Primary school teacher from Peterborough banned from all classrooms nationwide

A disgraced primary school supply teacher from Peterborough who was convicted of offences of violence against pupils has been banned from the country's classrooms for life.

Wednesday, 29th August 2018, 1:34 pm
Updated Monday, 3rd September 2018, 12:16 pm

The ban was imposed following a teachers’ disciplinary hearing in Coventry. The Teaching Regulation agency (TRA) panel heard that Andy Jummun, 39, had been convicted by Cambridge Magistrates Court last year of four counts of assault by beating pupils.

Three of the convictions related to him throwing a pen lid at pupils from a short distance and the other involved him pulling the chair a pupil was sitting on away because the child was swinging on the front legs. As a result the pupil fell on the floor.

Mr Jummun was ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid community work, to pay £150 in victim compensation and prosecution of £930 along with an £85 victim surcharge.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

The panel’s findings say that he had been found to be responsible for “repeated violent behaviour towards pupils in year five” at St Michael’s Church of England Primary School, Peterborough.

They continued: “The incidents included throwing pen lids at pupils from a distance of 20 cm, at speed, hitting at least one pupil in the face and pulling a chair from underneath a pupil, causing him to fall to the floor. Both actions could have caused injury to the pupils involved. He denied the allegations at court and has offered no insight into or remorse for his behaviour.”

They added: “The conduct found against Mr Jummun was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.”

Imposing the ban on behalf of Education Secretary, Damian Hinds, TRA chief executive, Alan Meyrick said that striking Mr Jummun off was both “proportionate and in the public interest.”

In some cases where bans are imposed the way is left open for the teachers to apply to have it lifted after a set period of years but in this case Mr Meyrick said: “I have considered whether a prohibition order which allows for no review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is proportionate to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, there are three factors that in my view mean that allowing for no review is necessary to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession.

“These elements are the finding of a relevant conviction for battery – which is an offence of violence, the repeated nature of the behaviour and the fact that it took place in the classroom, and the lack of either insight or remorse shown.

“I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession.”

It is open to Mr Jummun to challenge the findings and the ban in the High Court.