Mr Amrik Nijran

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 Amrik Nijran

Teacher reference number: 7965912

Teacher's date of birth: 9 April 1954

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 6 to 7 November 2023

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 Amrik Nijran, formerly employed in Nottingham, East Midlands.

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 Amrik Nijran: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 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: Mr Amrik Nijran Teacher ref number: 7965912 Teacher date of birth: 9 April 1954 TRA reference: 19994 Date of determination: 7 November 2023 Former employer: Nottingham Academy Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 6 to 7 November 2023, to consider the case of Mr Nijran. The panel members were Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Ashley Emmerson (teacher panellist) and Mrs Shabana Robinson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Tom Sherrington instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Nijran 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 24 August 2023 (and as amended following the preliminary application as set out below). It was alleged that Mr Nijran was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a Teacher of Science at Nottingham Academy: 1. He published and/or disseminated one or more inappropriate and/or unprofessional comments and/or images on his personal Twitter account by; i. Referring to Muslims as ‘thugs’ or using words to that effect; ii. Sharing an image/images of bestiality with the caption ‘behind every goat there’s a Muslim’ or words to that effect; iii. Posting and/or sharing one or more images of violence and/or hangings; iv. Making and/or sharing one or more sexist comments; v. Making and/or sharing negative posts about Muslims and/or other countries. 2. In behaving as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above, you demonstrated and/or promoted a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others which is contrary to Fundamental British Values. In his written evidence and submissions to the panel, Mr Nijran denied these allegations. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Nijran. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to 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; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 5.23 and 5.34 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. Before the panel was an email dated 11 October 2023, from Mr Nijran’s union representative to the presenting officer. Included in correspondence was the following remarks: 5 “I confirm Mr Nijran received the [the Notice] of 24 August 2023… I confirm Mr Nijran will not be attending the hearing due to his current health conditions; I also confirm Mr Nijran will not be represented at the hearing.” In further correspondence with the presenting officer, following notice that the TRA were intending to apply to proceed with the hearing in the teacher’s absence, Mr Nijran’s union representative stated: “On behalf of Mr Nijran I confirm there is no objection to proposed Proceeding in Absence Application regarding the TRA Hearing scheduled for 6 – 10 November 2023.” The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Nijran's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 5.47 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Mr Nijran is not in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. Given the express confirmation from Mr Nijran that he was not going to attend and consenting to the hearing proceeding in his absence, the panel concluded that the hearing should proceed. The panel was satisfied that Mr Nijran’s absence was voluntary and he had waived his right to attend. There was no indication that Mr Nijran might attend at a future date such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. Whilst ill-health had been advanced as the reason for Mr Nijran’s non -attendance, it had not been supported with any medical evidence. The panel also took account of the fact that there is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time and that there are witnesses present to give evidence to the panel who would be significantly inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned. Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Nijran is neither present nor represented. Application to amend the allegation Prior to closing the TRA’s case, the presenting officer made application to amend the allegations. 6 The presenting officer submitted the proposed amendments did not materially change the case against Mr Nijran, but merely better reflected the evidence that was before the panel and that therefore there would be no prejudice to his position. The proposed amendments were (deletions marked in strikethrough, additions marked in underline): Allegation 1.ii Sharing videos an image/images of bestiality with the caption ‘behind every goat Muslim there’s a goat Muslim’ or words to that effect; Allegation 1.iv Making and/or sharing one or more sexist sexual comments; The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and carefully considered the potential prejudice to Mr Nijran. This was particularly heightened in light of his absence at the hearing and not being on notice to the application. The panel was satisfied that the proposed amendments to Allegation 1.ii did no more than simply correct errors in the drafting of this allegation. The underlying evidence regarding this specific Twitter post had been provided to Mr Nijran in the hearing bundle and had not changed. The panel was not able to identify how such an amendment would materially impact on how Mr Nijran had advanced his case up to this point in time. On that basis the panel was satisfied that no prejudice to Mr Nijran would result and recognised that there is a public interest in ensuring that allegations are precisely drafted. Accordingly, the panel granted the presenting officer’s application to amend Allegation 1.ii. The panel considered that the proposed amendment to Allegation 1.iv was a significant change to the case that the TRA had previously put forward and might have impacted on how Mr Nijran may have further presented his defence. The panel considered that as the application was made so late in the proceedings and that Mr Nijran was not on notice of the application, there was a significant risk that his position would be prejudiced by such an amendment. The panel considered that would be unfair on Mr Nijran and therefore refused the application to amend Allegation 1.iv. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Index, notice of proceedings – pages 1 to 9 7 Section 2: Chronology – pages 10 to 11 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 12 to 110 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 111 to 226 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 227 to 241 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: ▪ Witness A – [REDACTED]; ▪ 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. Whilst the panel considered all of the evidence placed before it, not every piece of evidence is referred to in these reasons. Mr Nijran was employed since 2017 as a science teacher at Nottingham Academy (the “School”), part of the Greenwood Academies Trust (the “Trust”). The School is a secondary school with a sixth form. He was an experienced teacher with decades of experience. In November 2020, a member of staff at the School was informed by some of its sixth form pupils that there were inappropriate social media posts on Mr Nijran’s Twitter account. The School started an investigation as did the Local Authority Designated Officer and the police. In March 2021, Mr Nijran resigned his position at the School. The police took no further action in their investigation. At the conclusion of the School's investigation which continued following his resignation, it referred Mr Nijran’s case to the TRA, which has resulted in this hearing. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 8 1. You published and/or disseminated one or more inappropriate and/or unprofessional comments and/or images on your personal Twitter account by; i. Referring to Muslims as ‘thugs’ or using words to that effect; ii. Sharing an image/images of bestiality with the caption ‘behind every goat there’s a Muslim’ or words to that effect; iii. Posting and/or sharing one or more images of violence and/or hangings; iv. Making and/or sharing one or more sexist comments; v. Making and/or sharing negative posts about Muslims and/or other countries. The panel heard evidence from Witness B who was the [REDACTED] at the School at the time of these allegations. He explained that on 17 November 2020 he was teaching [REDACTED]. Some of the pupils showed him a Twitter post and said that it was from Mr Nijran’s Twitter account. He looked at the tweet and then asked another member of staff to get somebody from the safeguarding team, due to the content that he saw. Witness B recalled that when speaking to the member of safeguarding, he commented that he wondered if Mr Nijran’s account had been hacked, as he did not think that Mr Nijran would post such material online and he was aware that Mr Nijran was generally not very capable with modern technology. The panel also heard evidence from Witness A who is a [REDACTED] at the Trust. Once concerns had been raised about the Twitter posts, Witness A was asked to undertake an investigation on behalf of the Trust. During his investigation, Witness A interviewed Mr Nijran on 11 December 2020. During this interview, Mr Nijran confirmed the Twitter account in question was his. Mr Nijran explained that the account had been set up by a family member as he did not have a good understanding of how these platforms worked and that he did use it on occasions, such as to read tweets from Bollywood actors and actresses. Mr Nijran was shown a number of screenshots of the Twitter posts during the interview and he denied posting them. He was not sure why those posts were on his profile. Mr Nijran explained that he could only assume that his account had been hacked. He accepted that the content of the posts he was shown were of a discriminatory nature. At the end of the interview Mr Nijran’s union representative asked if they could later provide any evidence, if they wished, that Mr Nijran’s account had been hacked. Witness A explained that no further information had been provided to him regarding that request. 9 Witness A also interviewed a number of the pupils who had seen the Twitter posts. He described that they had been quite shocked by what they had seen, and also, at first questioned if it was a genuine account or if Mr Nijran had been hacked as all the pupils interviewed held Mr Nijran in high regard. Also before the panel was a summary of Mr Nijran’s interview under caution with the police on 29 December 2020, which was in essence the same account he provided in his interview with the School. In a written statement drafted for these proceedings, Mr Nijran confirmed that he denied the allegations. He confirmed that the Twitter account was his, but that he had not posted the offensive material. He had only used the platform to keep up to date with Indian current affairs and Bollywood celebrities. Mr Nijran stated that he did not keep his phone locked, which meant anyone could have accessed his phone and the Twitter app. Mr Nijran accepted that a number of the posts on the platform were by him, such as those relating to Bollywood and Indian political matters but again denied the offensive messages were posted by him. The posts which he accepted were by him, were intermingled with the offensive messages. The panel noted that Mr Nijran accepted the Twitter account was his, that it was set it up by a family member of his a number of years ago and had been in use since that time by him. Whilst there was evidence before the panel that Mr Nijran’s abilities with modern technology may have been limited, the evidence showed he was still able to use Twitter to re-tweet and post his own comments (which he accepted he had done in relation to the uncontroversial tweets) and was able to delete the account once the posts had been brought to the School’s attention. Taking into account that the posts subject to this allegation were intersected with a number of uncontroversial posts, the panel considered that as a starting point, it was more likely than not that Mr Nijran had shared the tweets the subject of the allegations. Whilst the panel took into account there was no duty on Mr Nijran to disprove the allegations, it did consider Mr Nijran’s explanation that he must have either been hacked or someone else had accessed his phone whilst it was unattended. The panel noted that the tweets had been posted over a significant amount of time and as they overlapped with the other tweets Mr Nijran did accept sending, the panel considered that this was an inherently improbable explanation in the absence of any other supporting evidence. The panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Nijran was responsible for sharing all the Twitter posts on his profile. Before the panel were copies of the screenshots of Mr Nijran’s profile which were taken in the investigation. The profile was not restricted and was open to the public to view. It included a number of original postings, re-tweets, quote-tweets and replies to other 10 tweets. The panel was satisfied that these interactions would amount to publishing and/or disseminating comments. Examples of the posts included: ▪ Quote-tweeting a post of a video of [REDACTED] in which the original poster had captioned the video “Just see what Islamists are up to in London on Diwali”. Mr Nijran’s comment was “Thanks for being brave in standing front of these thugs”; ▪ A post which showed a male with his trousers down holding an animal by its rear legs up to his crotch. The image was captioned “Young Muslim male losing his virginity with his first girlfriend. Behind every screaming goat is a Muslim with his pants down”; ▪ Mr Nijran’s account re-tweeting a post which included “Non-Muslim must be killed or converted, that’s what Pakistani Muslims are aiming for” and contained an image of what appeared to be two men who had been hanged; ▪ Re-tweeting a video which purported to show a Pakistani male being beaten which was captioned as “Chinese engineering educating Pakistani in Gwadar. Long live friendship”; ▪ A number of re-tweets that appeared to stereotype Muslim men’s use of sexual violence towards women; ▪ Re-tweeting a post which stated: “Racist to the core, China is the KKK of Asia”; ▪ Numerous interactions on the platform which negatively portrayed those of a Muslim or Pakistani heritage. The panel noted there was no dissent from the view that these would be inappropriate and unprofessional posts for a teacher to share. This included Witness A, Witness B and Mr Nijran, all of whom [REDACTED]. The panel also considered that the posts were of a unprofessional and inappropriate nature. They demonstrated a prejudiced view based on a number of personal characteristics (such as race, religion and sex) which would never be appropriate for a teacher to share in a public arena. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proved in full. 2. In behaving as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above, you demonstrated and/or promoted a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others which is contrary to Fundamental British Values. The panel took into account the definition of ‘fundamental British values’ contained within the Teachers’ Standards which “includes ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’. 11 The panel took into account that re-tweeting a post was not automatically indicative of a person endorsing the content of the original tweet. The panel was however satisfied that the general theme of the posts shared by Mr Nijran demonstrated and promoted a view that was prejudicial particularly to those from Pakistan and of the Muslim faith. Accordingly the panel found this allegation proved in full. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found 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 Nijran, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Nijran 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 showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ▪ Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach Owing to the extreme nature and volume of the posts, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Nijran crossed the threshold into misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel also considered whether Mr Nijran’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 to 14 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offences of “intolerance and/or hatred on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or any of the other protected characteristics” was relevant. The panel noted that the allegations took place outside the education setting in that they could not have been posted in the course of Mr Nijran’s practice as teacher. However as 12 Mr Nijran’s actions lead to pupils being exposed to extreme material (such as serious violence and bestiality), albeit it appeared that was not Mr Nijran’s intention, the panel was satisfied it would still amount to unacceptable professional conduct. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Nijran was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others 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 findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception. The evidence before the panel from Witness B was that Mr Nijran had not acted in any discriminatory way in his classroom practice. However, Mr Nijran’s actions could lead to parents and others in the community being concerned that pupils were being treated differently according to their faith or racial background. The panel considered this would seriously undermine the reputation of the profession which strives to educate all children fairly and regardless of their background. The panel therefore found that Mr Nijran’s actions constituted 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 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 should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. 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 protection of pupils; ▪ the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; 13 ▪ declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Nijran, which involved the posting of discriminatory material on a social media platform, there was a public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils, given the risk of them being exposed to this material. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Nijran were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Nijran was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Nijran. In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Nijran. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: ▪ serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; ▪ actions or behaviours that promote extremist political or religious views or attitudes, or that undermine fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs; Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was no evidence that Mr Nijran’s actions were not deliberate or that he was acting under duress. The panel noted that Mr Nijran had a longstanding career and no previous disciplinary cases were brought to the panel’s attention. The panel took into account the evidence before it which indicated Mr Nijran was well regarded by the pupils he taught, including a number of pupils of the Muslim faith. The evidence appeared to suggest that although Mr Nijran may have held some prejudicial views, he had not appeared to have shared his views in the classroom or to have let them effect how he dealt with pupils. 14 However of concern to the panel was Mr Nijran’s apparent absence of insight. Putting aside his denials of the allegations, there did not appear to be any recognition of the impact or risk to the well-being of pupils being exposed to such extreme material. This was highlighted by Witness A in his evidence regarding the School’s investigation and even at this stage in the proceedings, it was notably absent from any material that Mr Nijran has placed before the panel. 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 Nijran 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 Nijran. The extreme nature of some of the discriminatory material, which required a robust regulatory response, and Mr Nijran’s lack of insight were significant factors in forming that opinion. 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 Advice indicates at paragraph 51 that there are behaviours that, if proved, would suggest allowing a recommendation of a review period only after a longer period of time has elapsed. One of these behaviours include “intolerance and/or hatred on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or protected characteristics”. The panel was satisfied that the risks to pupils was not irremediable and that if Mr Nijran was able to demonstrate steps that might be taken to ensure such misconduct would not happen again in the future, that might suitably ameliorate those risks and facilitate his return to the classroom. The panel took into account that Mr Nijran’s social media presence was very limited, that he had not directly targeted pupils in sharing his posts and there was no evidence of a wider impact on the school community. The panel considered these factors in Mr Nijran’s misconduct was at a level where the other public interest factors (namely maintaining confidence in the profession and upholding/declaring standards) could be proportionately protected with a shorter review period. 15 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 after a two year period. 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 all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Amrik Nijran should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of two years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Nijran 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 showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ▪ Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Nijran fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include that of publicly sharing comments and images of a discriminatory nature contrary to British values of tolerance and respect for those with different religious beliefs. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In considering 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. 16 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 Nijran, 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 has observed that it had, “….noted that the allegations took place outside the education setting in that they could not have been posted in the course of Mr Nijran’s practice as teacher. However, as Mr Nijran’s actions led to pupils being exposed to extreme material (such as serious violence and bestiality), albeit it appeared that was not Mr Nijran’s intention….”. 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 the panel sets out as follows, “However, of concern to the panel was Mr Nijran’s apparent absence of insight. Putting aside his denials of the allegations, there did not appear to be any recognition of the impact or risk to the well-being of pupils being exposed to such extreme material. This was highlighted by Witness A in his evidence regarding the School’s investigation and even at this stage in the proceedings, it was notably absent from any material that Mr Nijran has placed before the panel.” I have also that the panel does not appear to have been presented with any evidence that Mr Nijran had exhibited any remorse for his actions, and that he had denied the allegations against him. In my judgment, the absence of insight and remorse on Mr Nijran’s part means that there is a risk of the repetition of this behaviour in the future. 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 observed, “The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception. The evidence before the panel from Witness B was that Mr Nijran had not acted in any discriminatory way in his classroom practice. However, Mr Nijran’s actions could lead to parents and others in the community being concerned that pupils were being treated differently according to their faith or racial background. The panel considered this would seriously undermine the reputation of the profession which strives to educate all children fairly and regardless of their background.” I am particularly mindful of the shocking nature of some of the materials shared and their discriminatory nature, and the potential impact on the standing 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 17 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 Nijran himself. The panel observed that it, “….took into account the evidence before it which indicated Mr Nijran was well regarded by the pupils he taught, including a number of pupils of the Muslim faith.” The panel also record that it had “….noted that Mr Nijran had a longstanding career and no previous disciplinary cases were brought to the panel’s attention.” No evidence, however, appears to have been provided to the panel that Mr Nijran had made an outstanding contribution to the teaching profession. A prohibition order would prevent Mr Nijran 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 and also the absence of evidence of remorse. I have also placed considerable weight on the discriminatory nature of the images and comments shared by Mr Nijran, which included depictions of serious violence and bestiality. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Nijran 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. 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. In doing so, the panel has referred to the Advice which indicates that there are behaviours that, if proved, would allow for a review period only after a longer period of time had elapsed. One of these behaviours include “intolerance and/or hatred on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or protected characteristics”. 18 I have considered the panel’s comments “The panel was satisfied that that the risks to pupils were not irremediable and that if Mr Nijran was able to demonstrate steps that might be taken to ensure such misconduct would not happen again in the future, that might suitably ameliorate those risks and facilitate his return to the classroom. The panel took into account that Mr Nijran’s social media presence was very limited, that he had not directly targeted pupils in sharing his posts and there was no evidence of a wider impact on the school community. The panel considered these factors in Mr Nijran’s misconduct was at a level where the other public interest factors (namely maintaining confidence in the profession and upholding/declaring standards) could be proportionately protected with a shorter review period.” The panel went on to state that it had “….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 after a two-year period.” I have decided that 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. This means that Mr Amrik Nijran 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 27 November 2025, 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 Nijran remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Nijran 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: 20 November 2023 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.