A former Lambeth schoolteacher has been barred indefinitely from teaching today after he married a thirteen-year-old from Bangladesh, writes Josh Salisbury.
Joshim Nur was found to have travelled to the country to marry an underage girl in 2006, while a teacher at the London Nautical School on Stamford Street, Waterloo.
The misconduct panel, conducted by the Teaching Regulation Agency, found that Mr Nur had engaged in a relationship with the child between August 2006 and April 2009 and that he should have known that she was underage.
The relationship was uncovered after the child went to the police with a complaint in 2013.
The former teacher, 34, told the panel in written evidence that he denied the allegations and he had been misled by the girl’s family into believing she was eighteen.
However, the child – named only as Child A – told the panel that she had informed Mr Nur that she was only thirteen three days prior to their arranged marriage.
The former teacher did not deny having sex with the underage girl during their relationship, which began when she was only 13 or 14 years of age.
The panel described Child A as “consistent in her account between her initial complaint, interview with the police and these proceedings” and found her evidence to be compelling and credible.
The panel found no evidence that Mr Nur’s actions were not deliberate and added that it “did not find it plausible” that he could have mistaken her for an eighteen-year-old.
It acknowledged that the former teacher – described by his head teacher as a “gifted and valued member of staff” – appeared to acting under pressure from the family to marry Child A, noting that he only met her three days before the marriage.
Summing up the evidence, the report found: “The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Nur amounts to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession at the time.
“The panel has taken account of Mr Nur’s contention that he was misled as to his wife’s age at the time of their marriage.
“However, his naivety and ignorance does not mitigate or absolve him of his wider professional responsibilities.”
The panel’s decision maker, Alan Meyrick, said that the former teacher had failed to demonstrate any insight into the effect of his actions on the child, leading to a risk of repeated behaviour.
He said: “In my judgement the lack of insight means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour.
“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.”
The order means that the disgraced former teacher will be barred from teaching in any educational establishment in England for life.