UK teacher banned for life for marrying Bangladeshi child bride

Send
Aditi Khanna, London
Published : 18:02, Oct 11, 2018 | Updated : 19:16, Oct 11, 2018

A London-based teacher has been banned from teaching for life after it was proved that he knowingly entered into an arranged marriage with a 13-year-old girl from Bangladesh.
Joshim Nur, a physics teacher at London Nautical School, had claimed that he thought the girl was 18. But the Teaching Regulation Authority (TRA), sitting in Coventry this week, believed a statement from the girl who said she had written to the teacher before their marriage and told him her age.
Joshim Nur, 34, had engaged in a relationship with the girl between August 2006 and April 2009 in circumstances when he should have known she was aged under 16, the official age of consent for sex and marriage in the UK.The panel ruled that Nur, 34, had engaged in a relationship with the girl between August 2006 and April 2009 in circumstances when he should have known she was aged under 16, the official age of consent for sex and marriage in the UK.
The girl made a complaint to the police in 2013, and her real age was established in Family Court proceedings in 2014.
TRA panel chairman Dr Robert Cawley said: “He stated that he was unaware of her real age until she made a complaint to the police in 2013. Shortly afterwards in Family Court proceedings in 2014 a clavicle bone test was undertaken to determine her real age.
“Nur stated that he had understood that his wife was 18 years old at the time of their marriage.”
The panel said that the girl’s account had been consistent in her complaint, police interview and the disciplinary proceedings and that they found her evidence compelling.
Nur said in written evidence that he was “deceived” by the family of the girl, who can only be referred to as Child A, about his wife's age when they wed.
While the teacher was described as a “gifted and valued member of staff” by the London school’s headteacher, the panel ruled: “Mr Nur entered into a marriage and sexual relationship with a 13-year-old child. Mr Nur did not demonstrate any insight into his actions or their impact on Child A.”
Decision maker Alan Meyrick noted: “In my judgement the lack of insight means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour.”
The panel concluded that Nur is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach.

/hb/
Top