JOSHIM NUR FROM LONDON BANNED FOR LIFE AFTER MARRYING 13-YEAR-OLD IN BANGLADESH AND SEXUAL ABUSE
In October 2018, a disturbing case emerged involving a physics teacher from London who was permanently barred from teaching following revelations of his involvement in a marriage with a minor and subsequent sexual misconduct.The individual, identified as Joshim Nur, aged 34 at the time, had traveled to Bangladesh to marry a girl who was only 13 years old, an act that has sparked widespread condemnation and raised serious concerns about safeguarding and ethical conduct within the education sector.
Nur’s relationship with the young girl, referred to only as Child A, began with a brief meeting just three days prior to their arranged marriage in Bangladesh.
The marriage took place during the summer of 2006, after Nur watched a video of the girl made by her father, which apparently influenced his decision to proceed with the marriage.
The girl, who was still in Year 8 at school, recounted that she had a direct conversation with Nur shortly before their wedding, during which she explicitly told him she was only 13 years old.
This detail was corroborated by a video recording made by her father, which Nur was believed to have seen.
Following their marriage, the girl moved to the United Kingdom, where she was taken to a family planning clinic and placed on the contraceptive pill.
She disclosed that she had sexual relations with Nur shortly after their wedding night, and these encounters occurred on multiple occasions.
The girl’s account was consistent throughout police interviews, initial complaints, and subsequent legal proceedings, which the panel found to be credible and compelling.
At the time of the marriage, Nur was employed as a teacher at the London Nautical School in Blackfriars.
His professional conduct and the circumstances of his marriage came under scrutiny during a hearing held by the Teaching Regulation Authority (TRA) in Coventry.
The panel examined Nur’s claims that he believed the girl was 18, a claim they found to be not credible.
Evidence presented included the girl’s own statement and a family court order indicating that sexual relations between Nur and Child A began when she was only 13 or 14 years old.
The panel also noted that Nur, despite working in a school environment and being familiar with the appearance of girls his age, maintained the misconception that she was an adult at the time of their marriage.
Nur’s defense included accusations that he was deceived by the girl’s family regarding her age.
However, the panel dismissed this claim, emphasizing that the evidence clearly showed he was aware of her young age, especially after a bone test in 2013 confirmed her underage status.
The panel highlighted that Nur’s misunderstanding persisted over several years, which was implausible given his familiarity with children of similar age from his professional environment.
The girl’s statement detailed that she had a conversation with Nur three days before their wedding, explicitly stating her age and educational status.
She also mentioned that she had been recorded in a video by her father, which Nur had seen.
The panel found her testimony consistent and credible throughout the proceedings.
In his written evidence, Nur claimed he was misled by her family about her age.
Nonetheless, the panel was unconvinced by this assertion, especially considering the evidence of a marriage certificate used to apply for a passport for Child A, which supported the claim that he believed she was 18 at the time of marriage.
The panel expressed strong disapproval of Nur’s actions, particularly given his role as an educator and his daily interactions with children of similar age.
The panel concluded that Nur engaged in a sexual relationship with Child A during their marriage, which lasted from August 2006 to April 2009, when he should have known she was under 16.
The girl’s account of their sexual relations shortly after marriage and her subsequent visits to a family planning clinic were central to the case.
Despite Nur’s denial of these allegations, the evidence was clear and compelling.
Nur was described by his headteacher as a “gifted and valued member of staff,” yet the panel determined that his conduct was entirely inappropriate and unlawful.
The decision emphasized that Nur’s actions demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and the well-being of a minor.
The panel’s ruling was unequivocal: Nur had entered into a marriage and sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl, actions that he failed to recognize as wrong at the time and showed no remorse for during the proceedings.
Chairman Dr.
Robert Cawley stated that it was implausible for Nur to have mistaken a 13-year-old girl for an 18-year-old, especially over a period of four years.
The panel expressed particular concern about his professional background, noting that his role in a secondary school should have made him especially aware of the importance of safeguarding children.
The panel also highlighted that Nur did not demonstrate any insight into the gravity of his actions or their impact on Child A.
In the final judgment, the decision maker, Alan Meyrick, concluded that Nur’s lack of insight posed a risk of repeating such behavior.
As a result, he was permanently disqualified from teaching, effectively ending his career in education.
The case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance and integrity within the teaching profession, especially when it involves safeguarding vulnerable minors.
