Ms Evashni Pather

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: Ms Evashni Pather

Teacher reference number: 1076149

Teacher's date of birth: 18 January 1984

Location teacher worked: East London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 to 16 November 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 Ms Evashni Pather, formerly employed in East London, 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.

Ms Evashni Pather: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Evashni Pather Teacher ref number: 1076149 Teacher date of birth: 18 January 1984 TRA reference: 18625 Date of determination: 16 November 2022 Former employer: Bridge Academy, Hackney Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by virtual means, to consider the case of Ms Evashni Pather, The panel members were Ms Nicola Hartley (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Aidan Jenkins (teacher panellist) and Ms Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Ms Pather was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save for specific matters relating to [REDACTED] that were heard in private. The hearing was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 4 August 2022. It was alleged that Ms Pather was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: Whilst she was employed as a Sociology Teacher at The Bridge Academy Hackney between 1 September 2018 and 31 May 2019: 1. She failed to maintain high standards with regards to her attendance and/or she failed to comply with Part 5 of the school’s sickness absence policy and procedure; 2. She failed to respond to one or more reasonable requests from the school in that she did not provide any / or any sufficient evidence to justify her repeated absence from work for ill health throughout her employment at the school; 3. She provided one or more documents to support one or more of her absences which were fabricated, inaccurate and/or misleading, namely; a. She supplied a fitness to work note dated 25 September 2018 purporting to be from a GP surgery and signed by Dr C asserting that she had been diagnosed with a [REDACTED]: i. The GP surgery had not in fact issued the sicknote; ii. The signature was not that of Dr C iii. She failed to provide any genuine evidence that she had in fact been diagnosed with a [REDACTED]; b. She supplied a discharge summary from NHS Trust B with a signed handwritten note purportedly from Dr D asserting that she had been diagnosed with a [REDACTED] where: i. The handwritten note had not been written by Dr D; ii. The signature was not that of Dr D; iii. The discharge summary itself did not contain any evidence that she had in fact been diagnosed [REDACTED]; iv. She failed to provide any genuine evidence that she had in fact been [REDACTED]; 4. Her conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 2 and/or 3 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. 5 In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations are not admitted. Ms Pather has also not admitted either unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel has considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of Ms Pather. The panel is satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012. The panel is also satisfied that the notice of proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession updated April 2018. The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel has taken as its starting point the principle from R v Jones 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 has recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel has noted that the teacher may waive her 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. The panel is satisfied that Ms Pather is aware of the hearing taking place. Ms Pather has responded on 18 March 2021 to correspondence sent to her indicating that she was content with the case being considered virtually but that she would not intend to be present at the hearing. The presenting officer informed the panel that only one postal and email address was known to the TRA and The Bridge Academy Hackney (the “School”), and that correspondence has been sent using that postal and email address. Given that, on one occasion, Ms Pather responded, the panel was assured that Ms Pather was in receipt of the correspondence. Save for responding on one occasion, Ms Pather has not responded to any other communication sent to her. The panel therefore considers that Ms Pather has waived her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when the hearing is taking place and the means by which it is to be heard. 6 Ms Pather has not indicated any wish to adjourn in order to attend, or in order for a representative to attend on her behalf. As referred to above Ms Pather has responded once to previous correspondence indicating that she did not intend to attend the hearing and has not responded at all to the current notice of hearing. The panel did not, therefore, consider that it was likely that an adjournment would result in Ms Pather attending the hearing voluntarily. Whilst the panel does not have the benefit of any representations made by Ms Pather, the panel has noted that two of the witnesses relied upon by the TRA are to be called to give evidence. The panel can test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to Ms Pather as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel is 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 Ms Pather’s account. The panel recognises that the efficient disposal of allegations such as these is required to maintain the confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged is said to have taken place whilst Ms Pather was employed at the School. The School will have an interest in this hearing taking place, and there has already been at least one adjournment. The panel has recognised that the allegations against Ms Pather are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that Ms Pather ought to be prohibited from teaching. The panel notes there are two witnesses prepared to give evidence at today’s hearing and that it would cause inconvenience for them to arrange to attend on another day. Delaying the case further may impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel has decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Ms Pather. The panel considers that in light of her waiver of her right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taken 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 is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Excluding Public from the Hearing The panel sought representations from the presenting officer as to whether parts of the hearing in which references to [REDACTED] were to be made ought to be in private. The presenting officer had no objection to this course of action. The panel decided that it would be in the public interest to hear these portions of the evidence in private in order to uphold the principle that private medical matters are confidential. The panel considered that this departure from the general rule that hearings are to take place in public was justified to the extent and to no more than the extent that the panel considered 7 reasonably necessary in order to serve the purpose of protecting confidential medical information. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and correspondence with teacher – pages 4 to 45 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 46 to 65 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 66 to 195 The panel decided to admit a letter to Ms Pather dated 8 November 2022 and an email dated 11 November 2022. The panel considered that it was fair and reasonable to admit these documents in order that it could have regard to communications with Ms Pather in connection with the hearing, when considering the proceeding in absence application. 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 Indiv