Mr Jamal Shah

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 Jamal Shah

Teacher reference number: 1056588

Teacher's date of birth: 22 July 1986

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 August 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 Jamal Shah, formerly employed in Birmingham, West 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 Jamal Shah: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Jamal Shah Teacher ref number: 1056588 Teacher date of birth: 22 July 1986 TRA reference: 19481 Date of determination: 24 August 2023 Former employer: Now Education Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 24 August 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Jamal Shah. The panel members were Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist) and Mr Maurice Smith (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Hubert of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Shah was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 7 June 2023. It was alleged that Mr Shah was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst placed at Starbank School: 1. On or around 20 May 2020, he made one or more inappropriate comments to and/or in the presence of one or more members of the public, specifically he stated; a) ‘you’re just a bunch of pakis’ or used words to that effect; b) ‘you’re fucking hypocrites’ or used words to that effect; c) ‘I’ve got some dickhead here’ or used words to that effect; and d) ‘just fucking pakis’ or used words to that effect; 2. His conduct at Allegation 1 was contrary to Fundamental British Values. Mr Shah made no admission of fact. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Shah was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Shah. 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 Proceedings had been sent to Mr Shah in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel noted that the bundle was sent to Mr Shah at his last known address on 31 March 2023 and this was signed for by “J. SHAH”. The Notice of Proceedings was subsequently also sent to this address on 7 June 2023. The presenting officer confirmed that the application to proceed in Mr Shah’s absence was sent to him at the same address and had also been signed for. The panel determined that on the balance of 5 probabilities “J. SHAH” was Mr Shah and concluded that Mr Shah’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Shah had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Shah was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. 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 Shah was neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response to notice of proceedings – pages 3 to 14 • Section 2: TRA documents – pages 16 to 29 • Section 3: Teacher documents – none provided In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Proceeding in absence bundle - pages 3 - 37 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle and viewed the dashcam footage referred therein in advance of the hearing. The panel also confirmed that they had read the additional documents relevant to the application to proceed in the absence of the teacher. Witnesses No witnesses were called to provide oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 6 Mr Shah was a long-term agency teacher of nurture at Starbank School (‘the School’). Mr Shah had general teaching responsibilities of small groups of between 8 and 12 pupils. On 20 May 2020, an incident took place in a public carpark whereby Mr Shah allegedly made remarks of a racial nature, to a member of the public. Mr Shah was voluntarily interviewed by the police and denied the allegations against him. A copy of the dashcam footage was provided to the police. Although the victim was initially supportive of a prosecution, this support was then withdrawn due to personal reasons. As a result, the police decided to take no further action. The matter was referred to the TRA on 27 August 2020. 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 or around 20 May 2020, you made one or more inappropriate comments to and/or in the presence of one or more members of the public, specifically you stated; a) ‘you’re just a bunch of pakis’ or used words to that effect; b) ‘you’re fucking hypocrites’ or used words to that effect; c) ‘I’ve got some dickhead here’ or used words to that effect; and d) ‘just fucking pakis’ or used words to that effect; The panel noted that during the police interview, Mr Shah had said that he had used “obscenities” during the altercation however, denied using the word “paki”. The panel considered the dashcam footage provided and concluded that Mr Shah had made the comments outlined at allegation 1(a) to 1(d) or used words to that effect. The panel noted that it was clear from the dashcam footage that Mr Shah was in a public car park, and that the comments at allegation 1(a) to 1(d), or words to that effect, were made to the victim. The panel also noted that during part of the altercation one other vehicle can be seen in the dashcam footage, although it is not clear whether the occupant(s) can hear the comments being made by Mr Shah. The panel considered whether the comments at allegations 1(a) to 1(d) were inappropriate and noted the circumstances in which the comments were made. In particular, the panel noted that the altercation involved a parent and child car parking 7 space and the dashcam footage showed an individual in the victim’s car stating to Mr Shah that they had children in the car. The panel therefore considered that the comments made by Mr Shah were inappropriate. The panel found allegation 1(a) to 1(d) proven. 2. Your conduct at Allegation 1 was contrary to Fundamental British Values. The panel firstly noted that whilst the comments that were made at allegation 1(b) and 1 (c) were disrespectful, rude and unacceptable, the panel did not consider the language used in those comments to be contrary to fundamental British values. However, the panel considered that it was clear that the language used in allegations 1(a) and 1(d) demonstrated a lack of mutual respect and tolerance to the victim and their family and were contrary to fundamental British values. The panel also noted Mr Shah’s comments in the police statement when he was asked whether he would expect someone to be offended by the word “paki”, to which he responded that it would not be offensive if it was between two people of the same ethnicity. The panel considered that it is not acceptable to use the type of language used by Mr Shah in any situation in this country and that such language by Mr Shah was contrary to fundamental British values. The panel found allegation 2 proven. 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 Shah, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Shah 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 8 The panel considered that Mr Shah had clearly demonstrated behaviour that undermines fundamental British values and showed a lack of mutual respect and tolerance of other individuals however, the panel noted that the language used duri