Mr Sayyad Rizvi

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 Sayyad Rizvi

Teacher reference number: 3859922

Teacher's date of birth: 18 February 1984

Location teacher worked: Stantonbury, Milton Keynes

Date of professional conduct panel: 6 November to 8 November 2024, and on 15 November 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 Sayaad Rizvi, formerly employed in Stantonbury, Milton Keynes.

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 Sayyad Rizvi: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Application for the hearing to be held in private 5 Application to admit additional evidence 6 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Sayyad Rizvi Teacher reference number: 3859922 Date of birth: 18 February 1984 TRA reference: 22174 Date of determination: 15 November 2024 Former employer: Stantonbury School, Purbeck, Stantonbury, Milton Keynes Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 6 to 8 November 2024 and again on 15 November 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Sayyad Rizvi. The panel members were Ms Katie Dent (lay panellist) – in the chair, Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist) and Mrs Bernie Whittle (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Lucy Mosley of Blake Morgan Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Scott Smith of Capsticks Solicitors. Mr Rizvi was present and was unrepresented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 15 August 2024. It was alleged that Mr Rizvi was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a teacher at Stantonbury School (“the School”): 1. In August 2022 he sent one or more of the messages set out in Schedule A to Pupil A. 2. His conduct at allegation 1 above was sexually motivated. Schedule A a. “U r good looking and gorgeous” b. “U r very pretty and talented” c. “The room is getting hot, is that bcoz of ur pics” d. “Love u my dear…u r great and friendly” e. “love u dear” f. “wht time u gona sleep” g. “What sort of bf u r looking..Tall?...Like.me” h. “That’s me, not very sexy or smart” i. “Ur pics r very cool and sexy” j. “U look stunning” k. “I thought massage from u wud be best” l. “Take ur top off I will giv u a massage” accompanied by a photograph of a naked woman being given a massage m. “here u go darling” accompanied by a photograph of two semi-naked people n. “Shall I give u a massage” accompanied by the same photo as in Item 12 o. A photograph of two semi-naked people p. An image that contained the web address ‘Teenmegaworld.net’ Mr Rizvi admitted allegation 1 in relation to Schedule A (a), but denied the other allegations. Mr Rizvi denied that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Application for the hearing to be held in private Mr Smith made an oral application to hear part of the proceedings in private when matters of Mr Rizvi’s health were raised, in order to protect Mr Rizvi’s interests and personal life. This application was supported by Mr Rizvi. In determining the application, the panel had careful regard to the parties' submissions, and accepted the legal advice provided. The panel took account of the fact that there is a presumption that hearings of this nature will take place in public and there is a legitimate public interest in the openness and transparency of the TRA's disciplinary procedures. The panel agreed that any references to Mr Rizvi's health should be heard in private, as this is a sensitive matter. That would not be contrary to the public interest. The panel invited the parties to notify it if, at any stage, it was anticipated that it would be necessary to go into private session. Application for special measures Mr Rizvi did not make a formal application for special measures, however he informed the panel that he would require regular breaks in light of his [REDACTED]. Mr Smith had no objection to taking regular breaks in the circumstances. In considering Mr Rizvi’s request, the panel had careful regard to the parties' submissions, and accepted the legal advice provided. The panel bore in mind the requirement to ensure a fair hearing and the overarching need to ensure that justice is done. The panel was content to agree to providing Mr Rizvi with regular breaks in order to accommodate his needs. It determined that this was required in order to ensure a fair hearing. 6 Application to admit additional evidence The panel considered an application made on behalf of the TRA to admit two additional documents, one a Tove Learning Trust Code of Conduct for All Adults dated September 2021, and the second a Tove Learning Trust Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy dated September 2021. Mr Smith explained that versions of these documents were already contained within the TRA bundle, but both were dated September 2022 which post-dated the incidents in question. Therefore, he asked the panel to replace the 2022 versions (at items 12 and 17 in the TRA bundle) with the 2021 versions. In his submission, no prejudice would be caused to Mr Rizvi as this did not constitute new information. Mr Smith told the panel that the 2021 versions were substantially the same as the 2022 versions and the relevant sections were identical. Mr Rizvi did not object to the admission of this evidence. The panel was satisfied that the evidence was relevant to the issues before it and no prejudice or unfairness would be caused by its admission. The documents were accordingly added to the case papers. Application to amend the allegation An application was made by the TRA to amend the wording of allegation 1 Schedule A (n) to address a typographical error. The application was to amend the allegation from: n. “Shall I give u a massage” accompanied by the same photo as in Item 12 to: n. “Shall I give u a massage” accompanied by the same photo as in Item l Mr Rizvi had no objection to the application. The panel agreed to the application. The proposed amendment was only to correct a typographical error. It did not alter the substance of the allegation, or result in new factual particulars being alleged. There was no prejudice to Mr Rizvi as a result of the proposed amendment, and indeed it was to his benefit that the allegations were correctly drafted. The panel had regard to the wider public interest in ensuring that allegations are properly put and do not contain technical deficiencies. In the circumstances of this case, it concluded that the public interest and interest of justice required the allegation to be amended. 7 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 36 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 37 to 50 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 51 to 274 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 275 to 397 Section 6: Teacher’s case law – pages 398 to 437 In addition, the panel agreed to accept two additional documents, the Tove Learning Trust Code of Conduct for All Adults dated September 2021 and the Tove Learning Trust Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy dated September 2021. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing, in addition to the two additional documents the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Witness 1 [REDACTED] Witness 2 [REDACTED] and Witness 3 [REDACTED]. Those witnesses were called by the presenting officer. The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Rizvi. 8 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The School is located in Milton Keynes. At the relevant time it was a mixed gender school for students in years 7-11. It also had a sixth form. The School falls under the Tove Learning Trust (“The Trust”). Mr Rizvi started working at the School on 1 September 2017. He was initially employed under a contract for Griffin School Trust. In September 2021 the Trust took over the School and Mr Rizvi was transferred to the Trust. Mr Rizvi was not provided with a new contract as the staff terms and conditions remained the same. Mr Rizvi initially joined the School as an unqualified teacher of science. He completed his teaching qualification in December 2018 and became a Chemistry teacher. He was appointed as Head of Chemistry on 7 June 2021. During the Covid pandemic Mr Rizvi set up a chemistry channel on various social media platforms called ‘Quinone7’ through which he provided online chemistry resources. This channel was known about by the School. On 11 August 2022, Mr Rizvi reported to the police in Pakistan that his mobile phone had been lost. On 12 August 2022, Person B made a complaint via email to Witness 2 [REDACTED] regarding messages between her daughter, Pupil A, and Mr Rizvi on Instagram. Person B attached a number of screenshots of the messages to the complaint. The messages had been sent from an account in the name of ‘Quinone7’. One of the screenshot messages included an image of Mr Rizvi and four of the oth