Mr Shadie Kanj

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 Shadie Kanj

Teacher reference number: 0744360

Teacher's date of birth: 27 December 1982

Location teacher worked: London

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 to 12

September 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 Shadie Kanj formerly

employed in Southall, London.

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 Shadie Kanj: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Shadie Kanj Teacher ref number: 0744360 Teacher date of birth: 27 December 1982 TRA reference: 21063 Date of determination: 12 September 2024 Former employer: Featherstone High School, Southall Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 11 to 12 September 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Shadie Kanj. The panel members were Mr Paul Millet (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Burton (lay panellist) and Mrs Nicola Anderson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Benjamin Lewins of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Miss Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Kanj was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 19 August 2024. It was alleged that Mr Kanj was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher, including at Cranford Community College: 1. He exposed himself on one or more occasions; 2. His conduct as referred to at allegation 1 above; a. Constituted a criminal offence, for which he accepted a caution on or around 30 September 2011; b. Was of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. 3. Upon applying to and/or in disclosing his caution to Featherstone High School, he did not provide a full and/or true account of the reasons for his caution; 4. In acting as he did at allegation 3 above, he sought to mislead prospective employers; 5. His conduct at allegations 3 and/or 4 above was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr Kanj admitted allegations 1, 2(a), 2(b), 3, 4 and 5, and further admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, as set out in the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Kanj on the 12 June 2024. The panel noted that the statement of agreed facts omitted the phrase “including at Cranford Community College”. The panel considered that this omission was not material as the allegations were fundamentally the same without this wording. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Kanj was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Kanj. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). 5 The panel concluded that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Kanj in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). Although the Notice of Proceedings had not been sent at least ten weeks prior to the date of this hearing, the panel was shown evidence that Mr Kanj had agreed to a shorter notice period to enable the hearing to proceed on these dates. The panel concluded that Mr Kanj’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Kanj had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. [REDACTED]. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Kanj was neither present nor represented. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents. The panel also considered whether to admit an additional document provided by Mr Kanj. The presenting officer’s documents were: • A document titled ‘late document – police disclosure’, which contained a summary of police interviews conducted with Mr Kanj on 15 July 2011 and 30 September 2011 (paginated 45 to 46). • A letter dated 29 January 2024 from the presenting officer to Mr Kanj confirming the allegations against him being investigated. • A letter from Mr Kanj’s former employer [REDACTED] to Mr Kanj dated 15 January 2013 relating to its knowledge of Mr Kanj’s caution(s). The teacher’s document was an email dated 2 September 2024 from [REDACTED] and any inferences that may be drawn from Mr Kanj’s absence. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. 6 The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. The panel accepted the presenting officer’s submissions that Mr Kanj had received these documents in advance of the hearing. The panel also accepted that the police disclosure was omitted from the evidence bundle in error and considered it relevant to whether the allegations were proven. The letter dated 29 January 2024 referred to above was provided by the presenting officer at the request of the panel as it had been referred to elsewhere in the bundle by Mr Kanj. The presenting officer did not object to the admission of Mr Kanj’s document and considered that it went to mitigation provided the panel reached a point where mitigation was necessary to consider. The panel also considered the letter from Bridge Academy relevant to the allegations. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant and accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. Consideration of jurisdiction and applicability of the principle of Res Judicata Allegations 1 and 2 related to matters alleged to have occurred in or around 2011. There was evidence within the bundle of documents that the Independent Safeguarding Authority intended to refer information it held regarding Mr Kanj to the General Teaching Council for England (‘GTCE’) in or around 2012. The bundle did not contain any evidence that such a referral occurred, or that the GTCE had considered and made any determination in relation to, or as a result of, any referral. The panel accepted legal advice provided in relation to the doctrine of Res Judicata. The panel invited the presenting officer to make submissions on the issue of whether any matter before the panel had been authoritatively dealt with previously by the GTCE such that the doctrine of Res Judicata would prohibit the panel from exercising jurisdiction over these matters. The panel accepted the presenting officer’s submissions that, having investigated this extensively prior to this hearing, the TRA had found no evidence that a referral to the GTCE had ever been made or received and/or that any investigation had taken place or determination been made by the GTCE relating to Mr Kanj. The presenting officer also confirmed that Mr Kanj had been invited to submit any evidence he held which was relevant to this issue. Mr Kanj had only provided a letter from the GTCE confirming his registration on 3 February 2012 which made no reference to any disciplinary action or investigation and which the presenting officer submitted was likely to be a generic letter and not indicative of any referral having been received and determined. In the absence of any evidence being located as a result of the TRA’s investigations, or any persuasive evidence provided by Mr Kanj, the panel was satisfied that it had 7 jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing in relation to all allegations and that it was in the interests of justice to do so. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of proceedings – pages 5 to 8 • Section 2: Chronology – page 10 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 12 to 17 • Section 4: TRA witness statements – pages 19 to 33 • Section 5: TRA Teacher documents – pages 35 to 95. • Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 98 to 145. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • A document titled ‘late document – police disclosure’, which contained a summary of police interviews conducted with Mr Kanj on 15 July 2011 and 30 September 2011 (paginated as page 45 to 46) • A letter dated 29 January 2024 from the presenting officer to Mr Kanj confirming the allegations against him being investigated • A letter from Mr Kanj’s former employer ([REDACTED]) to Mr Kanj dated 15 January 2013 relating to its knowledge of Mr Kanj’s caution(s) • An email from Mr Kanj’s [REDACTED] The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses calle