher ref number: 1984275 Teacher date of birth: 4 April 1981 TRA reference: 18794 Date of determination: 13 December 2022 Former employer: Trading as Ambassadors High School (London) Limited, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 12 and 13 December 2022, to consider the case of Miss Nadia Ali (“Miss Ali”). The panel members were Mrs Gemma Hutchinson (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist) and Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland International LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ben Chapman of Counsel. Miss Ali was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 4 October 2022. It was alleged that Miss Ali was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 12th September 2019 and at Westminster Magistrates’ Court she was convicted by the Chief magistrate of England and Wales for conducting an unregistered independent educational institution between 5th January 2018 and 19th July 2018 contrary to Section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 for which she was sentenced to a community order for 120 hours unpaid work requirement, £1000 costs and £85 victim surcharge. 2. On or around 23rd August 2021 and at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court she was convicted for conducting an unregistered independent educational institution between 8th September 2019 and 3rd March 2020 contrary to Section 96(2) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. 3. On or around 11th October 2021 and at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court she was found to have failed without reasonable excuse (by having failed to provide medical evidence for non-attendance for unpaid work) to comply with the requirements of the community order imposed for your conviction at Allegation 1 and, in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 8, that community order was revoked and she was sentenced in respect of her conviction at Allegation 2 and re-sentenced with regard of her conviction at Allegation 1 to 8 weeks imprisonment (suspended for 12 months), a 10 day rehabilitation activity requirement, a prohibited activity requirement not to take charge or have managerial responsibility for a school for 12 months, a 120 hour unpaid work requirement, £500 costs and £122 victim surcharge. In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations are not admitted. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. Initially, the panel sought clarification that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”), as the notice of proceedings was sent to Miss Ali via email and there was no evidence within the bundle that Miss Ali had requested that the documents be served via email. The TRA subsequently provided email correspondence from the TRA’s representative to the TRA dated 10 September 2020, confirming that Miss Ali had 5 requested to be contacted only via email. This correspondence set out Miss Ali’s email address. The panel noted that the notice of proceedings was sent to this same email address and were satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Regulations. The panel was also satisfied that the notice of proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1 that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive her right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1: i) The panel noted that Miss Ali had corresponded with the TRA’s representatives via the same email address on a number of occasions; the most recent occasion being 22 August 2022. The panel also heard evidence from the presenting officer that enquiries had been made to trace the teacher’s address during 2020 and had sight of email correspondence dated 10 September 2020, where the TRA’s representative stated that Miss Ali confirmed her address but requested to be contacted only via email. The panel noted that the hearing was previously adjourned on 2 occasions and was satisfied that the teacher was aware of the proceedings, having previously corresponded with the TRA’s representatives. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had adequate opportunity to receive and respond to the notice of proceedings and had chosen to waive her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. ii) The panel considered whether an adjournment may result in Miss Ali attending the hearing voluntarily. Given as the hearing was postponed on 2 previous occasions, the panel thought it unlikely that Miss Ali would voluntarily attend. There was no evidence that Miss Ali cooperated with the TRA’s process on previous occasions, although she responded sporadically with the TRA’s legal representatives. There was no indication that Miss Ali wished to postpone to obtain legal representation. 6 iii) The panel had the benefit of limited previous representations made by the teacher and was able to ascertain the lines of defence in response to a previous notice of proceedings. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. iv) The panel noted that Miss Ali did not respond to the notice of proceedings, sent via email on 4 October 2022. The panel noted that Miss Ali had on previous occasions given reasons as to why she had not been able to engage (i.e. due to medical conditions). The panel noted that there was no reason as to why Miss Ali could not have explained a reason for her absence during this hearing. v) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. vi) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The panel noted that the hearing was previously postponed on 2 occasions. vii) The panel noted that there are no witnesses to be called, and therefore the effect of delay on the memories of witnesses is not a factor to be taken into consideration in this case. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that by taking such measures referred to above to address any unfairness insofar as is possible, that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Jurisdiction The panel considered as a preliminary point whether the panel had jurisdiction to consider the case. It was unclear to the panel whether Miss Ali fell under the TRA’s disciplinary regime, based on the evidence before them and noted the ambiguity around the teaching status of Miss Ali. The panel was directed to paragraph 7 of the Regulations which states that a professional conduct panel must consider cases referred to it by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 5 of the Regulations is the provision that covers the referral by the Secretary of State to the panel, and cases only fall under the consideration of the Secretary of State if they involve a teacher. A teacher is defined in paragraph 2 of the Regulations as a person who is employed or engaged to carry out teaching work at a) a school in England; b) a sixth form college in 7 England; c) relevant youth accommodation in England; d) a children’s home in England; or e) when s53 of the Education Act 2011 is fully in force, a 16 to 19 Academy. Teaching work is defined in paragraph 3 of the Regulations as a) planning and preparing lessons and courses for pupils; b) de