In the case of Mr Mohsin Patel v Acorn Care and Education Limited Mr Mohsin was a science teacher at Belmont School which is owned and operated by Acorn Care and Education. The school provides specialist education for children who have been diagnosed with social, emotional and mental health difficulties (SEMH) and autism (ASD). The schools operate outside mainstream education due to the needs of the children who attend them. The children who attend the school are aged 5 to 16 and are particularly vulnerable. They struggle to communicate and can exhibit challenging behaviour including being disruptive and aggressive towards each other and teachers.
Mr Patel had been involved in two incidents where he had physically restrained pupils. The first was witnessed by a taxi escort employed by the local authority to collect a pupil referred to as DR. She ‘viewed… through a school window… DR being pushed very forcibly against the wall in his classroom by his teacher Dr Patel’ and she later informed the council.
The second incident happened just two weeks later when Dr Patel is said to have punched a 14-year-old boy. The pupil, referred to as EA, had been disruptive in staff and when a teaching assistant attempted to remove him from the classroom the boy refused.
Dr Patel and the female teaching assistant then used a ‘figure of 8’ restraint method, which the tribunal heard should only be used ‘as a last resort’. The boy then broke free and reportedly punched Dr Patel three or four times to which Dr Patel responded by punching the child in the face.
After the second incident Dr Patel was suspended. When he was interviewed about the incident he said that after EA had punched him ‘he felt he was in a position that he couldn’t protect himself without the need to use physical defence’ and admitted punching the boy.
EA’s parents later reported the incident to police who later informed them that no further action would be taken as ‘EA was the aggressor and instigator’. Officers agreed Dr Patel had acted in self-defence.
After the school deemed Dr Patel’s behaviour ‘fell below the professional standards expected’ and that he had shown poor judgement he was sacked. Dr Patel then took his case to an employment tribunal and claimed he had been unfairly dismissed.
Dismissing his claim, Employment Judge Shotter said: “His conduct was foolish, perverse and unreasonable in the circumstances set out within the factual matrix. He was wholly to blame for his dismissal, and unusually, had I found the claimant was unfairly dismissed, I would have gone on the conclude that it was just and equitable in all the circumstances to reduce the basic and compensatory award by 100 percent, despite my sympathy for the claimant who has suffered by the poor decisions he made when dealing with DR and EA.”
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
