Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

0347727

Teacher's date of birth:

13 August 1979

Location teacher worked:

Bradford, West Yorkshire

Date of professional conduct panel:

31 October 2018 to 2 November 2018

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 Mohammed Sarwar Lone, formerly employed in Bradford, West Yorkshire.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WTat 9.30am on 31 October 2018 to 2 November 2018.

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 Mohammed Sarwar Lone: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2018 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 3 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 E. Decision and reasons 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mohammed Sarwar Lone Teacher ref number: 0347727 Teacher date of birth: 13 August 1979 TRA reference: 15679 Date of determination: 2 November 2018 Former employer: Grange Technology College, Bradford A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 31 October 2018 to 2 November 2018 at Cheylesmore House, Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Mohammed Sarwar Lone. The panel members were Ms Alison Feist (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Kevin Robertshaw (lay panellist) and Mr Steve Oliver (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Surekha Gollapudi of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Miss Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Lone was present and was represented by Mr Marc Beaumont of Counsel. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 4 June 2018. It was alleged that Mr Lone was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Between March 2016 and May 2016 he failed to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries in that he made persistent and unwanted contact with Witness A in that he: a. on one or more occasion contacted her via text message; b. on one or more occasion contacted her by telephone; c. sent Witness A one or more e-mails from one or more email accounts; d. visited her classroom on one or more occasion; e. on one occasion left sweets in her classroom. 2. His conduct at 1 above occurred and/or continued despite Witness A telling him to stop on one or more occasion. 3. Between March 2016 and May 2016 he made inappropriate comments to Witness A in that he: a. commented on Witness A’s clothing and/or the way she dressed; b. suggested that Witness A should pray more or words to that effect. 4. On or around 25 May 2016, he acted in a threatening way towards Witness A by pulling a lanyard from her neck. 5. On a date before 9 June 2016, he threw a Quran at and/or towards Witness A. The teacher admitted the fact of allegations 1.a. to 1.d. but denied that these actions were unwanted. The teacher denied the remaining allegations. The teacher denied that the admitted allegations were unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 C. Preliminary applications Admissibility of Late Documents The presenting officer applied to admit two documents, a character reference for Mr Lone and a supplementary document prepared by Witness A. These documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures, at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer and the objections raised by the teacher’s representative to the admission of the supplementary document prepared by Witness A. Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was satisfied that the documents may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The first document was a character reference in support of the teacher which was omitted from the panel’s bundle due to an administrative error. The second document was an unsigned document from Witness A setting out her view of the impact of the allegations on her. With regard to the overall question of fairness the panel noted it would have the opportunity to confirm in oral evidence whether the document was in fact written by Witness A and the teacher’s representative would have the opportunity to question her on the statement. Decision on anonymity of Witness A at the hearing Paragraph 4.60 of the Procedures allows the panel, if it considers it to be in the interests of justice, to decide that the name and identity of a witness, either referred to in the hearing papers or present before the panel to give oral evidence, shall not be disclosed during the hearing or at all. The panel took into account the general rule that matters pertaining to these hearings should be held in public and took account of case law that states: “It is necessary because the public nature of proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court. It also maintains the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. It enables the public to know that justice is being administered impartially. It can result in evidence becoming available which would not become available if the proceedings were conducted behind closed doors or with one or more of the parties’ or witnesses’ identity concealed. It makes uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings less likely”. The panel had regard to whether the request for anonymity of the witness runs contrary to the public interest. The panel also had regard to the principle that limited interference 6 with the public nature of the proceedings is preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel has decided that, in the circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to anonymise the name of Witness A as the vulnerable witness measures already put in place are a sufficient safeguard to support Witness A in giving her evidence. Decision on Excluding the Public The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This followed a request by the teacher that the hearing should be in private. The panel determined not to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. The panel noted that the teacher had concerns about the impact of the hearing on his young family. The panel balanced the reasons why the teacher requested that the public be excluded against the competing reasons for which a public hearing is required and has found that in this case, the public should not be excluded. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings, Response and Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 5 to 18 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 20 to 26 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 28 to 386 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 388 to 475 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Character reference – page 477 7 Additional document prepared by Witness A – pages 479 to 481 Additional character references – pages 482 to 500 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: i) Witness A – Teacher at the School; ii) Witness B – Pastoral Manager at the School; iii) Witness C – Teacher at the School. Mr Lone gave evidence on his own behalf. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and has reached a decision. Mr Lone was appointed as the “Second in Area Humanities” at Grange Technology College on 30 January 2015. It is alleged that between March 2016 and May 2016 Mr Lone made persistent and unwanted contact towards a colleague at the school, including through emails, phone calls and texts as well as visits to the teacher’s classroom. It is further alleged that Mr Lone acted aggressively towards the colleague on two separate occasions. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 1. Between March 2016 and May 2016 [you] failed to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries in that you made persistent and unwanted contact with Witness A in that you: a. on one or more occasion contacted her via text message b. on one or more occasion contacted her via telephone c. sent Witness A one or more e-mails from one or more e-mail accounts 8 d. visited her classroom on one or more occasion The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A that she met Mr Lone as a result of being colleagues at the school, and that they later became friends. Witness A confirmed in oral evidence that she would regularly get a lift home from school with Mr Lone in order to avoid getting the same bus home as pupils and so she could maintain professional boun