Mr Azam Zia: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

May 2017

2

Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Allegations 4 - 5

C. Preliminary applications 5 - 6

D. Summary of evidence 6

Documents 6

Witnesses 6

Statement of Agreed Facts 6

Video recording 6

E. Decision and reasons 7 - 12

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 - 14

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 Azam Zia

Teacher ref number: 1040839

Teacher date of birth: 20 August 1979

NCTL case reference: 15284

Date of determination: 25 May 2017

Former employer: Icknield High School, Luton

A. Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and

Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 25 May 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road,

Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Azam Zia.

The panel members were Mr Martin Greenslade (lay panellist – in the chair), Councillor

Gail Goodman (teacher panellist) and Mrs Sue Netherton (lay panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors.

The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson

LLP solicitors.

Mr Azam Zia was present and was represented by Miss Alison Hollis of Counsel.

The hearing took place in public, save that the panel viewed a DVD in private, and was

recorded.

4

B. Allegations

The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 28

March 2017.

It was alleged that Mr Azam Zia was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or

conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that:

Whilst employed as a mathematics teacher at Icknield High School in Luton he:

1. Delivered off-site, 'out of hours' tuition sessions for pupils including between

August – November 2015 which:

a. he had failed to inform the School about;

b. he failed to obtain consent from one or more pupils' parents;

c. he allowed one or more pupils' parents to believe the sessions:

i. were authorised by the School when this was not in fact the case;

ii. were limited to intervention tuition in mathematics when this was not

in fact the case.

d. were offered to and/or attended by pupils who were exclusively Muslim and

male;

e. included wrestling, and in particular he:

i. gave pupils practical instruction in wrestling;

ii. permitted Indvidual A to give pupils practical instruction in wrestling

including close physical contact between Individual A and one or more

pupils;

iii. supervised pupils wrestling one another;

iv. allowed pupils to settle conflict between them using a wrestling match.

f. he transported pupils home in his car;

g. he charged pupils money to attend;

h. he organised by sending messages to one or more pupils using email

and/or social media such as 'Whatsapp'.

5

2. Failed to follow school policies and/or management instruction, including:

a. management instructions regarding his attendance dated 12 December

2014 and/or 17 September 2015 when he:

i. was late to work on approximately 13 occasions between December

2014 and September 2015;

ii. was absent from a CPD session on 18 November 2015;

b. a management instruction regarding transporting pupils dated 17

September 2015 as a result of his conduct at allegation 1(f);

c. a management instruction regarding Out of Hours work dated 22 October

2015 as a result of his conduct at allegation 1(a);

d. the School's Code of Conduct for staff as a result of his conduct at

allegations 1(a) – (h) as may be found proven;

e. the School's ICT Acceptable Use Policy for staff as a result of his conduct at

allegation 1(h);

C. Preliminary applications

Application to amend allegations

Application was made by Mr Perkins for the allegations to be amended as follows:

Allegation 1.c. to be amended to read:

c. in failing to obtain consent from one or more pupils' parents as in 1(b)

above, he:

i. failed to inform them that the tuition sessions were not authorised by

the School;

ii. failed to inform them that the tuition sessions would include both

maths and wrestling'.

Allegation 1d to be amended by deleting the words 'offered to and/or'.

Allegation 1e I to be amended by deleting the word 'practical'.

Allegation 1c to be deleted and, as a consequence, allegations 1d and 1e be renumbered

as 1c and 1d respectively.

Miss Hollis supported the application for amendment and confirmed that, as amended, Mr

Zia would admit the facts alleged in each allegation.

6

The panel agreed to amend the allegations in accordance with the application of Mr

Perkins, supported by Miss Hollis.

Following the amendment, Mr Zia admitted the facts alleged in the amended allegations.

Mr Zia also admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and

conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

D. 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 – pages 2 to 3

Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 14

Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 16 to 23

Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 25 to 139

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 141 to 146

In addition, the panel agreed to accept an amended statement of admissions which was

added to section 4 of the bundle as pages 139 A and B.

The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the

hearing.

Witnesses

No witnesses were called.

Statement of Agreed Facts

The panel considered a Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Zia on 10 May 2017

and a further document headed 'Statement of Admissions' signed by Mr Zia on 25 May

2017.

Video recording

With the agreement of the parties, the panel viewed a video recording of Individual A

delivering wrestling tuition to a pupil. The panel determined that the video recording

should be viewed in private given the risks that pupils might be identified. The panel

viewed the video recording in private, but in the presence of the parties.

7

E. Decision and reasons

The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:

The panel has carefully considered the case and reached a decision.

The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance

of the hearing.

Mr Azam Zia was employed at Icknield High School ("the School") in Luton as an

unqualified teacher between 24 September 2012 and 30 June 2013 and then as a teacher

of mathematics between 1 July 2013 and 31 March 2016.

On 18 November 2015 a pupil disclosed a concern to the School's Designated

Safeguarding Officer relating to Mr Zia communicating with other pupils using social media

and meeting with them at weekends.

The School investigated the concerns and established that Mr Zia had been delivering

tuition sessions to a number of pupils on Saturdays at the Tokko Youth Centre in Luton

since August 2015.

Mr Zia was suspended from the School on 20 November 2015 and resigned on 31 March

2016 prior to any disciplinary hearing.

Findings of fact

The panel's findings of fact are as follows:

Whilst employed as a mathematics teacher at Icknield High School in Luton you:

1. Delivered off-site, 'out of hours' tuition sessions for pupils including

between August – November 2015 which:

a. you had failed to inform the School about;

Mr Zia has admitted the facts of this allegation and also signed a statement of agreed

facts. Mr Zia admits that he organised and delivered tuition sessions for a number of the

School's pupils between August 2015 and November 2015. These tuition sessions were

attended by pupils who were taught by Mr Zia at the School.

Mr Zia also admits that he conducted these tuition sessions without notifying the School.

The panel, therefore, finds allegation 1.a. proved.

b. you failed to obtain consent from one or more pupils' parents;

Mr Zia has asserted that he spoke to the fathers of three pupils on the telephone regarding

the tuition sessions, but admits that he did not communicate with the parents of every pupil

8

who attended and did not obtain any written consent for any pupil to attend. The panel,

therefore, finds allegation 1.b. proved.

c. in failing to obtain consent from one or more pupils' parents as in 1(b)

above, you:

i. failed to inform them that the tuition sessions were not

authorised by the School;

ii. failed to inform them that the tuition sessions would include

both maths and wrestling.

Mr Zia admits this allegation and has signed a statement of admissions to that effect. The

panel finds the allegation proved on the basis of Mr Zia's admission.

d. were attended by pupils who were exclusively Muslim and male;

Mr Zia admits that his tuition sessions were attended solely by pupils who were Muslim

and male. Mr Zia states that he approached a small number of pupils initially and that the

pupils then arranged who would attend amongst themselves. Mr Zia also states that he

had approached both female and non-Muslim pupils who were, therefore, aware of the

sessions but opted not to attend. Mr Zia asserts that he intended to offer tuition sessions

to the wider School once they had become established and successful.

The panel finds allegation 1.d. proved on the basis of Mr Zia's admission.

e. included wrestling, and in particular you:

i. gave pupils instruction in wrestling;

Mr Zia admits that the tuition sessions included wrestling and that pupils were given

instruction in wrestling and allowed to wrestle one another. The panel has also seen a DVD

where Mr Aziz was giving instructions while Individual A and a pupil were wrestling. The

panel finds allegation 1.e. i. proved.

ii. permitted Individual A to give pupils practical instruction in

wrestling including close physical contact between Individual A

and one or more pupils;

Mr Zia admits that Individual A attended the tuition sessions and gave pupil practical

instruction in wrestling. This included close physical contact between Individual A and

pupils such as sitting on top of Individual A. Mr Zia also admits that he allowed Individual

A to instruct pupils without supervising him. Accordingly, Mr Zia admits allegation 1e ii.

The panel finds allegation 1.e. ii. proved.

iii. supervised pupils wrestling one another;

9

Mr Zia admits that he was present and supervising when pupils wrestled one another

and, therefore, admits 1e iii.

The panel finds allegation 1.e. iii. proved.

iv. allowed pupils to settle conflict between them using a wrestling

match.

Mr Zia admits that he was present and supervising when pupils were allowed to wrestle

one another to settle a conflict that had arisen between them. Mr Zia also admits that,

neither he nor Individual A, were trained to instruct wrestling and that they were not covered

by public liability insurance.

The panel finds allegation 1.e. iv. proved.

f. you transported pupils home in your car;

Mr Zia admits transporting pupils home in his car following tuition sessions.

The panel finds allegation 1.f. proved.

g. you charged pupils money to attend;

Mr Zia admits that he charged pupils between £15 to £20 per session to attend his tuition.

The panel finds allegation 1.g. proved.

h. you organised by sending messages to one or more pupils using

email and/or social media such as 'WhatsApp'.

Mr Zia admits that he communicated with pupils about the tuition sessions using social

media such as 'Whatsapp'. This included sending them direct messages and emails to

organise the sessions and distributing lesson plans and learning materials. The panel

has also been provided with examples of these social media communications.

The panel finds allegation 1.h. proved.

2. Failed to follow School policies and/or management instruction, including:

a. management instructions regarding your attendance dated 12

December 2014 and/or 17 September 2015 when you:

i. were late to work on approximately 13 occasions between

December 2014 and September 2015;

ii. were absent from a CPD session on 18 November 2015;

10

Mr Zia admits that, on 12 December 2014, he received a written record of the outcome of

an attendance review meeting with the School's HR manager on 10 December 2014. This

included a management instruction that Mr Zia should improve his attendance and avoid

being late. Mr Zia also admits that, on 17 September 2015, he received a letter following

up concerns expressed at a meeting on 20 May 2015 with the School's headteacher. This

included a management instruction that Mr Zia should improve his attendance and avoid

being late.

Mr Zia also admits that he was late for work on approximately 13 occasions between

December 2014 and September 2015, He also acknowledges that he was absent from a

CPD session on 18 November 2015.

The panel finds allegation 2.a. i. and 2.a.ii. proved.

b. a management instruction regarding transporting pupils dated 17

September 2015 as a result of your conduct at allegation 1.f.;

Mr Zia admits that the letter that he received on 17 September 2015 followed up concerns

expressed at a management meeting on 20 May 2015 with the School's headteacher. This

included a management instruction that Mr Zia should not give pupils a lift home under any

circumstances. Mr Zia admits that his conduct at allegation 1f was a failure to follow a

management instruction regarding transporting pupils.

The panel finds allegation 2.b. proved.

c. the School's Code of Conduct for staff as a result of your conduct at

allegations 1.a. –1.h. as may be found proven;

Mr Zia admits that his admitted conduct at allegations 1.a. to 1.h. amounted to a failure to

follow the School's Code of Conduct for staff.

The panel finds allegation 2.c. proved.

d. the School's ICT Acceptable Use Policy for staff as a result of your

conduct at allegation 1.h.;

Mr Zia admits that his admitted conduct at allegation 1.h. amounted to a failure to follow

the School's ICT Acceptable Use Policy for staff.

The panel finds allegation 2.d. proved.

Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute

Having found the allegations to have been proven, the panel has gone on to consider

whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct

and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

11

Mr Zia has admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the

profession into disrepute. The panel has taken these admissions into account, but has

made its own determination.

In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The

Prohibition of Teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”.

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Zia in relation to the facts found proven,

involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by reference to

Part Two, Mr Zia is in breach of the following standards:

Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of

ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by

o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and

at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s

professional position;

o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with

statutory provisions;

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their

own attendance and punctuality.

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

With regard to safeguarding, the panel was concerned to note that Mr Zia admits that

Individual A was neither qualified to teach wrestling nor was there any public liability

insurance in place. Furthermore, Mr Zia allowed Individual A to instruct pupils without

supervision.

In addition, despite having been instructed not to transport pupils in his car, Mr Zia admits

that he did so. Furthermore, he did so without valid insurance to drive, although he states

he did not appreciate this at the time.

The panel is satisfied that Mr Zia's actions failed to maintain appropriate professional

boundaries as illustrated by the extracts from social media communications. His actions

could also have had an impact on the safety and security of pupils and undermine public

confidence in the teaching profession.

As regards failing to follow the policies and practices of the School, the panel noted that

Mr Zia failed to comply with the School's Code of Conduct and ICT Acceptable Use Policy,

in addition to failing to comply with management instructions.

12

The panel also considered whether Mr Zia conduct displayed behaviours associated with

any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice. The panel has found that none

of these offences are relevant.

Nevertheless, the panel is satisfied that this was misconduct of a serious nature falling

significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.

Accordingly, the panel is satisfied that Mr Zia is guilty of unacceptable professional

conduct.

The panel has taken into account how the teaching profession is viewed by others and

considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the

community. The panel has taken account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can

hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way

they behave.

The findings of misconduct are serious and the conduct displayed would likely have a

negative impact on Mr Zia's status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception.

The panel, therefore, finds that Mr Zia's actions constitute conduct that may bring the

profession into disrepute.

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State

Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct

that may bring the profession into disrepute, it is necessary for the panel to go on to

consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition

order by the Secretary of State.

In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order

should be made, the panel has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate

measure, and whether it is in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be

given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they

are likely to have punitive effect.

The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice

and having done so has found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the

protection of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring

and upholding proper standards of conduct.

There is a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given

the serious findings that Mr Zia failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries and

that his actions could also have had an impact on the safety and security of pupils.

13

Similarly, the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously

weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Zia were not treated with the utmost

seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.

The panel considered that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper

standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr

Zia was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. The panel also acknowledged

that there is a public interest in a teacher who is able to make a valuable contribution to

the profession being able to continue in that profession, as outlined in the judgment in

Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWHC 109(Admin).

Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel

considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order

taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Zia. In considering the issue of

proportionality, the panel applied the following test, namely:

Whether a less intrusive measure could be used without unacceptably compromising the

achievement of the relevant objective and whether, having regard to these matters and the

severity of the consequences for Mr Zia, a fair balance can be struck between the rights of

Mr Zia and the interests of the public.

In the context of these proceedings, the panel regarded the relevant objective as the

protection of the public interest. The panel considered whether the public declaration of a

finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession

into disrepute would be an appropriate less intrusive measure.

In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel has considered the public interest

considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Zia.

The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may

be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proven. In the list of such

behaviours, those that are relevant in this case are:

Serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the

Teachers’ Standards;

Misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or well-being of pupils, and

particularly where there is a continuing risk;

Even though there were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being

appropriate, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient mitigating

factors to militate against a prohibition order being an appropriate and proportionate

measure to impose, particularly taking into account the nature and severity of the behaviour

in this case.

The panel has taken into account the fact that there have been no previous disciplinary

findings against Mr Zia.

14

However, the panel is satisfied that Mr Zia's actions were deliberate. There was no

evidence to suggest that the Mr Zia was acting under duress.

Mr Zia gave evidence that he is a good teacher who has had positive feedback from

parents and colleagues. However, the panel was not presented with any independent

evidence to support his submission. The panel explored with Mr Zia the issue of proper

professional boundaries between teachers and pupils, but was not convinced that Mr Zia

has a clear understanding of the appropriate boundaries required by the profession. The

panel was also concerned about Mr Zia's repeated failure to comply with management

instructions.

Although Mr Zia has admitted the allegations, he has demonstrated limited insight into his

conduct and did not convince the panel of his understanding of how he would work

effectively within the ethos of school life in the future.

The panel is of the view that prohibition is both proportionate and appropriate. The panel

has decided that the public interest considerations outweigh the interests of Mr Zia.

Accordingly, the panel makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition

order should be imposed with immediate effect.

The panel went on to consider whether to recommend that a review period of the order

should be considered. The panel was mindful that a prohibition order applies for life, but

there may be circumstances in any given case that may make it appropriate to allow a

teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time.

The panel felt the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be

appropriate and as such decided that it would be proportionate in all the circumstances for

the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period after the

minimum period of 2 years.

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State

I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the

panel in respect of sanction and review period.

In considering this case I have given very careful attention to the advice that is published

by the Secretary of State concerning the prohibition of teachers.

In this case the panel has found the allegations proven and found that those proven facts

amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession

into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr

Zia should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of two years.

In particular the panel has found that Mr Zia is in breach of the following standards:

15

Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of

ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by

o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and

at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s

professional position;

o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with

statutory provisions;

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their

own attendance and punctuality.

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

I have also taken onto account that with regard to safeguarding, the panel was concerned

to note that Mr Zia admits that Individual A was neither qualified to teach wrestling nor was

there any public liability insurance in place. Furthermore, Mr Zia allowed Individual A to

instruct pupils without supervision.

In addition, despite having been instructed not to transport pupils in his car, Mr Zia admits

that he did so. Furthermore, he did so without valid insurance to drive, although he states

he did not appreciate this at the time.

I have noted that the panel is satisfied that Mr Zia's actions failed to maintain appropriate

professional boundaries as illustrated by the extracts from social media communications.

I have noted that the panel also considered whether Mr Zia conduct displayed behaviours

associated with any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice. The panel has

found that none of these offences are relevant.

I have to determine whether the impostion of a prohibition order is proportionate and in

the public interest. In considering that for this case I have considered the overall aim of a

prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the

profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would

achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher.

I have also asked myself whether or not a less intrusive measure, such as the published

finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession

into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider

whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have

considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Zia, and the impact that will have on

him, is proportionate.

In this case I have first considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect

children. The panel has observed “His actions could also have had an impact on the safety

and security of pupils”.

16

A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present. I have also

taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse which the panel sets out

as follows, “was not convinced that Mr Zia has a clear understanding of the appropriate

boundaries required by the profession. The panel was also concerned about Mr Zia's

repeated failure to comply with management instructions.

Although Mr Zia has admitted the allegations, he has demonstrated limited insight into his

conduct and did not convince the panel of his understanding of how he would work

effectively within the ethos of school life in the future”.

In my judgement the lack of insight means that there is some risk of the repetition of this

behaviour and this risks future pupils’ welfare and safety. I have therefore given this

element considerable weight in reaching my decision.

I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public

confidence in the profession. The panel observe that Mr Zia’s actions could, “undermine

public confidence in the teaching profession.”

I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of

all teachers and that failure to impose a prohibition order might be regarded by the public

as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations I have had

to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed

citizen.”

I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional

conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as

being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this

case.

I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Zia himself. A prohibition

order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the

period that it is in force.

In this case I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the

lack of insight or remorse and the repeated failure to observe instructions, “The panel was

also concerned about Mr Zia's repeated failure to comply with management instructions.”

The panel also had little independent evidence before it relating to Mr Zia’s teaching.

I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that

Mr Zia has made and is making to the profession. In my view it is necessary to impose a

prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published

decision that is not backed up by sufficient remorse or insight does not in my view satisfy

the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession.

17

For these reasons I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the

public interest in order to achieve the aims which a prohibition order is intended to

achieve.

I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case the panel has

recommended a 2 year review period.

I have considered the panel’s comments “would be proportionate in all the circumstances

for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period after the

minimum period of 2 years.

I have considered whether a 2 year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings

and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the

profession. In this case I support that recommendation. Two years is the minimum period

set out in law.

I consider therefore that a two year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance

of public confidence in the profession.

This means that Mr Azam Zia is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot

teach in any School, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or

children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but

not until 5 June 2019, 2 years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an

automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet

to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful

application, Mr Azam Zia remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely.

This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher.

Mr Azam Zia has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within

28 days from the date he is given notice of this order.

Decision maker: Alan Meyrick

Date: 26 May 2017

This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of

State.