Full Hearing - Conduct - Callum Francis

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
• ‘IOG’ means the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement;
• the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland register of teachers; and
• ‘COPAC’ means the Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012

Preliminary issues

Amendment to allegations

At the start of Day 1, the Presenting Officer made an application under Rule 2.8.4 to amend allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1 (c) to insert the word ‘former’ before the words ‘Pupil A’ when they appeared. He explained that media coverage over the weekend had reported that Pupil A was a pupil at Albyn School when the alleged incidents took place. It was accepted by GTC Scotland that the alleged conduct had occurred after Pupil A left the school. He therefore proposed the amendment to ensure the accuracy of the allegations.

The Teacher’s Representative confirmed this had been discussed and he supported the application to amend.

Late paper

The Presenting Officer (PO) then made an application jointly with the Teacher’s Representative to have a Joint Minute received as a late paper. He explained that on 8 August 2026, the Teacher’s Representative had advised that the Teacher was now prepared to agree all the allegations in respect of Pupil B. On this basis it had been agreed that Pupil B need not attend to give evidence. The Joint Minute recorded their agreement to admit Pupil B’s witness statement subject to redactions which had also been agreed by parties. The Presenting Officer suggested that the redacted sections be omitted when reading Pupil B’s statement into the record.

The Teacher’s Representative confirmed this was a joint position.

Panel consideration

The Panel withdrew to private session to consider both Applications. The Legal Assessor directed the Panel to the GTC Scotland Fact-finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement, particularly the section on Late Evidence, and the Rules, specifically Rule 1.3.8.

In respect of the amendments, the Panel considered it was in the public interest for allegations to be as accurate as possible. It noted there was no unfairness to the Teacher in allowing amendment given it was a joint position and the Teacher was represented. In respect of the Joint Minute, the Panel had regard to the general objective to deal with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity of the issues and avoid delay, and the public interest in not requiring Pupil B to give evidence when the allegations about them were no longer disputed.

The Panel returned to public session. The Legal Assessor confirmed the foregoing advicegiven. The Panel allowed the amendment of Allegation 1 and received the Joint Minute as a late paper. The Panel asked parties and the Servicing Officer (SO) to provide the redacted statement of Pupil B so they could refer to it when it was being read into evidence and thus avoid possible contamination by reviewing the unredacted version.

Further amendment to allegations

A further amendment to the allegations was sought after hearing Pupil C’s evidence on Day 1. The PO moved to delete the words ‘after school’ from allegation 5(d) on the basis that Pupil C’s evidence could not support this part of the allegation. The Teacher’s Representative said he could not obtain full instructions (the Teacher was not present) but expected he would be instructed to admit this allegation if so amended.

The Panel considered this in private session, having regard to the Rules and the general objective, and in particular fairness to the Teacher. No further legal advice was tendered in addition to that given, when amendment had been considered earlier in the day. The Panel noted that if the amendment was allowed, the whole allegation would be found proved by admission but if it was not, the likelihood was that the allegation would be found not proved as Pupil C’s evidence could not support a finding in fact to that effect. The Panel had regard to the fact that the Teacher had admitted the allegation under deletion of the words ‘after school’ and that he had the benefit of advice and representation. The Panel also considered the public interest in allegations being accurate. On this basis it decided that, subject to any further submissions on behalf of the Teacher, it would be minded to agree the amendment on Day 2.

On the morning of Day 2, the Teacher’s Representative confirmed the Teacher would admit the amended allegation. The Panel therefore allowed the amendment.

Allegations – final form

The following allegations, taking account of all amendments, were considered at the hearing:

1. Between October 2021 and 21 September 2022, whilst employed as a teacher at Albyn School Aberdeen, and during the course of his employment, the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) suggest meeting former Pupil A out with school;
   • (b) send text messages to former Pupil A:
     
     • (i) that she was beautiful, or words to that effect;
     • (ii) that she was funny, or words to that effect;
     • (iii) about photos on her social media accounts; and
   • (c) engage in video calls and telephone calls with former Pupil A and suggest meeting for a drink.
2. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1 made former Pupil A feel uncomfortable.
3. Between 10 January 2022 and 4 April 2023, whilst employed as a teacher at Albyn School Aberdeen, and during the course of his employment, the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) send messages to Pupil B over Microsoft Teams:
     
     • (i) which were unrelated to school and which included praise and encouragement;
     • (ii) after school hours, at weekends and during school holidays;
     • (iii) referencing Pupil B’s appearance;
     • (iv) about Pupil B’s dancing and comment that the Teacher would like to hear more about Pupil B’s dancing;
     • (v) engaging in jokes; and
   • (b) seek to arrange 1:1 meetings with Pupil B after school and fail to record the content of these meetings.
4. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 3 made Pupil B feel uncomfortable.
5. Between 22 November 2022 and 14 April 2023, whilst employed as a teacher at Albyn School Aberdeen, and during the course of his employment, the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) send messages to Pupil C over Microsoft Teams:
     
     • (i) which were unrelated to school;
     • (ii) after school hours, at weekends and during school holidays;
     • (iii) engaging in jokes;
     • (iv)seeking to engage in further conversations when Pupil C failed to respond;
   • (b) tell Pupil C to call him ‘Callum’ and not ‘Sir’;
   • (c) buy Pupil C chocolate;
   • (d) arrange 1:1 meetings with Pupil C, and fail to record the content of these meetings;
   • (e) disclose personal information to Pupil C and seek disclosure by Pupil C of personal information; and
   • (f) request information as to where Pupil C was, what she was doing and why, including asking when Pupil C’s father was leaving for a holiday.
6. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 5 made Pupil C feel uncomfortable.

In light of the above, it was alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and/or that he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.6 and 2.3 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher’s admissions

Prior to the Hearing, the Teacher had admitted allegations 1(b)(i), 1(b)(iii), 2, 3(a)(i), 3(a)(ii) 3(a)(iv), 3(a)(v), 3(b), 4, 5(a)(ii), 5(a)(iii), 5(a)(iv) and 6.

At the start of Day 1 of the hearing, the Teacher’s Representative advised that allegation 1(c) was admitted under deletion of the words ‘and suggest meeting for a drink’ which was denied.

The Teacher was also prepared to admit allegations 3(a)(ii), 5(a)(i) and 5(d) under deletion of the words ‘after school’ which was denied (ultimately these words were deleted from this allegation by amendment as set out above). He also admitted Allegations 5(e) and 5(f).

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Teacher was not unfit to teach and that he disputed impairment on the basis that the test is current impairment and the Teacher has taken remediation measures since the events set out in the allegations.

The Panel noted the allegations admitted by the Teacher in full and in part. Having regard to Rule 1.7.21 these allegations were therefore found proved by admission.

Summary of allegations remaining in dispute

Taking into account all the amendments and admissions set out above, the allegations in dispute were:-

• 1(a)
• 1(b)(ii)
• 1(c) to the extent of ‘and suggest meeting for a drink’
• 5(b)
• 5(c)

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:

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

1. Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 7 May 2025
2. Employer Investigation Report, dated 16 May 2023
3. Appendix 1 – Informal warning letter
4. Appendix 2 – Recording of Interview with former Pupil A
5. Microsoft Teams messages between Teacher and Pupil C
6. Microsoft Teams messages between Teacher and Pupil B
7. Investigation meeting notes with Teacher, dated 26 April 2023
8. Response from Teacher dated 12 August 2023, together with Appendix 1 and 2 to his response form
9. Witness statement of former Pupil A. Former Pupil A did not attend the hearing.
10. Witness statement of Pupil B. Pupil B did not attend the hearing as their evidence was agreed.
11. Witness statement of Pupil C. Pupil C attended the hearing and gave evidence.
12. Witness statement of [redacted]
13. Response to Interim Investigation Report, dated 2 July 2024
14. Employer investigating meeting minutes, dated 30 May 2023
15. Reference from [redacted], Head of Year, [redacted], dated 22 May 2023
16. Reference from [redacted]
17. Reference from [redacted], undated
18. Reference from [redacted], Albyn School, undated
19. Card 1 to the Teacher
20. Card 2 to the Teacher

Teacher’s hearing papers

1. Teacher’s Case Form, undated
2. 2026 Reflective Submission submitted on day 3 of the Hearing by the Teacher via his Representative and accepted as a Late Paper.

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 22 January 2026 with cover email and delivery receipt
2. Procedural Meeting decisions, dated 15 October 2025
3. Joint Minute of Agreement, dated 5 February 2026 and 23 February 2026
4. Second Joint Minute of Agreement, dated 7 August 2026.

Late Papers

• Reflective Submission
• Pupil B statement redacted
• Pupil B Joint Minute

Summary of evidence

Former Pupil A

A recording was played of an interview with former Pupil A. In this she was asked about a meeting that had been arranged in June 2021, about the Teacher, which Pupil A did not attend.

She confirmed this had been to complain about the Teacher’s style of teaching and not his behaviour. She said she had never given the Teacher her phone number, but he had sent her texts and WhatsApp messages. They had had Zoom meetings for her to do practice university interviews. He would give her compliments, usually at the end of the meeting so she had thanked him as a way of getting off the call. The compliments had been about academic things, but he had also said ‘you’re beautiful, you’re funny, you’re clever’ and then he had complimented her WhatsApp profile photo which was a photo of her and her dog.

He had sent her a message out of the blue the Saturday before the interview. She had not heard from him for some time before that other than a message to thank her parents for a gift they had given to say thank you. She had felt she needed to tell the school as she had found out from a friend who was the neighbour of Pupil C that he had been speaking to her a lot and asking if she was ok. That was how it had begun with former Pupil A and she had been concerned that Pupil C would not have been as quick as her to shut it down. She said when she was in class the Teacher would say something nice as she was leaving and she would thank him to be polite, and he would say he was not being kind but was just saying things how they are. He would always say he was not her friend, and you would think that he was definitely not creepy as he was laying out that it was a professional relationship, but then he would gradually get more and more personal.

Former Pupil A had not shut it down and it was only when the Teacher had made it very explicit at the end, when she had been on the phone with him talking about history and he had said they could talk history together and drink wine. She could not think of anything she had done to make him want to say that. She had deleted an earlier text message from her phone as she hadn’t wanted them there. She felt guilty because the Teacher had not made her feel massively uncomfortable or pressured her to do things, and he had helped her a lot and been nice to them, so she did not want to ruin his life. In person in school, he would ask her to meet outside school, and she had found this ‘weird’, so she had said no. At one point her class had been angry with him as he was not teaching them properly and they had done badly in their prelims, so they decided to have a silent class and refused to speak. The Teacher had taken former Pupil A out of the class and said that as they had always had a really good relationship did she want to tell him what that was about and she had thought ok we don’t really have a different relationship from anyone else. Former Pupil A agreed that the Teacher’s behaviour last autumn had been a continuation of how he had behaved when she was in sixth year. The phone calls had started after she left. She had been at home in her room. They had had some Zoom calls. Some of the compliments might have been on the Zoom calls, she couldn’t remember, but there was nothing particularly weird about them.

Pupil C

Pupil C attended by video link to give evidence. Her statement was read into the record. She confirmed it represented her evidence. She said her relationship with the Teacher was friendly student-teacher conversation before he began sending her Teams messages. She would arrive at school early due to timing of public transport and would sit in the form class for half an hour before anyone else arrived, so she would speak to the Teacher during that time.

They would discuss her studies and problems with her friend group and over time this became more casual conversation not to do with school. As time went on, the Teacher would send her Teams messages on a daily basis and send multiple messages even if she was not responding. These messages would be sent any time from 7:30am to 11:00pm and at weekends and in school holidays. She had not thought much of this at the time but began to realise this was not normal and he shouldn't be messaging her at those times or that numberof times.

She realised it was getting out of hand and she felt uncomfortable. She did not want to respond. She had spoken to him about [redacted] and the impact on her well-being. To begin with she had appreciated the teacher listening to her but it then became intrusive and he would bring it up at times she did not want to speak about it. She recalled coming into school on her first day and addressing the Teacher as Sir. That had been the norm in her previous school and she just continued. The Teacher had said something along the lines of don't call me Sir you can call me Callum but she had never done this. He had said something about not being knighted and Sir not being an appropriate term to use. There had been no one else in the classroom at the time he said this.

Her mother had reached out to the Teacher and told him about some dates where she would be more vulnerable in relation to [redacted]. On one such day she had walked into the class and he put a chocolate bar on the table. She could not recall exactly what was said. She said that was nice but then thought that he wouldn't do this for anyone else. He had sent her a photo of a Crunchie on Teams and said he had forgotten to give it to her. She thought that was strange. She thought the Teacher thought she liked Crunchies as she had taken one from a selection box at Christmas, but she could not recall ever having told him that this was her favourite chocolate. She said she would meet the Teacher for one-to-one meetings multiple times a week every week. These meetings took place during the school day and she would leave classes multiple times to meet with him. They did not take place after school as she left immediately as she had a long journey home. Her feelings about the Teams messages had changed over time. She began to feel they were too casual and chatty. It did not feel like it was a teacher speaking to her. Her messages in return got quite blunt and the Teacher would apologise. He would message multiple times if she ignored him. After she had met with the school to report the Teacher he sent her an apology message saying he was worried about her. She felt this was weird and had had no contact with him since then. Looking back she thought she had been mature but she had only been 16 years old. It was not appropriate to get that number of messages. She would not tolerate that from anyone now. If one of her university teachers behaved this way she would report it much quicker than she had. In cross-examination she accepted she did not know what discussions the teacher was having with other teachers about her pastoral care. She accepted all meetings with the Teacher took place during the day. She said the Teacher had never told her that the chocolate he gave her was left over. She accepted he would bring in chocolate for the whole class but she could not recall him ever being in a room with one student and giving them and them alone a bar of chocolate. She accepted she would not have been present if that had happenedbut said that people speak about things like that in school. In answer to a question from the Panel, she said the chocolate distributed to the class was a Celebrations or Heroes selection box of mini bars handed round to everyone. She confirmed the picture attached to a Teamsmessage from the Teacher was one of a full-size Crunchie on a desk. She said the Teacher thought this was her favourite chocolate which it was not. He had seen her take it out of the selection box and her understanding was that he then decided to buy her a full sized one.

Teacher’s evidence

Preliminary issue - scope of questioning of the Teacher at Stage 1

At the end of Day 1, the Teacher’s representative put the Panel on notice that some of the evidence to be given by the Teacher about [redacted] should be heard in private session. In private session at the start of Day 2, the Panel noted a concern that the evidence the Teacher’s representative planned to elicit from him might cover matters relevant to fitness to teach (Stage 2 of the process) rather than focusing solely on fact finding about the allegations (Stage 1). The Panel also noted from the running order that the Teacher’s representative did not propose to lead any witness evidence at Stage 2.

The Legal Assessor tendered advice that the wording of Rule 2.8.1 of the 2017 Rules clearly identified a separation between the fact finding and impairment stages and that this approach had been approved in Cohen v GMC (2008 EWCH 581 [(Admin)]. She identified a distinction between evidence relating to the allegations, and evidence regarding past or current impairment. While parties would have the opportunity to lead evidence at the impairment stage, if reached, dealing with both themes within the same chapter of evidence (as it appeared the Teacher’s representative was proposing to do) risked an elision of the stages of the decision-making process, and as such led to a risk of unfairness or at least the appearance of unfairness (given the terms of Rule 1.3.8).

The Panel considered matters. It took the view that the stages of the process are in place for good reason. This helps to ensure only appropriate and relevant evidence is taken into account at each stage. However, the Teacher was not expected to attend Day 3 of the hearing. It would clearly be unfair not to hear his evidence at the impairment stage, if reached, but it would also be undesirable for him to remain under oath or affirmation between Days 2 and 4 which were a week apart. The Panel considered an approach where it would hear the Teacher’s evidence in relation to Stage 1 and then allow cross-examination, then continuing, if required, to hear the Teacher’s evidence relating to impairment (i.e. Stage 2). The Panel noted that if this approach was taken it would be fair to allow the PO additional time to prepare Stage 1 cross-examination and for the Teacher’s representative to have time to reorganise his line of questioning. The Panel decided to invite submissions from the PO and Teacher’s representative before the Teacher began giving evidence.

The Panel then went into public session. The Convenor asked the Teacher’s representative if he intended to call witness evidence at Stage 2. The Teacher’s representative said in effect it depended how far he got with the Teacher’s evidence today. The Convenor reminded parties that this was Stage 1, fact finding, and noted that the Teacher had admitted many of the allegations and as such the focus should be on those remaining in dispute. The Teacher’s representative said he intended to go into private session to discuss the Teacher’s [redacted] and then elicit his response to the allegations so the Panel would understand his thoughts and motivations. The Convenor observed that the latter sounded like Stage 2 evidence. She asked the Legal Assessor’s view, who concurred. The Teacher’s representative submitted that the allegations were interlinked. It was for him to decide how to present his evidence. The Panel needed to have a full understanding of the Teacher’s position to make a determination on the facts and it would be helpful for it to hear everything. The Convenor observed that Stage 1 is concerned with evidence as to the events giving rise to the allegations; why they happened would be a matter for Stage 2. She invited the PO to comment. He indicated he had no particular view. He took the point made by the Teacher’s representative that the allegations overlapped and could generally be categorised as a blurring of boundaries. He would have no difficulty if the evidence strayed into Stage 2.

The Convenor then invited the Legal Assessor to repeat the advice given at the start of the private session. The PO and the Teacher’s representative made no comment on it.

The Panel then addressed the Teacher’s availability. The Teacher’s representative confirmed the Teacher would not be available on Day 3. The Convenor proposed that matters proceed as outlined above i.e. evidence would be taken from the Teacher about Stage 1, he would be cross-examined by the PO, and then he would give evidence about Stage 2 and be cross examined. The PO responded this would not work as the Panel would need to hear submissions on Stage 1 before proceeding to Stage 2. He suggested the focus today should be on the disputed factual matters with submissions being heard in the afternoon and a determination made. If the Teacher then could not attend on Day 3, the case would need to resume on Day 4. The Teacher’s representative said that if he could not take the Teacher’s evidence in its totality as he proposed, he would need to pause after Stage 1. In response to the Convenor’s question, he said he was not yet prepared to make Stage 1 submissions but could do so today, although might require a short adjournment. The PO confirmed he would be in a position to make Stage 1 submissions today.

The Panel then proposed to go into private session. Before they did so, the Teacher’s representative moved to allow the late submission of a document. This was a 1-and-a-half page document consisting of reflections by the Teacher. It had been provided to the Teacher’s representative on 10 June but he had overlooked sending it to the SO. He submitted that this information would be relevant to Stages 2 and 3 and the Teacher ought not to be prejudiced by his oversight. He confirmed it had been sent overnight to the PO and SO. The PO confirmed that he had seen it and had no opposition to it being received.

The Legal Assessor reiterated the advice given on Day 1 when a late paper was being considered and suggested the Panel would wish to note that the PO did not oppose the application.

The Panel then went into private session to discuss the issue of running order, the separation of Stage 1 and Stage 2, and the late evidence. It took the view that the stages of the procedure were separate for a reason and this ought to be adhered to in terms of how evidence was presented and considered. The Panel noted that it would be entitled to intervene if irrelevant evidence was being led. In terms of the late paper, the Panel took the view that it was fair to allow it to be received in the circumstances.

The Panel returned to public session. The Convenor advised parties that the Panel wished parties to stick to Stage 1 matters in evidence i.e. the where, when, who and not the why,which would be a matter for Stage 2. If the evidence went into Stage 2 territory, Panel members would likely intervene. She made clear the Panel wished to focus on fact finding for Stage 1. In response the Teacher’s representative sought further clarity. He said the Teacher’s [redacted] related to the disputed allegations and the Panel needed to understand the context. He objected to the Teacher being put at a disadvantage by not being able to set out his personal circumstances. The Convenor responded that the Panel were not preventing him from doing so, only saying that this would need to be done at Stage 2. She emphasised that the purpose of evidence at Stage 1 was to enable the Panel to make findings in fact about the allegations. The Teacher’s representative drew a distinction between mitigation and context. He said he had never had this approach disputed or challenged by a Panel.

The Convenor sought further legal advice. The Legal Assessor asked the Panel to return to private session. Having reflected the Legal Assessor gave advice to the effect that it would be reasonable to distinguish between context and justification or mitigation. The latter is forStage 2. She cautioned the panel as to procedural fairness in terms of allowing the Teacher’s representative to present his case as instructed. She suggested the Panel could direct parties that contextual evidence should be relevant and focused on the time frame of the allegations and the substance of those allegations; subject to this, it would be reasonable to hear the evidence the Teacher’s representative wished to lead. She reminded the Panel that if evidence being led was not relevant to the fact-finding exercise they would be entitled to ask the Teacher’s representative (and PO in cross examination) to limit that evidence or move on to a different line of questioning. She reminded the Panel that ultimately the weight to be placed on all the evidence, including contextual evidence, would be a matter for their judgment.

The Panel returned to public session and the Legal Assessor repeated this advice. Both the PO and Teacher’s representative indicated they were content with it.

The Teacher then took the affirmation and gave his evidence in chief, as summarised below. He was then cross-examined. The PO put to him, in respect of one disputed allegation, the content of another that had been admitted. The Teacher’s representative objected. He submitted he had been told he could not lead evidence from the Teacher about allegations that had been admitted, but the PO was now doing exactly that. He had submitted the allegations were interlinked but had been told he had to restrict himself to the allegations in dispute.

The Convenor sought legal advice and the Legal Assessor requested that the Panel go into private session.

In private session, the Legal Assessor advised there was a distinction between providing context on admitted allegations, which is a Stage 2 matter, and using admitted allegations to test evidence on disputed allegations. She was of the view that the latter was a legitimate form of cross-examination. The Panel could allow some latitude to the Teacher’s representative in re-examination, if there was a concern about prejudice to the Teacher. The Panel returned to public session and the Legal Assessor repeated this advice. The Teacher’s representative said that the position the Panel had taken was different from his understanding. He had wanted to take evidence in chief from the Teacher on the admitted allegations. The PO agreed with the advice given by the Legal Assessor. He said it may assist the Panel to know that in referring to the admitted allegation, he was not seeking to go behind the content of the text message involved but to use it to lend weight to his position on the disputed allegation. He would aim to keep cross-examination as tight as possible on this point. The Teacher’s representative reiterated that his understanding was he had been required to only lead evidence on the disputed allegations. If he had misunderstood that, the Teacher should have the opportunity to respond to questions about the admitted allegations from him. This should be done now before cross-examination continued. The PO confirmed he did not intend to ask about any more of the admitted allegations. The Teacher’s representative submitted he had edited his questions in reliance on what he thought the Panel required of him and this placed the Teacher at a detriment.

The Panel then paused the hearing for lunch and convened in private session after the break to discuss further. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to her previous advice regarding the three-stage process and to Rule 1.7.21 which provides that a Teacher may admit a fact and a fact so admitted will be treated as proved. She advised the Panel to have regard to the general objective (Rule 1.3.8) and that the ultimate consideration is whether the process is fair and just. They should also have regard to avoidance of delay, proportionality and flexibility.She noted the PO’s submission that he did not intend to refer to any other admitted allegations. The Panel may therefore feel that flexibility in re-examination would be a proportionate and fair way to resolve the issue raised by the Teacher’s representative. The Panel considered matters and focused on whether, in the whole circumstances, the hearing was adhering to a fair process of enquiry. It bore in mind that the Teacher’s representative could re-examine the Teacher and that both parties could make submissions about how the Panel should treat particular evidence. Given that the PO did not intend to make any other cross-references it would not be proportionate to pause cross-examination and allow further evidence in chief to be taken at this stage.

When the Panel reconvened, the Legal Assessor repeated this advice. The PO had no comment. The Teacher’s representative observed that the Panel was clearly going to refuse his application. The Convenor then advised that the Panel wished cross-examination to continue. The Teacher’s representative would be able to re-examine and the Panel would allow latitude to that insofar as dealing with undisputed facts.

Cross-examination of the Teacher continued, followed by re-examination. The Panel then went into private session to consider whether they required to ask him any questions but opted not to do so. No further procedural points were raised in the remainder of his evidence.

Summary of the Teacher’s evidence

The Teacher read out a statement (page 244 of the case papers). He confirmed starting work at the school in April 2019. Things had been difficult as he had been given the job ahead of an existing member of staff who made life difficult. The Teacher gave evidence about [redacted]. He had agreed to support former Pupil A in her application to university and had originally met with her in the school premises but following [redacted] he had continued this via WhatsApp and video calls as he was housebound.

Towards the end of a call with former Pupil A she had commented that it was fun to talk about history and he had agreed and said he just wished he could have a glass of wine with it. [redacted]. However, he had not offered to go out for a drink with former Pupil A. The school had talked to him about text messages with former Pupil A. She had deleted them but he had showed them to the school himself. The school had given him an informal warning. He had supported former Pupil A with her university application. Her parents knew about and supported this and had bought him a thank you gift. He had insisted they meet in the school premises and but for [redacted] that would have continued. He had not asked her to meet outside school and thought she might have misconstrued his remark about having a glass of wine.

At the time his mother and stepfather were in his house [redacted] they would have found it very odd for him to invite a former pupil for a glass of wine. He had no memory of telling former Pupil A she was funny and it was not the nature of their exchanges. He could not remember every part of every conversation but while he might have said something was funny he had not said specifically former Pupil A was funny. He had not asked Pupil C to call him Callum. On her first day she had addressed him as Sir. Throughout his career when people did this he would joke that he had not been knighted yet and ‘Mr Francis’ was fine. He thought Pupil C might have confused this with a separate conversation involving a group of students about how teachers were addressed in different schools in different cultures.

Neither Pupil C nor any other pupil in his career had addressed him by his first name. Pupil C’s mother had told him about some sensitive dates for her. Giving her a crunchy but had not specifically bought it for her or left it on her desk as he would not have embarrassed her like that. The Crunchie had been left over from another situation as it was common for him to have informal lessons where he or other people would bring in chocolates or cake. He did not eat these himself so often had some left over to offer to students. Pupil C had made him aware it was her favourite chocolate so he had kept it aside as he knew it was a difficult day. He had forgotten to give it to her and so messaged her about it later.

In cross-examination, the Teacher accepted he had admitted calling former Pupil A beautiful and that that was an inappropriate comment. It was entirely possible he had said that something was funny but he had not specifically characterised former Pupil A as funny. He did not think she was making it up but the word could have been used in context and not directly targeting her. For context, the remark that she was beautiful had been in a text message wishing her luck for her University interview and he had called her intelligent, hardworking and beautiful. He recognised that was unacceptable and very poorly judged. He had not used the word funny in that message or any other.

He accepted he had had video calls with former Pupil A. He had made a tongue in cheek comment to the effect that he [redacted]. He didn't think either of them had taken it seriously and the school had drawn the same conclusion. With the passage of time and former Pupil A’s reflection on events she might have changed her feelings about this retrospectively. He accepted she would have no reason to make up the allegation that he asked her for a drink. It was another situation where at the time the tone and meaning of a comment had been taken one way and then taken differently over the passage of time and reflection.

After the conversation in which he had made that joke former Pupil A had continued to communicate openly and comfortably so he had no reason to think there was an issue. He was not accusing Pupil C of lying. He did not contest he gave her chocolate. He could not necessarily see why she had assumed he had bought it for her but could see how that would be a plausible interpretation. He accepted having had multiple conversations about how teachers should be addressed and that it would not bother him to be called by his first name. He had never asked people to call him anything other than ‘Mr Francis’. He was not accusing her of lying but it had been an emotionally charged time for her and it was now 3.5 years ago. It was understandable some conversations might have been conflated. He had some context about Pupil C’s issues but had never met her before her first day in school. It would have been unusual for him to ask her to call him by his first name. His message to former Pupil A had been intended as a motivational message before her interview. In relation to Pupil B, he had attempted to motivate and support her and be pastorally supportive. In sending messages out of hours he was attempting to be more supportive than appropriate and to be available for a student who had expressed a wish for that level of support. His reference to her appearance was to a character from the movie Despicable Me which he said didn't look much like Pupil B. He had commented on her dancing as it was her passion and her main hobby and he wanted to be supportive of it. He had joked with her to lighten the conversation which dealt with heavy pastoral topics. He had no official pastoral responsibility for her but had always made himself available for his students in and out of form class. He did have official pastoral responsibility for Pupil C as she and her mother had specifically asked him to take an interest in her. It was agreed with other pastoral staff that he would be responsible for this and communicate with them as and when he felt necessary. He met with other students to provide pastoral support. He had not recorded these meetings as he did not feel this was necessary but now recognises the procedures should have been followed. The majority of messages sent to Pupil C were school related. She had asked him to ask her about doing her schoolwork as she struggled to motivate herself. He had sent messages out of school hours because Pupil C’s need for support did not end at 4pm. She had reached out to him on the school's official Teams platform. He had joked with her to lighten the conversation. When she did not respond he checked up on her as she had asked him to follow up and hold her accountable for schoolwork. He had not recorded all the meetings with Pupil C as some had arisen organically through her coming to sit in his classroom at breaks. Other pastoral staff knew about this and he updated her Head of House as needed and in any event every week. He had disclosed his own [redacted] to empathise with Pupil C. She had told him her parents would be away and he had checked when that was in order to give her help with revision in their absence.

Submissions and legal advice – Stage 1

The PO and Teacher’s representative each made submissions on the facts of the case as summarised below.

The PO reminded the Panel that the burden of proof rests with the PO and that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. (Rule 1.7.15 of the 2017 Rules). He referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland practice statement on fact-finding in fitness to teach conduct cases. He reminded the Panel that it would need to address the credibility and reliability of the witness evidence.

He submitted that Pupil C could be held to be entirely credible and reliable. She gave evidence in a straightforward way, was not evasive and answered questions clearly. She made appropriate concessions and said when she did not remember something. In relation to the allegations, allegation 1(a) was supported by the evidence of former Pupil A who had said the Teacher would pay her the same rate she was getting in her job [redacted].

The Teacher’s position was that this was a ‘tongue in cheek’ comment but it was reasonable for former Pupil A to have taken it as an invitation to meet him out of school. On allegation 1(b) he submitted the Teacher had said he did not specifically recall saying he found former Pupil A funny. Given that he had made a clearly personal and informal comment that she was beautiful, which was admitted, and given the clear and consistent recollection of former Pupil A of the Teacher having said she was funny, he invited the Panel to find this allegation proved.

In relation to allegation 1(c), the PO submitted that the Teacher had acknowledged saying to former Pupil A that it was fun to talk history together and he just wished he could have a glass of wine with it. It was reasonable for former Pupil A to have taken that as a suggestion to meet outside school for a drink. In relation to allegation 5(b), he submitted that Pupil C’s evidence was that the Teacher was informal from the start. She had called him Sir but he had told her to call him Callum. The Teacher’s evidence was that there had been a broader discussion about the use of forenames in some schools and that Pupil C asked if it would bother him if she called him Callum, to which he had joked that it would be less odd than calling him Sir as he hadn’t been knighted yet. The PO invited the panel to find this allegation proved given the clearly informal nature of the relationship between the Teacher and Pupil C. In relation to allegation 5(c), the PO submitted Pupil C had given direct and specific evidence about the Teacher having bought her a chocolate bar on a difficult anniversary (which the Teacher had been told about by her mother) and following up with a Teams message that he had bought her a Crunchie. He submitted Pupil C had described this as a nice gesture and it was not something she would have been likely to make up. It was reasonable for her to infer that Teacher had bought her chocolate and her evidence on this should be preferred.

The Teacher’s representative also referred to Rule 1.7.15 of the 2017 Rules and the fact-finding practice statement. He made submissions on the treatment of former Pupil A’s evidence as hearsay. She had told the GTC Scotland that she did not want to play any part in these proceedings, but a previous Panel had not accepted this. He submitted that only minimal weight could be given to her evidence given that she herself had tried to withdraw it, she had not attended to give evidence and there had been no way to test her evidence. This was not to denigrate former Pupil A but to suggest the allegations relating to her evidence had been mis framed.

In relation to allegation 1(a), the Teacher’s representative submitted that it could be both true and false in the multimedia age that the Teacher had suggested meeting former Pupil A outside school. He submitted there was a lack of clarity and detail in the allegation. The Teacher had admitted meeting former Pupil A in school to provide her with support in her application to University. These meetings had to go online due to [redacted]. The Teacher did not have to offer this support but did so as he was committed to supporting the school community. His evidence was that he had made no offer to meet in person or outside virtual meetings. He had given the GTC Scotland incriminating evidence when former Pupil A could not do so. In terms of allegation 1(b), this on its own could not lead to a finding of impairment. He disputed that the admission of calling former Pupil A beautiful made it more likely he had called her funny. The former allegation is more serious, so it would make no sense for the Teacher to admit it and dispute the less serious allegation. It is not in the Teacher’s interests at Stage 2 to dispute allegations and he had only done so because he did not believe he hadmade the comments attributed to him.

In relation to allegation 1(c ), the Teacher had been categorical that he had not done this. He had given [redacted]. He did not dispute former Pupil A’s integrity but he had not invited her for a drink. The Teacher’s representative invited the Panel to find that the PO had not satisfied the burden of proof in relation to any of the allegations about former Pupil A. In relation to allegations relating to Pupil C, the Teacher’s representative accepted that Pupil C did attend to give evidence and was an honest and convincing witness. The Teacher had admitted allegations which were true and accurate but disputed allegations which were not accurate.

In relation to allegation 5(b), he submitted that the Teacher had given a clear explanation for how this misunderstanding had occurred. No other witness had made this allegation. It cannot be argued that this incident reflected an informal relationship between Pupil C and the Teacher as it occurred on their first meeting. On allegation 5(c), the Teacher’s representative submitted that the evidence of Pupil C and the Teacher was consistent. The Teacher had put aside what he thought was Pupil C’s favourite chocolate on a difficult anniversary. This was a pastoral act which would be seen as good practice. However, the allegation is that he ‘bought’the chocolate and the Teacher’s evidence was that he did not purchase it for Pupil C but had it in the classroom already. Pupil C had accepted in cross-examination that she could not know if it had been bought for her. The Teacher’s representative finally submitted that interactions with young people can be more nuanced than implied by the allegations. In denying the disputed allegations the Teacher was not accusing any pupil of dishonesty but suggesting that allegations arose from misunderstandings about interactions that had been misconstrued. As such while the allegations were not made dishonestly, the PO could not satisfy the burden of proof.

After submissions, the Legal Assessor advised the Panel in public session that she had nothing to add to parties’ submissions regarding the procedure the Panel should follow and the relevant Rules and Practice Statements. She reminded the Panel that there is no legal requirement for corroboration although consistency across different sources of evidence may lend weight to that evidence. She reminded them that where there are conflicts of evidence, the Panel must make findings which resolve such conflict and make clear the account which is to be preferred. She reminded the Panel that the evidence of former Pupil A was hearsay and while it was admissible and as such had been admitted by a prior Panel decision, the Panel would now have to decide the appropriate weight to place on it.

Panel consideration – Stage 1 findings in fact

Following the submissions and legal advice, the Panel went into private session (at the start of Day 3) to discuss their findings on the facts of the case.

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.

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 also had careful regard to the guidance about credibility and reliability in the GTCScotland fact-finding in fitness to teach conduct cases practice statement, particularly in relation to hearsay evidence.

Discussion of evidence

The Panel firstly considered the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

Former Pupil A

The Panel reminded themselves that former Pupil A’s evidence had not been tested. It was clear from the recording that her statement had been taken by way of a relatively informal conversation. Questioning about her experiences with the Teacher had not been conducted in the manner of taking a witness statement. The teacher questioning her was clearly anxious to support and encourage former Pupil A and reassure her she would be believed, as well as eliciting information from her. At times this strayed into asking leading questions. There were three members of staff present – although former Pupil A had left school by then, there was still a potential power imbalance. While the Panel considered thatformer Pupil A sounded unforced and genuine, they accepted her evidence should be treated with caution given these concerns.

Pupil C

The Panel considered that her evidence was given clearly and concisely without apparent embellishment or exaggeration. She answered questions directly and without hesitation. She was measured and did not appear to have an agenda against the Teacher. She made concessions where appropriate (e.g. accepting she and the Teacher had not met after school). In terms of reliability, the Panel thought the passage of time and reflection on the events may have caused her to arrive at a view of facts that was broadly accurate but inconsistent as to some specific points. However, the Panel was prepared to accept her evidence could generally be relied upon.

The Teacher

The Panel had regard to the fact that the Teacher is the subject of these proceedings which have significant implications for him. The Panel noted that when questioned about the facts of the allegations, the Teacher frequently used evasive language and talked around the question rather than engaging directly with the specifics being put to him (e.g. using constructions such as ‘it’s possible I may have …’ and ‘I didn’t specifically say ..’). At times he appeared to be minimising the seriousness of the issues raised and focusing on providing justification rather than factual evidence to assist the Panel. He was articulate and detailed when speaking of [redacted] but less so when asked about the allegations and the impact on the pupils involved.

In respect of the disputed allegations the Panel found as follows:-

Allegation 1(a)

In submissions the PO had referred to a comment allegedly made by the Teacher to former Pupil A to the effect he would pay her [redacted]. This did not form part of former Pupil A’s evidence before the Panel, and as such the Panel discounted it. However, the Panel also concluded that as a matter of logic, if allegation 1(c) was found proved, this would be a basis to find allegation 1(a) proved, since if it was satisfied that the Teacher had suggested meeting for a drink, this would also be a suggestion of a meeting outside school. For the reasons set out below, allegation 1(c) was found proved. This allegation was therefore also proved.

Allegation 1(c)

The Teacher’s own evidence was that he had engaged in video and telephone calls with former Pupil A. There was no conflict on this point. The dispute was in relation to whether he had suggested to her meeting for a drink. The Panel noted that the Teacher’s case on this allegation had evolved over time. In his original response to the investigation notification, he had denied the allegation entirely, but in his Notice of Case form and written submissions in response to the GTC Scotland investigation he had referred to potentially having made a reference to looking forward to a glass of wine in a conversation with former Pupil A. His evidence before the Panel was that he could not drink alcohol [redacted] and as such he might have said to former Pupil A that he wished he could have a glass of wine. Taking the evidence as a whole, the Panel was satisfied that during a call with former Pupil A the Teacher had referred to having a glass of wine. It therefore went on to consider whether this constituted ‘suggest[ing] meeting for a drink’. Given the lack of independent evidence supporting the Teacher’s position that [redacted] it was firstly not persuaded by the inference the Teacher had invited them to draw i.e. that he had commented on drinking alcohol because he was unable to do so at the time.

The Panel also noted the equivocating language used by the Teacher in response to this allegation and his suggestion that former Pupil A had misconstrued something he had said rather than accepting that what he had said was capable of the interpretation she had givenit. Having regard to its assessment of credibility, and against the background of the admitted charges which set out a continuing course of inappropriate communication with pupils, thePanel formed the view that the comment made by the Teacher was an implied invitation to former Pupil A to meet for a drink, framed in a way which would allow him to claim plausible deniability had this been questioned. As such it found this allegation proved.

Allegation 1(b)(ii)

The Panel formed the view that even taking into account the need to be cautious about former Pupil A’s evidence, her evidence on this point was clear and unforced. In contrast the Teacher’s evidence on this point was equivocating and evasive, to the effect that he could have used the word ‘funny’ in a different context or said to former Pupil A that something else was funny. The Panel preferred the evidence of former Pupil A on this point, particularly as it was not persuaded that former Pupil A would have been unable to distinguish between the Teacher calling her funny and saying something else was funny. As such it found this allegation proved.

Allegation 5(c)

There was no conflict between the evidence of Pupil C and the Teacher to the effect that he had given her a Crunchie bar on a specific date of significance to her andhad then sent her a Teams message about this. However, this allegation was framed on the basis that the Teacher had bought Pupil C a chocolate bar. While the Panel accepted that Pupil C genuinely believed he had purchased the chocolate specifically for her, taking the evidence as a whole it was unable to find that proved. The Panel concluded it was more likely than not that the chocolate bar had come from the Teacher’s stocks of sweets which he kept for all his classes and had not been purchased for Pupil C specifically. This allegation was therefore not proved.

Allegation 5(b)

The Panel bore in mind that in Pupil C’s oral evidence she said the exchange leading to this allegation had taken place on her first day at the school, whereas her witness statement was not as specific as to timescale. However, it noted the Teacher’s own evidence that he disliked being called ‘Sir’ and preferred an informal style of address, and that he had admitted discussing the topic with pupils. The Panel also considered that the Teacher had an awareness of Pupil C’s circumstances and vulnerability before she arrived at the school, as her parents had communicated with the school in advance about this and he was her form teacher. As such and bearing in mind its assessment of the parties’ credibility, the Panel did not think the slight inconsistency in timing in her evidence was significant, particularly as the allegation did not specify a time when this incident took place. It concluded it was more likely than not that at some stage in his relationship with Pupil C, the Teacher had told her to call him Callum rather than Sir. This allegation was accordingly found proved.

The Panel announced its findings in fact at the start of Day 4.

Findings on fitness to teach

Given that the Panel had found that some of the allegations were proved, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

Evidence – Stage 2

The PO did not lead any further evidence at Stage 2.

The Teacher gave further oral evidence. He read out his 2026 Reflective Submission into the record.

The Teacher gave evidence in private session about the impact of [redacted]. He had wanted to help pupils but ought to have recognised that he was signed off work and should not have been working. He should have lost his ego and recognised that other teachers in the school could have supported former Pupil A. He ought to have recognised that professional boundaries are there for a reason and good intentions are not sufficient.

In relation to former Pupil A he ought to have taken the same precautions as he would have with a current pupil. His communication had been too informal. He would not do that now and he would not allow the situation to become as confused as it did. He had initially been surprised that people had felt uncomfortable because from his perspective their interactions had been comfortable. As he began to reflect on this he felt shame guilt and embarrassment. There was a fine margin between being the supportive teacher who goes above and beyond and that tipping a centimetre to the right to be the person who makes them feel uncomfortable.

It was sickening because it was the furthest from how he would hope anyone would view him but it only hammered home how far removed his perception at the time was from what was actually happening. He acknowledged the school had given him an informal caution in relation to former Pupil A. He had been given advice on keeping future communications within appropriate boundaries. However, he had been arrogant and thought that he knew better than this and interpreted the advice as to keep communications within school-approved platforms. He had missed the broader point of making sure that everything actually said was beyond reproach. At the time he had been incapable of hearing and applying advice as he was so convinced that good intentions would negate any outcome. He had thought his own judgement was the best judgement.

Because of his separation and being apart from his son there had been a void in his life and he was struggling to fill his time. In communication with people out of hours, he was trying to find personal and professional purpose and value. He felt needed, at a time he did not otherwise feel needed. He could give no better answer than to say he lost sight of professional boundaries and lost sight of how interactions between students and teachers should look. His view had been, nothing said by people was serious enough to report but he acknowledged it had not been his place to judge that. With pupil C the situation is more complex but unquestionably he ought to have recorded and reported those meetings. He was far more interested at the time, in feeling that he had value rather than following procedure.

He recognised that pupils had become the medium through which he had navigated his own personal issues which was unfair on anyone but particularly teenage students. He felt enormous guilt. After leaving the school he had originally got a job outside teaching but was made redundant. He was then bombarded with offers of teaching roles from recruitment agencies but did not take any of those up. When asked how the panel could be confident there would be no repeat of this behaviour, he firstly said he had no desire to go through anything like this process again or put anyone else through it. Secondly he had had no choice but to think very carefully about what had happened.

He recognised that professional boundaries and protocols and procedures are there for a reason - to protect young people and teachers and prevent this kind of boundary blurring. In future he would ask for help. He had not had a good relationship with his line manager or colleagues at the time but he ought to have admitted that he was struggling. He currently had no desire to return to teaching but were he to do so he would start over and pay attention to the professional standards and the advice of fellow professionals. In cross-examination he accepted he was an experienced teacher at the time of the conduct and that he had blurred professional boundaries with all three pupils. He accepted this was not an isolated incident but conduct repeated over a long period displaying poor judgment. He accepted that the pupils could have taken his communications with them as personal friendship rather than professional communications. He accepted his professional obligations extended to former pupils. In response to questions from the Panel, he confirmed that his current role is education adjacent but does not involve interactions with young people. He was not currently [redacted] as his life had improved significantly having moved away and establishing a stable career.

Around the time of his redundancy [redacted] had been difficult and he had been [redacted]but he no longer required this level of support, although he recognised its value. In his current role he had established boundaries around his time and was transparent about what he could and could not deliver. While there is a difference in communicating with adult colleagues and young people, he was now mindful not only of what he said but of how it might be construed by other people in the workplace. He would ask himself could this be taken in a different way, is it an appropriate time to message, or could it wait. At the time of the conduct his ability to manage relationships with colleagues had been impaired as well as his ability to navigate appropriate interactions with students. It had been a difficult time for the school due to changes of head teacher and the impact of lockdown. His colleagues had deliberately spread untrue rumours about him. He ought to have sought support from his manager sooner. Although he didn't feel entirely supported by the school he would not absolve himself of blame or responsibility as he could have been a more effective professional. At the time he had felt deeply insecure in his own competence as a teacher, in terms of time management, resources and relationships rather than academic content. He had become so consumed with how others viewed his competence that he became crippled by fear of admitting difficulty. Now if he felt he was not doing well or [redacted] affecting his competence he would seek support from his peers.

Submissions and legal advice – Stage 2

The PO and Teacher’s representative each made submissions on impairment as summarised below.

The PO set out the test for unfitness to teach as set out in the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011. He reminded the Panel that the test is impairment at the current date. He referred the Panel to the indicative outcomes guidance and the factors set out for assessing impairment. He reminded the Panel of the public interest and how that is to be assessed. He took the Panel through the three-stage test. It should firstly identify if the facts found proved mean the Teacher’s conduct at the time fell short of the required standards. If so, it should go on to consider whether the shortfalls are remediable, whether they have been remediated and likelihood of recurrence. If as a result it finds the Teacher’s fitness to be impaired it must consider the extent of that shortfall. If the Panel determines that the Teacher’s conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher, then that indicates that he is unfit to teach.

The PO submitted that the Teacher had committed misconduct as defined in the case of Roylance v GMC 1999 UKPC 16. With reference to the COPAC breaches alleged, he submitted that they could all be found proved. If this was accepted, he submitted the Panel should then have regard to the seriousness of the allegations. He submitted these were significantly serious and showed a prolonged blurring of professional boundaries initiated by the Teacher which made each pupil feel uncomfortable. The Panel should consider aggravating factors, which in his submission were the vulnerability of Pupil C and the fact that the conduct involved three pupils over a prolonged period. He submitted that the Teacher had given evidence about Pupil C asking him to chase her up and asking for meetings, with no sign she was uncomfortable, and that this represented an apportionment of blame on Pupil C rather than taking responsibility for boundaries. In terms of previous history, he submitted this was a clear pattern of behaviour persisted in even after a warning, suggesting an underlying issue giving rise to concern about repetition. Finally, he submitted that some of the Teacher’s admissions had been made under explanations which indicated his insight was only starting to develop. There was little information before the Panel from third parties to confirm steps taken by the Teacher, although it would be difficult to be persuaded that he had remedied his conduct as he has not been working in the profession. Based on these submissions he invited the Panel to find that the Teacher’s actions are fundamentally incompatible with that of a registered teacher and he is unfit to teach.

The Teacher’s representative submitted firstly in response that the Teacher was not apportioning blame to Pupil C. He had made clear several times that the blame sits entirely with him. He disputed that the Teacher’s insight was only starting to develop. His evidence indicated otherwise. As a reflective practitioner, the Teacher has been open and transparent and continued to reflect. He had taken responsibility for his actions throughout. Thirdly, while it may have been reasonable at the outset to suggest the Teacher’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with teaching, the evidence led in this process was not capable of leading the Panel to this conclusion now. He went on to take the Panel through his written submissions. With reference to the indicative outcomes guidance, he firstly submitted that the Teacher clearly understood that his conduct at the time fell short of the standards expected of a registered teacher, but that the test was of current impairment. In that regard he drew attention [redacted] his genuine self-reflection and remorse, and his cooperation with the investigations by his employer and GTC Scotland.

He submitted that the Teacher had had opportunities to return to teaching but had chosen to take a step back to ensure he was fully ready before doing so. He had developed strategies for responding to similar pressures should they arise in the future. He submitted the Teacherfully understood his conduct, the seriousness of it, and what he should have done differently, such that the Panel could be satisfied it would not be repeated. He submitted that the rigour of this process and the honesty and remorse showed by the Teacher would allow the public interest to be satisfied. In terms of the factors to be considered in assessing impairment, he submitted the behaviour was over three years old and the Teacher had engaged in reflection and self-improvement. There had been no physical abuse or harm to the pupils and no deliberate grooming rather than errors in judgment and neediness on the part of the Teacher. There were no aggravating factors. There had been no pattern of behaviour outside the context of the Teacher’s personal circumstances. The Teacher had shown sufficient insight and continued to reflect on his actions. He accepted he should have acted differently. He had admitted most of the allegations immediately and had disputed the remaining ones to ensure accuracy. He had apologised to the pupils via his employer and this process. As such, while the Teacher would have accepted his fitness was impaired at the time of the incidents in question, at the present time he was absolutely not unfit to teach.

The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that the statement of the law given in submissions was correct. In addition, the Panel must have no regard to potential disposals at this stage. They must take account of the misconduct and consider current impairment in the light of all relevant factors set out in indicative outcomes guidance. It could have regard to character evidence but this must be relevant to the questions of fitness being considered, and not general statements about the Teacher.

The PO and Teacher’s representative had no comments on this advice. The Panel went into private session to deliberate on Stage 2.

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 indicative outcomes guidance:

(a) Did the Teacher’s conduct at the time of the incidents fall short of the expected professional standards? i.e. was the Teacher guilty of the alleged breaches of COPAC?

The Panel firstly sought clarification of the Legal Assessor’s advice regarding character references. The Legal Assessor directed the panel to pages 10-11 of the indicative outcome guidance which directs Panels to distinguish between character evidence which pertains directly to the question of fitness, and that which is more properly regarded as mitigation at Stage 3.

The Panel considered each of the alleged breaches in turn:-

• COPAC 1.2 refers to maintaining appropriate professional boundaries and avoiding improper contact with learners. The Panel had no hesitation in finding that this was breached due to the informality of the contact with Pupils A, B and C, the fact it took place outside of School hours, and constituted a pattern of behaviour over an extended period of time.
• COPAC 1.3 refers to avoiding situations which may call into question one’s fitness to teach. The Panel considered that by definition this had been breached as the Teacher was the subject of these proceedings.
• COPAC 1.6 refers to maintaining an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to learners. The Panel noted the Teacher had accepted in evidence that he had lacked any significant awareness of how his conduct was impacting Pupils A, B and C. He was working in ways which were above and beyond what was expected professionally (e.g. providing guidance outside school hours). The Panel noted that learners will ultimately have to adhere to professional boundaries of some kind themselves later in life, and as such the Teacher had failed to serve as an appropriate role model for them in doing this. He had acknowledged he had lost sight of boundaries and they had become blurred. The Panel concluded he was in breach of this part of COPAC.
• COPAC 2.3 requires teachers to aim to be a positive role model to learners and motivate and inspire them to realise their full potential. The Panel noted that the Teacher had admitted that he had made the pupils uncomfortable. This in itself is not compatible with motivating and inspiring them. The Panel noted that Pupil C had given evidence about not wanting contact with the Teacher, which was potentially detrimental to her progress given that he was her form teacher and responsible for part of her education. The Panel concluded he was in breach of this part of COPAC.

As such the Panel found that the Teacher’s conduct at the time of the incidents did fall short of the expected professional standards per COPAC. It therefore went on to address the second part of the test.

(b) If so, is the Teacher’s fitness to teach currently impaired? In determining this the Panel had regard to whether the shortfalls identified are remediable; have they been remedied; and the likelihood of reoccurrence.

The Panel considered this question in terms of the indicative outcomes guidance and the key principles of remediability, remediation, and risk of recurrence.

It noted that the conduct in question had taken place over three years ago (the last allegations being in April 2023) and this was a point in favour of the Teacher as it gave him more opportunity to remediate. It considered the seriousness of the conduct. The Panel considered there was a high level of seriousness involving three teenage girls making allegations of a very similar nature. The course of conduct in relation to each pupil overlapped. The breaches of COPAC were prolonged. Pupil C was particularly vulnerable and all the pupils had been harmed or placed at risk of harm. The Panel considered the Teacher ought to have been aware of the complex emotions of teenage girls and that they may form attachments to adults – the appropriate response is to step back, not to initiate engagement. The Teacher had failed to recognise that and failed to act appropriately in terms of his professional obligations. He had also sought to minimise some of the concerns raised by his conduct. However, the Panel also acknowledged that the allegations were not at the highest level of seriousness as there was no physical or sexual involvement with the pupils.

In terms of aggravation, the Panel accepted the PO’s submission that Pupil C was vulnerable. Former Pupil A had felt concerned enough about Pupil C to report the Teacher’s conduct upon hearing of his involvement with Pupil C. The Panel noted the Teacher had been warned by his employer about his conduct relating to former Pupil A but had continued in a similar vein in relation to Pupils B and C. Even taking into account [redacted] relied on by the Teacher, this was troubling and amounted to an aggravation. All the pupils involved were young women and the Teacher was in a position of authority over them. In his favour the Panel accepted the Teacher has engaged fully with the fitness to teach process. In terms of recurrence, the Panel noted this was difficult to assess as the Teacher is not currently teaching. The history of the conduct was well established over a period of well over a year.

The Panel went on to consider the Teacher’s insight in some detail. It noted he had given extensive evidence about this. The Panel acknowledged he had demonstrated some reflection, and it was clear from the documentation that his reflection had evolved over the period from first being disciplined by his employer through to giving evidence at this Hearing. However, the Panel was concerned that the Teacher’s reflections focused more on the impact of this process on him than on the effect on Pupils A, B and C. While he had apologised for any harm caused, he had repeatedly minimised the impact of his conduct by attributing the allegations to misunderstandings about what he had said, people misremembering what and when he had said things, and other people including the pupils being confused. While he had apologised and shown remorse, this was not the same as demonstrating an understanding of how the pupils (all teenage girls) might have felt about his behaviour or how it would have impacted them. There was no evidence he had considered these events from their perspective, other than to be apologetic. His evidence had largely focused on his own circumstances and motivations.

When asked if his conduct would be repeated, his immediate response had been that it would not because he did not want to go through this process again due to its impact on him, rather than offering any reflection on the impact on learners. On his own evidence he had engaged in the conduct to improve his sense of purpose and self-esteem, to make himself feel good when he was feeling bad as a result of [redacted], and to fill a gap in his personal life. While he had accepted this demonstrated a lack of professional boundaries, when asked how he would maintain those boundaries in his current employment setting he had referred to being mindful of how others could construe his behaviour and the risk of misunderstood. The Panel considered this indicated incomplete insight and a failure to take responsibility for his behaviour rather than blaming other people for misunderstanding his intentions.

The Panel also considered the availability of third-party evidence relating to the Teacher’s insight and remediation. It noted that the Teacher’s position was that he presented low or no risk of recurrence as the conduct had taken place during a specific set of [redacted] and that if something similar happened again he would act differently. However, the Panel also noted the absence of third-party confirmation of this position. The Teacher had attended therapy but had produced no evidence about his attendance or progress. Indeed, he had produced no third-party evidence confirming [redacted]. The Teacher is now working but no current testimonials or employment references had been provided. He had said he had turned down teaching job offers as he did not feel ready to return, but no evidence of these approaches had been produced. The only evidence as to insight and remediation therefore came from the Teacher himself.

In terms of remediability, the Panel considered that the Teacher’s conduct was capable of remediation. It was serious but not at the highest level of seriousness (such as violence, sexual assault and dishonesty). There would be a prospect of remediation through engagement with learning about the impact of this type of behaviour and the maintenance of appropriate professional boundaries.

In terms of whether the conduct has been remediated, the Panel acknowledged in fairness to the Teacher that he has had no opportunity to address this within a professional teaching context as he has not worked as a teacher since being dismissed. However, this would not have prevented the Teacher reflecting on and developing his insight and understanding of the impact of his behaviour on the pupils. When questioned about boundaries in his current role he had continued to focus on the potential for his behaviour to be misunderstood by others rather than taking ownership of why it might be inappropriate. For the reasons discussed above, the Panel was not satisfied that the Teacher’s insight into the impact of his conduct had progressed sufficiently for it to be confident that it had been remediated.

In terms of recurrence, the Panel acknowledged it was difficult to assess risk when the Teacher was not currently working in a teaching role. However, given the limited extent of his remediation as discussed above, and the seriousness of the conduct directed towards vulnerable pupils, the Panel could not be satisfied that there was no prospect of recurrence.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s conduct falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and that his fitness to teach is therefore impaired.

(c) If not, is a finding of impairment nevertheless required in the public interest?

This did not arise as a separate stage for consideration, as the Panel had found that the Teacher’s fitness was currently impaired. The Panel nevertheless had regard to the public interest holistically throughout its deliberations. It asked itself how the public would view the Teacher’s conduct and the risk attendant upon it. It had regard to the need to maintain and uphold proper teaching standards and conduct standards as set out in COPAC. It observed that the public as a whole is alert to child protection concerns, particularly those involving young girls. It would be reasonable to suppose that an informed member of the public made aware of the Teacher’s conduct would have significant concerns about his fitness to teach.

The Panel went on to consider whether the Teacher was significantly impaired i.e. unfit to teach. It had regard to the essence of the conduct which amounted to attempting to form inappropriate relationships with three teenage girls (one particularly vulnerable) over a prolonged period, having been warned as to his conduct and professional boundaries by his employer. The Teacher had pursued these relationships to give him a sense of purpose and to feel better about himself. When the pupils had stepped back, he had pursued them repeatedly to seek responses. However, it also acknowledged that the conduct did not cross the threshold into sexual impropriety nor had any sexual motivation been alleged, albeit the behaviour demonstrated some characteristics of grooming. The Panel had regard to the public interest in consistency and proportionality across the fitness to practice jurisdiction generally. As such, the Panel determined that although the Teacher’s conduct was extremely serious and concerning, it did not cross the threshold of significant impairment.

The Panel went into public session on the afternoon of Day 4 and gave its decision. The Legal Assessor then confirmed the advice given at the start of the private session on impairment i.e. clarification of the reference to character evidence. She also confirmed, at the request of the Convenor, that no legal advice had been given at the end of Day 3. Neither the PO nor the Teacher’s representative had any comment on this advice.

Disposal

As the Panel had determined that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired, it went on to address disposal.

Submissions and legal advice – Stage 3

The PO and Teacher’s representative each made submissions on disposal, as summarised below.

The PO submitted that the indicative outcomes guidance makes clear that the purpose of disposal is not to punish the Teacher for past conduct but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and uphold proper professional standards. The Panel must consider disposal in a holistic and proportionate manner, balancing the public interest, the interests of the Teacher and the circumstances of the case. Disposals should be considered in ascending order from least severe to most severe and moving upwards only where a lesser disposal would be insufficient in view of the public interest and public protection. He submitted that a reprimand would fail to address either the seriousness of the conduct or the wider public interest. In terms of a Conditional Registration Order (CRO), he submitted that the conduct related to matters capable of remediation but that the Panel would wish to consider the extent of the Teacher’s insight. He submitted that various matters such as training and supervision could be incorporated into a CRO. Moving to the combination of a Reprimand and a CRO, he submitted that this would be the minimum proportionate outcome given the nature and duration of the conduct, the involvement of multiple pupils, the risk of harm to those pupils and the ongoing concerns about the Teacher’s insight. If the Panel was not minded to consider removal, this would be the most appropriate way to mark the seriousness of the conduct while providing protection to the public and an opportunity for remediation.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that it would be absolutely perverse to remove a Teacher where their conduct has fallen short of a finding of significant impairment. He submitted that having gone from lowest to highest as required, a Reprimand would be an appropriate disposal. The conduct was not an abuse of trust for personal gain, as there had been no dishonesty, financial gain or sexual motivation. While he accepted the potential for harm, and the discomfort caused to the pupils was unacceptable, he submitted this was at the lower end of the spectrum of harm and had had no long-lasting detrimental impact on the pupils. The majority of allegations had been admitted at the outset and where they were denied this was due to the genuine recollection of the Teacher who had had legitimate reason to do so given that the Panel had found allegation 5(c) not proved. The Teacher had shown reflection and insight as set out in Stage 2 submissions. While it was accepted the behaviour had taken place over a period of time involving three pupils it was otherwise an isolated event, with no prior concerns and none since. He reminded the panel of the Teacher’s personal circumstances by way of mitigation and highlighted the evidence of good character provided on his behalf. He submitted a reprimand would be in the public interest. The Teacher had been part of a rigorous fitness to teach process held in public which was likely to be reported in the press. The public could therefore be confident in his regret, remorse and learning.

The Legal Assessor advised she had no advice on the question of disposal.

The Panel then went into private session (on Day 5) to consider the appropriate disposal in this case. It directed itself to the terms of the IOG and the requirement to consider disposals in order from least to most severe (Giele v GMC [2005] EWHC 2143 (Admin)).

Reprimand

The Panel firstly considered a reprimand only. It had regard to the fact that the Teacher had made a considerable number of admissions and had shown some insight into his behaviour, albeit primarily from the perspective of his own interest rather than demonstrating empathy for how the pupils had been affected. It noted that the conduct has not been repeated since the proceedings were instigated, but this was of limited significance as the Teacher has not been working in the profession. It considered the character references but placed limited weight on these given that the referees appeared to be peers or friends rather than senior managers, and in all but one case it did not appear the referees even knew that fitness to teach allegations had been made.

The Panel placed weight on the fact that the Teacher’s conduct was not an isolated incident but a continued course of events following a pattern. The Teacher had persisted in his conduct despite having been given a warning by his employer in respect of former Pupil A. It considered that harm had been caused to the pupils, particularly Pupil C who had given evidence that she no longer automatically trusted her university tutors following her experience with the Teacher, as she ought to be entitled to do. The Panel considered the actions of the Teacher had been carried out for personal gain in terms of meeting his emotional needs (although not for financial gain) and constituted an abuse of his position.

Taking all these factors into account, the Panel decided that a Reprimand alone would not be in the public interest. The public would be entitled to question the regulatory process if only a Reprimand were imposed given the relative lack of mitigation set against the seriousness and repetition of the conduct.

Conditional Registration Order

Accordingly, the Panel went on to consider a Conditional Registration Order. It asked itself whether it would be possible to identify areas of the Teacher’s conduct which are remediable and could be addressed by imposing conditions and restrictions. It took the view that the essence of the conduct was a lack of understanding of and adherence to appropriate professional boundaries, and that the Teacher had shown a degree of insight and willingness to reflect on and remediate this. While the Teacher had not been asked specifically if he would be willing to undertake such remediation work, his evidence overall indicated he would be likely to cooperate with a CRO. The Panel considered in detail what conditions might be imposed on the Teacher given that he is not working as a registered teacher and may not do so in future. It referred to the PO’s submissions about the nature of the remediation work which the Teacher might be required to undertake. The Panel also had regard to the fact that any remediation activity such as training must be accessible and affordable for the Teacherand that any conditions imposed must be capable of being met. On this basis it formulated a set of conditions which it considered would be achievable for the Teacher, proportionate and applicable to the circumstances of the case, and capable of being monitored by a school and/or GTC Scotland. The conditions would also give the Teacher the opportunity to remediate his conduct and demonstrate the development of further insight. They could be put in place over an appropriate time period and in such a way as to take into account the fact that the Teacher is not currently working as a registered teacher.

The Panel went on to consider whether the imposition of a CRO alone would adequately indicate to the profession and the public the seriousness of the Teacher’s conduct and as such maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and the regulatory process. It considered this to be a finely balanced decision given that the Panel had come very close to finding at stage 2 that the Teacher was unfit to teach. As such the sanction imposed needed to reflect the degree of seriousness of the conduct found proved. While the CRO would givethe Teacher the opportunity to remediate his conduct while restricting his practice to mitigate risk and maintain public confidence, it would not in itself sufficiently express the Panel’s disapproval.

CRO and Reprimand

The Panel therefore went on to consider the option of a combined CRO and Reprimand. It took the view that this approach would give a clearer and more appropriate indication to the public and the profession of the gravity of the Teacher’s conduct, and as such would more effectively maintain public confidence in the integrity of the profession and the regulatory process.

The Panel reminded itself that a Reprimand is not a punishment but serves to mark officialdisapproval of the Teacher’s conduct. It bore in mind that the Teacher had received a warning from his employer at a relatively early stage of the course of conduct giving rise to the allegations but had nevertheless persisted in his behaviour. As such, a formal warning from the regulator would make the point even more strongly that the Teacher’s conduct had been unacceptable. This, combined with the practical risk management and remediation planconstituted in the CRO, would be a proportionate response to the Teacher’s impairment and would give an appropriate indication to the public and profession of the seriousness of his conduct.

The Panel considered whether it would be appropriate to consider the fourth and final sanction of removal. It bore in mind the seriousness of the conduct and, as noted above, how close it had come to finding the Teacher to be unfit to teach. However, it took into account that the PO in his oral submissions had not pressed for the sanction of removal to be imposed,and further that adherence to the Conditions in the CRO would be likely to remediate the Teacher’s lack of understanding of professional boundaries.

Disposal

The Panel accordingly decided that the appropriate disposal of this case would be the imposition of a combined CRO and Reprimand.

The Panel then considered duration. It had regard to the terms of Rule 2.10.2 of the 2017 Rules which provides that (a) a Reprimand may be recorded against the Teacher’s entry in the Register for such period of time and in such terms as is specified by the Panel; and (b) the Teacher [may be made] subject to a conditional registration order for such period of time (which may be unlimited), and with such conditions attached, as may be specified by the Panel. The Panel had regard to the fact that the Teacher is not currently living or working inScotland. The period of restriction required to be long enough to enable the Teacher to complete the remediation process meaningfully and discourage him from simply waiting until the sanctions expired before returning to work as a registered teacher in Scotland. It should also be proportionate to the severity of the allegations while acknowledging that the Teacherhad not been found unfit. The Panel formed the view that imposing sanction for three years would strike an appropriate balance between these considerations.

Accordingly, the Panel directs that the Teacher’s registration with GTC Scotland will be subject to the conditions specified within the attached Conditional Registration Order for an aggregated period of three years from the date of receipt of the signed order. In addition, a reprimand will be recorded against the Teacher’s entry in the GTC Scotland’s Register for an aggregated period of three years from the date of receipt of the signed order.

Annex: Terms of Conditional Registration Order

1. You must inform the following parties that your GTC Scotland registration is subject to these conditions and provide them with a copy of the Decision Notice that resulted in this Order being imposed upon you:
   
   • a. Any organisation or person employing you as a teacher or in a post for which GTC Scotland registration is required (whether on a permanent, temporary or supply basis).
   • b. Any prospective employer covered by (a) above at the time of making your application for employment.
2. In compliance with further notification requirements:-
   
   • a. You must inform GTC Scotland within 7 days if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment as a teacher or for which GTC Scotland registration is required. You must also provide GTC Scotland with contact details for any new employer within that same timescale.
   • b. You must inform GTC Scotland within 7 days of commencement of any disciplinary or fitness to practise proceedings against you by your employer or any other professional regulatory body.
   • c. In the event that you are the subject of enquiry or investigation in relation to alleged criminal conduct, you must inform GTC Scotland of such enquiry or investigation within 7 days of the date upon which the relevant authorities first contacted you.
   • d. If you are employed as a teacher or in a role for which GTC Scotland registration is required, towards the end of each academic year and immediately before the end of the period of these conditions, you must obtain a report from your head teacher or education manager confirming that there have been no issues concerning your fitness to teach during that year. Such report must be forwarded by you to GTC Scotland within one month of the end of each academic session.
3. In order to improve your safeguarding skills and knowledge, you are required to complete satisfactorily a training course in relation to grooming and the maintenance of appropriate professional boundaries with pupils that is approved by GTC Scotland and complete it within one year of the date of service of the Decision Notice. It will be your responsibility to identify the training course and to seek approval of it from GTC Scotland in advance of undertaking it, but suggested courses are undernoted to indicate the nature of the learning expected of you. You must provide to GTC Scotland written evidence of your successful completion of the course.
4. You must maintain a reflective practice portfolio focusing on the impact on pupils of inadequate safeguarding and violation of professional boundaries. You must provide a copy of that portfolio every six months to GTC Scotland. The first profile must be received by the date falling six months after the date of service of the Decision Notice.
5. You must complete a Professional Review and Development (PRD) process, focusing on appropriate interactions and communications with pupils and maintaining professional boundaries, within 6 months of commencing employment as a teacher. You must submit the PRD paperwork to GTC Scotland within one month of completion of the PRD process.
6. You must meet on a monthly basis with a member of the senior management team at the said school at which you are employed to consider your progress towards achieving the objectives set out in your Professional Development Plan produced through the PRD process.
7. You must provide a copy of the Professional Development Plan to GTC Scotland within three months of it being formulated and approved by senior management at your school.

Note referred to: suggested safeguarding courses

• Safeguarding training for schools, academies and colleges | NSPCC Learning
• Recognizing and Responding to Grooming Behaviors in School Settings - Zero Abuse Project
• ‘Professional Certificate: Understanding Grooming Behaviors in Child Abuse’ — London School of Business and Administration (LSBA