[2024] UKUT 332 (AAC)

At the oral hearing of the substantive appeal, we had the benefit of hearing oral evidence from AA, who was cross-examined by Ms Hartley on behalf of the DBS, and who was also questioned by the panel.

AA said that at the time of the allegations he had been teaching at the madrassa for about 4 years. The classes were on Mondays and Wednesdays after the pupils’ school day from 5-7pm, and on Saturday mornings. He explained that he and another male colleague each taught one of the two boys’ classes (of about 25-30 boys each) and a female colleague taught the girls’ class (of about 15-20 girls). The children ranged in age from 5 to 16.

In response to questioning by Tribunal Member Turner about what safeguarding training he had undertaken and what safeguarding measures were in place at the madrassa, AA said he had worked under the director of the madrassa for six months with the director teaching, and that every 6-8 months he would report to the director. He said that the director had given him some safeguarding training, and in terms of supervision, the madrassa was linked to a mosque and about every three weeks there would be a lecture from the mosque. He said that, for example, there had been a talk about how to protect the youth from knife crime. In terms of support, he said that he could seek advice from the director or other teachers.

He described the hall where the lessons took place as a single room divided by a curtain. When they arrived, the girls had to pass through the boys’ area to get to their side of the curtain. The boys (and male staff) had to pass through the girls’ area to go to the toilet.

AA explained that it was the job of [Sabriye] (a male member of staff who was not a teacher) to open the school in the morning, and no children would go into the school before [Sabriye] had opened up. The Appellant confirmed that he had a key to the school, as did all other members of staff, but he said he was never the first person to arrive at the school.

When it was put to him in cross-examination that KJ and MB had said that their parents would drop them off early at the madrassa, AA said that he couldn’t remember that. He said that there was sometimes one student there when he arrived but he didn’t know whether she was early.

AA said he had been authorised by the Director of the school to speak with parents about their children’s progress. In each case, the child’s teacher would tell him how the child was progressing, and he would pass that information on to the parents. He said he would also discuss discipline matters, such as if a pupil hadn’t been doing their homework, and this role extended to the girls as well as the boys. He said the girls’ teacher didn’t speak fluent English, so would speak to him about her pupils in Somali, and because the girls didn’t understand Somali, they would just see their teacher talking to him and then see him talking to their parents and assume that he was telling their parents something negative. It was put to AA in cross-examination that while in his police interview he had distanced himself from the children who made the allegations, saying he had had no dealings with them, and when asked by police whether he had met KJ’s parents he had said that he only greeted her father but had made no conversation, and by the time of the Crown Court trial he said he had spoken to the father to report behavioural concerns, and suggested this as a motive for KJ telling lies about him. At the Upper Tribunal hearing AA said that he had spoken to KJ’s father many times about KJ chatting in class, but he had only done so a couple of times “recently” (i.e. in the period leading to the allegations). He said that talking in class was not a big deal and he considered it to be “in the nature of children”. He said he never spoke to the children to tell them that they had a detention.

AA said that the only contact he had with the girls was speaking from the other side of the curtain to tell them to quieten down, or sometimes putting his head around the curtain to say “girls, please lower your voice”, and if they didn’t stop, he would pull the curtain and say “please stop”. AA said that sometimes he would have to speak to the girls, saying things like “respect your teacher”, or “do your classwork”, but the female teacher was always present. AA said that the children used to be scared of him but he didn’t know why.

AA said that unlike the male staff, the female teacher would never go outside because she was the only female and she couldn’t leave the girls alone. AA said that if the children are left alone they might start throwing pencils, and their teacher would be responsible for managing their behaviour. He also said that the girls wouldn’t go into the school unless the female teacher was there, but Ms Hartley pointed out that in the judge’s summing up of the evidence in the Crown Court trial he said that on 21 March 2016 the girls were already in the girls’ area when the female teacher arrived late. AA accepted that she was late that day, but said that generally if the teacher was not there the girls wouldn’t go in, and this was the only occasion on which she was late.

AA was adamant that he has never touched any of the female pupils, and had not even shaken hands with them. He said his religious beliefs prevented him from doing such a thing. When asked what would happen if the girls needed help for any reason, AA said that in an emergency he would help, but there would be a female teacher present.

AA said it would have been impossible for him to do what he is alleged to have done because he would have been observed by other staff members, parents and/or other pupils, some of whom were teenagers with smartphones who could have photographed or filmed him.

When it was put to him that KJ and MB had said that there was sometimes another teacher in the building when he touched them and he still did it, but if anyone came he would push them away, AA said he remembered that being said, but it was not true and “completely made up”. He said that all three girls had told lies about him and that it was not really three separate allegations, but rather a single allegation because the children had spoken to each other. He said that while KJ had continued to allege that he had sexually assaulted her, her explanation was completely different from what she had said in police interview. He said that what MB said both in police interview and in court was a lie, as she was not even at the madrassa on the day he is alleged to have sexually assaulted her and that she was “clearly lying”.

AA said that on Monday 21 March he was late travelling to the school from Harlesden, arriving at the school only at about 5:35-5:40 pm. He said all the pupils and teachers were already there and the other male teacher was taking his class.

AA said the girls had all told lies. He said that on the night of 21 March 2016 MB and KJ had slept in the same house and so had had an opportunity to talk to each other and to prepare for when they knew they would be interviewed. When Ms Hartley asked AA whether he was saying that the girls made up the detailed allegations against him over “a couple of detentions” he said that he was “not saying that they had the intention to do something bad”, but he still maintained that they were lying.

AA emphasized that the case has damaged his dignity and made him decide not to return to teaching or to live in the same area. He said it took him 18 months after his trial to get his life settled again and he now hopes to become a black cab driver to support his family better, but he is unable to do this because his name remains on the Children’s Barred List.