London Teacher Who Raped 13-Year-Old, Banned from Classroom, Escapes Prosecution

London Teacher Who Raped 13-Year-Old, Banned from Classroom, Escapes Prosecution

Joshim Nur banned from teaching but won’t face criminal charges for marrying child

As the crime rate spirals out of control in Sadiq Khan’s London, it has emerged that a high school teacher has been banned from teaching after he was caught raping a 13-year-old child, yet he managed to escape criminal prosecution.

34-year-old Joshim Nur is barred for life from entering a classroom after his victim complained to authorities that she was forced to marry him by her family when she was just thirteen.

Nur admitted to flying to Bangladesh during his school’s Summer break where he married the child against her will, before returning to the UK with her where he continued to rape her in non-consensual wedlock.

Officials from the London Nautical School in Blackfriars say they were “dismayed” to learn what their “gifted and valued member of staff” did during the bone-chilling trip he made in the Summer of 2006.

The “relationship” ended between Nur and the girl, known only as Child A, when she turned 16 in 2009 and managed to escape the unholy matrimony.

According to pieces of evidence produced in the case, Nur met the child for the first time just three days before their arranged marriage when the families of both groom and bride collaborated to wed the pair.

According to Express, the physics teacher confirmed he had sexual intercourse with the minor during their marriage.

The relationship ended in 2009 when the girl was 16.

The Government’s Teaching Regulation Authority (TRA) panel sitting in Coventry heard Nur claiming he believed the girl was 18 at the time.

He also argued in a written evidence given to the panel he was “deceived” by Child A’s family, who he said hid her real age.

But the panel, which acted on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, said they “did not find it plausible” that Nur could mistake the child for an 18-year-old woman.

The panel also saw a statement from the girl, who said she had told him she was 13 and attending Year 8 just days before their nuptials.

And she also stated her age in a video, believed to be seen by the teacher, taken by Nur’s father.

The victim made a complaint to the police in 2013 and proved she was underage when she got married by undergoing a clavicle bone test – an analysis commonly used to certify the age of a person.

Ever since the youngster testified in front of officers and at various TRA sessions, giving an account throughout the year that has been deemed by the Coventry panel credible, consistent and compelling.

Standing by Child A, the panel ruled Nur engaged in a relationship in circumstances when he should have known she was aged under 16. 

[embedded content]

At the time, Nur was teaching at a school with teenage girls of the same age as his child-wife.

However, the panel’s members acknowledged he may have acted under pressure from his family to enter into the marriage “given that he met Child A just three days prior to their wedding”.

Dr. Robert Cawley, chairman of the TRA panel, said: “He stated that he was unaware of her real age until she made a complaint to the police in 2013.

“Shortly afterward in Family Court proceedings in 2014 a clavicle bone test was undertaken to determine her real age.

“Mr. Nur stated that he had understood that his wife was eighteen years old at the time of their marriage.

“The panel did not find it plausible that Mr. Nur could have mistaken a 13-year-old child for an 18-year-old, and that this misconception continued over a four year period.

“The panel was particularly concerned in light of the fact that he worked in a secondary school and had daily interactions with children of this age.”

Nur’s headteacher told the panel he was a “good teacher” and a “gifted and valued member of staff.”

The ruling branded Nur’s behavior as lacking “any insight into his actions or their impact on Child A.”

Decision maker Alan Meyrick said: “In my judgment, the lack of insight means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behavior.”

He then prohibited Nur from teaching indefinitely and said he shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach.

Nur is not being prosecuted as the marriage took place abroad, not under the UK jurisdiction.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.