Mr Leishan Silva

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 Leishan Silva

Teacher reference number: 0980196

Teacher's date of birth: 15 January 1981

Location teacher worked: London

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 July 2025

Outcome type: 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 Leishan Silva formerly employed in London.

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 Leishan Silva: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Leishan Silva TRA reference: 23803 Date of determination: 11 July 2025 Former employer: Cognita Schools Limited, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 July 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Leishan Silva. The panel members were Jane Brothwood (lay panellist – in the chair), Samantha Haslam (teacher panellist) and Martin Coles (Former Teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Jamila Bernard-Stevenson of Blake Morgan 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 Leishan Silva that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Silva 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 Silva or his representative Jamie Morris. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of meeting dated 11 July 2025. It was alleged that Mr Leishan was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. He did not maintain professional boundaries with colleagues in that: 2. On dates between 27 November 2018 and 21 December 2019: a. He contacted Colleague A by social media; b. He engaged in sexually explicit conversation with Colleague A. 3. On a date between September 2018 to July 2019 told Colleague A that: a. She should wear a bikini: and b. That you would like that. 4. On dates after December 2018: a. He contacted Colleague B by social media; b. He disclosed sexually explicit details to Colleague B; c. He made comments about Colleague B’s clothing; d. He made comments about Colleague B’s appearance; e. He persistently invited Colleague B for drinks. 5. On dates between December 2022 and August 2023; a. He contacted Colleague C by social media; b. He made comments about Colleague C’s appearance. 6. His conduct at allegations 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 above was sexually motivated. Mr Silva admitted the facts of all the allegations. Mr Silva also admitted that his actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised person list– page 3 Section 2: Notice of proceedings– pages 12a to 12b Notice of referral form- pages 10 to 12 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 37 to 59 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 18 to 95 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 96 to 104 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Silva on 11 April 2025. 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 Silva for the allegation 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. At the material time, Mr Silva was employed by Cognita Schools Limited as the Head of Year 8, Head of Digital Learning, and teacher of science. In this role he was based at Downsend School. An internal investigation was conducted into complaints made by three members of staff (Colleagues A, B and C) that the Teacher had behaved inappropriately towards them during their employment. This inappropriate behaviour involved asking intrusive 6 questions, making unsolicited sexualised and/or flirtatious comments towards one or more of them via social media and/or in person. The internal investigation culminated in a disciplinary hearing which was scheduled in order to consider the following allegation:- Allegedly behaving inappropriately and offensively towards colleagues via social media including sexual content. Following the disciplinary hearing, the decision was made to terminate Mr Silva’s employment. The Teacher made an appeal application in relation to this outcome. However, this was unsuccessful. On 24 May 2024, the matter was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You did not maintain professional boundaries with colleagues in that: The panel noted that the stem of allegation 2(a) to 5 (b) had been set out at 1. The panel determined that the term ‘professional boundaries’ was to be given its ordinary meaning. However, the panel’s interpretation of this term was also informed by Cognita Personal and Professional Boundaries policy at paragraph 3.3 which states that:- 3.3 A ‘professional boundary’ is defined as an effective and appropriate interaction between all employees, coworkers, and their customers/clients. The purpose of a boundary is to protect all parties. The panel considered allegations 2 (a) to 5 (b) before going on to determine the stem of the allegation, namely whether the Teacher failed to maintain professional boundaries. The panel determined that the behaviour specified in allegations 2 (a) to 5 (b) amounted to the failure to maintain professional boundaries for the following reasons:- Mr Silva failed to develop effective professional relationship with Colleagues. (Teachers’ standards 2011 updated 2013, part 1, section 8.) 7 Mr Silva failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which he taught. (Teachers’ standards, part 2.) Mr Silva failed to uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by treating. .with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position (Teachers’ standards, part 2.) The panel noted that even though in the Teachers’ standards, the latter standard pertained to treating ‘pupils’ with dignity, this standard ought to equally apply to a teacher’s treatment of colleagues as this was a prerequisite for building relationships with colleagues which were based on mutual respect. 2. On dates between 27 November 2018 and 21 December 2019: a. You contacted Colleague A by social media; b. You engaged in sexually explicit conversation with Colleague A. Mr Silva worked at Downsend School. Colleague A had been a pupil in Mr Silva’s class during the academic year 2010/11 and she had been a gap year teaching assistant working at the school during academic year 2018/19. Mr Silva admits that: Between 27 November 2018 and 21 December 2019, Mr Silva contacted Colleague A by social media. Between 27 November 2018 and 21 December 2019, Mr Silva engaged in sexually explicit conversation with Colleague A. The following messages were sent to Colleague A:- a. “you’re cute and fussy” b. “I’ll leave you alone before I say something inappropriate” c. “what’s wrong with cum, it’s natural?” d. “Fuck me, you look amazing. Properly stunning!” e. “your amazing boobs”. Mr Silva accordingly admits the facts of allegation 2. The panel was presented with several screenshots of communication via social media between the Teacher and Colleague A. The panel noted that the content of much of this communication was sexual in nature. 8 The panel accepted Mr Silva’s admission, which was consistent with the evidence before it. The panel found allegation 2 proved. 3. On a date between September 2018 to July 2019 told Colleague A that: a. She should wear a bikini: and b. That you would like that. Mr Silva admitted that within the time period specified by the allegation, he stated to Colleague A:- that Colleague A should wear a bikini on a school trip to a waterpark and that he would like this. Mr Silva admitted the facts of allegation 3. The panel accepted Mr Silva’s admission, which was consistent with the evidence before it. The panel noted that this allegation came from the witness statement of Colleague A which is undated and did not appear to be contemporaneous. However, the panel determined that Colleague A gave credible evidence in this statement which was corroborated by Mr Silva’s admission. The panel found allegation 3 proved. 4. On dates after December 2018: a. You contacted Colleague B by social media; b. You disclosed sexually explicit details to Colleague B; c. You made comments about Colleague B’s clothing; d. You made comments about Colleague B’s appearance; e. You persistently invited Colleague B for drinks. Mr Silva admitted that during one or more dates after December 2018, he:- Disclosed sexually explicit