Mr Nemiya Rookwood

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 Nemiya Rookwood 

Teacher reference number: 3670477

Teacher's date of birth: 20 April 1991

Location teacher worked: Lincolnshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 November 2019, 12 September 2022 to 15 September 2022, 2 December 2024 to 4 December 2024

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 Nemiya Rookwood formerly employed in Lincolnshire, East 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 Nemiya Rookwood: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 12 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 19 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Nemiya Rookwood Teacher ref number: 3670477 Teacher date of birth: 20 April 1991 TRA reference: 17489 Date of determination: 4 December 2024 Former employer: Lincoln University Technical College, Lincoln Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 November 2019 (“Day One”), 12 September 2022 (“Day Two”), 13 September 2022 (“Day Three”), 14 September 2022 (“Day Four”) 15 September 2022 (“Day Five”), 2 December 2024 (“Day Six”), 3 December 2024 (“Day Seven”) and 4 December 2024 (“Day Eight”), at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Rookwood. The panel members for Day One were Mr Mike Carter (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist) and John Elliott (lay panellist). The panel members for Days Two, Three, Four, Five, Six and Seven were Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist) and Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel for Day One was Mr Prem Thakor, for Days Two and Three was Miss Rebecca Underwood and for Days Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight was Mrs Luisa Gibbons. Each Legal Adviser was of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Philip Dayle of No 5 Barristers Chambers, instructed initially by DAC Beachcroft and latterly by Capsticks LLP. Mr Rookwood was present throughout and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations On Day One, the panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 27 November 2019. By the time the hearing resumed on Day Two, a replacement notice of proceedings had been issued dated 7 July 2022. It was the allegations in this notice that was considered by the panel from Day Two onwards. It was alleged that Mr Rookwood was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: Whilst employed or contracted to work at Lincoln University Technical College (“the School”) between 31 August 2016 and 9 May 2018: 1. On one or more occasions, he used inappropriate and/or derogatory words to the effect that Staff Member A and/or Staff Member B were “ice bitches” in the presence of Staff Member A and/or Staff Member B. 2. On or around 29 March 2018, he made an inappropriate comment of a sexual nature to Staff Member B when he told Staff Member B that he wanted to unbutton her skirt. 3. He made an inappropriate comment of a sexual nature in the presence of Staff Member C when he said words to the effect that he had found a way to increase the girth of his penis. 4. He behaved in an inappropriate and sexually suggestive manner towards Staff Member A when on one or more occasions he looked up and down Staff Members A’s body and made a suggestive groaning noise towards her. 5. He behaved in an inappropriate and sexually suggestive manner towards Staff Member B when on numerous occasions he looked up and down Staff Member B’s body and made a suggestive and/or approving noise. 6. He subjected Staff Member A to inappropriate and unwanted physical contact on the following occasion(s); (a) During December 2017, he squeezed Staff Member A’s bottom twice and/or (b) He rubbed his groin against Staff Member A’s bottom whilst in the staff room and/or (c) He rubbed his groin against Staff Member A’s bottom whilst in the SEND room. 7. He subjected Staff Member B to unwanted physical contact on 30 April, in the staff room by: (a) Grabbing at Staff Member B’s leg and/or (b) Trying to lift up Staff Member B’s feet and/or (c) Lifting Staff Member B up and/or 5 (d) Putting Staff Member B over his shoulder and/or (e) Smacking or tapping Staff Member B on the bottom. 8. On or before 8 May 2018, he behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner, whether or not the acts were carried out during working hours or at his workplace, when he (a) Sent one or more unsolicited and intimate images or photos of himself naked in which his penis was visible and erect, to a group of young women (“the Group”) that he had met in a business context and/or (b) Sent one or more unsolicited videos or other footage of himself masturbating to the Group. 9. On or around 8 May 2018, during the school day and on school premises, he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to Staff Member B concerning his behaviour outlined in Allegation 9 8 above. 10. On or around 8 May 2018, during the school day and on school premises, he showed or attempted to show Staff Member B one or more images or photos of himself naked. 11. On or around 8 May 2018, during the school day and on school premises, he asked Staff Member B if she wanted to see one or more images or photos of himself naked. 12. On 8 May 2018, he asked Staff member B to agree to take a telephone call from a third party whom he anticipated would call the school to complain about his behaviour as outlined in allegation 9 8 above when he knew that Staff Member B was not the appropriate person to take that call. 13. O n 8 May 2018 he made the request referred to in allegation 13 12 above with the intention that any complaint would be concealed from more senior colleagues. 14. His conduct as set out in all or any of the allegations above that are found proved constitute a failure to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position. 15. By virtue of his conduct as set out in all or any of the allegations 1 – 14 13 above that are found proved he failed to maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school. 16. H is conduct as set out in all or any of the allegations 1 – 14 13 above that are found proved constitute a failure to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the School. 17. B y his conduct set out in paragraph 13 12 and/or 14 13, he failed to act with integrity. 18. His conduct set out in all or any of the following allegations that are found proved was sexually motivated: 6 (a) Allegation 1 (b) Allegation 3 (c) Allegation 4 (d) Allegation 5 (e) Allegation 6 (f) Allegation 7 (g) Allegation 8 (h) Allegation 9 (i) Allegation 10 (j) Allegation 11 (k) Allegation 12. During the course of Day Two, the allegations were amended as indicated by the tracked changes above. Mr Rookwood denied all of the allegations and denied that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application for Special Measures On Day One the presenting officer applied for Staff Member B to be treated as a vulnerable witness and for special measures to be granted: • to allow her to give evidence by video link; • for a screen to be put in place so that she could not see Mr Rookwood as she gave evidence; and • that a witness supporter be allowed to be with her. Mr Rookwood did not have any response to make regarding this application. The panel enquired with the presenting officer how it was proposed that Staff Member B be questioned on behalf of Mr Rookwood given that he had no representative. Paragraph 4.72 of the Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession Updated April 2018 (“the Procedures”) states that: “where […] any part of the allegation against a teacher is sexual in nature and the alleged victim is giving evidence […] the teacher will not be allowed to examine or cross-examine the witness. In such circumstances, the panel may direct that examination or cross-7 examination of the witness will be undertaken by such means, or by such person, as the panel considers appropriate.” The panel acceded to the presenting officer’s application that Staff Member B be treated as a vulnerable witness since the panel was satisfied that the quality of her evidence was likely to be adversely affected at a hearing and that she required special consideration. The panel confirmed that it would adopt such measures as it considered necessary to safeguard the interests of Staff Member B and that this included giving evidence by video link. It also directed that an intermediary be instructed to ask questions of Staff Member B on behalf of Mr Rookwood. Since no intermediary was instructed to attend, the hearing adjourned. Application to admit the hearsay evidence of Staff Member B and Staff Member E On Day Two of the hearing, the presenting officer applied to admit the hearsay evidence of Staff Member B. It was explained that it had been the intention to call Staff Member B to give oral evidence. However, it had not been possible to instruct an intermediary to ask questions of her on behalf of Mr Rookwood within the original period listed to hear this case, and the hearing was adjourned. By the time the hearing resumed in September 2022, Staff Member B had disengaged from the proceedings. The presenting officer also applied to admit the hearsay evidence of Staff Member E. The presenting officer explained that Staff Member A referred to in the allegations did not provide a witness statement to the TRA for these proceedings, but had spoken at the time of the School’s investigation to