Mr Adam Beg

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: Mr Adam Beg

Teacher reference number: 2283301

Teacher's date of birth: 27 September 1997

Location teacher worked: Barking, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 and 10 July 2024 and 16 and 17 September 2024.

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 Mr Adam Beg formerly employed in Barking, London.

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.

Mr Adam Beg: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2024 2 3 4 4 10 10 11 11 12 25 Contents Introduction Allegations Preliminary applications Summary of evidence Documents Witnesses Decisions and reasons Findings of fact P anel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 29 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Adam Beg Teacher ref number: 2283301 Teacher date of birth: 27 September 1997 TRA reference: 21567 Date of determination: 17 September 2024 Former employer: Greatfields School, Barking Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 and 10 July 2024, and on 16 and 17 September 2024, via virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Adam Beg. The panel members were Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Carl Lygo (lay panellist) and Mr Gerry Wadwa (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Harriet Dixon of QEB Hollis Whiteman, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Beg 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 hearing dated 25 April 2024. It was alleged that Mr Beg was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a Cover Supervisor at Greatfields School: 1. Between 5 January 2022 and 10 November 2022, he acted in an inappropriate manner towards Pupil A, in that he: a. Shared information about his personal life and/or relationship with his girlfriend; b. Asked Pupil A for her address; c. Asked Pupil A for a hug; d. Was unaccompanied with Pupil A on at least one occasion; e. Said “If you wasn’t my student I would hug you”, or words to that effect; f. Said he “don’t like condoms and prefer to take the risk”, or words to that effect; g. Said to Pupil A “I would like to take you to prom”, or words to that effect; 2. As a result of his conduct at paragraph 1a. – 1g., he did not maintain professional boundaries with Pupil A. 3. His conduct at paragraphs 1a. – 1g. was sexually motivated. The allegations were not admitted. The teacher did not admit that his conduct as alleged amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Beg. The panel was satisfied that the TRA complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). 5 The panel was also satisfied that the notice of hearing complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, updated May 2020 (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as 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. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took into account the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones:- (i) The panel was satisfied that the teacher was aware of the proceedings. The notice of hearing was sent to the teacher on 25 April 2024. The panel had sight of a written statement from the teacher dated 14 May 2024, in which the teacher stated that he was “writing this statement in lieu of attending in person [REDACTED].” Further, the panel also had sight of email correspondence between the TRA, and the teacher dated 9 July 2024. This correspondence related to an issue that had arisen on the first day of the hearing, whereby the teacher appeared to want to call a witness (Witness B) to give evidence at the hearing, despite indicating that he did not wish to attend the hearing himself. As a result, the TRA sent an email to the teacher at 10:46 on 9 July 2024, to advise the teacher that the usual course of these proceedings was for a party calling the witness to be present at the hearing and to ask questions of the witness. The TRA provided three options to the teacher: (a) the teacher to attend the hearing and call Witness B; (b) the teacher to not attend the hearing, in the knowledge that Witness B would be unlikely to be able to give evidence as a witness; or (c) the teacher to not attend the hearing, but to be given the opportunity to provide written representations as to why the witness should be called, which would then be for the panel to decide. 6 By his response at 10:54 on 9 July 2024, the teacher confirmed that he wished to proceed under option (c). The TRA also followed up, at 11:02, to ask the teacher if he understood the initial email. The teacher responded at 11:36, to confirm he understood the contents of the email. Therefore, in light of the above, the panel was satisfied that the teacher waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place; (ii) The panel was of the view that an adjournment would not result in the teacher attending voluntarily; (iii) The panel had the benefit of written representations made by the teacher and was able to ascertain the teacher’s position and lines of defence. The panel noted that all witnesses being relied upon by the TRA were to be called to give evidence, and the panel could test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to the teacher, as is reasonably available on the evidence; (iv) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching; (v) 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 conduct alleged was said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at Greatfields School (“the School”). Therefore, the School would have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards; and (vi) The panel also noted that there were witnesses present at the hearing, who were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient and potentially distressing for them to return again. Delaying the case would potentially impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; taking into account that an adjournment would unlikely result in the teacher’s attendance, and the inconvenience that an adjournment would cause to witnesses, that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in the hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing as listed. 7 Amendments to the allegations The panel considered an application made by the presenting officer to amend the notice of hearing, by making the following amendments: i. amending allegation 1, to state “Between 1 May 2022 and 10 November 2022”, instead of “Between 5 January 2022 and 10 November 2022”; and ii. amending allegation 1(c), to state “Invited Pupil A for a hug” instead of “Asked Pupil A for a hug.” The panel noted that it has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. Before making an amendment, the panel noted that it was required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher. The presenting officer made oral representations at the hearing. However, the presenting officer also confirmed that the teacher had not been made aware of the application to amend the allegations, in order to respond, but that it was the TRA’s position that the amendments were minor amendments that did not change the nature or scope of the allegations. The panel considered that the amendments proposed did not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. There was no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore, no unfairness or prejudice would be caused to the teacher. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegations as proposed. Application for the teacher to call a witness The panel received a request from the teacher to permit Witness B, (a former colleague of Mr Beg at the School, and also his friend) to give oral evidence at the hearing, in the teacher’s absence. The panel had previously determined to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understood from the presenting officer, that on Friday 5 July 2024, the teacher had contacted the TRA to request that Witness B attended the hearing. However, at this point, the presenting officer explained it was unclear whether the teacher’s request was for Witness B to attend as a witness of fact, as his representative in these proceedings, or as a silent observer. The TRA attempted to obtain clarification from the teacher in this respect, but this was not received prior to the commencement of the hearing. 8 On 9 July 2024, Witness B attended the main hearing room. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, both the presenting officer and the legal advisor spoke with Witness B to obtain clarification in respect of what she understood her reason for attending the hearing to be, and in what capacity she was attending. Witness B confirmed that she was intending to be both a factual and character witness for the teacher. It was after this conversation that the TRA wrote to the teacher to request further clarification, as set out above, and the teacher made a formal application to call Witness B as a witness at the hearing, in his absence. The teacher provided written representations on 9 July 2024 in support of his application to call Witness B in his absence from the hearing, which the panel considered. Within these representations, the teacher confirmed that Witness B was a former colleague at the School and had been a key witness to some of the events that occurred throughout the School’s investigation. The teacher also stated that Witness B was “ideally placed to support and discuss the evidence that [he had] supplied”. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer at the hearing. The presenting officer confirmed that the TRA did not oppose the teacher’s request for Witness B to give oral evidence at the hearing, and that the balance of fairness was in favour of the teacher as it would allow the panel to ascertain the teacher’s position. However, the presenting officer also raised concerns that the teacher appeared to express a wish for Witness B to provide ‘opinion’ evidence regarding the teacher’s own evidence in his representations provided to the panel, which should not be permitted, as Witness B should only be a witness of fact. The panel noted that the Procedures did not provide directions or guidance for when a teacher wishes to call a witness to give evidence at a hearing, where the teacher himself is not in attendance, and where the panel have decided to proceed in the teacher’s absence. However, the panel noted that paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures states that the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel also noted that paragraph 5.77 of the Procedures states that the procedure at a professional conduct panel hearing will be determined by the chair, who will direct the parties to adopt an investigative rather than an adversarial approach. In making its determination, the panel also considered the fairness to the teacher, the public interest in the efficient disposal of these proceedings, and the interests of justice. The panel noted that based upon the documents contained within the evidence bundle, the oral evidence of Witness B would be relevant to the allegations. The panel also noted that fairness to the teacher was paramount, and therefore, it was both fair and in the interests of justice to permit Witness B to give evidence orally. In particular, the panel had 9 identified areas of the case where they thought it would be beneficial to question Witness B, in order to understand the teacher’s position in more detail. Therefore, the panel agreed to the teacher’s request for Witness B to give evidence at the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel also noted the presenting officer’s concerns raised with regard to the scope of Witness B’s evidence, but considered that these concerns could be addressed by way of structured questioning from both the presenting officer and the panel, and that it would be made clear where necessary that the witness was a witness of fact and a character witness, and would not be permitted to provide opinion evidence in respect of the teacher’s own evidence. The panel permitted Witness B to give oral evidence at the hearing, in the absence of the teacher. Adjournment The panel considered a request from the teacher to adjourn the hearing until such time that Witness B was available to give oral evidence at the hearing. The panel confirmed its decision to permit Witness B to give oral evidence at the hearing, in the teacher’s absence, on 10 July 2024. Following this, the TRA contacted Witness B in order to request that she join the hearing in order to start giving evidence. The day prior, Witness B confirmed to the TRA that she would be available to give evidence on 10 July 2024. However, upon contacting Witness B, the TRA advised that Witness B was at the airport due to travel abroad. Witness B had advised that she would be able to find a quiet space at the airport, namely a disabled toilet space, in order to give her evidence and that she had thought she was able to still give evidence in this way. However, the panel considered the usual guidance for witnesses in these types of proceedings, which is that they must give evidence from a secure and quiet environment, where they are unlikely to be disturbed. The panel did not consider a disabled toilet space at an airport to meet this criteria and was of the view that in order for Witness B to be able to provide the best evidence possible, it would not be appropriate for Witness B to provide evidence whilst at the airport at all. Therefore, it was noted that Witness B was no longer available to give oral evidence at the hearing during the dates it was listed. Upon the TRA communicating this to the teacher, the teacher requested that the hearing be adjourned until Witness B’s return from abroad. The teacher stated that Witness B was unavailable until 18 July 2024, and that he did not realise her holiday would clash with the hearing dates. The panel noted that paragraph 5.51 of the Procedures states that the panel may, after a professional conduct panel hearing has been commenced, adjourn a hearing at any time 10 for such period as it thinks fit, if it is in the interests of justice to do so. The panel also noted that, in accordance with paragraph 5.53 of the Procedures, all parties must have been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the matter, before a hearing can be adjourned. The panel heard oral representations from the presenting officer, who did not oppose the teacher’s request. The presenting officer confirmed that the TRA did not deem the teacher’s request to be unreasonable, and that it would be in the interests of fairness to the teacher for the hearing to be adjourned until such time as his witness was available to give evidence. Taking into account the fact that the request was not opposed, and that the panel had previously found fairness to the teacher to be paramount in permitting Witness B to provide oral evidence at the hearing, the panel found it to be in the interests of justice to adjourn the hearing until a later date, when Witness B would be available to give evidence as a witness. The hearing was therefore adjourned. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and key people list – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 12 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 13 to 20 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 21 to 174 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 175 to 182 In addition, the panel received the following documents which were considered as part of the preliminary applications: Annex 1: email correspondence between the TRA and Mr Beg dated 9 July 2024, including an email from Mr Beg at 10:54; Annex 2: email correspondence between the TRA and Mr Beg dated 9 July 2024, including an email from Mr Beg at 11:36; 11 Annex 3: email correspondence between the TRA and Mr Beg dated 9 July 2024, including an email from Mr Beg at 11:37; and Annex 4: written representations from the teacher as part of the teacher’s request for Witness B to give evidence at the hearing. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, and the additional documents at Annexes 1 to 4 of the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses, called by the TRA: 1. Mother A – Pupil A’s mother; and 2. Witness A – [REDACTED]. The panel also heard oral evidence from the following witness, called on behalf of the teacher, who was not present at the hearing: 3. Witness B – [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. On 5 January 2022, Mr Beg commenced employment at the School as a cover supervisor. On 9 November 2022, Mother A (the parent of Pupil A) reported Mr Beg to the police, making a series of allegations following a disclosure from Pupil A that Mr Beg was making her feel uncomfortable. On 10 November 2022, both Pupil A and Mother A attended the School to report the allegations and to confirm that Mr Beg had been reported to the police. On the same date, Mr Beg was suspended and the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) was informed. On 10 November 2022, Mr Beg resigned from his position with immediate effect. On 11 November 2022, after having been given a period of reflection, Mr Beg confirmed that he still wished to resign from his position. A LADO meeting took place on 14 November 2022. 12 On 18 November 2022, the police confirmed that no action was being taken against Mr Beg. On 21 November 2022, the School commenced an internal disciplinary investigation. In January 2023, the investigation was concluded. On 10 February 2023, a disciplinary hearing took place. On 3 March 2023, Mr Beg was referred to the TRA. 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. Between 1 May 2022 and 10 November 2022, you acted in an inappropriate manner towards Pupil A, in that you: a. Shared information about your personal life and/or relationship with your girlfriend; Mother A explained to the panel that Pupil A first raised concerns to her about Mr Beg’s behaviour in May 2022. In particular, Pupil A stated that Mr Beg kept letting her skip the lunch line and would let her go straight to the front if he saw her queuing up. There were also other concerns raised, such as that Mr Beg would invite Pupil A into his classroom [REDACTED] where they would be alone, and that Mr Beg had been submitting positive referrals for Pupil A via [REDACTED], an app for parents where teachers could add positive referrals or let parents know if a pupil had misbehaved, despite him not having taught Pupil A in any subject. Mother A explained that she had started to notice a change in Pupil A’s behaviour, which had got worse following her return to school after the summer holidays. In particular, Mother A stated that Pupil A became very withdrawn, she was not interested in anything, she had stopped [REDACTED] even though she was a keen [REDACTED], and she would come home from school and go straight to her bedroom. Mother A explained that, on the evening of 9 November 2022, Pupil A “broke down” to Mother A, and disclosed various comments that Mr Beg had made to her which had made her feel uncomfortable. Mother A explained that she contacted the police that evening, and two female police officers attended their home and took a statement from Pupil A. Mother A explained that she had also made a handwritten note of everything that Pupil A had disclosed to her throughout that evening. Witness A confirmed that on 10 November 2022, Pupil A and Mother A attended the School to discuss Mr Beg. Witness A explained that Pupil A and Mother A had outlined a 13 total of 17 different examples of incidents involving Pupil A and Mr Beg, that they had written down on a piece of paper. The panel had sight of the handwritten note prepared by Mother A, which was appended to the School’s investigation report prepared by Witness A. The handwritten note included the following disclosure: “[REDACTED] he will ask Pupil A if she wants to go in his room to talk [REDACTED] but mentions his g/f & talks about cheating and his personal stuff (showing photo’s [sic] asking questions)”. The panel had sight of the full investigation report, in which Witness A also recorded the following notes from the meeting: “Pupil A said that [REDACTED], [Mr Beg] would invite her into A11 [REDACTED] to talk [REDACTED]. This happened on more than one occasion. On one occasion, [Pupil A] said that [Witness B] was also present. When Pupil A was in the room with [Mr Beg] he would talk about his girlfriend, says he would cheat on her. He showed Pupil A some photos of her.” The panel had sight of the police case summary, and also a summary of Pupil A’s statement that she provided to the police, which were prepared and provided to the TRA by the police for this hearing. In her statement to the police, Pupil A explained [REDACTED] that Mr Beg would call her into his classroom [REDACTED] and “tell her about his relationship with his partner”. In particular, Pupil A stated that the excuse for getting her into his classroom was to talk [REDACTED], however, once she was in the classroom [REDACTED] Mr Beg would “bring up the fact that he cheats on his girlfriend”, he would show Pupil A pictures of his girlfriend and would state that “he would cheat on his girlfriend if someone better comes along.” The panel noted that all of the evidence of Pupil A’s complaint was hearsay evidence. The panel noted from the witness statement of Mother A that Pupil A was not willing to provide a further statement for the TRA, [REDACTED]. The panel presumed that this was also the reason for Pupil A’s non-attendance at the hearing. The panel decided to admit the evidence on the basis that it was relevant to the allegations and that it was fair to do so, particularly given that there were differing accounts. The panel considered the reliability of the evidence. The panel noted that Pupil A had given a consistent account during the different reports that she made; in her disclosure to Mother A, her report to Witness A at the School, and in her statement to the police. As a result, the panel applied more weight to this evidence and found it to be demonstrably reliable. The panel heard oral evidence from Witness B. Witness B confirmed to the panel that on one occasion, she had been present in the classroom with Mr Beg and Pupil A. Witness B confirmed that she had never witnessed Mr Beg discuss anything that would not usually be discussed between a teacher and a pupil with Pupil A or any other pupil. The panel did not hear oral evidence from Mr Beg at the hearing. The panel did have sight of Mr Beg’s written statement provided to the School in response to the allegations on 2 December 2022. In this statement, Mr Beg stated that: “I do not discuss my personal 14 relationship with learners, but [Witness B] and I did discuss our plans for the weekend.” The panel noted that this allegation was not addressed by Mr Beg in his written representations provided to the TRA in lieu of attending in person, other than by reference to all allegations being “persistently refuted”. The panel noted that Pupil A was a vulnerable student, [REDACTED]. However, the panel also heard from Witness A that Pupil A had settled into the School well. The panel also noted that the allegations raised by Pupil A were very specific. Overall, the panel found that it could not see a viable reason for Pupil A having fabricated this allegation against Mr Beg. The panel also considered the context in which the allegation was made. The panel noted that there had been a previous complaint with regard to Mr Beg’s conduct between May 2022 and November 2022, that also involved Pupil A. In particular, the panel had sight of an email dated 6 July 2022, from another member of staff (“Teacher A”) to the headteacher at the School. The email stated that: “I just wanted to make you aware that I have observed [Mr Beg] spending a lot of his time talking with [REDACTED], particularly [Pupil A]. This is mainly during break times, but occasionally before and after school I have seen him approach her and her group of friends to chat for up to 5 minutes. Quite often he will ‘spud’ [Pupil A] before he leaves.” The email also stated: “I am in no way accusing him of anything, and I have never seen anything that would need safeguarding, but I felt like I needed to make you aware.” The panel had sight of the minutes of a LADO meeting that took place on 14 November 2022, in which it was noted that Mr Beg had previously been directed that “spudding students was inappropriate, and he should not appear to be overly friendly with students”. The panel also noted from the investigation report that one of the complaints raised by Pupil A to Witness A was that Mr Beg “kept asking if she would like to see his tattoos”. This was addressed by Mr Beg in his written statement provided to the School on 2 December 2022, in which he stated that Pupil A had shown him a drawing that she had done which resembled his tattoo, and so he compared the drawing with his tattoo. Overall, the panel found that Mr Beg appeared to exhibit a pattern of overly familiar behaviour with pupils, particularly Pupil A, and did also talk about aspects of his personal life, such as his tattoo (albeit this did not appear to be in an inappropriate manner). In light of this wider context, together with Pupil A’s consistent account of events, the panel found that it was more likely than not that Mr Beg had shared information about his personal life and/or relationship with his girlfriend to Pupil A, in the manner described by Pupil A. The panel found it to be highly inappropriate for teachers to be discussing their personal lives and/or personal relationships with pupils. The panel also found it to be inappropriate that Mr Beg would discuss “cheating” on his partner with a pupil, which went far beyond the expected scope of an appropriate teacher-pupil conversation. 15 The panel found this allegation proven. b. Asked Pupil A for her address; The panel noted that the handwritten note prepared by Mother A, on behalf of Pupil A, also stated that Mr Beg “asks for address or whereabouts”. The panel noted it was also recorded in the investigation report by Witness A that Pupil A stated that “[Mr Beg] kept asking for her address”. In Mr Beg’s written statement provided to the School, he stated that: “I have never asked any students for their address”. The panel admitted the statements of both Mr Beg and Pupil A, as they were relevant to the allegation, and it was fair to do so given the differing accounts. The panel noted that it did not have sight of any additional evidence in respect of this allegation, and so it was only able to consider the hearsay evidence available. The panel considered the credibility of Pupil A’s account. The panel noted that Pupil A was not recorded as having reported this particular allegation to the police, but that her report to Witness A was consistent with Mother A’s handwritten note. The panel could not find a viable reason as to why Pupil A would fabricate this allegation. The panel found Pupil A’s account to be more credible than that of Mr Beg. The panel also considered the context of the allegation which had been revealed by the contemporaneous documentation in the bundle. The panel found that in light of Mr Beg’s overly familiar relationship with Pupil A which had previously been reported, and the fact that Mr Beg did discuss personal things with Pupil A, it was more likely than not that Mr Beg had asked for Pupil A’s address. The panel found that a teacher singling one pupil out (particularly a vulnerable pupil) and asking them for their address was inappropriate. The panel found this allegation proven. c. Invited Pupil A for a hug; The panel noted that this allegation was not recorded by Mother A in her handwritten note, and that Pupil A did not disclose this during her discussion with Witness A on 10 November 2022. However, the panel noted that Pupil A did report this incident to the police. In particular, Pupil A is recorded in the police case summary as describing the following incident: “[Pupil A] had told [Mr Beg] about a boy she liked at school in an attempt to create some distance, however she advised this angered him and he dissuaded her from taking an interest in him. [Pupil A] stated that during this conversation when she attempted to leave the classroom, [Mr Beg] opened his arms implying that he wanted a hug from her. [Pupil A] took a step back and left the room”. 16 The summary of Pupil A’s police statement also recorded the following: “[Pupil A] said that 2 weeks ago, Mr Beg asked her if she liked any boys in school and she said yes she likes a boy. [Pupil A] said this to discourage Mr Beg but instead Mr Beg then brought up the class chart and showed [Pupil A] things he regarded as negative points about the boy to dissuade her from getting involved with him. He then went on to tell [Pupil A] to stop seeing him. [Pupil A] said that as she went to leave the class, he opened his arms as if he was going to hug. [Pupil A] took a step back and then once again tried to leave the class. As she did so, Mr Beg opened his arms again but [Pupil A] asked what he was doing and then walked out of the room.” The panel admitted the statement made by Pupil A to the police, which was hearsay evidence, on the basis that it was relevant to the allegation and fair to do so. The panel noted that Pupil A’s statement was the sole and decisive evidence in respect of this allegation. The panel again noted the concerns that had previously been raised with regard to Mr Beg “spudding” (fist-bumping) Pupil A and being overly friendly with her. The panel also noted that in the investigation report, Pupil A was recorded as having disclosed the following incident to Witness A: “before the summer holidays [Mr Beg] used to high five her in school. This stopped before the summer holidays, but after the holiday he started doing it on the street after school.” The panel noted from the investigation report that “Pupil B confirmed this as a witness.” The panel found that again this exhibited a pattern of behaviour where Mr Beg was acting in an overly familiar manner towards Pupil A, and that this had now been witnessed by two separate individuals, namely Teacher A and Pupil B. Having considered all of the circumstances of the case, and the contemporaneous documentation available, the panel found the hearsay evidence of Pupil A to be demonstrably reliable. The panel noted that in Mr Beg’s written statement provided to the School on 2 December 2022, he stated that he had never asked to hug students. However, the incident as described by Pupil A had not been specifically addressed by Mr Beg, either in his statement provided to the School or his representations for this hearing. The panel noted that the allegation and the incident described by Pupil A was very specific, and that it could not find any reason for the allegation being fabricated by Pupil A. In light of Mr Beg’s overall inappropriate behaviour towards Pupil A, and Pupil A’s detailed account, the panel found it more likely than not that Mr Beg invited Pupil A for a hug. The panel found that inviting a pupil for a hug was extremely inappropriate for a teacher, as it crossed the boundary of a teacher-pupil relationship. The panel also noted that Mr Beg’s behaviour breached the School’s code of conduct, which states that: “All staff must also avoid putting themselves at risk of allegations of abusive or unprofessional conduct.” The panel found this allegation proven. 17 d. Were unaccompanied with Pupil A on at least one occasion; [REDACTED]. Mother A explained that Pupil A told her that Mr Beg’s classroom was next door [REDACTED], and he would often invite Pupil A into the classroom [REDACTED] if he had a free period, so it would be just him and her in the classroom alone together. Mother A explained that she felt this was strange behaviour and offered to report it to the School on behalf of Pupil A, but that Pupil A refused saying that she did not want to cause a fuss as she was relatively new at the School. The panel noted that as set out in the handwritten note prepared by Mother A, Pupil A had disclosed that: “[REDACTED] he will ask [Pupil A] if she wants to go in his room to talk [REDACTED] …” The panel noted that in the police case summary, Pupil A was recorded as stating that [REDACTED], Mr Beg would call her into his classroom. The summary also stated that “[Mr Beg] then asked her to come into his classroom alone every day to engage in conversation with her.” As set out in the summary of her police statement, Pupil A was also asked how often Mr Beg would get her into his classroom alone, and Pupil A stated that it “happened every day” and that “as long as she was in school, he would pull her aside.” The panel noted this evidence was hearsay evidence but admitted it on the basis that it was relevant to the allegations, and it was fair to do so. The panel noted that Pupil A provided a consistent account at all stages; during her meeting with Witness A and when giving her statement to the police. As a result, the panel found the evidence to be demonstrably reliable. In his written statement provided to the School on 2 December 2022, Mr Beg stated that the only time he had a 1:1 with Pupil A was when Pupil A wanted to meet with him in the head of year office when he was acting assistant head of year. Mr Beg also stated that he had recorded the topics discussed [REDACTED] and spoke to another member of staff about the entry to confirm that he had recorded it correctly. Mr Beg repeated this in his written representations for the hearing and stated that it was Pupil A that had initiated this meeting by asking him if they could meet to discuss something personal. Mr Beg also described an occasion where Pupil A was in Mr Beg’s classroom. Mr Beg stated that Witness B had helped him to gather boxes to store exercise books, and that Pupil A had then sat in the classroom, where Witness B was present. The panel had sight of Witness B’s witness statement dated 14 May 2024. In this statement, Witness B explained that on one occasion, she had been supporting Mr Beg with organising the classroom, and that Pupil A had just come out of a session [REDACTED] and was sitting at a desk opposite Mr Beg’s teaching desk. During her oral testimony, Witness B confirmed that she could recall this occasion where Pupil A was present in Mr Beg’s classroom. However, Witness B also confirmed that she 18 was “in and out” of the classroom during this time. Witness B also stated that she could not remember if Pupil A was already alone with Mr Beg in the classroom, when she first entered. Witness B also accepted that her free periods would not always line up with Mr Beg’s free periods, and so she would not always have been in Mr Beg’s classroom when Mr Beg was not teaching. Witness B also stated that she did not know if there were other occasions where Mr Beg was left alone with Pupil A. The panel had sight of a note taken by Witness A of a conversation that he had with Witness B by telephone on 24 November 2024, to discuss the allegation in more detail. Within this note, Witness B is recorded as having stated that she had been in the room (A11) with Mr Beg and Pupil A, and that she did “not notice anything untoward.” The panel also had sight of a further note, prepared by Witness A, of a follow-up conversation between Witness A and Witness B. During this conversation, Witness A recorded that he asked Witness B: “Do you recall a meeting in A11 where you [Mr Beg] and [Pupil A] were present?” In her response, Witness B is recorded as having stated: “Yes, I was helping with his room; this was maybe in October. I came into the room at breaktime and [Mr Beg] was at the desk and Pupil A was already in there. I was popping in and out. I am not sure who left the room first, I do not remember”. During her oral testimony, Witness B confirmed that this note appeared to be an accurate reflection of the discussion that took place. The panel also noted that in Witness A’s witness statement dated 22 January 2024, Witness A stated that in a later conversation with Witness B, she was able to confirm that Mr Beg had on several occasions been left alone in the classroom with Pupil A. However, Witness B stated that she could not recall this conversation. The panel found that Witness B’s evidence contradicted evidence that had previously been provided by Mr Beg, as Witness B appeared to confirm to Witness A that Mr Beg and Pupil A were unaccompanied in the classroom together before she entered the room. During her oral testimony, Witness B also accepted that she had been “in and out” of the classroom. As a result, the panel found that Pupil A and Mr Beg would have been unaccompanied in the classroom, on at least one occasion, whilst Witness B had left the room. The panel noted that Witness B did not appear to address the fact that she had been “in and out” of the room in her most recent statement on 14 May 2024. The panel also noted that Witness B confirmed that she was still a friend of Witness A, as opposed to just being a former colleague. Therefore, the panel found the contemporaneous notes of Witness A’s conversations with Witness B, and Pupil A’s contemporaneous account of this allegation to Witness A and the police, to be more reliable than Witness B’s more recent statement and oral testimony. In light of Pupil A’s consistent account of events, Witness B having previously confirmed that Pupil A had been present once she entered the classroom and Witness B confirming 19 to the panel that she had left the room on at least one occasion when Mr Beg and Pupil A were still present, the panel found it was more likely than not that Mr Beg was unaccompanied with Pupil A on at least one occasion. The panel found this to be inappropriate as Pupil A was a vulnerable student, and Mr Beg was also aware of Pupil A’s vulnerabilities and should have been particularly cautious not to be alone with Pupil A. The panel also noted that concerns had previously been raised in respect of Mr Beg’s behaviour towards Pupil A, and so again, it was inappropriate for Mr Beg to be having unaccompanied meetings with Pupil A. The panel noted that Mr Beg appeared to use his position of trust in order to initiate unaccompanied meetings with Pupil A, to discuss personal aspects of [REDACTED] Mr Beg’s personal life. Overall, the panel found Mr Beg’s behaviour to be inappropriate. The panel found this allegation to be proven. e. Said “if you wasn’t my student I would hug you”, or words to that effect; The panel noted that the handwritten note prepared by Mother A on behalf of Pupil A stated: “He said “If you wasn’t my student I’d hug you!”. The panel noted that in the police case summary, it was recorded that Pupil A had stated that Mr Beg would “continue to talk about hugging [Pupil A].” The panel also noted that Mr Beg did not address this allegation either in his written statement provided to the School, or in his written representations for the hearing. The panel noted that the handwritten note of Pupil A’s complaint was hearsay evidence, and decided to admit it on the basis that it was relevant to the allegation and fair to do so. The panel found the evidence to be demonstrably reliable, as Pupil A had provided a consistent account to both Witness A and the police (albeit worded in a slightly different way). The panel found that it did not have any reason to doubt Pupil A’s account, particularly given the lack of an alternative account of events from Mr Beg. Having found that Mr Beg exhibited a pattern of overly familiar behaviour with Pupil A, the panel found it more likely than not that Mr Beg said these words to Pupil A. The panel found this to be very inappropriate, particularly as Pupil A was a vulnerable student. The panel noted that Mr Beg would have been aware of Pupil A’s vulnerabilities, and was also aware that he would need to be careful with Pupil A, as he was previously told to stop being over-friendly and to stop “spudding” Pupil A. The panel found this allegation to be proven. f. Said you “don’t like condoms and prefer to take the risk”, or words to that effect; The panel noted that the handwritten note prepared by Mother A on behalf of Pupil A stated: “He said (3+ weeks) next lesson he was teaching younger years about sex & 20 protection using condoms, but i wouldn’t wear them and take the risk”. In the investigation report, Pupil A was recorded as telling Witness A that Mr Beg told her “that he had been teaching younger students about sex in civics. He said that he was teaching them about sex and protection. He went on to tell her that he would not wear a condom with his girlfriend, he would rather take the risk.” Pupil A also reported this allegation to the police. The police case summary recorded that “[Mr Beg] has also discussed his sexual preferences with [Pupil A] stating that he would prefer not to use a condom …” The summary of Pupil A’s police interview also stated that Mr Beg had told Pupil A that “he would be teaching a younger cohort about sex protection and condoms. He told [Pupil A] he doesn’t like condoms and prefers to “take the risk””. The panel noted that the evidence of Pupil A’s complaint to both Witness A and the police was hearsay evidence. The panel decided to admit it, on the basis that it was relevant to the allegation, and it was fair to do so. The panel noted that Pupil A’s account was the sole and decisive evidence in respect of this allegation. However, the panel found this evidence to be demonstrably reliable, on the basis that Pupil A’s account was consistent across the different reports made to Witness A and the police. The panel also found the allegation to be so specific that it would be very odd for Pupil A to have fabricated this. In any event, the panel did not have any reason to believe that this was fabricated by Pupil A. The panel noted that Mr Beg did not address this allegation, either in his written statement to the School or in his written representations for the hearing. The panel noted it had already found that Mr Beg had engaged in a pattern of making inappropriate comments to Pupil A, including in respect of his personal relationship where he stated he would “cheat” on his girlfriend. In light of this behaviour, and given Pupil A’s consistent and reliable account, the panel found it was more likely than not that Mr Beg made a comment to this effect to Pupil A. The panel found Mr Beg’s behaviour to be extremely inappropriate in the context of a teacher-pupil relationship. The panel could not see any circumstances in which it would be acceptable for a teacher to make such a comment to any pupil or child. The panel also found that Mr Beg’s behaviour clearly breached the School’s code of conduct, which stated that: “All staff set examples of behaviour and conduct which can be copied by students. All staff must, therefore, demonstrate high standards of conduct in order to encourage students to do the same.” The panel found this allegation to be proven. 2. As a result of your conduct at paragraphs 1a. – 1g., you did not maintain professional boundaries with Pupil A. Having found allegations 1(a) – (f) proven, the panel went on to consider whether Mr Beg failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil A. 21 The panel found that Mr Beg had initiated several 1:1 sessions with Pupil A, who was a vulnerable student, and had discussed personal information relating to Pupil A. The panel noted that, whilst Mr Beg was acting as assistant head of year at the School and that his role may have meant that he had additional interactions with students, he was not trained or qualified to discuss aspects of Pupil A’s private life [REDACTED]with Pupil A. The panel found that in any event, it was inappropriate to discuss this with Pupil A, as it would have been highly confidential. The panel found that this went far beyond Mr Beg’s role, and as a result, it was a breach of the appropriate professional boundaries. The panel noted that Mr Beg also failed to act in accordance with the School’s code of conduct, which stated: “Staff and governors should be careful when alone with students. They should consider leaving a door open or ask for someone to sit in if concerned about an interview.” The panel also found that Mr Beg failed to maintain professional boundaries by discussing his own personal life with Pupil A. The panel noted that the topics of conversation discussed by Mr Beg, such as his girlfriend, and his sexual preferences, were extremely inappropriate and not suitable for a conversation between a teacher and a pupil. The panel noted that Mr Beg appeared to be trying to facilitate a friendly relationship with Pupil A, by initiating these conversations, which went beyond those expected of a teacher-pupil relationship. The panel also found that making a reference to hugging Pupil A, and inviting Pupil A for a hug, went far beyond the boundary of a teacher-pupil relationship. The panel noted that Mr Beg had previously been warned about being over-friendly with pupils, and in particular Pupil A, but seemed to ignore this warning. The panel found that Mr Beg exhibited a pattern of engaging in overly familiar behaviour and conversations with Pupil A and appeared to single Pupil A out specifically (as witnessed by Teacher A and also Pupil B). The panel found that in doing so, Mr Beg failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil A. The panel found this allegation proven. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proved, for these reasons: 1. Between 1 May 2022 and 10 November 2022, you acted in an inappropriate manner towards Pupil A, in that you: g. Said to Pupil A “I would like to take you to prom”, or words to that effect; The panel noted that the handwritten note prepared by Mother A on behalf of Pupil A stated that Mr Beg had “Told [Pupil A] he was going to leave Greatfields but said he’s staying on so he can see her go to prom.” 22 In the School’s investigation notes, Pupil A was recorded as stating to Witness A that “[Mr Beg] told her he was planning on leaving Greatfields but said that he was staying on as he wanted to go to the prom and see her.” The summary of the police interview stated that Mr Beg had: “also mentioned that he wanted to take her to prom.” The panel decided to admit the evidence of Pupil A’s complaint as hearsay evidence, as it was relevant to the allegation, and it was fair to do so. The panel noted that this was the sole and decisive evidence. However, the panel noted that it could not find that the evidence was demonstrably reliable. In particular, the panel noted that Pupil A’s account to the police was inconsistent with the account provided to Witness A. The panel found that whilst Mr Beg may have told Pupil A that he wanted to “see her at the prom”, this was substantially different from him stating: “I would like to take you to prom” and did not constitute “words to that effect”. The panel found that the intentions behind both phrases were significantly different, and in particular, noted that Mr Beg wanting to “see” Pupil A “at the prom” was not necessarily inappropriate. The panel noted that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Beg explicitly said to Pupil A that he wanted to take her to the prom, or words to that effect. The panel found this allegation not proven. 3. Your conduct at paragraphs 1a. – 1g. was sexually motivated. The panel considered the definition of sexual under section 78 (1)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as was adopted in the case of GMC v Haris [2020] EWHC 158. The panel acknowledged that some of the language used by Mr Beg, particularly when talking about using condoms and his sexual preferences, could be considered sexual or of a sexual nature. However, the panel went on to consider the circumstances of the case, and whether it could infer that the teacher’s purpose behind his words and/or actions in respect of allegations 1(a) – (f) was sexual. The panel found that whilst Mr Beg failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil A, there was a strong consideration that Mr Beg was trying to establish a friendship with Pupil A, rather than a sexual relationship. In particular, the panel noted that in Teacher A’s email dated 6 July 2022, in which she raised concerns about Mr Beg, Teacher A also stated that: “I know he is a very friendly man, but I am finding it quite difficult to disengage with him when I am on duty or in breakfast club. He will try to speak to me for a very long time when I am supposed to be supervising students, and it is becoming difficult to tolerate.” The panel noted that Mr Beg may have had a tendency to be over- familiar with others, including members of staff, and that he appeared to have difficulty in establishing professional relationships. 23 The panel noted that Pupil A felt uncomfortable by Mr Beg’s actions, and that as a result, she stopped wearing a skirt to school. The panel considered Pupil A’s account very carefully. However, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case, the panel found that there was insufficient evidence to infer that the purpose behind Mr Beg’s words and/or actions as found proven at allegations 1(a) – (f) was sexual. Therefore, the panel could not find that it was more likely than not that the teacher’s conduct at paragraphs 1(a) – (f) was sexually motivated. The panel found this allegation not proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Beg, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Beg was in breach of the following standards: Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach ... Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Beg, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mr Beg failed to have an understanding of his safeguarding roles and responsibilities, and also failed to have an awareness of safeguarding issues that can put children at risk of harm. The panel noted from Mother A’s witness statement dated 20 December 2023, that [REDACTED], Pupil A was not able to continue to attend the School, as she no longer felt safe there, and she had to move to a different school. 24 [REDACTED] As a result, the panel found that Mr Beg’s actions placed Pupil A at risk and demonstrated a clear failure to understand the safeguarding concerns that had been raised. The panel noted that, whilst Mr Beg was not a qualified teacher and was employed as a Cover Supervisor, Mr Beg did undertake “teaching work” as defined under paragraph 3 of the Regulations, as he planned and prepared lessons and courses for pupils, and delivered lessons to pupils independently, in accordance with the job description. Therefore, the panel treated Mr Beg as a “teacher”, having been employed by the School to carry out teaching work, for the purposes of these proceedings. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Beg fell significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. The panel also considered whether Mr Beg’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that none of these offences was relevant. The panel found Mr Beg’s misconduct to be serious. The panel noted that Mr Beg had failed to maintain professional boundaries with a pupil on multiple occasions, despite knowing that Pupil A was extremely vulnerable [REDACTED]. The panel found that Mr Beg exploited his position of trust as a teacher, in order to facilitate an overly familiar relationship with Pupil A that went beyond that of a teacher-pupil relationship (albeit the panel noted that it did not find there was any sexual or malign intent behind this behaviour). Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Beg was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others, the responsibilities and duties of teachers in relation to the safeguarding and welfare of pupils and considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The panel also considered whether Mr Beg’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that none of these offences was relevant. The panel considered that Mr Beg’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. The panel therefore found that Mr Beg’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 25 Having found the facts of particulars 1(a) – (f) and 2 proved, the panel further found that Mr Beg’s conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Mr Beg and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Beg, which involved finding that Mr Beg failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A by making inappropriate comments towards her, inviting her for a hug, and being unaccompanied with her on at least one occasion, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of an inappropriate relationship with a child (albeit not a sexual one). Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Beg were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Beg was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Whilst there was evidence that Mr Beg had ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweighed any interest in retaining Mr Beg in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, and he sought to exploit his position of trust. 26 The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a panel will likely consider a teacher’s behaviour to be incompatible with being a teacher if there is evidence of one or more of the factors that begin on page 15. In the list of such factors, those that were relevant in this case were: serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils); failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE). Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, taking account of the public interest and the seriousness of the behaviour and the likely harm to the public interest were the teacher be allowed to continue to teach, the panel went on to consider the mitigation offered by the teacher and/or whether there were mitigating circumstances. There was no evidence that Mr Beg’s actions were not deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Beg was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. The panel had sight of mitigation evidence provided by the teacher in the hearing bundle. In particular, the panel had sight of a character statement from a former colleague of Mr Beg at the School, which stated that: “[Mr Beg] had a good rapport with all of the students across the school” and that “he always asked for support when needed and supported the school at all times”. The panel had also heard from Witness B at the hearing that Mr Beg worked extremely hard for the School, and he went above and beyond. In particular Witness B stated that Mr Beg would stay late after work and would arrive earlier in the morning to complete lessons, and that he took his responsibilities really seriously. The panel also noted that Mr Beg’s efforts at the School did not appear to go unnoticed, as Mr Beg was appointed as acting assistant head of year and was encouraged to apply for the position permanently. 27 The panel also had sight of cards that had been written by pupils to Mr Beg as part of an initiative at the School, which had involved pupils writing postcards of appreciation to staff. The cards included messages to Mr Beg such as “thank you for being the best teacher in the world…”, “thank you for all the amazing lessons you have covered for me and my class”, “thank you for being very kind to me”, and “thank you for being a good cover teacher”. The panel also noted that Mr Beg had not been previously subject to disciplinary proceedings. Whilst the panel accepted that Mr Beg did have a previously good history, the panel did not find that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Beg had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both his personal and professional conduct, or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. Notwithstanding the mitigation evidence provided, the panel had serious concerns in respect of Mr Beg’s lack of insight and remorse. The panel noted that Mr Beg had continued to deny all of the allegations against him. As a result, the panel noted that Mr Beg had not offered any evidence to the panel in respect of his level of insight or remorse. The panel noted that Mr Beg did not appear to understand the seriousness of his conduct and/or what was appropriate behaviour in the circumstances, nor did he understand the impact of his behaviour on the safety and wellbeing of Pupil A, who was a vulnerable student. The panel also noted that Mr Beg had previously been made aware of concerns in respect of his overly familiar behaviour towards pupils, particularly Pupil A, and that he was directed to stop this behaviour. However, the panel noted that Mr Beg failed to adapt to this direction, as he continued to make inappropriate comments towards Pupil A which led to her feeling extremely uncomfortable and upset. The panel found that Mr Beg’s behaviour, in failing to take account of the School’s previous direction, also demonstrated a lack of insight into his overall behaviour. The panel also noted that Mr Beg did not attend the hearing to give his evidence to the panel. Whilst the panel noted that in his written representations, Mr Beg stated that he was not attending the hearing [REDACTED], the panel had heard from Witness B that Mr Beg was currently teaching at a college (albeit the details of that position are unknown). The panel also noted that Mr Beg did not provide any medical evidence to the panel to support this. The panel also had sight of the minutes of a LADO review meeting that took place on 13 December 2022. During this meeting, it was confirmed that as part of his applications for future employment, following his resignation at the School, Mr Beg had put a member of support staff (namely, Witness B) as a referee on three separate occasions, as opposed to a member of the senior leadership team at the School as required. It was also confirmed that Mr Beg had “not ticked the box that declares that a safeguarding matter is 28 ongoing.” The panel found this to be deeply concerning, as Mr Beg appeared to be deliberately concealing the ongoing matter against him from his prospective future employers. The panel found this to be an aggravating factor that demonstrated a significant lack of insight. Proportionality The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Beg of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Beg. The fact that Mr Beg had been found to have breached professional boundaries with Pupil A on multiple occasions, such as talking about his sexual preferences and personal relationships (albeit that the panel did not find that Mr Beg’s actions were sexually motivated), was a significant factor in forming that opinion. Whilst the panel noted that no concerns had been raised in respect of Mr Beg’s ability to teach lessons to students, the panel found that Mr Beg had completely disregarded the wider remit of his role, which had involved promoting the well-being and safety of pupils. The panel found Mr Beg’s actions in this regard to be incompatible with being a teacher. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The panel found that Mr Beg’s lack of insight and remorse raised a serious concern, especially given that Mr Beg appeared to be still working in education. The panel had not had sight of any evidence to demonstrate that Mr Beg had reflected upon his behaviour, and that he had understood the implications of his behaviour on Pupil A, the School or the wider public. As a result, the panel found that there was currently a very real risk of repetition of similar behaviours in the future. However, in light of Mr Beg’s ability as a teacher, the panel considered that Mr Beg should be provided with the opportunity to reflect upon and learn from his behaviour, in order to potentially return to teaching children in the future. However, the panel noted that Mr Beg would need to demonstrate 29 that he had reflected on his actions, he had understood that what he had done was wrong and the steps that he had taken to address that behaviour to ensure that this would not happen in the future. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period. The panel recommended a review period of 2 years. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Adam Beg should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of two years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Beg is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach ... • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. 30 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Beg involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Beg fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a pupil. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Beg, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel records that: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Beg, which involved finding that Mr Beg failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A by making inappropriate comments towards her, inviting her for a hug, and being unaccompanied with her on at least one occasion, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of an inappropriate relationship with a child (albeit not a sexual one).” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “Notwithstanding the mitigation evidence provided, the panel had serious concerns in respect of Mr Beg’s lack of insight and remorse. The panel noted that Mr Beg had continued to deny all of the allegations against him. As a result, the panel noted that Mr Beg had not offered any evidence to the panel in respect of his level of insight or remorse. The panel noted that Mr Beg did not appear to understand the seriousness of his conduct and/or what was appropriate behaviour in the circumstances, nor did he understand the impact of his behaviour on the safety and wellbeing of Pupil A, who was a vulnerable student.” 31 In my judgement, the lack of full insight demonstrated by Mr Beg means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observes that it “…considered that Mr Beg’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher failing to maintain proper professional boundaries with a pupil in this case and the impact that such a finding could have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Beg himself. While the panel records having seen evidence testifying to Mr Beg’s good character and his commitment to teaching it also states that it had not constitute the demonstration of exceptionally high standards or a significant contribution to the education sector more widely. The panel does, however, note that Mr Beg had not been previously subject to disciplinary proceedings. A prohibition order would prevent Mr Beg from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the lack of insight or remorse demonstrated by Mr Beg, which in my judgment creates a risk that the misconduct found in this case could be repeated in the future. This is reinforced by the fact that the panel records having considered evidence that Mr Beg may have sought to conceal the full nature of this case in his dealings with prospective employers. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Beg has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, that is not backed up by full remorse or insight, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. 32 For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a two-year review period. I have considered the panel’s comments: “The panel found that Mr Beg’s lack of insight and remorse raised a serious concern, especially given that Mr Beg appeared to be still working in education. The panel had not had sight of any evidence to demonstrate that Mr Beg had reflected upon his behaviour, and that he had understood the implications of his behaviour on Pupil A, the School or the wider public. As a result, the panel found that there was currently a very real risk of repetition of similar behaviours in the future. However, in light of Mr Beg’s ability as a teacher, the panel considered that Mr Beg should be provided with the opportunity to reflect upon and learn from his behaviour, in order to potentially return to teaching children in the future. However, the panel noted that Mr Beg would need to demonstrate that he had reflected on his actions, he had understood that what he had done was wrong and the steps that he had taken to address that behaviour to ensure that this would not happen in the future. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period. The panel recommended a review period of 2 years.” I have considered whether a two-year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that such a review period is sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious nature of the misconduct found and the lack of evidence that Mr Beg has attained full insight into and remorse for his actions. I consider therefore that a two-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mr Adam Beg 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 prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 25 September 2026, two years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Beg remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. 33 Mr Adam Beg has a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 23 September 2024 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.