Ms Sandeep Gill

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Ms Sandeep Gill

Teacher reference number: 2071658

Teacher's date of birth: 11 April 1987

Location teacher worked: Sutton, greater london

Date of professional conduct panel: 30 March 2021 to 31 March 2021

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 Sandeep Gill, formerly employed in Sutton, greater 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.

Ms Sandeep Gill: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Sandeep Gill (known as Sonia Gill) Teacher ref number: 2071658 Teacher date of birth: 11 April 1987 TRA reference: 18323 Date of determination: 31 March 2021 Former employer: Eagle House School, Surrey Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 30 March 2021 to 31 March 2021 by way of virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Gill. The panel members were Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Claudette Salmon (teacher panellist) and Mr Maurice McBride (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rosie Shipp of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Ms Gill was present and was represented by Mr Philip Dayle of No.5 Chambers. The hearing took place in public, save for part of Ms Gill’s oral evidence in which she explained her personal circumstances around the time of the incidents referred to in the allegations. The hearing was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 24 February 2021. It was alleged that Ms Gill was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at the Eagle House School between 1 September 2018 and 12 December 2018: 1. She engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil A in that she took hold of or otherwise physically restrained Pupil A on or around 23 November 2018 and/or 30 November 2018; a. in circumstances where she had not attempted and/or employed de- escalation techniques; b. in circumstances where doing so was a disproportionate and/or unnecessary response to Pupil A’s behaviour; 2. She engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Pupil A on or around 23 November 2018 and/or 30 November 2018, including by: a. making comments such as “go on then stab me” and/or “I have got my foot here, oh dear little tiny [Pupil A]”. b. holding the door of the calm room shut whilst Pupil A was inside; 3. Her behaviour towards Pupil A as may be proven at 1 and 2 above; a. was not line with [REDACTED] good practice; b. constituted bullying and/or intimidation of Pupil A. Ms Gill admitted to all of the allegations in the response to the notice of proceedings dated 3 March 2021. Ms Gill also admitted that her actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Ms Gill also provided further information in relation to the admitted allegations within her witness statement dated 14 December 2020. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence 5 Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Preliminary documents – pages 2 to 3 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 5 to 12 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 14 to 123 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 125 to 429 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 431 to 475 In advance of the hearing, the panel also reviewed CCTV footage of the incidents that are the subject of the allegations, which took place on 23 and 30 November 2018 where Ms Gill removed Pupil A from the classroom and placed him in the calm room. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The presenting officer called Individual A [REDACTED] to give oral evidence. The panel also heard oral evidence from Ms Gill. Ms Gill’s representative did not call any other witnesses on behalf of Ms Gill. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Ms Gill was employed as a class teacher at the Eagle House School (“the school”) from 1 September 2018 until her dismissal on or around 7 December 2018. Prior to this, Ms Gill was employed as a Learning Support Assistant (“LSA”) at the school between 14 September 2017 and 31 August 2018. The school is an independent special school teaching children aged 11 to 19. According to Individual A, all pupils at the school have a primary diagnosis of [REDACTED] and many have other complex needs and challenging behaviour. Pupil A [REDACTED] was in Ms Gill’s class. Pupil A [REDACTED] required bespoke methods and strategies to support him in learning and social interaction. In order to help 6 staff deliver a consistent strategy to manage Pupil A [REDACTED], he had a bespoke Behaviour Support Plan (“BSP”) in place. On 30 November 2018, Ms Gill spoke to Individual A regarding Pupil A’s behaviour that day. It was agreed that Individual A would watch the CCTV footage to provide support to Ms Gill when managing Pupil A’s challenging behaviour. Individual A and Individual B [REDACTED] reviewed the CCTV footage on 30 November 2018. It was alleged that on 30 November 2018 Ms Gill engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil A, in that she took hold of and/or physically restrained Pupil A in circumstances where she had not attempted any de-escalation techniques. It was also alleged that this was a disproportionate and/or unnecessary response to Pupil A’s behaviour. Individual A reviewed previous incidents captured on the CCTV involving Ms Gill and Pupil A. It is also alleged that on 23 November 2018, Ms Gill engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil A in that she took hold of and/or physically restrained Pupil A. Pupil A was consequently physically removed from the classroom by Ms Gill and taken to the calm room. Ms Gill attended an investigation meeting at the school on 3 December 2018 regarding the alleged incidents on 23 and 30 November 2018. A disciplinary hearing was held on 7 December 2018 and it was decided that Ms Gill would be summarily dismissed. The matter was referred to the TRA on 17 April 2019. 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. You engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil A in that you took hold of or otherwise physically restrained Pupil A on or around 23 November 2018 and/or 30 November 2018; a. in circumstances where you had not attempted and/or employed de- escalation techniques; b. in circumstances where doing so was a disproportionate and/or unnecessary response to Pupil A’s behaviour. 7 On examination of the documents and CCTV footage before the panel, and taking into account the oral evidence provided at the hearing, in particular Ms Gill’s admission to this allegation, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegation 1 were proven. Allegation 1.a. The panel considered that the CCTV evidence clearly depicted that Ms Gill had not deployed suitable de-escalation tactics on both 23 and 30 November 2018. There was no dispute between the witnesses as to what had occurred on both occasions. The panel noted that on 30 November 2018 there was at no time any physical threat from Pupil A, but rather he simply told Miss Gill to “shut up” following an exchange relating to him not wanting to do his work. Ms Gill’s reaction to this was to raise her voice and demand that Pupil A leave the classroom. When he refused to do so, despite him presenting no physical threat, Ms Gill, along with three other members of staff, forcibly removed him from the classroom without attempting any de-escalation techniques. The panel was satisfied that the instance on 23 November 2018, whereby Pupil A had allegedly threatened Ms Gill with scissors, had occurred. The panel expressed disappointment that the relevant CCTV footage was not available for its scrutiny at the hearing, but accepted Ms Gill’s admissions. The panel considered that this, too, was a situation in which de-escalation on the part of Ms Gill would have been appropriate in the first instance. Allegation 1.b. The panel heard from Individual A that most pupils at the school have a BSP in place. BSP’s provide a detailed personal history and provide staff with a roadmap as to how to deal with each pupil’s behavioural presentations. The panel heard conflicting evidence as to Ms Gill’s knowledge of, and access to, Pupil A’s BSP. Individual A initially suggested that it was in place prior to Pupil A’s admission to the school. However, Individual A later accepted email evidence which indicated that Pupil A’s BSP may have not been made available to Ms Gill until Pupil A’s annual review on 6 November 2018. The panel considered the state of affairs to be unsatisfactory but noted that in any event, Ms Gill had seen Pupil A’s BSP well in advance of the two incidents in question. Pupil A’s BSP made it clear that Pupil A would benefit from time and space and distractions to de-escalate incidents as a first response. Ms Gill had had sight of this, along with the school’s policies, which made it clear that physical intervention should be a proportionate and, importantly, a last resort. In this case, the panel considered in respect of both incidents, Ms Gill’s actions to be the catalyst of Pupil A’s physical agg