Full hearing - Conduct - Andrew Shanks

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

• “GTC Scotland” means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
• the “Panel” means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case;
• the “Rules” (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them; and
• the “Register” means the GTC Scotland register of teachers.

Preliminary issues

Panel composition

The Teacher’s Representative raised as a preliminary matter that Ms Knight had sat on a previous Panel regarding the same matter at Panel Consideration stage in which the bundle may have contained additional information that was no longer part of the case. The Teacher’s Representative did not make any substantive representation and advised that the Teacher was content to continue with the current Panel configuration but reminded the Panel to only review the papers before them. The Panel was content that they would only make decisions based on the current bundle of papers.

Privacy

At stage 1 of the hearing when the Teacher was due to give evidence the Teacher’s Representative made an application to have the parts of the hearing held in private when it related to the health and  private life of the Teacher. The Presenting Officer made no objection. The Panel considered the Rules and the submissions of both parties. The Panel decided that the evidence relating to the private life or the health of the Teacher should be held in private. Prior to the hearing, it had been agreed by parties at a Case Management Discussion under Rule 2.4.5 (f), that witness, Colleague F, would give evidence in private.

Late papers and redactions

At Stage 1 of the hearing, the Panel was advised that the parties had agreed late redactions to the papers which were provided to the Panel.

At Stage 2 of the hearing the Teacher’s Representative made an application to admit late papers. The late papers related to two CPD certificates that he had recently undertaken and a recent reflective piece. The Presenting Officer did not oppose the late papers. The Panel had regard to Rule 1.7.17 of the Rules and decided to admit the late papers on the basis that it was relevant and fair to admit the papers.

Dates for the hearing

The hearing was set to take place from 9-13 February 2026. However as the Panel did not move to Stage 3 of the hearing, the hearing concluded on 12 February 2026.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. Whilst employed by [redacted] as a teacher, during a staff Christmas party on 16 December 2022 at, [redacted] the Teacher did upset and cause distress to several female colleagues, in that he did:
   
   • (a) Lick Colleague A’s ear.
   • (b) In respect of Colleague B:
     
     • (i) Say to her that he ‘should be scared of her’, or words to that effect; and
     • (ii) Say to her that she was ‘hot as f***’, or words to that effect.
   • (c) In respect of Colleague C:
     
     • (i) Kiss her on the cheek;
     • (ii) Say to her that she was ‘beautiful’, or words to that effect;
     • (iii) Touch her face;
     • (iv) Ask her what would happen if he kissed her on the forehead and then on the lips;
     • (v) Say to her that they could go somewhere quiet and did not need to tell Colleague C’s boyfriend; and
     • (vi) Grab her leg whilst sitting next to her in a car.
   • (d) In respect of Colleague D:
     
     • (i) Say to her that he and other male members of staff rate the attractiveness of female colleagues;
     • (ii) Say to her that he thought her sister, Colleague E, was the most attractive female member of staff;
2. Whilst employed by [redacted] as a teacher, the Teacher did upset and cause distress to Colleague F in that he did:
   
   • (a) On 19 December 2019:
     
     • (i) During a staff Christmas party make comments of a sexually harassing nature to her in that he did:
       
       1. State ‘I find you incredibly attractive’, or words to this effect;
       2. State ‘I can’t stop thinking about you’, or words to this effect;
       3. State ‘We’re more than friends’, or words to this effect;
       4. State ‘you can’t tell me it’s never crossed your mind’, or words to this effect;
       5. State ‘it must have, don’t you find me attractive?’, or words to this effect.
       6. Tell her that he had fantasies about them having sex at work;
       7. Tell her that he had had an erection during some of their conversations at work;
       8. Ask her how flexible she was; and
       9. Ask her how she kept her pubic hair.
          
     • (ii) Grab hold of her wrists whilst he was making some of the comments at allegations 2(a)(i).
   • (b) On a specific date unknown between 1 January 2020 and 31 January 2020:
     
     • (i) Give her a hug; and
     • (ii) Do so whilst she was telling him that his behaviour at allegation 2(a) had made her uncomfortable.
   • (c) On a specific date unknown between 1 February 2020 and 23 March 2020, during a colleague’s birthday party:
     
     • (i) Repeatedly put his arm around her;
     • (ii) Repeatedly attempt to talk to her whilst standing very close to her; and
     • (iii) Repeatedly attempt to whisper in her ear.
   • (d) On an unknown date in the summer of 2022, during a school barbeque, grab her and hug her in a manner that could be described as a ‘headlock’.
3. The Teacher’s actions at allegations 1(a), 1(b)(ii), 1(c), 1(d)(i), 1(d)(ii), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and  2(d) were sexual and/or sexually motivated.

And in light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired, and he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4, 4.1 and 4.2 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) 2012.

Teacher's admissions

The Teacher admitted allegations: 1 (a); 1 (b)(i) (ii); 1 (c)(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi); and 1(d) (i) (ii).

The Teacher also admitted allegation 3 in relation to allegation 1 (c) (i)-(v)

The Teacher denied allegations: 2(a)(i)3,6,7; 2(a)(ii); 2(b); 2 (c); and 2(d) on the basis that these did not occur.

The Teacher denied allegations 2(a) (i) 1,2,4,5,8 and 9 on the basis that this did not cause Colleague F upset or distress and were not of a sexually harassing nature.

The Teacher denied allegation 3 in relation to 1(a), 1(b)(ii), 1 (c)(vi); 1(d)(i), 1(d)(ii), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d).

Hearing papers

In accordance with Rule 1.7.17, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

1. Employer Referral Form, dated 3 February 2023
2. The [redacted]fact-finding summary document, undated with appendices:
3. Meeting Notes Colleague D
4. Statement from Colleague B
5. Meeting notes Colleague C
6. Meeting notes  Colleague A
7. Colleague F email
8. Andrew Shanks Interview 1
9. Andrew Shanks Interview 2
10. Andrew Shanks email confirming accuracy of notes
11. Colleague G statement
12. Colleague H statement
13. Colleague I statement
14. Colleague J statement
15. Colleague K statement
16. Colleague L statement
17. Email exchange between Colleague M and Andrew Shanks
18. Teams message from Andrew Shanks to Colleague A
19. Colleague N statement
20. [VOID]
21. GTC Scotland witness statement of Colleague F, dated 11 October 2023
22. Teacher’s Response to Interim Report, dated 5 March 2024 with appendices including:
23. Screenshot of WhatsApp messages
24. Letter from Person A, Therapy Manager at Change Scotland
25. Certificate of course on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion dated 22 September 2023
26. [VOID]
27. Reflection dated 1 March 2024
28. Testimonials:
    
    • (i) Colleague N
    • (ii) Colleague O
    • (iii) Colleague P
    • (iv) Colleague Q
    • (v) Colleague G
29. GTCS-Shanks-A-NOI-Response, 9 April 2023
30. Statement of Andrew Shanks with exhibits attached, dated 11 Dec 2024
31. Statement of Colleague P, dated 11 Dec 2024
32. Statement of Colleague G, dated 11 Dec 2024
33. Statement of Colleague O, dated 11 Dec 2024
34. Late Papers submitted on 10 February 2026 including:
    
    • Kallidus Equity, Diversity and Inclusion test, undated
    • Kallidus Drug and Alcohol Misuse test, undated
    • Reflection, dated February 2026

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 29 August 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt
• Procedural Hearing/Meeting decisions and Case Management Direction:
  
  • Vulnerable Witness – Colleague F – Case Management Direction, dated 17 Jan 2025

Witnesses

The Panel heard from the Teacher and Colleague F at Stage 1 of the hearing. Both witnesses gave oral evidence to the Panel. The Panel heard from the Teacher, Colleague G, Colleague P and Colleague O at Stage 2 of the hearing.

Summary of evidence at Stage 1

Colleague F

Colleague F gave evidence to the Panel at Stage 1 of the hearing. She explained that she had been friends with the Teacher in 2019 prior to the Christmas night out in December 2019. In her view they had a close friendship and she discussed with him intimate matters relating to her love life. She explained that she felt quite vulnerable at that time and in retrospect believes that the Teacher knew that she was vulnerable and used that vulnerability against her. She explained that there was a staff party on 19 December 2019 at [redacted] in [redacted]. A portion of the venue had been reserved for the staff party and she recalled that she and the Teacher were situated apart from the other staff. They engaged in an intense conversation. Colleague F described being made uncomfortable by the conversation. In her view the conversation was unexpected and that it had not crossed her mind to think about the Teacher in a sexual way. She described the Teacher being animated and holding her wrists. She said it was not a painful hold but she could not move away from him.

Later in the evening Colleague F, the Teacher and another colleague went onto a different bar. She described a further conversation when the other colleague was in the toilet and that the Teacher described sexual fantasisies that he had had about her at work. Colleague F did not tell the Teacher at the time that she felt uncomfortable. She said that she told colleagues after the event that she had felt uncomfortable but she did not give a date or any detail as to when these conversations happened.

Colleague F explained that she did not report the matter until 2023. She was shown text messages that she had sent to the Teacher in the period before and after the Christmas party in 2019. She did not deny she had sent them but could not account for why she initiated contact with the Teacher. She could not explain some of the text messages that could be construed as intimate.

Colleague F described meeting with the Teacher in school in the first week back after the Christmas party. She thought she had told him how uncomfortable he had made her and that he had hugged her and brushed aside her concerns.

Colleague F recalled meeting the Teacher at a colleague’s birthday party in or around February/March 2020. She described the Teacher whispering in her ear and that she felt uncomfortable.

Colleague F described meeting the Teacher at a summer BBQ at the school in 2022. The Teacher was walking towards Colleague F. He was with his wife. She described him making a clumsy attempt to hug her and that she ducked away from him. He effectively hugged her head and she described it as a headlock. Colleague F did not report any of the above incidents until after the events of the 2022 Christmas party.

Colleague F did not attend the 2022 Christmas party but she became aware that there were allegations that the Teacher had behaved inappropriately towards female colleagues whilst drunk. Colleague F decided to report what had happened in 2019. She sent a short email to the investigator, Person B. She did not go into much detail. She was not interviewed as part of the process.

Colleague F explained that she was upset by the interactions she had had with the Teacher and as a result avoided him at lunch. She also said that she stopped wearing skirts and avoided all social work functions unless they were necessary for her  to attend. If she did attend she said that she now avoids alcohol. She explained that when the Teacher left the school she felt relieved.

The Teacher

The Teacher gave evidence to the Panel. He agreed that he and Colleague F had an intense conversation at the night out in December 2019 at [redacted]. His recollection was that Colleague F expressed her feelings for him. He did not remember holding her wrists although he did remember friends coming to speak to them. In his view the friends were not coming to ask if Colleague F was okay but instead to join them. He recalled later that evening waiting for a taxi with Colleague F in [redacted]. He recalled her initiating a conversation about him being able to go home and ‘f*** your wife’. He recalled them both speaking about sexual preferences. His view was that this conversation was instigated by Colleague F and not him. He referenced the text messages they had exchanged and in his view he thought Colleague F was expressing her attraction for him. He told the Panel that he now recognises how inappropriate his behaviour was given he was married but that at the time it was a mutual conversation between him and Colleague F. The Teacher interpreted the messages she sent him as her contacting him and wanting to continue the conversation. He did not think she was upset or distressed at the time.

The Teacher did not recall meeting with Colleague F on the first week of the January 2020 term to discuss the evening out. He had no recollection of that meeting. He responded to her messages, that he thought were friendly, but he did not instigate messages to her. He felt he had overstepped by speaking to Colleague F in the way he had and felt he should no longer be friends with her. He also knew that Colleague F had secured a position on the Senior Leadership Team in early 2020 and so she had removed herself from the Friday evening drinks that staff engaged in.

In relation to the party in February/March 2020 the Teacher did not recall whispering in Colleague F’s ear nor standing too close to her. He did not recall putting her in a headlock at the summer party in 2022 but accepted he might have tried to hug her as that was how they had often greeted each other.

In relation to allegation 3, he denied that his actions towards Colleague A and Colleague B were sexual or sexually motivated.  He explained that in relation to Colleague A, he did not find her sexually attractive. In relation to Colleague B, he recalled discussing with another colleague that the maths had improved under this colleague’s guidance. He felt he had offended Colleague B and so made what he thought was a compliment but accepted in hindsight that this was inappropriate.

In relation to Colleague C, the Teacher had admitted that the comments were sexual but not the grabbing of the leg. He could not remember the grabbing of the leg in the taxi but noted that Colleague C in her statement said she did not think it was sexual. He thought it was more likely to have been jokey.

In relation to Colleague D, he felt they were having a mutual conversation as she had commented on the attractiveness of certain male colleagues. He did not think the conversation was sexually motivated on his part. He did not think that Colleague D was distressed as a result of the conversation. He made the comment about her sister as a compliment.

Credibility

The Panel decided that Colleague F was credible in the way she described what had happened on each occasion. She had good recall of the conversations and events in respect of the Teacher. The Panel accepted, for example, her account of the Teacher holding her wrists whilst having the conversation at the Christmas party. The Panel did not accept however that she was taken aback by the tone of the conversation between her and the Teacher on 19 December 2019 at [redacted]. The Panel accepted that in retrospect Colleague F regretted her friendship with the Teacher and came to dislike him but the Panel decided that at that time (December 2019) she was willing to engage in a flirtatious conversation that touched on sexual matters and was not made uncomfortable at the time.

The Panel noted that the Teacher accepted most of the conversation alleged by Colleague F that took place on 19 December 2019 and yet denied some parts of that conversation. The Panel could not understand how the Teacher could be so sure, many years later, that some parts of the conversation took place and yet others that seemed to flow from the admitted comments did not. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague F when it came to the details of the conversation on 19 December 2019 and at the subsequent parties that the two attended.

In respect of the meeting in January 2020 where Colleague F believed that she had told the Teacher that she had been made uncomfortable, the Panel accepted the Teacher’s evidence that no such conversation took place. The Panel took into account the text messages sent by Colleague F in which she was still friendly with the Teacher. The Panel decided it was more likely than not that Colleague F did not confront the Teacher as at that time she was still instigating contact with the Teacher and seemed to still be friends with him given the tone of the text messages between them.

Stage 1 - Findings of fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact on the allegations. In particular the Panel had regard to the GTC Scotland Fact-finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases practice statement.

In relation to allegation 3, where it was alleged that the actions of the Teacher were sexual and/or sexually motivated, the Panel had regard to the following authorities:

• Basson v GMC 2018 EWHC 505 paragraph 14, “sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship”.
• Haris v GMC 2021 EWCA 763 when considering whether an action was sexual or overtly sexual. In such cases the Panel should consider whether there are explanations other than sexual gratification and if there are none an inference can be drawn that sexual gratification was the reason.
• Arunkalavainan v GMC [2014] EWH 873 (Admin) for the proposition that inappropriate behaviour does not necessarily mean there is sexual motivation.
• In re He Minors (Sexual Abuse:Standard of Proof) 1995 HL 563 which confirms that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities which does not change but that the more serious the allegation the more cogent the evidence needs to be.
• Professional Standards Authority v HCPC and Leonar Ren-Yi Yong [2021] EWHC 52 for the proposition that where sexual harassment is alleged the Panel should have in mind the definition of sexual harassment in Section 26 Equality Act 2010.

The Panel had in mind that the burden of proof rested on the Presenting Officer and that the standard of proof required is that used in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.

The Panel noted that Allegation 1 was admitted in its entirety. Allegation 3 was admitted in relation to allegation 1(c)(i-v). The Panel therefore made findings about Allegation 2 and the remaining parts of Allegation 3 as follows:

• Allegation 1: proved by admission
• Allegation 2(a)(i): not proved

The Teacher admitted that he had an intimate conversation with the Teacher on 19 December 2019. He admitted most of what was said to have happened at 2(a)(i) except 2(a)(i) sections 3,6 and 7. He denied however that the comments made by him amounted to sexual harassment. He also denied that the comments had caused Colleague F upset and distress.

Facts

As noted above under the heading ‘credibility’, the Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague F in relation to the comments alleged at 2(a)(i) sections 3,6 and 7. The Panel found that the comments were made by the Teacher to Colleague F. The Panel found that the Teacher and Colleague F had a close friendship that by both accounts was flirtatious. The Panel found that whilst at the Christmas party on 19 December 2019 in [redacted] the Teacher and Colleague F moved to an area by the bar away from their colleagues to engage in a conversation. The Panel found that other colleagues did come up to them but as Colleague F said in her text message it was to talk to the Teacher and Colleague F felt the need to tell them to ‘p*** off’. The Panel decided that the conversation between the Teacher and Colleague F was consensual. They were both expressing to each other how they potentially felt about each other. The conversation was sexual in nature and it was consensual. The Panel could see no reason for Colleague F to be accurate about some parts of the conversation but make up other parts of the conversation. The Teacher’s comment that at allegation 2(a)(i)3 ‘we’re more than friends’ followed logically from the other parts of the conversation that he admitted. The Teacher told the Panel that the two of them discussed their sexual preferences. It was more likely than not therefore that he made the comments as alleged in 2(a)(i)6 and 7. The Panel decided that it was more likely than not that the entirety of  the comments made in Allegation 2(i) occurred as stated in bullet points 1-9. The Panel therefore had to decide whether the comments made amounted to sexual harassment as alleged before deciding if the allegation was proven.

Sexual harassment

The Panel went onto consider whether the actions at allegation 2(i)(a) sections 1-9 were of a sexually harassing nature as stated in the allegation. The Panel took into account the definition of sexual harassment in section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The Panel noted the text messages sent by Colleague F to the Teacher after the alleged events on 19 December 2019. Colleague F told the Panel that she was made uncomfortable by the conversation. Further that she avoided him after 19 December 2019 Christmas party. The Panel did not accept Colleague F’s characterisation of her and the Teacher’s communication after the Christmas party. The Panel found that Colleague F initiated communication with the Teacher on a number of occasions. Further the text messages from Colleague F to the Teacher did not in the Panel’s view suggest that she was upset or that the conversation had been unwanted. In fact Colleague F suggested continuing the conversation at a later date. Colleague F also told the Teacher that she had had some outrageous dreams since their conversation which did not indicate to the Panel that she had been upset at the time of the conversation. Colleague F then told the Teacher about some trail running she was doing, a sport that he enjoyed. She told him that a teacher he did not like was not now coming on a walk, the inference being that he might like to join her and others on a walk. The Panel decided that the conduct at the time was not unwanted and it did not constitute sexual harassment.

The Panel therefore found allegations 2(a)(i) in its entirety not proved as none of the alleged comments were of a ‘sexually harassing nature’. The Panel did not therefore have to make any findings about whether the comments caused upset and distress as the underlying allegation had not been proved. For the avoidance of doubt the Panel found that at the time the comments did not cause Colleague F upset and distress.

Allegation 2(a)(ii): - not proved

The Panel considered Colleague F’s evidence about the Teacher holding her wrists when engaged in the intimate conversation at [redacted] on 19 December 2019. The Panel accepted Colleague F’s evidence about how he was holding her wrists. It was more likely than not that the Teacher was holding Colleague F’s wrists and it did not seem unlikely given the discussion they were having.

The Panel went on to consider whether the conduct alleged at allegation 2(a)(ii) namely the holding of Colleague F’s wrists caused upset and distress to Colleague F. The Panel found that it did not given Colleague F said it was not painful and that Colleague F had engaged in the conversation in a consensual manner.

Allegation 2(b): not proved

The Panel accepted that Colleague F thought she had tried to speak to the Teacher about the conversation but Colleague F was unclear about when the conversation happened and the Teacher did not recall the conversation at all. The Panel decided it was more likely than not that Colleague F did not tell the Teacher in early January 2020 that he had made her feel uncomfortable. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to find that the Teacher gave Colleague F a hug during this alleged conversation.

The Panel found allegation 2(b) not proven.

Allegation 2(c): not proved

The Panel found that the Teacher attended a colleague’s birthday at [redacted] in or around February to March 2020. He attended with his wife and the Panel accepted Colleague F’s account that he was drunk. At that time the two of them were still texting and still, on the face of it, friends. The Panel could see no reason for Colleague F to make up what had happened. The Panel decided that it was more likely than not that at a Colleague’s birthday between 1 February 2020 and 23 March 2020 that the Teacher did repeatedly put his arm around Colleague F, repeatedly attempt to talk to her whilst standing very close to her; and repeatedly attempt to whisper in her ear.

The Panel went on to consider the totality of the allegation namely whether said conduct did upset and cause distress to Colleague F. The Panel noted that after the alleged birthday party in [redacted] Colleague F continued to initiate contact with the Teacher by sending him messages that were unrelated to work. The Panel did not think that at that time Colleague F was upset and distressed by the actions of the Teacher at the birthday party.

Allegation 2(d): proved

The Panel found that at the school BBQ in the summer of 2022 the Teacher tried in a clumsy fashion to hug Colleague F. The Panel accepted that by this time the Teacher and Colleague F were no longer in contact and were no longer friends. The Panel accepted Colleague F’s account that she was left feeling shaky after the encounter with the Teacher. The Panel accepted that with the benefit of hindsight Colleague F regretted confiding in the Teacher in 2019 and looked back at their relationship in a different and negative light. The Panel found that the Teacher’s actions in allegation 2(d) did upset and cause distress to Colleague F.

Allegation 3

The Panel went on to consider whether the Teacher’s actions found proved at allegations 1(a),(b)(ii),(c),(d), 2(d) were sexual or sexually motivated as alleged in allegation 3.

The Panel decided that in order to find that the conduct found proved was sexual or sexually motivated that Panel would have to consider whether the actions were undertaken in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship. Alternatively if the actions were overtly sexual then the Panel need not specifically consider the sexual motivation of the Teacher but decide whether there was another non-sexual explanation that satisfied the Panel.

Allegation 3 in relation to allegation 1(a): not proved

In relation to allegation 1(a) the Panel found that the Teacher was drunk. He did not know Colleague A particularly well. The Teacher gave evidence that whilst he did not remember the event he thought he might have done it as a joke. The Panel could place little weight on the Teacher’s evidence given he did not remember the event and so it was difficult to accept his explanation. However the Panel noted that the action appeared to come from nowhere. He was at the bar with Colleague A by chance, she said something to him and he impetuously leaned over and licked her ear. He had no other contact with her and walked away. Whilst the Panel found that the action was wholly inappropriate, it did not think that the action was overtly sexual; nor did the Panel find that it was done in pursuit of sexual gratification or a sexual relationship. The Panel thought it was more likely than not that it was an impulsive action that was inappropriate but not sexual in nature. The Panel did not find that allegation 3 was proved in respect of allegation 1(a).

Allegation 3 in relation to allegation 1(b)(ii): not proved

The Panel found that the Teacher did make a comment that Colleague B was ‘hot as f***’. The Teacher gave evidence that he was talking to another maths colleague and that he was complimenting this teacher on her teaching. Colleague B was present and confirmed that such a conversation took place in an email she sent to the investigating officer at[redacted]. The Panel accepted the Teacher’s explanation that his comment was a clumsy and very inappropriate attempt to compliment Colleague B who the Teacher thought might have been offended by him praising another teacher. The Panel decided that the Teacher when drunk can and did behave inappropriately. The Panel did not think that there was a sexual or sexually motivated reason for the comment. The Panel found allegation 3 in respect of allegation 1(b)(ii) not proven.

Allegation 3 in relation to allegation 1(c)(i-vi): proved

The Panel noted that the Teacher admitted that his actions were sexual in relation to allegation 1(c) apart from allegation 1(c)(vi). The Panel decided that the whole of the Teacher’s interaction with Colleague C was sexually motivated. The Teacher admitted that he overstepped the mark with Colleague C [redacted]. The Panel thought it more likely than not that the final action in the sequence of events namely grabbing Colleague C’s leg whilst in the taxi was part of the same thought process as the previous events and was therefore sexually motivated.  The Panel therefore found allegation 3 proven in respect of the whole of allegation 1(c).

Allegation 3 in relation to allegation 1(d)(i) and (ii): not proved

The Panel did not think that the Teacher’s comments to Colleague D were sexual or sexually motivated. The Panel decided that the comments were inappropriate but were not made for his sexual gratification nor in pursuit of a sexual relationship. The Panel found allegation 3 not proven in respect of allegation 1(d)(i) and (ii).

Allegation 3 in relation to allegation 2(d): not proved:

The Panel decided that the Teacher made a clumsy attempt to say hello to Colleague F by hugging her at a summer school BBQ in 2022. The Panel noted that colleagues and the Teacher’s wife were present at the event. The interaction happened in public and by mistake. The Panel did not think that the action was overtly sexual. The Panel decided that the action was clumsy and inappropriate given his and Colleague F’s previous interaction in 2019. The Panel found that the friendship had ended by 2022 and there was no evidence to suggest that the Teacher was pursuing her for a sexual relationship nor that he undertook the action for sexual gratification. The Panel found allegation 3 not proven in respect of allegation 2(d).

Allegations 2(a)(b) and (c) were found not proven and as such the Panel did not have to consider those allegations in respect of allegation 3. For the avoidance of doubt the Panel therefore found allegation 3 in respect of the actions at allegation 2(a)(b) and (c) not proven.

Stage 2 - Findings on fitness to teach

Given that the Panel found that some of the allegations were proved as set out above, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Panel heard evidence at Stage 2 from the Teacher, Colleague G, Colleague P and Colleague O. All the witnesses at Stage 2 were credible.

The Teacher expressed his regret for upsetting his colleagues at the staff Christmas party in December 2022. He referred the Panel to the fact he had [redacted] since then and to the letter in the bundle confirming [redacted]. The Teacher made reference to the reflective accounts in the bundle and a more recent account in the late papers. The Teacher expressed shame and embarrassment about the way he had treated colleagues. The Teacher reflected on [redacted] and how it had helped him. He explained that he had changed career and [redacted] partly due to [redacted] of the proceedings against him [redacted]. He mentioned some CPD courses he had undertaken on equality and diversity but had difficulty recalling the content of those courses in any detail. He explained that he would have liked to apologise to colleagues especially Colleague C who he had viewed as a friend. He did apologise prior to disciplinary proceedings to Colleague A but was told not to contact other colleagues by his employer.

Colleague G worked with the Teacher as a colleague and line manager at [redacted] Colleague G could not speak to the Teacher’s conduct since the 2022 Christmas party events but could vouch for his ability as a teacher and spoke highly of the Teacher’s teaching of maths. Colleague P similarly had worked with the Teacher at [redacted] and spoke highly of his ability as a teacher. He could not however speak to the Teacher’s conduct since the events of the Christmas party in 2022.

Colleague O employed the Teacher at independent school [redacted] as a teacher in maths after the events of the Christmas party in 2022. Colleague O was an impressive witness who explained that the Teacher had been open with him about his actions at the Christmas party. Colleague O was aware of the findings against the Teacher but explained that did not change his opinion of the Teacher. He described the Teacher as a gifted communicator and mathematician. He said that parents gave positive comments about the Teacher after only half a term. In Colleague O’s view this was a rare occurrence. Colleague O had no concerns about public protection regarding children in relation to the Teacher. He had seen him in a number of social settings with female colleagues and had no concerns. He had not been made aware of any concerns whilst the Teacher was at [redacted]. In answer to Panel questions Colleague O stated that whilst there was no formal monitoring of the Teacher, he had acknowledged the sense of reputational risk in taking on the Teacher given the GTC Scotland investigation. Colleague O explained that those who needed to know were made aware of the situation and that there were a number of formal and informal check ins with the Teacher to ensure his wellbeing and whether any issues might have arisen. Colleague O was satisfied that there were no issues during the Teacher’s time at [redacted].

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.  The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the GTC Scotland Indicative Outcomes Guidance.

(a) Did the Teacher’s conduct or competence at the time of the incidents fall short of the expected professional standards?

The Panel had regard to the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct when considering whether the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the expected standards at the time they occurred. In particular the Panel had regard to the following parts of the Code:

• Part 1.3 - ‘you should avoid situations within and outwith the professional context which could be in breach of the criminal law or could into question your fitness to teach’.
• Part 1.4 - ‘ you must uphold standards of professional conduct, honesty and integrity so that the public have confidence in you as a teacher and teaching as a profession’.
• Part 4.1 – ‘you should work in a collegiate and co-operative manner with colleagues and members of relevant professions’.
• Part 4.2 - ‘you must treat all colleagues, parents and carers fairly, with respect and without discrimination’.

The Panel found that allegations which were found proved at 1(a),(b)(ii), 1(c), 2(d) and 3 (in respect of 1(c)) breached 1.3, 1.4 and 4.1 of the Code. The Teacher’s behaviour in respect of the findings in fact made was unprofessional, inappropriate and a failure to treat colleagues with respect.

In relation to allegation 1(b)(i) where the Teacher admitted saying he was ‘scared of’ Colleague B, the Panel did not think the conduct on its own reached the threshold of being a breach of COPAC. Similarly in relation to allegation 1(d) and the comments made to Colleague D whilst inappropriate, the Panel did not think that the comments were of a serious enough nature nor was the upset caused serious enough to find that there was a breach of COPAC.

The Panel found therefore that the Teacher’s conduct at the time of the events fell short of the expected standards in respect of allegation 1(a),1(b)(ii),1(c) ,2(d) and 3(in respect of 1(c)).

(b) Are the shortfalls identified remediable, have they been remedied and is there a likelihood of reoccurrence?

The Panel in assessing the answer to part (b) above considered the factors set out in the Indicative Outcomes Guidance. In particular the Panel considered the following factors:

• Age of the behaviour – the behaviour occurred in 2022.
• Level of seriousness – the Panel found that the behaviour was quite serious in that it undermined the Teacher’s relationship with his colleagues and caused upset and distress to those colleagues.
• Aggravating factors – there were no aggravating factors as the Teacher has engaged with the GTC Scotland.
• Pattern of Behaviour – the Panel had some concerns that the behaviour related to a number of female colleagues. There was the incident with Colleague F in summer of 2022 and the remaining incidents occurred on the same night namely 19 December 2022 albeit involving several colleagues. The Panel did not think there was a pattern of behaviour but were concerned about the behaviour when the Teacher was drunk and the fact the behaviour was aimed at female colleagues.
• Insight – the Panel decided that the Teacher has shown some insight in terms of understanding what behaviour is wrong and has accepted some responsibility. The Panel had concerns that the Teacher had limited insight into the potential impact of his behaviour on his colleagues other than the immediate upset and distress caused.
• Steps taken to remediate conduct – the Panel found that the Teacher had taken steps to remediate his conduct. He had apologised at the time to Colleague A. He asked to apologise to Colleague C but was told he was not allowed to contact her. He engaged in [redacted} and spoke about the positive impact of  [redacted]The Teacher addressed[redacted]. He appears to have recognised the potential negative consequences [redacted]
• Likelihood of recurrence – the Panel decided that the likelihood of recurrence of the behaviour was low given the steps taken to address the causes of the behaviour and the insight shown. The Panel took reassurance from the fact that the Teacher taught for a couple of years at [redacted] after the events in question and there were no further incidents. The Panel took into account the evidence of Colleague O that the Teacher had been open with him about his behaviour and that he took responsibility for it.

The Panel found, taking into account the above factors, that the shortfalls identified are remediable, they have been remedied and there is a low risk of recurrence.

(c) If response to part (b) is all in the positive, is a finding of impairment required in the public interest?

The Panel considered whether despite its findings above at part (b), a finding of impairment was required in the public interest. The Panel considered the public interest in relation to the facts found. The Panel decided that given the matter did not involve protection of children or pupils and instead drunken behaviour amongst colleagues, that it was not at the upper end of seriousness. The Panel found that the public interest would not be engaged given the fact the Teacher has been dismissed from his job, faced an investigation for 3 years and a full conduct hearing by the GTC Scotland. The Panel decided that an informed member of the public would think that the regulator had taken sufficient action and that there was no public interest in a finding of impairment in the circumstances.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel decided that the Teacher’s fitness to teach was not impaired and that no further action should be taken by GTC Scotland.