Mr David Zell

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 David Zell

Teacher reference number: 0944669

Teacher's date of birth: 25 February 2025

Location teacher worked: Hampshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 February 2025 to 25 February 2025

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 David Zell formerly employed in Hampshire, South East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

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

Mr David Zell: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr David Zell Teacher ref number: 0944669 Teacher date of birth: 12 September 1987 TRA reference: 20996 Date of determination: 25 February 2025 Former employer: The Hurst School, Hampshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 24 to 25 February 2025, by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr David Zell. The panel members were Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Aidan Jenkins (teacher panellist) and Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Scott Smith of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Zell was not present and was not represented as at the time of the hearing. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public (save for parts which were heard in private) and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 6 November 2024. It was alleged that Mr Zell was guilty of having been convicted of relevant offences, in that on 23 June 2022 he was sentenced: 1. For failing to stop after an accident contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 17 March 2022. 2. For driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 17 March 2022. In his response to the notice of hearing, dated 22 November 2024, Mr Zell admitted the facts of the allegations and admitted that he had been convicted of relevant offences. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Zell was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Zell. 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). The panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been sent to Mr Zell in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the Procedures’). The panel was provided with a service bundle containing correspondence between the TRA and Mr Zell. It was clear from the correspondence that Mr Zell did not intend to attend or be represented at the professional conduct panel hearing. It was also clear that he appreciated the hearing would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Zell had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would secure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Zell was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel concluded that Mr Zell’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. 5 Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Zell was neither present nor represented. Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from the presenting officer that part of the hearing relating to Mr Zell’s health should be heard in private. Whilst Mr Zell had not indicated that he wished to make an application of this nature, the presenting officer submitted that it would be fair to hear matters relating to Mr Zell’s health in private. The panel granted the application. The panel considered it was not contrary to the public interest for the part of the hearing, which was the subject of the application, to be heard in private. The panel considered that the areas covered in the application legitimately related to aspects of Mr Zell’s private life and there was no contrary public interest in those areas being discussed in public. The hearing was still being held in public and these were discrete and limited areas which would not undermine the public's ability to otherwise understand the case. The panel therefore granted the application. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 4 • Section 2: Notice of hearing – pages 5 to 31 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – page 32 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 33 to 266 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 267 to 268 • Section 6: Service bundle – pages 269 to 301. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 6 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the TRA: • Witness A, [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. Mr Zell was employed by the Hurst School (‘the School’) between 1 September 2020 and 4 July 2022 as an Assistant Headteacher, Pastoral. On 17 March 2022, Mr Zell drove a vehicle into the side of a residential building. The vehicle collided into a ground-floor bedroom, causing a substantial hole and serious structural damage to the property. Two residents were asleep in the bedroom at the time and suffered what were described in the bundle as “minor injuries”. Mr Zell fled the scene of the accident but later contacted the police to report the incident and informed them that he had “blacked out and crashed his car into a wall”. Mr Zell claimed that he had not been under the influence of alcohol but, since returning home, had consumed a quantity of alcohol. Mr Zell was subsequently arrested. The police carried out a breath test and found that Mr Zell exceeded the prescribed alcohol limit for driving, namely 57 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. On 4 May 2022, Mr Zell was convicted, at Reading Magistrates’ Court, for “failing to stop after [an] accident” and for “driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol”. Mr Zell pleaded guilty to these offences and was later sentenced at Reading Magistrates’ Court on 23 June 2022. The School referred the matter to the TRA on 25 July 2022. 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: 7 On 23 June 2022 he was sentenced: 1. For failing to stop after an accident contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 17 March 2022. 2. For driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 17 March 2022. Mr Zell admitted allegations 1 and 2 in his response to the notice of hearing, dated 22 November 2024. The panel noted Mr Zell’s admissions but made its own determination in respect of the allegations, based on the evidence before it. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers document (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel was provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Reading Magistrates’ Court, dated 13 May 2024, which confirmed that Mr Zell had been convicted of failing to stop after a road accident and driving a motor vehicle when his alcohol level was above the prescribed limit. Mr Zell pleaded guilty to both offences and was convicted on 4 May 2022. A sentencing hearing took place on 23 June 2022 at Reading Magistrates’ Court at which Mr Zell was: issued with a community order requiring him to undertake 120 hours of unpaid work; disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months; issued with a fine of £400; and ordered to pay a surcharge of £95 and costs of £85. On examination of the evidence before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegations 1 and 2 were proven. Findings as to conviction of relevant offences Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to relevant offences. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Zell, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Zell 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: 8 o not undermining fundamental British values, including… the rule of law… • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards... The panel noted that Mr Zell’s convictions related to conduct that took place outside of the education setting. It took account of paragraph 32 of the A