Mr Shabil Al-Amin Syed

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 Shabil Al-Amin Syed

Location teacher worked: Liverpool, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 October 2024

Outcome type: No order made

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 Shabil Al-Amin Syed formerly employed in Liverpool, North West 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 Shabil Al-Amin Syed: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 3 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Shabil Al-Amin Syed TRA reference: 20202 Date of determination: 16 October 2024 Former employer: Childwall Sports and Science Academy, Liverpool (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 14 to 16 October 2024, to consider the case of Mr Syed. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (Lay Panellist – in the chair), Mrs Jayne Bamford (Lay Panellist) and Ms Claire Scott (Teacher Panellist). The Legal Adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The Presenting Officer for the TRA was Mrs Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Syed was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save for parts which were heard in private, and was recorded. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 25 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Syed was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at the Childwall Sports and Science Academy: 1. Owing to his absence from Childwall Sports and Science Academy on 23 June 2021, he provided false and/or inaccurate information to the school, by; a) Informing the school, the reason of his absence on 23 June 2021 was due to his [REDACTED]; b) Failing to follow the school’s absence policy; 4 c) Failing to disclose his arrest, namely that he was arrested on suspicion of committing (1) s47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm and (2) engage in controlling / coercive behaviour in an [REDACTED]; d) Failing to disclose he was subject to a police investigation; and/or e) Failing to indicate there were any concerns regarding child safeguarding. 2. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr Syed stated in his response dated 31 July 2024 to the Notice of Hearing dated 25 July 2024 that he admitted all the allegations. Mr Syed also admitted the allegations amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. However, given that Mr Syed did not attend the hearing, the allegations were treated as not admitted. Preliminary applications The panel considered the following applications: Application to proceed in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer for the hearing to proceed in the absence of Mr Syed. The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Syed. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1)(a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Hearing complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003] that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis [2016]. 5 In making its decision, the panel has noted that Mr Syed may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003]. Mr Syed responded to the Notice of Hearing dated 25 July 2024 on 31 July 2024 stating that he intended to be present at the hearing. However, the panel considered further evidence that Mr Syed corresponded by email with representatives of the TRA thereafter on 3 September 2024 and 4 September 2024 stating that he could not attend the hearing as he is “unable to take time off work”. Mr Syed further clarified in an email dated 9 October 2024 to representatives of the TRA that he had “no holidays left, and would have to take unpaid leave if it is granted, which [he] can’t really afford to do”. The panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Syed was aware of the proceedings, having seen the correspondence stating the reason for his absence was due to work commitments. The panel further considered that Mr Syed stated in an email on 9 October 2024 to representatives of the TRA that he was “unaware that [he] could ask for the date to be postponed”. The panel considered whether Mr Syed would attend a hearing at an alternative date when he would have the ability to take paid leave from work. However, the panel also considered that it saw no evidence of Mr Syed requesting a postponement. Mr Syed also queried in an email on 3 September 2024 to representatives of the TRA “is it possible that the hearing goes ahead without my attendance?”. Mr Syed had been provided with information regarding the applicable Procedures in the Notice of Hearing dated 25 July 2024 and the Procedures references the process to be adopted if a party wishes to reschedule or adjourn a hearing. The panel therefore determined that Mr Syed had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place and that an adjournment would not necessarily result in Mr Syed attending the hearing. The panel had regard to the benefit of written evidence provided by Mr Syed, including evidence addressing mitigation, and that it is able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel further had regard to the fact that Mr Syed had admitted all the allegations and only raised minor points of dispute with Witness C’s witness statement dated 20 March 2024 in an email dated 9 October 2024 sent to a representative of the TRA, which were not fundamental to any of the allegations or the outcome of the hearing. The panel noted that witnesses relied upon were to be called to give evidence and the panel can test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to Mr Syed, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it. Should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel may take such gaps into consideration in determining whether the hearing should be adjourned. The panel was 6 also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard Mr Syed’s account. The panel recognised that the allegations against Mr Syed are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that Mr Syed ought to be prohibited from being a teacher. The panel also recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged was said to have taken place whilst Mr Syed was employed temporarily at the School. The School therefore had an interest in the hearing taking place in order to move forwards. This was especially the case as the allegations against Mr Syed occurred in 2021, meaning a considerable amount of time has already passed. The panel had regard to the three witnesses that were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for this to be rearranged. Delaying the case may impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear, by taking such measures referred to above to address any unfairness insofar as is possible, and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses, that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing. The panel therefore determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Syed. Application to exclude the public from the hearing Mr Syed indicated in his response dated 31 July 2024 to the Notice of Hearing dated 25 July 2024 that he intended to make an application to exclude the public from the hearing. The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures to exclude the public 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 has noted there are concerns about matters relating to Mr Syed’s [REDACTED]. The panel balanced the reasons why the public should be excluded from the hearing against the competing reasons for which a public hearing is required. The panel noted that any departure from the general rule has to be no