Mr Ho (Shing Calvin) Cheng

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 Ho (Shing Calvin) Cheng

Teacher reference number: 2084042

Teacher's date of birth: 11 July 1998

Location teacher worked: Essex, East of England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 April 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 Ho (Shing Calvin) Cheng formerly employed in Essex, East of 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 Ho (Shing Calvin) Cheng: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Ho Cheng Teacher ref number: 2084042 Teacher date of birth: 11 July 1998 TRA reference: 23431 Date of determination: 11 April 2025 Former employer: Dilkes Academy, Essex Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 April 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Ho Cheng (“Mr Cheng”). The panel members were Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Bernie Whittle (teacher panellist) and Mr Terry Hyde (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Cheng that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Cheng provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Mr Adam Ridley of Capsticks LLP solicitors, Mr Cheng or his representative Mr Steve Taylor from the National Education Union. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 15 January 2025. It was alleged that Mr Cheng was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, while employed as a teacher at Dilkes Academy, Garron Lane, South Ockendon, RM15 (“the School”): 1. On the 19 December 2023 he: a. Placed his arms behind Pupil A’s on to the back of their neck; b. Lifted Pupil A off the ground; 2. On 19 December 2023 he did not promptly, or at all, report the conduct as set out in Allegation 1. Mr Cheng admitted the facts of the allegations and that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. 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 4 to 5 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 6 to 27 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 28 to 36 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 37 to 476 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Cheng on 18 November 2024. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Cheng for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Cheng was employed as a class teacher at Dilkes Academy (“the School”) from 1 September 2023. On 19 December 2023, Mr Cheng used a physical intervention against Pupil A who was not following his verbal instructions, in order to move the pupil. Pupil A reported the incident to his parent who in turn spoke to Mr Cheng on the morning of 20 December 2023. Mr Cheng apologised but did not report the incident to the School at this stage. Later on 20 December 2023, Mr Cheng performed a physical assisted move on Pupil A during which Pupil A hit Mr Cheng. A staff member reported the incident to the Designated Safeguarding Lead (“DSL”). In the afternoon, Mr Cheng reported that he had received a complaint from Pupil A’s parent about the physical handling incident on 19 December 2023. The Deputy DSL contacted the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) about the incident who advised that the School should investigate. Mr Cheng was suspended on 20 December 2023 pending investigation. During the School’s investigation, Mr Cheng admitted that on 19 December 2023 he “grabbed” Pupil A by his shoulders and arms and lifted Pupil A so that his feet were off the floor. Mr Cheng ceased employment at the School on 11 March 2024. 6 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. On the 19 December 2023 you: a. Placed your arms behind Pupil A’s on to the back of their neck; Mr Cheng admitted this allegation. The panel had sight of the notice of referral response form signed by Mr Cheng on 11 September 2024. One of the questions in the form was “do you admit the allegations set out in the enclosed letter?” Mr Cheng circled “yes” in response to this question. For the avoidance of doubt, the allegations as set out in the notice of referral letter dated 2 September 2024 were the same as those set out in the notice of meeting dated 15 January 2025. The panel had sight of the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Cheng on 18 November 2024 where Mr Cheng admitted the facts of this allegation. The statement of agreed facts stated “the Teacher admits that during the afternoon of 19 December 2023, whilst the class of Year 1 pupils was getting ready to go home, he lifted Pupil A off the ground and carried him using a hold which involved putting Pupil A’s hands behind his head. The Teacher admits that the physical intervention was not reasonable or proportionate in the circumstances. The Teacher also admits that the physical intervention was inappropriate and caused harm to Pupil A in that Pupil A immediately cried and that he suffered pain and discomfort in his shoulders.” The panel was provided with notes dated 20 and 21 December 2023 from the School’s investigation meetings with the pupils in the classroom who were present on the day of the alleged incident and notes from a telephone conversation between the School and Pupil A’s parent. The panel was also provided with the School’s meeting notes from the interview with Mr Cheng on 20 December 2023 and the notes from the disciplinary investigation meeting dated 17 January 2024 and disciplinary hearing dated 5 March 2024. The panel considered that the notes from the interviews with the pupils, Pupil A’s parent and Mr Cheng were relevant to the allegations. The panel further noted that the notes from the interviews with the pupils, Pupil A’s parent and Mr Cheng were drafted in close proximity to the alleged incident. The panel considered that these documents should be admitted as they were not the sole and decisive evidence in support of the allegations. There was no suggestion that the pupils, Pupil A’s parent or Mr Cheng had 7 reasons to fabricate what they said in their interviews and no objection had been made by Mr Cheng to the contents of the School’s notes from the pupils’ interviews or the notes from the telephone conversation with Pupil A’s parent. The panel also noted the seriousness of the allegations and decided that the notes were fair to admit in the circumstances. In Pupil A’s investigation interview with the School dated 20 December 2023, the following conversation was recorded: “Can you tell me what happened yesterday to upset you? “I wouldn’t sit on the carpet.” [REDACTED]: Then what happened? “He did this to me (Lifted hands behind head, like arrest) he carried me.” Who is he? “Mr Cheng!” So your feet were not on the floor? “No!”” The panel also had sight of the School’s interviews with other pupils in the classroom at the time of the incident who corroborated Pupil A’s account. In the School’s meeting with Mr Cheng dated 20 December 2023, it was recorded that Mr Cheng said “I grabbed a pupil to guide them to their seat. I grabbed him way to [sic] hard and he cried.” When asked to clarify what he meant by “grabbed him too hard”, Mr Cheng said “I grabbed him by his shoulders and arms.” In the School’s disciplinary meeting with Mr Cheng dated 17 January 2024, Mr Cheng acknowledged that he “made an error of judgment in terms of handling him.” The panel noted that there were some discrepancies in respect of how Mr Cheng placed his arms on Pupil A when considering the accounts from Mr Cheng and the pupils who were present at the time of the alleged incident. On balance, the panel considered that there was sufficient evidence to find that Mr Cheng did place his arms behind Pupil A’s on to the back of his neck. It was recorded in the notes of the School’s separate interviews with Pupil C and Pupil D that they were each asked to demonstrate how Pupil A was being carried by Mr Cheng. The panel noted that both pupils separately demonstrated that Pupil A’s arms were behind his back. The panel found allegation 1(a) proved, on the balance