Mr Nasser Khalil

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

Teacher's name: Mr Nasser Khalil

Teacher reference number: 9457146

Teacher's date of birth: 27 May 1970

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, west midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 November 2021

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 Nasser Khalil, formerly employed in Birmingham, west midlands.

Mr Nasser Khalil: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2021 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 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Nasser Khalil Teacher ref number: 9457146 Teacher date of birth: 27 May 1970 TRA reference: 18895 Date of determination: 11 November 2021 Former employer: Oasis Blackenhale Junior School, West Midlands Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 November 2021 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Nasser Khalil. The panel members were Mr Martin Coles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Elizabeth Walters (lay panellist) and Ms Melissa West (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Sam Haldane of Birketts 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 Khalil that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Khalil provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr David Collins of Capsticks Solicitors LLP, Mr Khalil or any representative. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 10 September 2021. It was alleged that Mr Khalil was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 15 November 2019 you were convicted of: (a) Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child; (b) Attempt to cause/incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration. Mr Khalil admitted the facts of allegations 1(a) and 1(b) and that his behaviour amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the response to the notice of referral, dated 28 October 2020, and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Khalil on 6 July 2021. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the “May 2020 Procedures”). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in April 2018 (the “April 2018 Procedures”) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 6 to 16 5 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 17 to 41 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 42 to 94 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 95 to 101 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 Khalil on 6 July 2021. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Khalil 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 Khalil was employed by Oasis Blackenhale Junior School (‘the School’), as a key stage 1 and 2 supply teacher from 7 December 2015 to 13 November 2019. Mr Khalil sent sexualised messages to an online profile posing as a 12-year-old girl between the 6 and 13 November 2019. Mr Khalil was arrested by West Midlands Police, on 14 November 2019, and admitted to sending sexualised messages. On 15 November 2019, Mr Khalil was found guilty at Birmingham & Solihull Magistrates’ Court of the offences: 1(a) “Adult Attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child” 1(b)_ “Attempt/cause/incite a girl under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration”. On 14 January 2020, Mr Khalil was sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court to 20 months’ imprisonment in respect of allegation 1(b); 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent in 6 respect of allegation 1(a); and a sexual harm prevention order for a period of 10 years until further order. The TRA received a referral from West Midlands Police on 18 November 2019 and Mr Khalil’s employer, Monarch Education, on 15 January 2020. On 2 February 2021, Mr Khalil confirmed that all allegations as detailed in the notice of referral were admitted. 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 15 November 2019 you were convicted of: a. Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child; b. Attempt to cause/incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers (“the Advice”) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time of a criminal offence, the hearing will not re-examine the facts of the case and the panel will accept the conviction as conclusive proof that establishes the relevant fact. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from The Crown Court at Birmingham, which detailed that Mr Khalil had been convicted of adult attempt to engage in sexual communications with a child and attempt to cause/incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration, in respect of his actions between 6 and 13 November 2019. In addition, the panel noted that within the statement of agreement facts, signed by Mr Khalil on 6 July 2021, Mr Khalil admitted the facts of allegation 1(a) and 1(b). On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegation 1 were proven. 7 Findings as to a conviction of a relevant offence Having found a number of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel noted also that Mr Khalil admitted the conviction was for a relevant offence. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Khalil, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Khalil 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. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the offence had taken place outside of the school setting and had not involved pupils from the School where Mr Khalil worked or other members of staff. However, the panel concluded that Mr Khalil’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting in that Mr Khalil had attempted to engage in sexual communications with a child and attempt to cause/incite a girl under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity, and Mr Khalil was responsible for teaching individuals of that age (and younger). The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Khalil’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Khalil’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. This was a case involving an offence of a sexual nature, which the Advice states is more likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Khalil’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that this conviction was for a relevant offence and it was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the protection of pupils, the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Khalil, which involved attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and attempting to cause/incite a girl under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the serious findings of inappropriate communications with a child. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Khalil were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Khalil was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Khalil. In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Khalil. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that are relevant in this case are: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; 9 • abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils) or violation of the rights of pupils; • sustained deliberate behaviour that undermines pupils, the profession, the school or colleagues; • sexual misconduct, for example, involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; • the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are ‘relevant matters’ for the purposes of The Police Act 1997 and criminal record disclosures. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was no evidence that Mr Khalil’s actions were not deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Khalil was acting under duress. Whilst evidence including past work references was submitted to attest to Mr Khalil’s previous history as a teacher, the panel did not consider this provided sufficient mitigation in view of the nature and severity of the behaviour. Mr Khalil did not submit any documents or mitigation for the panel to consider. The panel took into account the sentencing remarks which were included in the bundle, which explained that Mr Khalil’s [REDACTED]. However, the panel was not provided with details of this mitigation and therefore could not properly assess it. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings was sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Khalil of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Khalil. The seriousness of the convictions was a significant factor in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. 10 The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are behaviours that, if proved, would militate against the recommendation of a review period. One of these behaviours include serious sexual misconduct, such as where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used his professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons. The panel found that Mr Khalil was responsible for having been convicted of an offence relating to and involving sexual activity. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate in all the circumstances for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Nasser Khalil should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Khalil is 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. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Khalil fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. 11 The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a finding of a conviction of a relevant offence which involved attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and attempting to cause/incite a girl under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Khalil, and the impact that will have on him, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children. The panel has observed, “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Khalil, which involved attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and attempting to cause/incite a girl under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the serious findings of inappropriate communications with a child.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have noted that Mr Khalil admitted the facts of the allegations, however the panel did not comment on whether Mr Khalil had provided evidence of insight and/or remorse and in my judgement, the lack of evidence of insight and/or remorse means that there is some risk of repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the safety or security of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Khalil were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” “The panel decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Khalil was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.” I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to 12 consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Khalil himself and the panel comment “Whilst evidence including past work references was submitted to attest to Mr Khalil’s previous history as a teacher, the panel did not consider this provided sufficient mitigation in view of the nature and severity of the behaviour. Mr Khalil did not submit any documents or mitigation for the panel to consider. The panel took into account the sentencing remarks which were included in the bundle, which explained that Mr Khalil’s [REDACTED]. However, the panel was not provided with details of this mitigation and therefore could not properly assess it.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Khalil from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning public confidence. The panel has said, “the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Khalil’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that this conviction was for a relevant offence and it was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession.” I have also placed considerable weight on the finding of the panel that “Mr Khalil’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting in that Mr Khalil had attempted to engage in sexual communications with a child and attempt to cause/incite a girl under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity, and Mr Khalil was responsible for teaching individuals of that age (and younger).” I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Khalil has made and is making to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended that no provision should be made for a review period. 13 I have considered the panel’s comments “The Advice indicates that there are behaviours that, if proved, would militate against the recommendation of a review period. One of these behaviours include serious sexual misconduct, such as where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used his professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons. The panel found that Mr Khalil was responsible for having been convicted of an offence relating to and involving sexual activity.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, three factors mean that allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the seriousness of the conviction, lack of either insight or remorse, and the potential risk to pupils. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Nasser Khalil is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Khalil shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Khalil has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Sarah Buxcey Date: 12 November 2021 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.