Mr Paul Rajasegaram

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 Paul Rajasegaram

Teacher reference number: 1065125

Teacher's date of birth: 1 April 1988

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 3 October 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 Paul Rajasegaram, formerly employed in London, England.

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 Paul Rajasegaram Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2023 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 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Rajasegaram Teacher ref number: 1065125 Teacher date of birth: 1 April 1988 TRA reference: 0017218 Date of determination: 3 October 2023 Former employer: Oaklands School, Tower Hamlets (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 3 October 2023 virtually to consider the case of Mr Paul Rajasegaram. The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (Chair – lay panellist), Ms Miranda Norris (teacher panellist) and Ms Helen Kielty (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) 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 Rajasegaram that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Rajasegaram provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted to having been convicted 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) and Mr Rajasegaram. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 28 July 2023. It was alleged that Mr Rajasegaram was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: He was convicted and sentenced on 19 May 2021 of the following relevant offence(s): 1. Two counts of Distributing Indecent Photographs or Pseudo-Photographs of Children, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978; 2. Three counts of Making Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of Children, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Rajasegaram admitted the facts and allegations. The panel noted from the certificate of conviction that Mr Rajasegaram was convicted on 14 April 2021 and was sentenced on 19 May 2021. It was evident to the panel that the allegations in the notice of meeting were incorrect; the panel believed this to be a typographical error. The panel therefore saw no prejudice to either party in amending the allegations to read: “… convicted on 14 April 2021 and sentenced on 19 May 2021 for the following relevant offence(s):[…]”. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. 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 2 to 3; Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 4 to 20; Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 21 to 25; Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 26 to 49; The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Rajasegaram on 15 November 2022. 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 Rajasegaram 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. In September 2016 Mr Rajasegaram commenced employment at the School as a Music Teacher. He delivered one to one and small group music tuition as part of his role. On 4 January 2018 Mr Rajasegaram was arrested on School premises for allegations of possession and distribution of indecent images of children. On 11 May 2018 the School terminated Mr Rajasegaram’s employment contract. On 14 April 2021 Mr Rajasegaram was convicted at Southwark Crown Court and, on 19 May 2021, he was sentenced. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against Mr Rajasegaram proved, for these reasons: Mr Rajasegaram was convicted on 14 April 2021 and sentenced on 19 May 2021 for the following offence(s): 1. Two counts of Distributing Indecent Photographs or Pseudo-Photographs of Children, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978; 2. Three counts of Making Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of Children, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978. The allegations were admitted and were supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. The allegations were, therefore, found proved. In particular, the panel had regard to the certificate of conviction within the bundle, which provided conclusive evidence of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. 6 In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Rajasegaram accepted that he distributed and/or made numerous indecent images of children (including still images and videos). On Mr Rajasegaram’s laptop, the Police found 11 images at Category A, 11 images at Category B and 46 images at Category C. The Police also searched Mr Rajasegaram’s Skype account, in which they identified 18 Category A images and 2 Category C images. Mr Rajasegaram used Skype, [REDACTED], to communicate with, and distribute images to, third parties. There is no evidence to suggest that the images were of children who were pupils at the School. The statement of agreed facts refers to the sentencing remarks of Judge [REDACTED], which stated that Mr Rajasegaram had readily and enthusiastically engaged in conversations about the sexual abuse of students who were in his care. Additionally, some of the images involved very young children, children as young as three years old. In some images, the children in question were in discernible pain and distress. Images were possessed and distributed over a lengthy period of time. Mr Rajasegaram, took an active involvement in the website which allowed him to communicate with, and share images with, other people who shared his sexual interest in children. On 19 May 2021, Mr Rajasegaram was sentenced to a total of 27 months imprisonment, a sexual harm prevention order for an indefinite period, that he may be placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service and that he be placed on the Sex Offenders register for 10 years. 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. 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 Rajasegaram, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Rajasegaram 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 treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others 7 Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. 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 individual’s actions were relevant to teaching. Although the allegations against Mr Rajasegaram related to conduct outside of his workplace and his education setting, the panel noted that Mr Rajasegaram had discussed with third parties online how he would like to engage in sexual conduct with some of his pupils. There was no evidence to suggest that he acted on these fantasies (and indeed the allegations for this panel to determine do not include reference to conduct in the workplace) but, notwithstanding this, the panel find that Mr Rajasegaram’s actions are relevant to his role in the teaching profession. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and/or security of members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Rajasegaram’s behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Rajasegaram was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Rajasegaram’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed, and which the Advice states is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. This was a case concerning an offence involving activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or