Teacher who dragged pupil from seat and restrained him can continue teaching

Emmanuel Gill was accused of using unreasonable force on the pupil, who had thrown a chair and other things at him and who he thought was going to throw a laptop or attack him. The incident happened at Sandwell Community School where Mr Gill taught from May 2007 to July 2019.

A Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) disciplinary panel found Mr Gill guilty of “unacceptable professional conduct” in respect of the incident with the pupil, as well as two other allegations of failing to take a class register and failing to report that three pupils had left his class.

However, in this case they did not recommend a ban.

Describing the incident with the pupil (identified only as Pupil A) they said in their findings: “On the day of the incident, Mr Gill submitted that Pupil A had thrown chairs and had thrown items at Mr Gill. Mr Gill believed that Pupil A was getting ready to attack him or throw his laptop as this had happened before.

“Mr Gill acknowledged that he wanted to remove Pupil A from the classroom and attempted to use a hold on him to remove him, which he accepted was wholly wrong and should not have happened.

“Mr Gill submitted that once he decided to restrain Pupil A, he could not let him go until he had safely been removed from the class, due to the risk that he could injure another pupil, property or Mr Gill.”

Mr Gill underwent disciplinary proceedings at the school after the incident and received a final written warning for gross misconduct. However, after further disciplinary proceedings following the two further incidents he was dismissed.

In their findings though the TRA panel said that even though they considered that some of Mr Gill’s behaviour indicated that a ban would be appropriate, there were also mitigating factors that indicated that it would not be appropriate to impose a ban.

“Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case,” they said.

Agreeing with their views, TRA decision maker Sarah Buxcey said that the disciplinary panel had found that publication of their findings would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to Mr Gill about the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable.

She continued: “I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate and not in the public interest.”