Mr Brahmo Chellakootty

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 Brahmo Chellakootty

Teacher reference number: 0111968

Teacher's date of birth: 17 August 1957

Location teacher worked: Essex

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 November to 22 November 2024

Outcome type: prohibition order or no order made

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 Brahmo Chellakootty, formerly employed in Essex.

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 Brahmo Chellakootty: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 15 Documents 15 Witnesses 16 Decision and reasons 16 Findings of fact 17 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 43 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 48 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Brahmo Chellakootty Teacher ref number: 0111968 Teacher date of birth: 17 August 1957 TRA reference: 18314 Date of determination: 22 November 2024 Former employer: Colchester Academy, Essex via First Class Education Agency Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 November to 22 November 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Brahmo Chellakootty (“Mr Chellakootty”). The panel members were Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Nicola Anderson (teacher panellist) and Mr Richard Young (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Chellakootty was present and was not legally represented. Following an earlier case management hearing (“CMH”) in February 2024, Mr Chellakootty was not permitted to directly question Pupil N, [REDACTED] and Colleague A. Therefore, the TRA appointed Mr Martin Jones, independent legal counsel, to question these witnesses. The hearing took place in public, save for parts of the hearing heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 13 August 2024. It was alleged that Mr Chellakootty was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Between 2001 and 2019 he engaged in inappropriate physical contact with one or more pupils and/or colleagues and/or individuals, as set out in Schedule A. Schedule A: 1. [REDACTED] a. [REDACTED] 2. [REDACTED] a. [REDACTED] b. [REDACTED] c. [REDACTED] d. [REDACTED] e. [REDACTED] f. [REDACTED] 3. Between Easter and Summer 2018, at South Essex College, when alone in a room with Colleague A he took her hand, when he knew or ought reasonably to have known that this was unwanted. 4. In around March 2019, at Colchester Academy, in relation to Pupil N: a. he kissed her on the cheek; b. he gave her a prolonged hug; c. he hugged her or allowed her to hug him on more than one occasion. 5. Between Autumn 2018 and March 2019, at Colchester Academy, in relation to Pupil O, he: a. Touched her hand and/or arm; b. Put his elbow between her breasts when correcting her typing; 5 c. Grazed her thigh with his hand. 2. Between 2001 and 2019 he made inappropriate comments which were witnessed by or directed towards a number of pupils and/or colleagues, as set out in Schedule B. Schedule B: 1. [REDACTED] 2. Between September and December 2017, at Eastbury Community School: a. He said “you look nice in your jeans and that you have the shape for it” or words to that effect; and/or b. He asked Pupil M her age. 3. Between Easter and Summer 2018, at South Essex College, he asked Colleague A several times to go out for a drink when she had told him that she did not want to do so; 4. In around March 2019, at Colchester Academy, in relation to Pupil N, he: a. Called her “my lovely” [REDACTED], or words to that effect; b. Said that she was very mature for her age; c. Talked about coming to her house for a “braai” [barbecue]; d. Asked her how old she was; e. Promised her extra “positives” if she stayed back late with him; f. having hugged and/or kissed Pupil N, he told her not to say anything to her mum and dad. 5. Between Autumn 2018 and March 2019, at Colchester Academy, in relation to Pupil O, he: a. Said, “If you stay late you will get extra pleasure from it”, or words to that effect; b. Said he’d attend her restaurant and leave her a good tip, or words to that effect; c. When Pupil O told a friend that she liked mature guys, he said that he was “mature and single” or words to that effect; d. Said, “Do you like dark brown like my skin” or words to that effect; e. Asked her to come to a revision class, stating, “I’ll pleasure you” or words to that effect; 6 3. [REDACTED] a. [REDACTED] b. [REDACTED] 4. In October 2019 he applied for a teaching role when he was subject to bail conditions prohibiting him from entering school premises. 5. His conduct at paragraph 1 and/or 2 was of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated. 6. His conduct at paragraph 4: c. Dishonest; and/or d. Lacking in integrity. 7. [ REDACTED] 8. On 11 January 2016, he accepted a police caution for fraud by false representation contrary to s.1(2)(a) and s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006. On the first day of the hearing, Mr Chellakootty admitted the facts of allegation 2, Schedule B (2)(a), Schedule B 4(a), Schedule B 4(c), [REDACTED], [REDACTED] and allegation 8. Mr Chellakootty denied the facts of the remaining allegations. Mr Chellakootty denied that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Discontinuance of Allegations Allegation 1, schedule A (2) and Allegation 2, schedule B (1) At the start of the hearing, the presenting officer made an application to discontinue allegation 1, schedule A (2) and allegation 2, schedule B (1). The presenting officer requested that these allegations be discontinued as the panel had decided at the earlier CMH on 4 November 2024 not to admit the hearsay evidence of Person X. The TRA acknowledged previously that this hearsay evidence was the sole and decisive evidence in respect of these allegations. Mr Chellakootty did not object to this application. 7 The panel noted that paragraph 5.28 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020 (“the Procedures”) state that if the TRA decides not to proceed with an allegation that has been notified to the teacher, it will inform the teacher, the referrer and the teacher’s employer forthwith, and any such decision will not invalidate the Notice of Hearing. The panel noted that as Person X’s hearsay evidence was not admitted at the previous CMH, which was the sole and decisive evidence in respect of these allegations, the panel agreed to discontinue allegation 1, schedule A (2) and allegation 2, schedule B (1) as it was fair and appropriate in the circumstances. Allegation 1, schedule A 1(a) and Allegation 3 On the second day of the hearing, the presenting officer made an application to discontinue allegation 1, schedule A 1(a) and allegation 3. [REDACTED] This application was made as a new document was provided by the teacher to the presenting officer and legal adviser at the start of the second day of the hearing. The new document was a letter from the ‘department for education and skills’ to Mr Chellakootty dated 25 January 2005 which included the following statement: “The Secretary of State has decided that she will not, on this occasion, take any further action under the Education Act 2002 which empowers her to bar or restrict a persons employment as a teacher or worker with children and young persons on grounds of misconduct.” The presenting officer sought instructions from the TRA following the provision of this letter and made an application to discontinue the allegations which pre-dated the date of the letter, namely allegation 1, schedule A 1(a) and allegation 3. The application to discontinue these allegations was made on the basis that the letter was not previously considered by the TRA when formulating and drafting the allegations which pre-dated the date of the letter. On that basis, the TRA’s position was that it would be fair in the circumstances to discontinue the allegations which pre-dated this letter dated 25 January 2005. The presenting officer stated that if allegation 1, schedule A 1(a) and allegation 3 are discontinued, the panel could fairly proceed as it is a professional panel, and was able to put extraneous matters out of its mind. The teacher did not object to the application or the panel proceeding with the case if the allegations were to be discontinued. Again, the panel noted that the contents of paragraph 5.28 of the Procedures which state that if the TRA decides not to proceed with an allegation that has been notified to the 8 teacher, it will inform the teacher, the referrer and the teacher’s employer forthwith, and any such decision will not invalidate the Notice of Hearing. The panel was provided with a copy of the letter dated 25 January 2005 and considered whether it was fair and appropriate in the circumstances to discontinue these allegations. Following questioning by the panel, the presenting officer stated that the letter referred to Mr Chellakootty’s conduct which pre-dated 25 January 2005 [REDACTED]. The panel noted the specific wording of the letter, referred to above, and considered that it was fair and appropriate in the circumstances of the case to discontinue allegation 1, schedule A 1(a) and allegation 3. As these allegations had been discontinued, the panel went on to consider the potential prejudicial effect on itself, as an impartial panel, having had sight of the evidence relating to the discontinued allegations and the effect of this knowledge when considering the remaining allegations. The panel noted that no oral evid