Gurpreet Rheel (instructed by Thompsons solicitors) represented a teacher who faced allegations of using inappropriate methods to de-escalate a situation involving a pupil within a Pupil Referral Unit setting and using inappropriate restraints.
Whilst the panel went onto find the case sufficiently proven to go onto consider the appropriateness of a prohibition order, Gurpreet was able to successfully water down the seriousness of the facts proven by (a) successfully arguing that one of the allegations, whilst proven, did not meet the threshold to find unacceptable professional conduct and/or behaviour which may bring the teaching profession into disrepute and (b) by raising sufficient doubt within the conflicting witness evidence to persuade the panel in finding that it could not find the TRA case to be proven that the teacher had deliberately taken a pupil to the ground.
Gurpreet was able to successfully dissuade the panel at the sanction and mitigation stage from recommending a prohibition order. The panel agreed that Gurpreet’s client had shown sufficient insight and remorse for his actions and that he was capable of contributing positively towards the teaching profession.
Gurpreet Rheel (instructed by Thompsons solicitors) represented a teacher facing multiple allegations of communicating with pupils inappropriately. The TRA alleged that such allegations were sexually motivated. Gurpreet’s client had already admitted to the majority of the allegations but denied that any of the allegations were sexually motivated.
As part of the preliminary applications made before the panel. Gurpreet was able to successfully restrict what evidence the TRA were able to rely on to prove its case.
During the course of the hearing, the TRA called two witnesses. Gurpreet successfully challenged their evidence through cross examination which formed the basis of the panel’s decision to (a) find that some of the allegations had not been substantiated and crucially (b) find that none of the teacher’s behaviour was sexually motivated.
The panel accepted the careful mitigating evidence (which included the presentation of character witness evidence) and submissions which were presented on behalf of the teacher to conclude that the remaining proven misconduct did not warrant a recommendation for a prohibition order.