Mr Sheamol Ali

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 Sheamol Ali

Teacher reference number: 1663835

Teacher's date of birth: 12 December 1992

Location teacher worked: South west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 October 2022

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 Sheamol Ali, formerly employed in South 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 Sheamol Ali: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Sheamol Ali Teacher ref number: 1663835 Teacher date of birth: 12 December 1992 TRA reference: 19861 Date of determination: 13 October 2022 Former employer: HIE Education Ltd Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 13 October 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Sheamol Ali. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Geraldine Baird (lay panellist), and Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Ali 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 3 August 2022. It was alleged Mr Ali was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a supply teacher at Katharine Lady Berkeley’s School between September 2020 and January 2021: 1. On or around 10 January 2021, he was in possession of marijuana (class B controlled drug); 2. His conduct as referred to at 1 above constituted a criminal offence, for which he was given a formal warning on or around 10 January 2021; 3. On or around 26 January 2021, he was found to have taken and/or was in possession of: a. cocaine (class A controlled drug); b. MDMA pills (class A controlled drug); c. marijuana (class B controlled drug); 4. On or around 25 January 2021 and 26 January 2021 he engaged in teaching work whilst under the influence of cocaine. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Ali was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Ali. The presenting officer provided a bundle of documents relevant to proceeding in the absence. The bundle of documents contained correspondence between Mr Ali and Browne Jacobson which indicated that he was aware of the proceedings and had received documentation relevant to the proceedings. The bundle also contained a request from Mr Ali for this matter to proceed as a professional conduct panel meeting and an unsigned statement of agreed facts. Mr Ali indicated his intention to sign the statement of agreed facts and informed Browne Jacobson that he had posted a signed 5 copy. However, Browne Jacobson had not received the signed document at the time of the hearing. Therefore, the matter proceeded as a professional conduct panel hearing. 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). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Ali in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession May 2020 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel concluded that Mr Ali’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Ali had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Ali was unfit to attend the hearing. 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. The panel was mindful that it had the benefit of an unsigned statement of agreed facts and representations from Mr Ali in the bundle. Therefore, the panel did not consider that there was a risk of reaching the wrong conclusion as a result of not being able to hear from Mr Ali, or that Mr Ali would be significantly disadvantaged by his non-attendance. 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 Ali was neither present nor represented. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of the unsigned statement of agreed facts and correspondence relating to it. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 4 to 15 • Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 17 to 20 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22 to 57 • Section 4: Correspondence – pages 59 to 68 • Section 5: TRA documents – pages 70 to 107 • Section 6: Teacher documents – 109 to 124. In addition the panel agreed to accept the unsigned statement of agreed facts and correspondence relating to it. 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 No witnesses were called to give oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Ali was employed by HIE Education Ltd, an education supply agency, as a supply teacher. Between 1 September 2020 and 27 January 2021 Mr Ali worked as a supply teacher in the maths department at Katharine Lady Berkeley’s School (“the School”). On 26 January 2021 Mr Ali was stopped by the police whilst driving his car. He was subsequently arrested after the police found a quantity of marijuana (a class B drug) and MDMA (a class A drug) in his car. The police undertook a blood test which showed that Mr Ali had cocaine and marijuana in his system. The police did not take any further action in respect of this matter. 7 It subsequently transpired that prior to the above incident, on 10 January 2021, Mr Ali was approached by police who carried out a search of him and his vehicle. The police found marijuana and gave Mr Ali a formal warning but did not take any further action. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 10 January 2021, you were in possession of marijuana (class B controlled drug; The panel was provided with a letter from Richard Nelson LLP Solicitors dated 13 January 2022, who were instructed by Mr Ali. The letter confirmed that Mr Ali accepted this allegation and apologised for his lapse of judgment. The panel also took account of the unsigned statement of agreed facts which confirmed that Mr Ali admitted allegation 1. Whilst Mr Ali had not signed the statement of agreed facts, the panel was provided with an email from Mr Ali to the presenting officer in which he confirmed he would be sending the presenting officer a signed copy. This indicated to the panel that Mr Ali accepted the statement of agreed facts. On consideration of the documentary evidence before it, the panel found allegation 1 proven. 2. Your conduct as referred to at 1 above constituted a criminal offence, for which you were given a formal warning on or around 10 January 2021; The panel considered the letter from Richard Nelson LLP Solicitors dated 13 January 2022 and noted that Mr Ali accepted this allegation and recognised that the police warning he received was an appropriate way to mark the seriousness of his conduct. The panel also took account of the unsigned statement of agreed facts which confirmed that Mr Ali admitted allegation 2 and accepted that his conduct constituted a criminal offence and that he was given a warning by the police. The panel noted that, whilst Mr Ali was not charged with a criminal offence, s5(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 confirms that it is unlawful for a person to have a controlled drug in their possession. The bundle of documents contained an email from Individual A on 19 November 2021, which stated: “I can confirm…that Mr Ali was issued with a formal warning re. the cannabis on 10/01/2021 as opposed to a police caution…”. 8 On consideration of the documentary evidence before it, the panel found allegation 2 proven. 3. On or around 26 January 2021, you were found to have taken and/or were in possession of: a. cocaine (class A controlled drug); b. MDMA pills (class A controlled drug); c. marijuana (class B controlled drug) The panel considered the letter from Richard Nelson LLP Solicitors dated 13 January 2022 an