Mr Vevekanand Singh

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 Vevekanand Singh

Teacher reference number: 3332958

Teacher's date of birth: 23 July 1974

Location teacher worked: Dagenham, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 18 and 19 December 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 Vevekanand Singh formerly employed in Dagenham, 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 Vevekanand Singh Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 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 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 213 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Vevekanand Singh Teacher ref number: 3332958 Teacher date of birth: 23 July 1974 TRA reference: 19010 Date of determination: 19 December 2024 Former employer: Hunters Hall Primary School, Dagenham (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 18 and 19 December 2024 consider the case of Mr Vevekanand Singh. The panel members were Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist – in the chair), Dr Sian Rees-Evans (lay panellist) and Mr Richard Young (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael Bellis of Capsticks Solicitors LLP. Mr Singh was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceeding dated 19 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Singh was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. On or around 19 April 2019, Mr Singh: a) Did not report receipt of a Category A indecent video of a child (‘the Video’) from Person A on Facebook, to: i) The Police, and/or ii) Hunters Hall Primary School, and/or iii) Facebook; b) messaged Person A on Facebook and: i) in replying to Person A, uploaded a copy of the Video to Facebook; ii) made one or more of the comments set out in Schedule A. Schedule A Statement or words to the effect 1. This look like one little child 2. Being fucked Mr Singh was not present at the hearing. As such, the facts of the allegations and that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute was treated as not admitted. Preliminary applications Applicable procedures The panel noted the allegations against Mr Singh were referred to the TRA on 6 January 2020. As such, the 2018 version of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession (the “Procedures”) applied in this case. Notwithstanding the above, the panel acknowledged that the notice of proceeding dated 19 September 2024 referred Mr Singh to certain provisions in the 2020 version of the Procedures. The panel considered paragraph 1.6 of the 2020 version of the Procedures, which stated the 2018 version of the Procedures will apply to the case unless, in the interests of justice or the public interest, the TRA or the panel directs otherwise. 5 As the notice of proceeding referred Mr Singh to the provisions of the 2020 versions of the Procedures, the panel considered that it was in the interests of justice for the 2020 version of the Procedures to apply in this case. The panel noted that no objections to the application of the 2020 version of the Procedures was received. Additionally, the panel considered that Mr Singh would not suffer prejudice as a result of the 2020 version of the Procedures applying to his case. Accordingly, the panel determined that the 2020 version of the Procedures applied to Mr Singh’s case pursuant to paragraph 1.6 of the Procedures. Admitting late documents The presenting officer applied to admit documents not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.36 of the Procedures. As such, the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. Under paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The presenting officer directed the panel to a bundle of documents which consisted of the following correspondence between the presenting officer’s firm and Mr Singh: • Email from Mr Singh to the presenting officer’s firm dated 8 March 2023; • Email from the presenting officer’s firm to Mr Singh dated 8 March 2023; • Email from the presenting officer’s firm to Mr Singh dated 23 May 2024 attaching a letter of the same date; and • Email from the presenting officer's firm to Mr Singh dated 9 December 2024. The panel determined that the correspondence bundle was relevant to the presenting officer’s application to proceed in absence and that it was fair to admit them in order that the application could be properly considered. The statement of Mr Singh enclosed with one of the emails contained evidence in relation to Mr Singh’s response to the allegations, which was of obvious relevance, and it was fair to be admitted in order that the panel could be sighted as to Mr Singh’s position. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the documents. The panel noted that each of the 7 pages contained in the correspondence bundle would be paginated as annex 1 to 7 respectively. Proceeding in absence 6 The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Singh. The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Singh. 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 proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of 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]. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003]. The panel was satisfied that Mr Singh was aware of the proceedings, given his previous engagement with the TRA and the presenting officer’s firm. Mr Singh provided evidence to form part of the hearing bundle for the hearing, which included a written statement dated 12 February 2021 and 3 separate character references. Additionally, Mr Singh last corresponded with the presenting officer’s firm by email on 8 March 2023 in relation to a draft statement of agreed facts. The panel noted that Mr Singh did not agree to the statement of agreed facts in his email and thereafter failed to engage further with the proceedings. The panel therefore considered that Mr Singh had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. The panel noted it would have the benefit of written evidence provided by Mr Singh, including evidence addressing mitigation, which the panel could take into account at the relevant stage. The panel considered that there was no evidence before the panel that an adjournment would result in Mr Singh attending voluntarily, and this was especially unlikely given Mr Singh’s lack of engagement since March 2023. The panel noted that a witness was to be called to give oral evidence and the panel could test that evidence in questioning, considering such points as are favourable to Mr Singh, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel also noted that it would be 7 inconvenient for the witness to return again. Delaying the case might also impact upon the memory of the witness. The panel recognised that it was 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 Singh’s account. The panel recognised that the allegations against Mr Singh are serious and that there was a real risk that, if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. The panel further 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 panel also acknowledged that the witness to be called was a professional public servant and therefore the inconvenience caused by adjournment was particularly important. The panel considered that, by taking such measures referred to above to address unfairness insofar as is possible, and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witness, on balance, the seriousness of the allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing in the absence of the teacher. 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 Singh. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pag