Full Hearing - Conduct - Callum Scott

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

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

The Panel required to deal with several preliminary issues at the outset of the Hearing.

Late Evidence

Firstly, the Panel noted that the Presenting Officer wished to submit a paper into evidence on the morning of the Hearing.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the tests for admissibility in this context were those of relevancy and fairness and that these were met in this case.

Legal advice was provided to the Panel to the effect that the Presenting Officer had identified the correct tests for admissibility. In assessing the second test, a key issue would be whether fair notice had been provided to the Teacher. A relevant factor in this assessment would be the fact that the Teacher was a party to all the information contained in the paper which the Presenting Officer sought to lodge.

The Panel convened in private session to discuss this first preliminary issue.  

The Panel noted that the paper was relevant in that it had been prepared by the Servicing Officer and set out the many or numerous attempts made to contact the Teacher over a prolonged period. The Panel considered that the paper comprised information which was not new and merely set out for convenience a timeline which would better enable the Panel to decide on the second preliminary issue. The Panel therefore reached the conclusion that there was no unfairness in allowing the paper to be lodged.

For these reasons, the Panel decided that the late evidence should be admitted.

Proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Teacher

The Panel noted that the Teacher was not in attendance at the Hearing, nor was he represented. Accordingly, the Panel required to decide on whether to proceed with the Hearing in his absence. The Panel heard submissions from the Presenting Officer in terms of Rule 1.7.8. She pointed out that the Notice of Hearing had been correctly served on the Teacher in terms of Rule 1.6.1. The Teacher was aware of the hearing taking place today.

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland practice statement on ‘postponements, adjournments, and proceeding in the absence’. It was submitted that the Teacher had absented himself from the proceedings by his own volition in that he had failed to engage with the process.

The Panel went into private session to confer.

The Panel noted that it had two courses of action open to it at this juncture:  

1. proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Teacher; or  
2. adjourn proceedings to a later date.

The Panel noted that there had been some initial engagement in the GTC Scotland process by the Teacher and that he had been represented by a firm of solicitors who had then withdrawn from acting in January 2025. This firm had, while acting for the Teacher, taken receipt of the Interim Investigation Report. In January 2025 there had been further correspondence from a solicitor from the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) advising that they would also be withdrawing from representing the Teacher. The Panel was also aware that the Interim Investigation Report had been sent directly to the Teacher by Special Delivery on 21 January 2025 and that this had been signed for at the Teacher’s address. Since January 2025, the Panel was satisfied that there had been significant attempts to engage with the Teacher and that attempts had been made to serve him with all appropriate paperwork. The Panel was of the view that the Teacher’s absence from proceedings was entirely voluntary.

Given his lack of engagement thus far, the Panel was of the view that a further adjournment in this case would not be appropriate, it was highly unlikely that the Teacher would now engage with the process and therefore the Panel had regard to the general objective at Rule 1.3.8 (d) and also to Rule 1.7.8. The Panel concluded that in all the circumstances it was just to proceed with the Hearing in the absence of the Teacher.

COPAC Breaches (amendment to notice of hearing)  

The Panel was made aware that in the notice of hearing provided to the teacher that the various COPAC breaches which were alleged, had not been appended to the allegations. The Panel required to consider Rule 1.6.3 and heard brief submissions from the Presenting Officer. The Panel also had regard to the note produced by the Servicing Officer, and which had been admitted as late evidence. Within that paper, the Panel noted that a letter explaining the omission of the alleged COPAC breaches was sent to the Teacher on 29 June 2026. That also included a re-issue of the Notice of Full Hearing including the alleged COPAC breaches. On 1st July 2026 it was noted that the Royal Mail website reflected that the recipient refused to accept the delivery and it was marked ‘return to sender’.

The Panel was satisfied that the omission of the COPAC breaches from the final notice of hearing was an administrative oversight. The Panel was also satisfied that the Teacher had been informed on numerous occasions in other documents served on him of the alleged COPAC breaches. In all the circumstances, the Panel was therefore satisfied that the notice could be amended in terms of Rule 1.6.3 and that the hearing should proceed.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. Whilst employed by Dumfries & Galloway Council as a teacher at [redacted], the Teacher did:  
   
   • (a) Between May 2017 and January 2020, engage in communication of a personal nature, through social media with Pupil A.  
   • (b) Between October 2017 and January 2020, engage in a sexual relationship with Pupil A.  
   • (c) Between October 2017 and January 2020, whilst engaged in a sexual relationship with Pupil A, give gifts to Pupil A, including but not limited to:  
     
     • (i) Booking overnight hotel stays
     • (ii) buying a ‘Pandora’ ring.
   • (d) Between October 2017 and January 2020, whilst engaged in a sexual relationship with Pupil A, receive and save explicit photographs from Pupil A and repeatedly threaten to send the explicit photographs to others.  
   • (e) Between October 2017 and January 2020, whilst engaged in a sexual relationship with Pupil A, act in a controlling manner towards Pupil A, including but not limited to:  
     
     • (i) telling Pupil A that she was not allowed to disclose their relationship to anyone.  
     • (ii) telling Pupil A that she was not allowed to have a boyfriend.  
     • (iii) telling Pupil A to leave her Snapchat location on at all times.  
   • (f) Between 2017 and 2020, interact with pupils on a personal level on social media.  
   • (g) Between 2019 and 2020, make comments of a sexual nature towards pupil B via social media, namely ‘Ffs, I’d be all over you if I was drunk’.  
   • (h) Between 2019 and 2020, make comments of a sexual nature to unknown pupils via social media.  
2. The Teacher's behaviour at allegations 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h) was sexually motivated.  

And in light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired, and he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher did not provide admissions to any of the allegations.

Hearing papers

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

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 25 June 2025

1. Local Authority Investigation Report, dated 2022, with appendices:
   
   • Appendix 1 – Chronology
   • Appendix 2 – Suspension letter from [redacted] to [the Teacher], dated 1 October 2020.
   • Appendix 3 – Letter from [redacted] to the Teacher dated 5 October 2020 confirming [redacted] as Investigating Officer
   • Appendix 4 – Letter from [redacted] to the Teacher dated 6 November 2020 and response from the Teacher
   • Appendix 5 – Letter from [redacted] to [redacted] dated 6 November 2020 inviting [redacted] to attend witness interview on 13 November 2020. Disciplinary interview template of the meeting with [redacted]  
   • Appendix 6 - Letter from [redacted] to [Witness 2] dated 6 November 2020 inviting [Witness 2] to attend witness interview on 16 November 2020. [Witness 2] witness statement
   • Appendix 7 – Letter from [redacted] to [Witness 1] dated 6 November 2020 inviting [Witness 1] to attend witness interview on 16 November 2020. [Witness 1] witness statement.
   • Appendix 8 – Letter from [redacted] to [Witness 4] dated 17 November 2020 inviting [Witness 4] to attend witness interview on 23 November 2020. [Witness 4] witness statement.
   • Appendix 9 – Letter from [redacted] to [redacted] dated 17 November 202 inviting [redacted] to attend witness interview on 23 November 2020. [redacted] witness statement.
   • Appendix 10 – Letter from [redacted] to the Teacher dated 2 December 2020 and response from the Teacher
   • Appendix 11 – Letter from [redacted] to the Teacher dated 15 December 2020
   • Appendix 12 – Letter from [redacted] dated 19 November 2020
   • Appendix 13 – Education Services: ICT in Schools – Policy & Procedure Overview, 2017
   • Appendix 14 – Child Protection Staff Training Slides
   • Appendix 15 – GTC Scotland: The Standard for Full Registration, December 2006
   • Appendix 16 – GTC Scotland: Code of Professionalism and Conduct and email from [Witness 1] dated 9 December 2020
   • Appendix 17 – Education Services: Disciplinary Policy, Procedure and Guidance (Teachers and Associated Professionals) 2015
   • Appendix 18 – (a) Education Services: Guidance on the Use of Social Networking Sites 2015 and (b) OD and HR Policies: Social Media Guidance 2020
   • Appendix 19 – Information provided by [redacted] on 29 January 2021 – screenshot images
   • Appendix 20 – Letter from [redacted] to the Teacher dated 8 January 2021
   • Appendix 21 – Letter from [redacted] to the Teacher dated 2 February 2021
   • Appendix 22 – Letter from [redacted] to the Teacher dated 15 February 2021
   • Appendix 23 – Letter from [redacted] to the Teacher dated 4 May 2021
   • Appendix 24 – Email correspondence between [Witness 1] and [redacted] in relation to [the Teacher] informing [Witness 1] that he would not be attending any more meetings or Occupational Health Support
   • Appendix 25 – Email communications between [redacted] and the Teacher dated November 2020 to February 2021
   • Appendix 26 – Letter from [redacted] to [redacted] dated 10 June 2021
   • Appendix 27 – Witness Interview with Pupil A
   • Appendix 28 – Occupational Health Report dated 25 January 2022
   • Appendix 29 – Letter from [redacted] to [redacted] dated 22 February 2022
   • Appendix 30 – Investigatory questions sent to the Teacher dated 2022
2. Notification of Disciplinary Hearing, dated 10 June 2022
3. Notification of adjourned Disciplinary Hearing, dated 12 September 2022
4. Notification of re-scheduled Disciplinary Hearing, dated 25 November 2022
5. Outcome of Disciplinary Hearing, dated 19 December 2022
6. Reinstatement to GTC Scotland Register notification, dated 1 February 2023
7. GTC Scotland witness statement of [Witness 1], dated September 2023
8. GTC Scotland witness statement of [Witness 2], dated October 2023
9. GTC Scotland witness statement of [Witness 3], dated November 2023
10. GTC Scotland witness statement of [Witness 4], dated November 2023
11. GTC Scotland witness statement of Pupil A, dated March 2024
12. GTC Scotland witness statement of [Witness 6], dated August 2024
13. Response from Police Scotland, dated 25 September 2024

Teacher’s hearing papers

None.

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 5 January 2026 with cover email and Special Delivery receipt dated 7 January 2026
2. Remote Hearing and Vulnerable Witness decisions, dated 9 September 2026
3. Initial CMD letter refused delivery return to sender, dated 24 June 2025
4. CMD2 bundle refused delivery return to sender, dated 27 June 2025
5. CMD3 letter refused delivery return to sender, dated 17 July 2025
6. Procedural Applications refused delivery return to sender, dated 22 July 2025
7. CMD re RO delivery refused return to sender, dated 2 October 2025
8. Royal Mail marked refused return to sender, dated 8 October 2025
9. CMD re final bundle papers and signed for delivery, dated 13 May 2026

Late Papers

1. Servicing Officer’s Note, dated 3 July 2026

Summary of evidence

Witness 1

The Panel heard evidence from the [redacted] of [redacted] (Witness 1). Witness 1 adopted his statement dated September 2023 and read this out in full.

He gave evidence that he had started at the school in May 2019. Before the allegations, he had a positive but limited working relationship with the Teacher, had observed his teaching as part of getting to know staff, and had no concerns about him.

On 27 August 2020, the school’s [redacted], [Witness 2], told him that two staff members and a pupil had raised concerns about the Teacher. The concern was that the Teacher had allegedly sent an inappropriate Snapchat message to a former S6 pupil who had recently left school, and that he had befriended other former S6 pupils on social media. Witness 1 was shown a screenshot of the alleged message, which said: ‘Ffs, I’d be all over you if I were drunk.’ He was concerned for both the current pupil who disclosed the issue and the former pupil involved, as well as by how widely the matter appeared to be known in the community.

He sought advice from Dumfries and Galloway Council’s Human Resources Department. Following that advice, The Teacher’s line manager, [Witness 4], spoke to him on 28 August 2020. She later reported that the Teacher became very upset, said the discussion had triggered memories of childhood trauma, and felt unable to continue. He was advised to go home; [Witness 4] was also upset by the meeting. The Teacher then said he would see a doctor and would be off work.

The [redacted] role then became to support the Teacher’s absence and potential return to work while the allegations were investigated by the local authority and Safeguarding Manager [redacted]. He offered the Teacher Occupational Health support and counselling, which the Teacher accepted. The Teacher asked that all contact go through the headteacher rather than his line manager [redacted].

While the Teacher was off work, a second allegation arose. On 22 September 2020, another former pupil called the school wishing to speak to the headteacher but spoke to [Witness 2] because he was out. [Witness 2] later updated him. The matter was reported to Dumfries and Galloway Council and then became a fuller investigation.

A meeting with the Teacher was arranged, but he cancelled and said he did not want to meet. On 30 September 2020, [redacted] informed the Teacher that he was suspended. After that, communication was mainly by email because the Teacher did not want to speak by phone. There were ongoing discussions about pay, sickness absence, and support. His union representative raised concerns about his mental health and possible risk of self-harm. [redacted] said that the Teacher did not engage well with the absence process, which became difficult and continued for a long time. The Teacher never returned to work at the school.

[redacted] provided a statement for the local authority investigation. He also confirmed that staff had reviewed school policies, including social media policies and GTC Scotland guidance, during the August 2020 in-service day, and that copies were sent to all staff. He gave evidence that the Teacher would have been aware of the relevant training and guidance.

[Witness 1] gave evidence that the Teacher was dismissed in January 2022 and that he has had no contact with him since.

Witness 2  

The Panel then heard evidence from [Witness 2], [redacted] since 2019 and the school’s [redacted]. She adopted her statement dated October 2023 and read this out in full.

She gave evidence that she had worked at the school since 2004 in various teaching and leadership roles. Before the allegations, she knew the Teacher as a popular biology teacher but had limited direct contact with him and no concerns about him.

On 27 August 2020, [Witness 2] received separate disclosures from two staff members, [Witness 3] and [Witness 4], and from a pupil (Witness 6) referred to by the school as Subject B. They reported concerns that the Teacher had sent Snapchat messages to an ex-pupil. Subject B said her friend, an ex-pupil, had received a Snapchat from the Teacher and that another S6 pupil had a screenshot of it. The screenshot shown to [Witness 2] included a message sent at 8.22pm saying, ‘ffs - id be all over you if I was drunk x’ followed by three screaming emojis.

[Witness 2] considered the message inappropriate for a teacher to send to an ex-pupil and raised the matter with [Witness 1]. Advice was then sought from the Council’s Education Services and Human Resources. They were advised to follow school procedures and ask the Teacher’s line manager, [Witness 4], to speak to him informally and supportively. [Witness 4] later reported that the Teacher became angry quickly, denied sending the message, and made comments suggesting the person was no longer at school and that this made it acceptable. The Teacher then self-certified as absent, and a planned meeting with [Witness 1] was cancelled after further concerning information emerged.

[Witness 2] stated that she would not expect a teacher employed by Dumfries and Galloway Council to contact pupils or ex-pupils via social media. She noted that policies and guidance on communication with young people had been shared and discussed with staff.

Following advice from the local authority and Safeguarding Officer [redacted], [Witness 2] spoke again with Subject B and with the ex-pupil (Pupil B in the allegations). The ex-pupil was initially unhappy that Subject B had shared the screenshot but later became pleased that it had been passed on. She agreed to provide further information and took part in a formal witness interview with [redacted] , which [Witness 2] attended.

On 22 September 2020, [Witness 2] took a call from another former pupil, referred to as Pupil A, who wanted to remain anonymous. Pupil A said she had heard community rumours about the Snapchat messages and disclosed that she had also added the Teacher on Snapchat because she knew he was friends with other pupils her age. She said his communications became inappropriate, including asking ‘personal and private questions,’ and that they began meeting before the relationship became sexual. [Witness 2] said that she was very concerned and escalated this to the Headteacher, HR, and [redacted] .

[Witness 2] also attended several online interviews with former pupils alongside [redacted] . During these interviews, further concerning allegations were raised. The safeguarding officer, [redacted] , later took over the investigation. [Witness 2] provided a statement and had no further involvement. She said she was not aware of what happened later in the investigation and has had no further contact with the Teacher and understands that he did not return to teaching at the school and was signed off work.

[Witness 2] gave evidence that she was shocked by the allegations, especially given her child protection role. She referred to GTC Scotland’s Code of Conduct and the Dumfries and Galloway Council Social Media Policy, which warns teachers about social networking, professional boundaries, and accepting current pupils on social media. She stated that The Teacher would have received these policies and training, and that she had no reason to doubt the allegations, which she took seriously because they came from both staff and pupils.

Witness 3

The Panel heard evidence from [redacted] (Witness 3), a teacher at [redacted] since 2018. Her statement was given as part of a GTC Scotland fitness-to-teach investigation and was dated November 2023. She adopted her statement and read this out in full.

[Witness 3] qualified as a teacher in 2016 and joined [redacted] in 2018 as a [redacted], becoming [redacted] in 2021. In that role she was responsible for the pastoral care of many pupils. She knew the Teacher only in passing prior to the allegations and had no concerns about him.

On 18 August 2020, an S6 pupil approached [Witness 3] with concerns that the Teacher was communicating via Snapchat with an ex-pupil. The pupil believed the communication had started during lockdown and continued afterwards, and she felt uncomfortable about it. [Witness 3] had no reason to doubt the information and considered it inappropriate for a teacher to be messaging ex-pupils on social media.

[Witness 3] reported the concern to the school's Child Protection Officer, [Witness 2], immediately after the disclosure. [Witness 2] said she would deal with the matter; [Witness 3] assumed an initial investigation was ongoing when she heard nothing further.

A couple of weeks later, the same pupil returned with further Snapchat messages and showed [Witness 3] a screenshot. The screenshot was a message from The Teacher to the ex-pupil along the lines of ‘the things I would do to you if I was drunk.’

[Witness 3] reported this second disclosure to [Witness 2] as well. A full investigation followed, and [Witness 3] was asked to provide a statement about what the pupil had told her. She had no further involvement in the matter, though she noted the Teacher no longer works at the school. She had no contact with him during or after the investigation.

Witness 4

The Panel heard evidence from [Witness 4], a teacher at [redacted] since 2000 and Principal Teacher of Science since 2012, given as part of the GTC Scotland fitness to teach investigation.

[Witness 4] had worked at the school since 2000 and became the Teacher's line manager when she took on [redacted] around 2012. He was a Biology Teacher, well-liked by staff and pupils, and she had observed his teaching regularly. Prior to the allegations, she had no issues or concerns about him.

Around the end of August 2020, a member of staff told [Witness 4] they had overheard pupils talking about a Snapchat message the Teacher had sent to an ex-pupil. [Witness 4] knew who the ex-pupil was. As with any concern, she reported it to the school's Child Protection Officer, [Witness 2].

[Witness 2] returned with a screenshot of a Snapchat message from the Teacher to the ex-pupil and asked [Witness 4] to hold a fact-finding discussion with him. As this was the first time she had been asked to do this, [Witness 4] was concerned and sought clarity from [Witness 2] and [Witness 1], about her role.

At the beginning of September 2020, [Witness 4] met with The Teacher, explained the concerns, and showed him the screenshot. His initial reaction was shock, and he said the name in the screenshot wasn't his Snapchat name. He asked who wanted the information and what would happen next; [Witness 4] told him her role was to collect the facts and report them back, and that she didn't know the next steps. He was very upset, felt unable to continue working, and went home. [redacted], [Witness 4] spoke to let her know he had gone home, then reported back to [Witness 2] and [Witness 1].

Witness 5 Pupil A

Pupil A gave evidence that she was a pupil at [redacted] who attended from 2011 to 2017. The Teacher was never her regular teacher, but he did cover some of her classes. Before the events described, she had no concerns about him.

Around May 2017, while she was in sixth year and had just turned 18, she added the Teacher on Snapchat after he appeared in her ‘people you may know’ section. She later noticed he had also added her on Twitter and identified him from the Snapchat name in his bio. They began messaging on Snapchat, and the messages became flirtatious. She believed his [redacted] did not know about the contact.

After several months of messaging, the Teacher asked to meet her in late 2017. They met at fishing spots and went for drives on back roads. After around five or six meetings, the relationship became sexual, by which point she believed she had finished sixth year. They continued communicating by Snapchat and text. She said the Teacher booked and paid for a hotel stay in Glasgow in 2018, bought her gifts including a Pandora ring, told her he loved her, and said [redacted]. Their meetings were always private.

In 2020, she began speaking to other boys, which she said made the Teacher angry and manipulative. She stated that he told her she was not allowed a boyfriend, required her to keep her Snapchat location on at all times, and threatened to send private indecent images she had sent him to her boyfriend. She described asking her boyfriend to send a message pretending they had broken up so she could show the Teacher but says the Teacher did not believe her.

She ended the relationship in January 2020 and asked the Teacher to leave her alone but said that he continued contacting her and attempted to blackmail her with the images, threatening to send them to her boyfriend and parents. She eventually told her uncle and brother in February 2020. Her uncle contacted the Teacher telling him to leave her alone. After one further message, she blocked the Teacher’s number and blocked him on Snapchat, Twitter, and Instagram.

She later heard from friends that the Teacher may have behaved similarly towards other girls, including former or current pupils, although much of this information came second-hand. She said she also briefly spoke with another girl who had a similar account.

Due to the alleged blackmail and her concern that the Teacher had pursued other pupils or recent leavers, she contacted the school in August 2020 and reported the matter. In July 2021, she attended a meeting at the school and provided a statement for the investigation. She was told she might need to attend a hearing but was later informed that this was unnecessary because there was enough evidence. She said she did not hear anything further about the school investigation or its outcome.

In May 2021, she told her parents. Her father arranged for her to speak to a solicitor, and they also contacted the police. She said the police decided not to take further action. She has had no further contact with the Teacher and has not seen him since.

Pupil A stated in evidence that the experience caused her significant emotional harm, including trauma from the alleged manipulation, blackmail, deceit, and ‘mind games.’ She said she felt taken advantage of as someone who was only just an adult and inexperienced in relationships, and she believes the Teacher’s behaviour was incompatible with being a teacher.

Witness 6

[Witness 6] gave evidence that she was a pupil at [redacted] from 2015 to 2021 and was in 5th year at the time of the allegations involving the Teacher in 2020.

She said that the Teacher had previously taught her science in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years and that, although there were rumours at school that he was ‘strange’, she had no personal concerns about him before the allegations. She was aware of earlier rumours that he had been involved with a former pupil and had allegedly left notes on her car, but these were treated as rumours at the time.

While in Higher Drama between September 2019 and March 2020, [Witness 6] became aware that several older pupils were allegedly messaging the Teacher on Snapchat. She recalls one girl saying the Teacher made comments about her appearance and body, including calling her ‘hot’ and commenting on what she was wearing underneath a dress. She said she saw a screenshot of a Snapchat message from the Teacher to a pupil containing inappropriate comments. She also heard discussions that the Teacher may have met up with pupils and may have sent money to one of them.

[Witness 6] said the Teacher followed pupils on social media, including Instagram, and appeared on her Snapchat ‘quick add’, though she did not add him. She felt his behaviour was not normal but did not initially speak out because others seemed to accept it.

In August 2020, [Witness 6] reported her concerns to her music teacher, [Witness 3], because she felt the messages were inappropriate and potentially unsafe for the girls involved. She showed [Witness 3] a screenshot that had been sent to her by someone else, then airdropped it to [Witness 3] and deleted it from her own phone at [Witness 3] request. [Witness 3] said she would raise it with senior management.

After this, [Witness 6] said that the other girls stopped speaking to her, and one messaged her saying [Witness 6] had ruined her life and should not tell anyone what she knew. [Witness 6] was also moved to a different school house because [redacted].

[Witness 6] later heard further rumours about the Teacher’s alleged inappropriate contact with other girls, including former pupils and pupils still at school. She considered the behaviour inappropriate because the Teacher was a teacher in a position of power and was allegedly speaking to pupils in a sexualised way.

She gave evidence that she later became aware the Teacher had been dismissed from the school. When she was in her first year at university, Dumfries and Galloway Council contacted her and she provided a statement. She has had no further contact with the Teacher.

Findings of fact  

The Panel considered all the evidence presented and submissions made by the Presenting Officer in making its findings of fact on the allegations.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the witnesses had been consistent and credible. Where there were discrepancies or any vagueness these were because of the passage of time. She submitted that the evidence of Pupil A and [Witness 6] was impressive.  

In general terms, the Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities, she referred them to the GTC Scotland practice statement on fact-finding.

Prior to retiring to private session to make findings in fact, the Panel sought advice from the legal assessor. The legal assessor reiterated the Presenting Officer’s submissions in relation to the burden of proof and separately the standard of proof required. The Panel was reminded that the balance of probabilities when simply stated merely meant that an event was more likely than not to have happened.  

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 had regard to the GTC Scotland ‘Fact-finding in Fitness to Teach conduct cases’ practice statement.

The Panel considered carefully the evidence of each witness in turn.  

The Panel was generally impressed with the evidence given by each witness in this matter. All the witnesses had been straightforward in their evidence and in their response to questioning by both the Presenting Officer and the Panel. The Panel was cognisant of the fact that the events about which the witnesses were giving evidence had occurred some time ago and it was of the view that the witnesses, where they could not recall events, were quick to say so. They did not seek to embellish their evidence or speculate.

The Panel firstly considered the evidence of the members of staff at [redacted] who had been involved in the initial disclosure of the allegations and the subsequent investigations: [Witness 1], [Witness 2], [Witness 3] and [Witness 4]. The Panel was of the view that their evidence was consistent and credible and that their various accounts did not contain any contradictions. The Panel noted that all the professional witnesses in this case were very clear that there were appropriate polices in place which dealt with Teacher’s appropriate use of social media and child protection issues around that. They were also as one when indicating that regular annual training was given on those policies which the Teacher would have attended. He would have been aware of the policies.

Pupil A

Pupil A’s evidence was, in the view of the Panel, compelling. She came across as being completely honest in her account and was very clear to give evidence only about what she knew. There were no internal inconsistencies in her evidence and where there were inconsistencies or any vagueness, that was in relation to dates or the exact sequence of events. The Panel was of the view that this was understandable given the passage of time, with her giving evidence in relation to events which had happened some six years previously and which had obviously caused her trauma. In general, she was a credible and reliable witness, and her evidence had the ring of truth about it.

[Witness 6]

The Panel assessed [Witness 6] ’s evidence as being clear, consistent and credible. She presented as an open and honest witness, and the Panel were impressed with the maturity she had shown at the time in effectively coming forward as a ‘whistleblower’ and disclosing what she knew of the Teacher’s behaviour. The Panel noted her reasons for coming forward and her concern and shock that nobody else had done so. Her evidence gave wider context to the allegations and accorded with the evidence given by members of staff who were involved in the initial stages of the matter.  

The Panel went on to consider the specific allegations against the Teacher.

Allegation 1(a)

The Panel found the allegation proven in that there was both documentary and oral evidence to support it and the Panel for the reasons set out above accepted the evidence of Pupil A. The Panel found this allegation proven on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1(b)

Again, the Panel accepted the evidence of Pupil A. She gave clear and coherent evidence which spoke to how the relationship was initiated and progressed. The Panel found this allegation proven on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1(c) (i) and (ii)

The Panel accepted the evidence of Pupil A in relation to this allegation. However, there was only evidence before the Panel of the Teacher having arranged one overnight hotel stay rather than having done so on the multiple occasions as set out in the allegation. The Panel took legal advice and was advised that it could amend the allegation to reflect this finding under rule 2.8.4. but would require to hear and consider submissions from parties on the matter.

Allegation 1(d)

The Panel accepted the evidence of Pupil A in relation to this allegation and found it proven on the balance of probabilities.  

Allegation 1(e) (i) (ii) and (iii)

The Panel accepted the evidence of Pupil A in relation to these allegations and found these to be proven on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1(f)

In relation to this allegation the panel again accepted the evidence of Pupil A, and this was buttressed by the evidence of [Witness 6] and the members of staff who had been involved in the initial disclosure of the Teacher’s behaviour. The Panel found this allegation proven on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 1(g)

The Panel was satisfied that this allegation was proven on the balance of probabilities. The Panel accepted the evidence of [Witness 6] who had brought the message to the attention of Ms. [Witness 3] in the first instance. It had no reason to doubt their evidence.

Allegation 1(h)

Again, the Panel accepted the evidence of [Witness 6] and was satisfied that the Teacher had acted in the manner described in the allegation. It found this allegation proven on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 2  

The Panel was of the view that when the evidence was looked at holistically the patterns of behaviour displayed by the Teacher in allegations 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h) were sexually motivated. It seemed to the Panel that the aim of his engaging in such a way on social media was with a view to initiating inappropriate, intimate or sexual relationships.

In light of the above, the Panel moved to amend allegation 1(c)(i) in that there was no evidence that the teacher had booked a hotel room on more than one occasion. The Panel had sought legal advice and was advised that it had the power to amend allegations under rule 2.8.4. It sought submissions from the Presenting Officer who had no objection to the amendment.

Findings on fitness to teach

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

The Panel firstly required to revisit the issue of the Teacher’s continued absence from proceedings. Before retiring to private session in order to reach a decision the Panel heard brief submissions from the Presenting Officer who simply adopted the terms of her earlier submissions on the subject. The Panel also heard advice from the Legal Assessor who similarly referred to earlier legal advice given at the outset of the hearing.

The Panel was of the view that at this point there was little to be gained from adjourning the Hearing prior to assessing fitness to teach. The Panel remained of the view that the Teacher had had every opportunity to engage with the process and had not done so. It was unlikely that he would now choose to do so. Again, the Panel had regard to the general objective at Rule 1.3.8 (d) and to Rule 1.7.8. The Panel concluded that in all the circumstances it was just to continue with the Hearing in the absence of the Teacher.

The Panel proceeded to make findings on the Teacher’s fitness to teach and therefore heard submissions from the Presenting Officer.

Presenting Officer’s submissions on fitness to teach

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011: which states that a teacher is unfit to teach if their conduct falls significantly short of expected standards; fitness is impaired if conduct or competence falls short. The word ‘significantly’ is what separates the two.

The Panel was directed by the Presenting Officer to the GTC Scotland indicative outcomes guidance (Part A). The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel should apply the principles of legality, natural justice, fairness, transparency, proportionality and rationality.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the exercise the Panel required to carry out is protective and regulatory, not punitive, and is judged as at the present date.

Public interest factors include protecting the public, maintaining confidence in registrants, the profession and GTC Scotland as regulator, upholding standards, and the deterrent effect on other registrants.

The core proven conduct consisted of inappropriate and sexually motivated communications with pupils and ex-pupils via social media, and a sexual relationship with a recent ex-pupil (Pupil A), during which he acted in a controlling manner and threatened her with sharing explicit photographs.

His conduct had been found by the Panel to be sexually motivated across several allegations. She described his actions as an abuse of the teacher's position of trust and role-model status, with a failure to observe child protection procedures.

The Presenting Officer argued that recurrence is likely and the conduct effectively not remediable, citing its seriousness and that it was a repeated, deliberate and sexually motivated abuse of trust with lasting impact on victims.

The behaviour had been aggravated in that the Teacher had not engaged with the local authority or GTC Scotland process, had refused delivery of notifications, and left the school when confronted.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher had shown no insight or remorse and that the Panel heard evidence of the detrimental impact from Pupil A, [Witness 6] and [Witness 2].

The Presenting Officer’s submission was that the teacher's fitness to teach is impaired and he is unfit to teach, as his conduct is fundamentally incompatible with remaining in the profession. If that threshold wasn’t met, the Panel should at least find his fitness currently impaired.

The Panel considered all the evidence presented and submissions made by the Presenting Officer in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the GTC Scotland indicative outcomes guidance. The Panel considered each proven allegation in turn with reference to COPAC 2012.

Part 1.1: ‘you should have a knowledge of and maintain the key principles within the Professional Standards, Codes, Professional Advisory Statements and Guidance issued by GTC Scotland, as these may be reviewed and reissued from time to time.’

The Panel reached the conclusion that the Teacher had breached Part 1.1 with respect to his behaviour in respect of all the proven allegations as they involved a disregard for both the policies regarding social media use and child protection put in place by Dumfries and Galloway Council and to which numerous witnesses referred. The Teacher knew or ought to have known of these policies and adhered to them.

Part 1.2: ‘you must maintain appropriate professional boundaries, avoid improper contact or relationships with pupils and respect your unique position of trust as a teacher’

It was clear in the view of the Panel that this part of COPAC had been comprehensively breached. The Teacher had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a former pupil. The initiation of contact with that pupil had begun on social media when she was still a pupil at the school. The Teacher had also contacted other pupils and made sexual remarks. That conduct was sexually motivated.

Part 1.3: ‘you should avoid situations both within and out with the professional context which could be in breach of the criminal law or may call into question your fitness to teach.’  

The Teacher’s behaviour as outlined in the proven allegations was in the view of the Panel a clear breach of 1.3.

Part 1.4: ‘you must uphold standards of personal and professional conduct, honesty and integrity so that the public have confidence in you as a teacher and teaching as a profession.’  

Again, the Panel reached the view that the behaviour exhibited by the Teacher was in clear breach of Part 1.4. The Teacher’s behaviour was highly inappropriate and lacking in integrity.

Part 1.6: ‘you should maintain an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to pupils.’

The Panel was clear that the conduct displayed by the Teacher was not conducive to modelling appropriate behaviour for pupils and was clearly in breach of Part 1.6 and Part 2.3 (below).

Part 2.2: ‘you must be truthful, honest and fair in relation to information you provide about pupils.’

The Panel considered Part 2.2 carefully in respect of each allegation but was not clear as to how this could have been said to be breached. Accordingly, it found no breach of Part 2.2.

Part 2.3: ‘you should aim to be a positive role model to pupils and motivate and inspire them to realise their full potential.’

The Panel was concerned that the Teacher's behaviour over a long period of time had impacted on Pupil A most significantly and it had heard evidence that his behaviour towards her had had an ongoing impact on her relationships. It had clearly been traumatic for her and had therefore undoubtedly impacted on her ability to fulfil her potential. It also heard evidence that the Teacher’s conduct via social media had been ‘normalised’ amongst a certain set of pupils and again this was to the detriment of his position as a role model. The Panel was satisfied that there had been a clear breach of Part 2.3.

Part 2.4: ‘you must maintain an up-to-date knowledge and understanding of, implement, and comply with, child and protected adult procedures as they may currently apply in your workplace.’

The Panel decided that the Teacher’s conduct had breached Part 2.4. His behaviour had clearly breached child protection policies and practice.

The Panel then had regard to the indicative outcomes guidance and the three step process in deciding on fitness to teach set out there and to which it had been referred by both the Presenting Officer and Legal Assessor.

The Panel was satisfied for the reasons set out above that the teacher’s conduct fell short of the expected professional standards.

The Panel went on to assess whether the conduct was (a) remediable and (b) if it was remediable whether it has been remedied; and (c) whether there is a likelihood of recurrence.

The Panel bore in mind that the allegations all involved conduct which had taken place quite some time ago. However, it was of the view that the conduct was very serious. It involved sexually motivated behaviour towards multiple pupils over a prolonged period and displayed a pattern of concerning behaviour. The matters were also aggravated by the fact that the Teacher had not engaged at all with GTC Scotland and had provided no response to the allegations. The Panel also viewed the fact that former pupils Pupil A and [Witness 6] had been required to come and give evidence regarding traumatic events due to that lack of response as an aggravating factor.

There was no evidence before the Panel of any insight from the Teacher, no apology, no mitigation and no evidence of remediation.  

Accordingly, from the evidence available to it, the Panel found that the shortfalls were in this case not remediable and that there did not appear to have been any attempt to remedy them in any case. The Panel was unaware of the Teacher’s current circumstances and therefore had to find that there may well be a risk of recurrence.

The Panel also noted that the Teacher’s behaviour clearly involved:

• sexualised behaviour towards children or young people and;
• forming or attempting to form inappropriate relationships with children or young people

For all these reasons, the Panel was wholly satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct had in fact fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. The behaviour was sexually motivated and had taken place over an extended period and involved more than one pupil.

In reaching its decision in this matter, the Panel also considered objectively the public interest, focusing on what the reasonable public perception would be of the seriousness of the identified conduct and, accordingly, what action would be reasonably expected from GTC Scotland in the circumstances.

The Panel was of the view that the public would be concerned regarding the nature of the Teacher’s behaviour in this case and that it would be viewed as conduct which was fundamentally incompatible with being a teacher. The Panel also considered that the public interest required it to take into account protection of the public, and that having failed to evidence that he had remedied his behaviour the Teacher did pose an ongoing risk.

Accordingly, for all the reasons set out above, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s conduct had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and he is currently unfit to teach.

Disposal

As the Panel determined that the Teacher is unfit to teach, in accordance with the terms of Article 18(2)(b) of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011, it directed that the Teacher’s name be removed from the Register.

The Panel sought submissions from the Presenting Officer in respect of the period of removal. The Presenting Officer referred the panel to the indicative outcomes guidance in determining the time period for prohibition and application for re-registration. It was the Panel's task to uphold the public interest, consider the interests of the Teacher and look at the evidence of remediation and risk of repetition, and to make a fair and proportionate decision, taking into account the relevant factors considered at stage two of the process.

In the Presenting Officer’s submission, a 2-year prohibition period was the appropriate disposal. This was a serious matter involving abuse of trust and was not an isolated incident. There was a pattern of behaviour over a prolonged period. The Teacher had not engaged and there was therefore no insight or remorse demonstrated, there was a risk of recurrence. Given the lack of evidence of remediation, a 2-year prohibition period was justified.

Once the Teacher’s name has been removed from the Register, his name remains so removed unless and until an application for re-registration is made by him and a Fitness to Teach Panel considers that the Teacher is fit to teach at that time and directs that the application be granted.  

Rule 2.10.6 outlines that a Panel may direct that the Teacher be prohibited from making such an application until the expiry of such a period, not exceeding 2 years, as it may determine.  

In this case, considering the submissions it had heard and noting the terms of the indicative outcomes guidance, the Panel directed that the Teacher should be prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of 2 years. This period will begin 28 days after the date of service of the Decision Notice or on conclusion of any appeal raised as outlined below. The Panel considered that a shorter time was inappropriate as the Teacher’s conduct as outlined in the allegations was serious, reprehensible and, in respect of the majority of the allegations, was sexually motivated. The Panel had found that the conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a teacher and there was no mitigation or evidence of remediation before the Panel which would allow it to reduce the prohibition period from the maximum of two years.

For clarity, the Teacher will not be automatically reinstated to the Register at the end of this period. The period sets out how long the Teacher must wait until an application for re-registration can be made, which may or may not be granted. To be granted, a Fitness to Teach Panel would require to determine that any applicant is fit to teach at that time.

Appeal  

The Teacher has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of service of the Decision Notice. The Teacher’s name will remain on the Register until the appeal period has expired, and any appeal lodged within that period has been determined.