Full hearing - Conduct - David Buchan

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

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

Preliminary issues

The hearing commenced on 25 August 2025. No preliminary issues were fully canvassed prior to the commencement of evidence. The Presenting Officer foreshadowed an application to receive certain statements as hearsay evidence, due to witnesses being unable or unwilling to participate in the proceedings. The matter was held over until 27 August 2025 for clarity to be achieved. On that date the Presenting Officer made an application for the statements of “Pupil B” referred to in allegation 2(d), and Witness 12, to be admitted as hearsay evidence without those witnesses being called in person.

The application in respect of Witness 12 was not opposed by the Teacher’s representative. The Panel determined that it should be granted on the basis that the evidence was relevant and it was fair to admit it.

The application in respect of “Pupil B” was opposed. The Panel determined that this application should be refused. While the evidence appeared to be relevant, it did not appear to the Panel to be fair to admit it. The Panel did not consider the reasons proffered for the complete absence of Pupil B from the proceedings to be satisfactory. It had been submitted that the witness did not feel comfortable giving evidence. While the Panel quite accepted this to be likely, there did not appear to have been consideration of any steps (for example, the making of a vulnerable witness application) which might have allayed the witness’s concerns. In the Panel’s view, some level of discomfort in giving evidence is to be expected, or at least is not unusual, and this is not a valid reason, on its own, to allow reliance on a hearsay statement where another party wishes to cross examine the author. There was no other witness (apart from the Teacher) who was to give primary evidence in respect of the events leading to allegation 2(d) (defined below). Pupil B appeared in the Panel’s view to be the decisive witness in respect of GTC Scotland’s case. The Teacher’s admission in respect of allegation 2(d) was that he did close a classroom door with his foot. He denied behaving in an angry manner and denied kicking the door shut. The evidential dispute in this respect is therefore one of nuance and impression. There was no way for the Teacher to explore that with Pupil B if her statement was admitted as evidence, but she was not presented for cross examination.  In the Panel’s view, there would be an imbalance in the proceedings should Pupil B’s statement be admitted and unchallenged in evidence (notwithstanding that submissions as to weight and reliability may remain available) while the Teacher’s own account would be open to challenge in cross. For these reasons, the Panel did not consider that it was fair to admit the statement of Pupil B as hearsay evidence. The application in this respect was refused.

On resumption of the hearing following their consideration of this issue the Panel confirmed their decision to the parties and advised that in respect of “Pupil B” their decision extended to other sources of hearsay evidence from her. The Panel were provided with legal advice that having had to consider Pupil B’s statement and associated hearsay evidence for the purposes of determination of this issue, having refused the application, they would not be entitled to have regard to that evidence in determination of such issues as the Panel may have to decide over the course of the proceedings. The Panel were advised that they would be entitled to continue with the proceedings, if they were to ensure that the excluded evidence was left out of account going forward. The Presenting Officer had no comments on this legal advice. The Teacher’s Representative stated that the Teacher was content with that advice and trusted that the Panel would be able adhere to the advice given. He was content for the Panel to proceed. The Panel resolved to do so.

Thereafter, the Presenting Officer advised the Panel that in light of the decision as to the admission of Pupil B’s hearsay evidence, GTC Scotland no longer insisted in allegation 2(d) against the Teacher.

Allegations

The following allegations were made by GTC Scotland against the Teacher for the purposes of the hearing, as above, allegation 2(d) was not insisted in. The remainder were considered at the hearing:

1. On or around 26 April 2017, whilst employed at Skypoint School, Spark of Genius, Clydebank, as a Class Teacher, you did have inappropriate physical contact with a pupil by grabbing and pushing him in an aggressive manner causing him distress.
2. Between 2021 and 2022, whilst employed by Argyll and Bute Council as a teacher at Tiree High School, and in the course of his employment, the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) in May 2021, modify and change Pupil A’s Graphic Communication Scottish Qualification Authority assessment paper answers without the consent of Pupil A
   • (b) on specific dates unknown between August and December 2021, attempt to intimidate Pupil A, following her reporting of his behaviour at allegation 2(a) above, by entering classrooms where he knew she would be, having been repeatedly told not to approach her;
   • (c) in January 2022, in a Mental Health and Wellbeing class state:
     
     • (i) ‘It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’ or words to that effect;
     • (ii) ‘If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime’ in relation to abortion or words to that effect; and
   • (d) in January 2022, behave in an angry and aggressive manner towards Pupil B and others during class and did kick shut a classroom door.
3. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 2(a) were dishonest or, in the alternative, lacked integrity.
4. The Teacher’s comment at allegation 2(c)(i) was homophobic.
5. The Teacher’s comment at allegation 2(c)(ii) above was offensive.

And in light of the above it is alleged that your fitness to teach is impaired and you are unfit to teach, as a result of breaching Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher’s Representative explained that the allegations were not admitted in full.

In relation to allegation 1 the Teacher admitted having physical contact with the pupil referred to in that allegation. He denied doing so in an inappropriate manner or pushing him in an aggressive manner causing him distress.

In relation to allegation 2(a) the Teacher accepted that in May 2021 he made modifications to Pupil A’s Graphic Communication Scottish Qualification Authority assessment paper, but he denied that this was without the pupil’s consent.

In relation to allegation 2(b) the Teacher accepted that he entered classrooms where he knew that Pupil A would be, but he denied that this was an attempt to intimidate Pupil A.

Allegations 2(c)(i) and (ii) these were admitted subject to context.

In relation to allegation 2(d) the teacher admitted that he did close a classroom door with his foot, but he denied behaving in an angry manner toward Pupil B and denies kicking a door shut.

Allegations 3, 4 and 5 were denied by the Teacher.

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, apart from the statement of Pupil B dated 25 January 2023 and other hearsay evidence from Pupil B, admission of which was successfully objected to by the Teacher as described above:

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

1. Investigation Report, dated 14 February 2018
2. Statement of Witness 1, signed and dated 12 October 2017
3. Statement of Witness 2, signed and dated 27 October 2017
4. Statement of Witness 3, signed and dated 1 November 2017
5. Statement of Witness 4, signed and dated 6 February 2018
6. Letter from Disclosure Scotland, dated 31 July 2017
7. Online Referral Form, dated 6 July 2017
8. Local Authority Investigation Report, dated 16 May 2017
   
   • Signed Local Authority statement of Witness 3, dated 26 April 2017
   • Signed Local Authority statement of Witness 1, dated 27 April 2017
   • Signed notes from Pupil B, dated 9 May 2017
   • Signed notes from Witness 3, dated 9 May 2017
   • Signed notes from Witness 1, dated 9 May 2017
   • Local Authority Investigation Meeting Notes, dated 11 May 2017
   • Signed notes from David Buchan, dated 11 May 2017
9. Response to Notice of Investigation, dated 22 Nov2017
10. Further response from Representative, dated 5 January 2018
11. Final response from Representative, dated 5 March 2018
12. Final Investigation Report, dated 21 July 2023 with appendices including:
13. Local Authority Investigation report, dated 19 November 2021
14. Letter to Teacher, dated 2 December 2021
15. List of Documents, Teacher Disciplinary Hearing, dated 7 January 2022
16. Assessment Paper
17. List of Questions for Pupil A
18. Follow up Questions for Pupil A
19. Letter to Teacher, dated 12 January 2022
20. Support Meeting for Teacher, dated 9 March 2020
21. Meeting between Witness 8 and Teacher, 16 September 2020
22. PRD for Teacher, 19 March 2021
23. Closing Statement
24. Summation
25. Conclusion
26. Letter to Teacher, dated 2 December 2021
27. Minutes from meeting, dated 7 January 2022
28. Letter to Teacher, dated 9 March 2022
29. Letter to Teacher, dated 28 January 2022
30. Letter from SQA, dated 14 June 2022
31. Discussion with Witness 9
32. Email regarding Pupil B
33. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 5, dated 13 February 2023
34. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 6, dated 30 August 2022
35. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 7, dated 27 July 2022
36. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 8, dated 26 September 2022
37. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 9, dated 4 August 2022
38. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 10, dated 7 October 2022
39. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 11 (Pupil A), dated 8 November 2022
40. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 12, dated 7 October 2022
41. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 13, dated 25 January 2023
42. GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Witness 14 (Pupil B), dated 25 January 2023
43. Teacher’s response to Interim Report, dated 27 June 2023
44. Forensic Science Report by Witness 21, dated 26 May 2023
45. Response from Teacher, dated 28 August 2023

Teacher’s hearing papers

• T1 Statement of David Buchan [15/02/19]
• T2 Sketch of classroom prepared by client
• T3 Therapeutic Crisis Intervention Pocket Guide
• T4 Statement of Witness 4 [4/9/18]
• T5 Statement of Witness 15 [15/9/18]
• T6 Statement of Witness 16 [30/10/18]
• T7 Statement Witness 17 [3/9/18]
• T8 Statement of Witness 18 [17/10/18]
• T9 Statement of Witness 22 [2/11/18]
• T10 Teacher report on David Buchan provided by Spark of Genius
• Reference provided by Witness 17
• Reference provided by Witness 23
• Reference provided by Witness 22, parent of [Redacted]
• Reference provided by Witness 18
• Reference provided by Witnesses 19
• Reference provided by Witness 20
• Reference provided by Witness 4, [Redacted], Tiree High School
• T11 Forensic Science Report by Witness 21, dated 26 May 2023
• Supplementary Statement of David Buchan dated 27 August 2025

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 4 February 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt
• Procedural Hearing/Meeting decisions:
• Virtual Hearing Application (unchallenged) – Granted – 26/6/24

Summary of evidence

The first witness was Witness 1 [Redacted]. She adopted, and read out, her witness statement. She worked with the Teacher at Skypoint in 2017. She described an incident in a classroom involving the Teacher. The Teacher had asked her to support an English lesson. There was a teaching assistant there too, Witness 3. There were about 8 pupils in the class. Two boys were out of their seats. They were stamping on each other’s feet and messing around after coming back from lunch. Witness 1 and the teaching assistant directed them to their seats. The Teacher was standing going through a folder. Randomly and without warning the Teacher grabbed one of the boys and shoved him in the direction of his seat and shouted “sit down”. The other said “you can’t touch him like that, that is child abuse”. The boy who was grabbed is autistic and quiet. When things bother him he goes into himself. He sat in his chair and was very reserved and quiet. The Teacher did not say anything about his actions. After the class the Teacher went to do outreach at a residential facility. Witness 1 said that she could tell the atmosphere in the class had changed. She said that she could tell that the pupils felt a bit unsafe. She contacted the head teacher at the end of the day. In Witness 1 view the Teacher did not follow correct procedure and was unnecessarily forceful. The boy had lost his balance and staggered backwards. She described protocol for physical intervention in Skypoint School. Verbal intervention should be attempted before physical intervention. The Teacher has received “TCI” (Therapeutic Crisis Intervention) training in this respect.

In cross examination Witness 1 explained that when the pupil involved was asked he said that he could not remember any of this. She was taken to a diagram of the classroom which had been prepared by the Teacher and lodged in the materials before the bundle. She agreed that there may have been six pupils in class on the day in question. The pupil referred to in the allegation would have been 14, nearly 15 at the relevant time. Her role on the day was to support the class teacher, including dealing with unsettled or disruptive behaviour. The boys were out of their seats messing around. She agreed this would have been for at least five and possibly 15 minutes. She had probably asked them to take their seats more than once. It was possible that the Teacher had also asked the boys to sit down. Neither she nor Witness 3 had tried to distract or redirect the boys. Her recollection of the precise mechanism of the pupil being pushed was explored. She did not agree that the teacher had guided the pupil to his chair with a hand on the shoulder. In re-examination the witness stated that what she had seen did not amount to a TCI hold.

The second witness for GTC Scotland was Witness 2. [Redacted] He adopted his statement. At the time that he signed the statement he was employed by Spark of Genius [Redacted]. He was not a qualified teacher at that time. He was part of the team who had employed the Teacher at Skypoint. He had carried out an investigation into what had happened on 26 April 2017. The Teacher had been suspended the next day. He had advised him he was suspended. The Teacher was suspended for a week and then redeployed. He described speaking to the pupil referred to in allegation 1, and the Teacher, about what had taken place. He had also spoken to Witness 3 and Witness 1, and some other pupils. He explained, so far as he could, what those witnesses had told him, with reference to his more contemporaneous statement.  He explained that Skypoint was an ASN school, with around 20 young people and a close team of teachers. He explained the TCI and child protection training that staff at Skypoint would have. This would be every year. There were a number of behaviour management techniques to avoid going “hands on” with a pupil. He did not consider that the Teacher had followed appropriate guidance and protocols.

In cross examination Witness 2 was asked about his process of investigation. He could not recall various things. It had been two weeks before he had spoken to one of the pupils, Witness 3 and Witness 1. He did not recall why that was. One of the pupils he had spoken to was called [Redacted] and referred to in the investigation as “Pupil B” although he did not remember who that referred to. He did agree that he was happy to speak to him and had no sign of distress. He was asked about what Witness 1 and Witness 3 had told him and he advised that all he knew was what was in his statement and could not recall anything about it beyond that. Pupil B had told his parent. He did not recall the parent contacting the school. He could not recall speaking to other pupils. He could not recall his impressions of the pupil referred to in the allegation. There were various other things that he could not recall. He did not agree that the Teacher had shown a “caring gesture” to the pupil referred to in the allegation. He accepted that what the Teacher described taking place was not inappropriate but this did not accord with what other witnesses had described. It was part of practice for staff to support each other in the classroom. He vaguely recalled Witness 1 demonstrating what had happened to him. In re-examination he stated that physical intervention in horseplay would only occur if the pupils were a danger to themselves or others.

The third witness for GTC Scotland was Witness 3. [Redacted]. She did not initially recall providing a statement to GTC Scotland. This was presented to her and she did identify it although she had not read it before giving evidence. She had worked for Spark of Genius since 2016. She was a classroom assistant in 2017. She worked with the Teacher in the classroom. She described an incident in a classroom after lunch on 26 April 2017. She had arrived a little late as she was supporting another pupil elsewhere. She described the layout of the classroom. When she entered the room the pupil referred to in allegation 1 and another pupil were playing “foot tig”. Other pupils were excitable and disengaged. The Teacher stepped toward the pupil and put his hands on his shoulders and spun him. He was meaning to push him towards his chair but he went towards the wall. He did not hit the wall. The Teacher, Witness 1 and Witness 3 had asked the pupils to stop. They did not stop until the pupil was pushed. Afterwards the pupil did not talk. He became “insular”. He did say “[Redacted] is not happy”. [Redacted] (as in [redacted]) is a name the pupil gives himself. She described the push as forceful. She thought that the Teacher had lost control of his emotions and did not realise his own strength. She recalled the “child abuse” comment from the other pupil described by Witness 1. She discussed the TCI training. Staff are trained to intervene, this can include physically holding pupils. It does not say to push pupils. In her view simple redirection or calm speech would have worked better.  She had not seen physical contact apart from “safe holds” after other options were exhausted. Physical contact is a last resort and generally involves two staff members to ensure safety. She described the makeup and operation of Skypoint School. It is an ASN School. She also described it as a social, behavioural, and educational needs school. The desks in the room were in a U shape. She was taken to a diagram which had been prepared by the Teacher. After the incident the pupils in the room went from “a bit hyper” to subdued and quiet. The pupil referred to in the allegation did not say much, he had his head lowered. He would become insular if he was unhappy. She thought he had become shocked and gone pale. She had described him as visibly shaken. She had tried to reassure him by moving her chair closer. She would not describe what took place as physical intervention, she would describe it (possibly with the benefit of hindsight) as an assault. There had been no risk of harm to pupils or others in the moment, which would be the bottom line for physical intervention. What took place seemed like a reflex reaction to frustration. She gave similar evidence to previous witnesses as to the purpose and regularity of the TCI training. She identified the TCI training book lodged in the papers before the Panel. In her view what she saw take place was not a TCI intervention.

In cross examination Witness 3 accepted that on rare occasions the class in question could be aggressive or abusive. She had not discussed matters with Witness 1 before completing her post incident statement. She agreed that the pupils playing “foot tig” had contributed to a frightening atmosphere. She agreed that calm speech and direction had been tried and had not been successful in getting the pupils to return to their seats. It was suggested to her that she had left the Teacher to deal with the situation. Her response was that he was leading the lesson and it would be unusual for a teaching assistant to lead or take over. This would be undermining the staff in the room. She accepted that she could have asked if she could assist. She put that suggestion in the context of her being a teaching assistant walking into an ongoing situation. She did not agree that the pupil who made the “child abuse” comment would exaggerate things. With reference to the diagram she identified that the teacher and the pupil referred to in the allegation were at the edge of the desk with the other pupil within the U shaped area created by the desks. The pupils were moving as they were playing a game. She described the Teacher having one hand holding onto the pupil’s arm between his elbow and his shoulder. The Teacher had pushed the pupil with one hand towards his seat and the wall. What took place happened over a very short period of time. She did not agree that the Teacher had placed his hand on his shoulder and guided him to his seat. None of the other pupils said anything out loud that she had heard. There was no indication that the pupil had suffered physical injury. She agreed that she had not previously used the word assault. Her explanation was that her previous accounts were given carefully. She did not want to be in a situation where she would be confronted from the Teacher. If the same situation happened now she would be more direct in her response. She referred to her inexperience in 2017. She did not agree that the Teacher had ushered a pupil back to his seat or that her recollection had been influenced by the “child abuse” comment.

The next witness called by GTC Scotland was Witness 4. [Redacted] and is registered with GTC Scotland. He identified his GTC Scotland statement (from 2018) as “the sort of thing I would have said”. He adopted that statement as part of his evidence. He knew the Teacher as he applied for a job at Tiree High School, where he was previously employed [Redacted]. In his evidence the Teacher had settled in well to Tiree high school. He had a good relationship with him. He was committed. He was a contributor to extracurricular activities, particularly the pipe band and had sorted out the technical classroom to make it fit for purpose. The witness had been made aware of an issue being investigated (at the time of his statement). He understood this to be a dispute with his previous employer. Witness 4 had no concerns regarding the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Teacher had started at Tiree High School at the start of the 2017-18 session, in August. He was asked about the issue of which he had been made aware at a previous school. He explained that the Teacher had described an incident where he had to stop a pupil from running out onto a road. He wasn’t aware of another incident at Spark of Genius. Witness 4 had left Tiree High School at the end of October or beginning of November in 2018. He was taken to another statement prepared at the request of the Teacher. He identified his signature on it. He described the process of teacher observation at Tiree High School. He personally would have observed the Teacher once at most. He could not remember if it was him or a principal teacher who would have observed the Teacher. He did “pop in” to the classroom frequently. There was a general consensus that the Teacher was a calm and gentle natured person. He had a strong interest in trying to make a positive impression on pupils. He got involved in extracurricular activities. Pupils were not wary of speaking to him. He had provided a reference for the Teacher in March 2018. He identified this document.

In cross examination Witness 4 read out his second statement. The Teacher had transformed the technical department at Tiree High School. He started courses for pupils with no prior knowledge of technical subjects. He was calm and there had been no aggressive behaviour. The Quality Improvement Officer was impressed following an inspection. There were no concerns about his teaching. The statement was also from 2018. It remained an accurate reflection of his own opinion based on his own experience (which came to an end in 2018). The Teacher was trying to put pupils through National 5 exams. He agreed that he had contributed to the wider life of the school.

The Panel asked Witness 4 about his evidence (from 2018) that he was aware of the allegations that the Teacher faced. He referred again to an incident with a pupil running into a road, the Teacher had told him that he had restrained the pupil from so doing. That was the only allegation he was aware of. He was taken to the reference which he had provided in March 2018. This included the statements that he had “no concerns about conduct towards pupils” and that saw “no risk to pupil safety”. He was asked why he made those observations. He could not remember the context in which the reference was requested.

In a follow up question from the Teacher’s Representative Witness 4 was asked if he could recall being emailed his statement on 3 September 2019, with the person sending the email stating that they understood that the witness was aware of the allegation against the Teacher but if he was unaware this could be sent. The witness could not remember if this was offered. He said that in September 2018 he was fairly certain he was going to be leaving Tiree, it may well have been that the email came in, he would get 60 to 100 emails a day and may not have seen it. The Teacher’s Representative advised Witness 4 of the terms of allegation 1. He was asked if this affected his evidence. Witness 4 said that he was not privy to those circumstances and could not weigh it up. On the evidence of his experience he felt that the Teacher was a good professional and someone he would employ again.

The next witness called by GTC Scotland was Witness 7. [Redacted]. He has been registered with GTC Scotland [Redacted]. He adopted his statement from 2022. [Redacted] and the Teacher’s line manager for five years. He gave evidence that the Teacher had “falsified” a Higher Graphic Communication exam paper in May 2021. He said that the Teacher had claimed that he had done this to help the pupil involved. In Witness 7 mind he had done this to make himself look better. He explained that the pupil (being the pupil referred to in allegation 2(a) and (b) had previously been interviewed by an Investigating Officer called [Person 1] in relation to the Teacher’s conduct (whatever this conduct may have been was not explained to the Panel and it did not appear to form part of the case against the Teacher). She became worried that the Teacher had done something to her exam paper. The pupil’s paper was examined. The Teacher’s handwriting was recognised. The SQA were contacted who concluded “malpractice” on the Teacher’s part. Fortunately what had been done to the paper did not alter the pupil’s grade. The Teacher was told to stay away from Pupil A, by Witness 7, and two colleagues called Witness 8 and Witness 6. The Teacher continued to approach the pupil and, Witness 7 said, was intimidating her by asking her questions. In Witness 7 view the Teacher would go out of his way to seek the pupil out and ask her questions. He was said to have done this on “numerous” occasions and the pupil spoke to Witness 8 about it. He later explained that he could not recall a number of occasions but said that if he had used the word numerous in his statement it would be more than once. Witness 7recollection, based on what he had said in his statement, was that the pupil advised him that she was not aware that the Teacher had written in the exam paper.  Everyone received training on SQA policies and the approach to exam papers. The teacher would have received this.  In Witness 7 view it would never be appropriate to modify an exam paper. That would be deemed to be cheating. What is submitted to the SQA has to be the pupil’s own work. When the Teacher was told to keep away from the pupil concerned he was upset and protested his innocence. Witness 8 had reported a conversation with “Pupil A” in relation to the Teacher intimidating her. He offered some general observations on his view of the Teacher’s manner which were not of direct relevance to the matters at hand. Witness 7 explained that Witness 8 had also told him that she had been told about what were considered by them to be homophobic and offensive comments made by the teacher in a mental health and wellbeing class.

In cross examination Witness 7 confirmed that Pupil A’s Higher Graphic Communication exam was taking place as part of the first diet of external SQA examinations since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. These exams were taking place in unusual circumstances when compared with previous examinations.  He was asked if there could have been an understanding on the Teacher’s part that students should be given the best chance to succeed. He was asked if there was an understanding that exam scripts should be marked “sympathetically”. Witness 7 response was that pupils were to be given the best chance to produce their work.  Sympathetic marking was to mark properly within the standards and not to do anything else to mark up. The Teacher had sent a scanned copy of Pupil A’s paper to Witness 7 in May 2021. It was put to him that he had called the Teacher and asked him to go over the answers in pen so that they were sufficiently clear. He did not recall this taking place. He recalled the Teacher saying that he had written on the pupil’s paper but with her input. If that had taken place, it would be inappropriate. Although the Teacher was a technical teacher he covered classes in the main secondary part of the school. Witness 7 was not present in Tiree High School when it was suggested that the Teacher had intimidated Pupil A. The Teacher could have used other means to ascertain Pupil A’s lunch order or ascertain whether she was in school to complete a register. Having been told not to approach a Pupil it would not be appropriate to approach her to collect an assignment. His position on the comments reported by Witness 8 is that they were wholly inappropriate. He was asked about his working relationship with the Teacher by autumn 2021. He said that he continued to try to be professional, but accepted that by this point he had a negative opinion. The Teacher’s representative took Witness 7 to an email of 12 January 2022 where Witness 7 had replied to an email from Witness 6, using the phrase “This is another example of Mr Buchan’s unprofessional conduct”. The conduct described by Witness 6 in the email replied to was an allegation that the Teacher had kicked a door. With reference to his comment it was put to Witness 7 that by this time he was building a case against the Teacher. Witness 7 disagreed with this, explaining that by this point there had been a number of things which had been unprofessional and that what was referred to by Witness 6 was another example.  

The next witness for GTC Scotland was Witness 8. [Redacted] at Tiree High School. She has been registered with GTC Scotland [Redacted]. She adopted her statement. Pupil A had come to see her “one day” to say that she was worried about her higher graphic communication assessment. She did not understand how she had achieved a “B” grade when she felt she had done badly and had studied the least for it. She told Witness 8 that when she handed in her paper the Teacher had asked her if she wanted to change some of the answers.  He had told her which ones were wrong and suggested some changes. She had said that she did not want to do so as it was an exam. She had told Witness 8 that she was told that she had to do her exam in ink but she had written it using a pencil. She offered to go over her answers in pen, but the Teacher told her he would “type it up for her”. Witness 8 had seen the paper in question. It looked like it had different handwriting on it. This was a sensitive matter for Pupil A. The Teacher had been asked to keep away from her. She was moved out of his class. The Teacher had gone looking for Pupil A on three occasions after that. Once to collect an assessment, once for a lunch order, and once to complete a register. Witness 12 had told Witness 8 about this, Pupil A was in his class each time. The lunch order and the register issues happened on the same day. The Teacher was sent an email confirming that he was not to speak to Pupil A. The Teacher had said that he did not want the register left undone but Pupil A had been out of his class for weeks by that point. He could have contacted the School office to ascertain if  was in school.  Witness 8 thought that the Teacher’s behaviour was a bit odd, in approaching Pupil A having been expressly asked not to do so. The comments referred to in allegation 2(c)(i) and (ii) were reported to Witness 8.  In her view the comments were unprofessional and inappropriate. She had spoken to a pupil called Witness 13 about these. She referred to a handwritten note of that conversation in the materials before the Panel. She passed this on to Witness 6.

In cross examination Witness 8 agreed that she had entered the Teacher’s classroom while Pupil A was sitting her exam paper. She apologised and left. She agreed that the circumstances of an exam in a teacher’s classroom without an independent invigilator were unusual. The notion of “sympathetic” marking during the pandemic restrictions was discussed with her. The system for submission of exam papers at this diet was canvassed with her, but she could not remember this. Pupil A’s disclosure was at the end of September or beginning of October 2021. The school had resumed around 12 August 2021.  She agreed that Pupil A was a pupil who had artistic flair and was good at graphics. Her recollection was that Pupil A had told her that she did not go over any of her own answers in ink. She agreed that during the disciplinary process the Teacher is recorded as acknowledging that addition to a paper did not accord with SQA guidance, whether with the input of a pupil or not. Lunch orders, the register, and the assignment were all the Teacher’s responsibility before Pupil A was moved to a different classroom. It was possible that the system still showed these as the Teacher’s responsibility thereafter. After Witness 8 had spoken to the Teacher he did not approach Pupil A again. It was put to Witness 8 that the pupil had remained in another class with the Teacher and he had asked that she be moved. Witness 8 thought that came from Witness 6. In relation to the comments in the health and wellbeing class she was taken back to the handwritten note where she had recorded that pupils were pushing the Teacher to give his opinion but he would not give a straight answer. She did not know what this related to. She agreed that in these classes there could be discussion on topics that were controversial. She agreed that it may be legitimate to discuss views that homosexuality or gay marriage is contrary to the teachings of the bible, or whether abortion should be funded by the taxpayer. In re-examination on this point she said it did not think that this had been done sensitively in this case.

The next witness called by GTC Scotland was Witness 10. [Redacted]. She has been registered with GTC Scotland [Redacted]. She adopted her statement. She recalled a day in January 2022 when she had seen some girls at the lockers. They told Witness 10 that they had been in the Teacher’s class and he had made a comment about “it being Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”. She didn’t know about other comments. She knew that one of the girls was bisexual. The school is meant to be an inclusive community. She was shocked that someone would say that “in this day and age”. She passed this on to Witness 8.  She identified the girls she has spoken to as Witness 13 and [Pupil 1], and possibly Pupil B. They were “dumbfounded” and really surprised by what was said. The school had been working hard to deal with homophobic comments by students. In Witness 10 view this went against what they were trying to do. She had concerns about how this would make people from the LGBT community feel.

In cross examination Witness 10 confirmed she had not spoken to the Teacher and did not have his take on the context of the comment. The Teacher may not have known that one of the girls identified as bisexual. She agreed that it was potentially appropriate to discuss differing views in a class of that nature. In re-examination she was asked if the language used was inappropriate and said that this would depend on the nature of the discussion and without knowing that she could not say, but she would not have used that phrase herself.

At this point the Presenting Officer read into evidence the statement by Witness 12 who had declined to attend in person. At the time of his statement, he was [Redacted] at Tiree High School. At some point in 2021, Witness 11 (“Pupil A”) had been moved into his class for health and wellbeing, from the Teacher’s class. He did not know why. One day Pupil A was waiting to log on for a business studies course. The Teacher appeared in the classroom and asked for Pupil A’s lunch order. He said he had already taken it and the Teacher walked away. Pupil A looked shocked. She said that the Teacher wasn’t supposed to have contact with her. She went on to say it was to do with one of her exams and that the Teacher had changed her answers. He passed on to Witness 8 that the Teacher had come to the classroom. There was another occasion when the Teacher had come to the door looking for Pupil A’s health and wellbeing assessment. He thought this was a bit odd given that something must have been said to him about not having contact with her. He looked at Pupil A and she looked at him. He thought “what is wrong with this bloke”. He passed this on.

The next witness called for GTC Scotland was Witness 11 or “Pupil A” as referred to in allegations 2(a) and (b). She adopted her statement.  She was a pupil at Tiree High School until June 2022. In August 2021 she raised concerns about her higher graphic communication exam. The Teacher was her teacher. Because “of covid” she sat the exams in the classroom. After the exam had finished, she gave the Teacher her paper. He looked at it and asked her if she wanted to change any of her answers. She said no. When she got her results she was surprised as to how well she had done in the exam. She started to worry about what the Teacher had said about changing her answers. She spoke to the school about it. She was shown her paper by Witness 6 and was able to point out what was her writing and what was not. As a result of raising this issue, she was moved out of the Teacher’s class. She felt a bit uncomfortable being around him. Most of the time the Teacher ignored her, but there were a few times that he would appear in the classroom that she was in. She thought it was weird behaviour and felt it was clearly done to intimidate her or to get something out of her. She knew that the Teacher was told not to do this, and stopped. She did not go over any of her answers in pen.  She did not give the Teacher permission to do that. She thought the Teacher had indicated to her that he would type the paper up on the computer. She did not remember asking him to do that. She did not remember giving any answers verbally to the Teacher. She identified a copy of her exam paper which had been annotated by Witness 6 to point out what Pupil A said was not her writing. There were some places where she had not filled in an answer which had been completed in pen and some answers were scored out and changed. She described the Teacher appearing on a couple of mornings to take her lunch order when she was in another class. The other teacher went outside to tell the Teacher that he was not meant to be there. This happened two or three times.  She felt very intimidated and felt like that was the purpose of these visits, or he wanted to question her. She found this strange as she was sure the Teacher had been told of the situation.

In cross examination Pupil A could not remember the duration of the exam. She agreed it might have been one and a half hours. She thinks she finished early. Witness 8 and [Person 2] had come into the room while the exam was ongoing. These were the first SQA exams since the covid pandemic. There were a number of aspects that were unusual in that there was no external invigilator and the Teacher was in the room. She agreed that her answers having been written in pencil, someone who wanted to change them could have erased them. She did not really understand what was meant by the Teacher saying he would deal with her paper on the computer. She did not recall the Teacher telling her that he would go over the answers with a pen. On looking at the paper she agreed that there were answers which were incorrect which had not been altered. It was put to her that the Teacher had written on the paper in front of her. She disagreed with that. She did not recall being asked questions about her answers. She agreed that she was not someone who would want to get in trouble. She did not remember the date of her interview with someone from another school, [Person 1] of [Redacted]. She did not disagree that this was between 22 September and 1 October 2021. She had got a feeling that this was about her exam paper. In relation to her attendance in the classroom, she had previously been in the Teacher’s registration class. Lunch orders had previously been his responsibility as had noting her attendance. When he attended the other classroom about lunch orders he did not ask about anything else.

The next witness called for GTC Scotland was Witness 13. She was a student. She adopted her statement. The Teacher taught her Mental Health and Wellbeing class in S5. She was critical of his teaching of this class. She recalled an incident in January 2022. She was having an argument with another pupil, [Redacted], about politics. Abortion rights came up. The Teacher at the front of the class said “if you can’t do the time don’t do the crime”. She was confused as, in her view “teachers aren’t really supposed to say things like that”. She and another pupil, [Redacted] argued with the Teacher about this because “it was as if he was saying that a woman doesn’t have rights over her own body”. The Teacher wasn’t direct as to what his point was, but she inferred that he disagreed with her. She offered her own interpretation of the comment. With no context, the Teacher suddenly said “it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”. This was not relevant to what they were discussing. The argument carried on for another ten minutes so it lasted half an hour in total. She offered her own interpretation of the comment. Witness 13 identifies as bisexual, but she did not think that the Teacher knew this. Witness 10 heard [Pupil 1] talking about this over lunch and reported it. Witness 6 pulled Witness 13 out of class that afternoon and asked her to write out what had taken place. The next day the Teacher apologised, but it did not feel genuine to Witness 13. She offered her views on the appropriateness of the comments.

In cross examination Witness 13 agreed that she had no reason to believe that the Teacher was trying to cause offence. She accepted that the “Adam and Eve” comment may have been in the context of a discussion on homosexuality. It may have been that the Teacher was being pushed to express an opinion, but this was not her recollection. She agreed that the teacher may have attempted to make clear that everyone is entitled to their views and how to live their lives. In relation to the remark on abortion she agreed that the Teacher was trying to explain his view that he did not agree with abortion being provided on the NHS where the pregnancy arose from consensual sex.

Following the conclusion of Witness 13 evidence the Teacher’s Representative sought to lodge a further document. This was an email to the earlier witness, Witness 4, from Messrs Balfour and Manson, solicitors, dated 21 February 2019. In that email the terms of the allegation against the Teacher (at that time, being allegation 1 before the Panel) were set out. It was tendered to vouch that the allegation had been disclosed to Witness 4 prior to his giving evidence. Lodging of the document was not opposed. The Panel took the view that the lodging of this document was precipitated by their questioning of Witness 4 in this respect, and that this was sufficient cause for its relevance not previously being apparent. They determined that the document was relevant in that respect, and that it was fair to admit it in that context.

The next witness called for GTC Scotland was Witness 6. [Redacted] with Argyll and Bute Council. She had been registered with GTC Scotland [Redacted]. She identified and adopted her statement. At the time of her statement she was [Redacted] at Tiree High School. At the start of the 2021 term Pupil A had approached Witness 8 and said she was worried about one of her exam results. Witness 6 spoke to her and said it was her graphic communication exam. Witness 6 showed her the paper and Pupil A pointed out parts that were not her handwriting and where there were answers written to questions she had not answered. She relayed this to Witness 7 and sent him a scan of the (annotated) paper. In her view it was completely inappropriate to write on the paper. As a result the Teacher was asked not to speak to Pupil A. There were times when he did so unnecessarily. She had been made aware of what she considered to be inappropriate comments. She spoke to the Teacher about this. She told him to be careful and reminded him about policy and guidance. She identified the annotated paper in the papers before the Panel. In her view for any SQA assessment one has to be careful not to write on a paper so that it can be thought of as not the pupil’s own work. Because of different exam arrangements during the pandemic a lot of information was provided, there were conversations in the school about procedures to follow. The integrity of assessments has to be maintained. She spoke to the Teacher about timetabling for Pupil A and not speaking to her. Witness 7 had asked her to “reroute” Pupil A. Pupil A had told her that the Teacher had appeared in the classrooms she had been moved to. She told Witness 6 that this had made her feel uncomfortable. There were other ways to get a pupil’s assessment. She had been told about the comments in the health and wellbeing class by Witness 8. She had spoken to the pupils who were shocked and felt uncomfortable.  She offered her own views on the appropriateness of the comments. She had spoken to the Teacher about this.

In cross examination Witness 6 agreed that the examination was taking place under unusual circumstances for students and staff. She agreed that staff were directed to mark sympathetically, but emphasised that also meant correctly. Although she could not provide a precise date on which Pupil A came forward about her exam, she said it was weeks after the school came back (from the summer break). She was asked if she could remember that after the Teacher was told pupil A was to be moved, the Teacher had flagged that there was a further class of his and suggested that she be moved from that as well. She could not remember this taking place. She agreed that, ordinarily, collection of an assignment would have been the Teacher’s responsibility. She agreed that it was possible that this was his motivation for attending a classroom with Pupil A in it. She agreed that a health and wellbeing class could involve discussion of controversial topics, but said that care had to be taken. In re-examination she said that she herself would never use the language deployed by the Teacher.

The Teacher then gave evidence. He read his first statement (dated 15 February 2019) contained within the panel papers. He explained the nature of Skypoint and the staff makeup. On 26 April 2017 he was teaching the first class after lunch. Two pupils were engaging in horseplay from the start. They were not in their seats and mucking around. Sorting out their behaviour was a priority. He asked them to calm down repeatedly and they kept misbehaving. He asked them to go to their seats several times. They kept misbehaving and stamping on each other’s feet. Neither Witness 1 nor Witness 3 did anything to stop this. Having given up to half a dozen instructions, he felt that he had to intervene. There was a risk of hurting themselves or others. He placed his hand on one of the pupils’ shoulders in what he considered to be a caring manner. He may have applied light pressure. He did not recall him stumbling or moving. From where they were standing it would not have been possible to get to the chair. He moved him back around the desks to get him there. He finished the lesson. The pupil did not seem upset or injured. He would have picked up on this having worked with the pupil for several years. He would have expected Witness 1 or Witness 3 to speak up if there was a problem. Both of them were with him in class until twenty past three when he went to work with a pupil in a residential facility. They knew he was going to do this. On reflection, he did not feel that he could have dealt with the situation differently. He would have expected others to intervene. He sought to solve a problem. He would never make unnecessary physical contact or do anything to harm a pupil. He would not place hands on a pupil if he could avoid it. In splitting the pupils up he was trying to avoid the potential for injury. The policy was for physical intervention as a last resort. The behaviour had escalated to stamping on feet, and he did not want this to escalate to injury. He described his role (at the time of this statement) at Tiree High School. He described his involvement in extra-curricular activities and assisting in the primary school. He has a masters in education. He was doing a middle leadership course with Argyll and Bute Council. He was considering doing a doctorate in improving education post-school in island communities.

The Teacher also read his second statement (dated 27 August 2025). He did not accept that he wrote any answers on Pupil A’s paper without her having given them to him verbally. This was a covid exam left to him to supervise. It was sat in the normal graphics classroom, in class time. Pupil A had handed in the paper with at least half an hour of the allocated time left. He noticed several answers had been left blank. He suggested she look at it again. She had a brief look and said she had done all she could. He knew that she knew these answers. He verbally asked her the questions, established that she knew the answers, and wrote them down for her. He wrote in the answers that she had given whether they were right or wrong. This took about 10 minutes. He marked the paper himself and sent a scanned pdf to Oban High School so that they could cross-mark it. He was told that some of the answers were too faint. He went over them in a darker ink so that they could be seen more clearly and re-sent the paper. He spoke to Witness 7 about this on the phone. At the time he thought that he was acting in a manner consistent with instructions to deal with these exams informally. He now accepts that the SQA have said this was not appropriate. He did not accept that he attempted to intimidate Pupil A. He accepted that he entered a classroom where he was aware she was likely to be, but it was reasonable for him to have done that on these occasions.  He accepted that he had been told not to approach Pupil A. He thought that noting her on the register had remained his responsibility. He checked with Witness 12 and marked her as present on the register. He just put his head around the door to check. On the second occasion, to take Pupil A’s lunch order, he did something similar. He accepted that he had also asked for her health and wellbeing assignment. This was still on his list to collect at the time. After the occasion when he took Pupil A’s lunch order he was told this was not necessary and he did not contact her further. He took another class, shared with a science teacher, that Pupil A was still in. He had asked if that was right and it was changed.

The Teacher accepted that he had made the comments referred to at allegations 2(c)(i) and (ii). He did so in the context of that class. He had been pressed by pupils who repeatedly asked him for his opinions. He made clear that he was not judging others. His first response was that his opinions don’t matter. The class was grinding to a halt and he thought he would explain his upbringing and beliefs. On the Adam and Eve comment, he was trying to explain what he had been taught. He accepted that he did this more informally than he should have. He thought it was taken well, it was a class that would have good debates. He certainly didn’t know anyone in the class was bisexual. He was also trying to explain his own opinion on abortions, which was that public funds should not be used for abortions following consensual activity. If people do not want the responsibility of parenting they should take more care in the first place. He accepted that he should have been more careful. He did not accept that his statements were homophobic nor offensive. He was not saying other people’s views were unacceptable. He regretted if anyone had been offended, this was not his intention, he was trying to engage the class in open discussion.

The Teacher explained that he had not practiced for over four years now. He explained the work he had done when arriving at Tiree High School to get the technical department up and running again and implementing a curriculum. This had been successful. He had taken a department which was not functioning to several pupils getting national qualifications, many at A grade. He explained the work he has done as a piping instructor, which he still does.  This involves working with children of varying abilities and includes children with learning difficulties and physical disabilities. Apart from the situation with Pupil A there had never been any concerns as to his conduct of examinations. He explained the differences with the particular exam diet concerned. He again explained what he said had happened in Pupil A’s exam. He felt it would be remiss of him to let her finish so early so he requested that she take another look. He knew that she should have been able to answer some more questions. She was a predicted grade A candidate. A lack of effort concerned him. He got the answers verbally and noted them whether wrong or right. There are still blanks on the paper, which he identified on the copy within the bundle. He explained that if Pupil A had not offered an answer, he did not put anything in. He identified answers which had received no marks because they were wrong. One particular answer, the words “crop tool” must have been something she knew as an A grade student. He explained again why he considered what he had done was appropriate at the time. It would have been remiss of him to allow a senior pupil to give up when they were capable of answering more. It was still her work. If it was not her work why not just fill in the whole paper. It was ridiculous to suggest that he did not have her consent. Witness 7 had suggested he go over the answers and re-scan the paper for cross marking. He was aware that cross marking would be taking place before the exams, although he thought that the papers themselves would be ingathered rather than scanned and emailed. He had never denied writing in the paper. He again provided his reasons for attending classrooms where Pupil A would be. It was his responsibility to deliver the health and wellbeing course. He had to gather suitable evidence for pupils to get the qualification. Witness 12 had to administer the assessment for Pupil A. When doing marking he saw he had not received it so he had to work out if it had been done and where it was. On the “CMIS” system she was still on his class register. He had asked Witness 8 where Pupil A was and she didn’t know. It seemed appropriate to pop his head round Witness 12 door and get confirmation. He had asked for her lunch order for similar reasons, it was his professional duty to record these things. All of this took place a few days apart.

The Teacher said that he had given appropriate caveats to the comments in the health and wellbeing class. These were put over in a light hearted way and it was not as harsh and severe as it has been recorded since. The class were laughing at these comments. He was told to be mindful of what he says by Witness 6 and he accepted that.  In hindsight he would like to avoid giving his opinion. In the circumstances it was awkward not to. He would be more mindful of his choice of words. It would have been helpful if colleagues had made him aware of the circumstances of individuals in the class. He would have been sensitive to that. He did not expect others to share his opinions. In his masters he had done a presentation on denominational schools and inclusivity. He explained his understanding of the impact that the actions of a teacher may have on pupils’ development.

The Teacher continued to be examined as to the setup at Skypoint and how this differed from a mainstream school. He was referred to the diagram which he had prepared. This roughly showed where the pupils were at the time of the incident on 26 April 2017, although not exactly. He did not believe that Witness 1 and Witness 3 had been present right from the start of the class. At the point that he intervened they were in their seats, not particularly doing anything. The “child abuse” comment was the type of thing which was not uncommon from pupils at that school, although it did not indicate that a teacher had behaved inappropriately.  He had positioned himself between the pupils to stop them stamping on each other’s feet. He then was able to perform a caring gesture from which the pupil concerned took the best course of action to follow instruction and return to his seat. He did not consider what he had done to constitute a physical intervention in terms of the TCI guidance.

In cross examination the Teacher agreed that the pupils were not being particularly violent but said that there was a potential for injury. He was asked if he disagreed that he grabbed the pupil and pushed him into a chair. He pointed to the diagram and insisted that to do this he would have had to have flipped him over the table and into his seat. It was pointed out to him that this was not consistent with earlier evidence he had given as to locations, nor the evidence of Witness 3 in this regard. He did not provide a clear response. He disagreed that he had been unnecessarily forceful.  It was put to him that the pupil had become quiet and “insular”. He agreed that he may have done but explained that this may have been because the pupil knew he had been misbehaving. As far as he was concerned he had been successful in reintegrating pupils into the lesson. He agreed that the classroom had become quiet, but not awkward, the pupils were just getting on with work. His understanding of TCI procedures was canvassed. He reiterated that he used a caring gesture. He agreed that grabbing or pushing a pupil was not part of the TCI guidelines.

In relation to exams he was aware of SQA guidelines. He had not been advised that teachers could put answers onto papers but the waters had been muddied by advice about giving pupils the best chance and marking leniently. He disagreed that Pupil A had identified answers on her paper that she did not give him.

He made a comparison with the use of a scribe. Witness 7 may have had a memory lapse in not remembering requesting that he went over the answers in ink. He may not want to take responsibility as the Teacher’s line manager. He could have dealt with matters better as a line manager. The Teacher was asked if he accepted that his actions could be perceived as dishonest by a member of the public. Strictly speaking, this is a matter for the Panel, but no objection was taken to the question. The Teacher said that this might be a perception but again provided his explanation for what took place. It was put to him that there was nothing in the concept of “sympathetic marking” that permits answers to be written on a paper after a pupil has finished. He said that the rules were not as specific as to the circumstances arising. The Teacher was asked about his approaching of Pupil A in other classrooms. He provided his explanation for this again. He accepted that Pupil A may have interpreted this as an act to intimidate her. He did not accept that it was. He agreed that it was not appropriate to express personal views in a health and wellbeing class. He explained again that the class was asking for his opinion. He referred to his religious beliefs. He accepted that personal beliefs have to be balanced with duties as a teacher. It was put to him that Witness 13 felt shocked and insulted by his comment. He apologised and explained it was never his intent to cause any harm. He agreed that he should be sensitive regardless of whether there is a person from the LGBTQ+ community in a class. He said that he believed that he was, but that certain pupils had taken umbrage to his own opinions on specific matters that they had asked him about. He had said that his opinions did not matter but the pupils were adamant.  He did not perceive a negative reaction at the time. When asked for his reflections he mentioned better communication from colleagues.

In re examination the Teacher identified reference to use of a “caring gesture” in the TCI guidelines. He distinguished the notion of a “physical intervention” from other instances of physical contact.

In questions from the Panel the Teacher was asked what he would have wanted Witness 1 or Witness 3 to do on 26 April 2017 if the pupils were not following instructions. He would have wanted them to interact and move to a location where they could have assisted. He did not consider saying anything to them, they had been in the classroom long enough to ascertain what was happening. Pupil A had raised concerns about her paper several months after Tiree High School returned from the summer break. When asked why he thought he was asked not to have contact with Pupil A he said this was because she had made out that she was feeling intimidated and he was moved to suit her. He knew that she consented to his writing answers on her paper because she gave him verbal answers and saw him doing it. He did not consider taking any steps to indicate that it was his writing on the paper and that she had consented to that. The context of the health and wellbeing lesson was explored further, as was his attendance at other classrooms and the reasons for that.

Following the Teacher’s evidence the Teacher’s Representative advised the panel that he also sought to rely on a number of witness statements without the authors being called as witnesses:

• Statement of Witness 15 [15/9/18]
• Statement of Witness 16 [30/10/18]
• Statement Witness 17 [3/9/18]
• Statement of Witness 18 [17/10/18]
• Statement of Witness 22 [2/11/18]

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that a formal application was not necessarily required prior to the admission of these materials. In the event that one was required he invited the panel to admit the materials in terms of rule 1.7.17 on the basis that the evidence contained in the statements was relevant and it was fair to admit it. The evidence was exclusively character evidence, but this was potentially relevant for the purposes of fact finding, and certainly relevant for stages 2 and 3 of the procedure should matters proceed to those points. The application was not opposed. The Panel were provided with legal advice to the effect that relying on witness statements from persons not giving evidence in person was often preceded by what is referred to as a “hearsay application” inviting the panel to determine admissibility in terms of Rule 1.7.17. However, hearsay evidence was also regularly led (including in the present proceedings) without objection and without any prior application being made for it to be admitted. It may well be the case that there being no objection taken there was no requirement for a ruling from the Panel. However, an application having been made it was open to the Panel to determine same. The Panel did so, by deciding that the evidence was relevant, and that it was fair to admit it. They had regard to the description of the Teacher contained therein for the purposes of determination of the matters before them.

The final witness, called for the Teacher, was Witness 21. She is a forensic handwriting and document examiner. She had prepared a report which was in the materials before the panel. She adopted that, under clarification that she is no longer an affiliate of the chartered institute of forensic sciences, as the report states. She explained her methodology and the nature of her instruction. She had been asked to compare eight “questioned” words on Pupil A’s exam paper with the handwriting of the Teacher.   She highlighted that she had asked to see the original exam paper and had not been provided with this. She highlighted that she was mostly asked to look at “overwriting” which made examination extremely difficult in the majority. Of the eight words, she identified that it was “probable” that four of these had been written by the student and not the Teacher. Her findings were “inconclusive” as to two words, and she offered “no opinion” on two others. She was asked to explain what the word “probable” meant as used by her. She said that she did not use percentages. Her opinions were “written by”, “high probability”, and “probable”, and then inconclusive, and no opinion. Probable was her “lowest definite”.

In cross examination she explained that original documents would be much preferable and if available she must see that. Overwriting was a problem in this case. She did not know if the Teacher knew the purpose for which she was providing samples of his writing. When asked for the threshold for a finding of “probable” she said it was based on experience. She knew when there is sufficient to “go probable” and put that in her report. She can usually tell if there is simulation. Her comparison showed that the Teacher’s writing was completely different to what she was asked to look at (presumably in relation to the “probable” findings). She could not give an opinion in relation to the overwriting. She was not aware that the Teacher had admitted to writing on the assessment paper.

In questions from the Panel the witness confirmed that as far as she knew she was given the whole exam paper. She remembered watching the Teacher give handwriting samples over “zoom”, but she could not remember the exact circumstances. She did receive the originals of that. The Panel inquired with the witness whether she could see any similarities between the Teacher’s writing and a particular questioned word. She did not. She was not able to form a view of whether the paper had been written entirely in ink, based on the copy she had. Samples of the pupil’s writing would have been useful. She was not able to say whether there was more than one person’s writing on the paper. She was asked as to a distinction she had drawn with the writing of the letter “i". It appeared to the Panel that perhaps the Teacher had deployed a formation that the witness had said he did not use. The witness agreed that this had been done, but she then went on to highlight other differences.  She was not able to say conclusively whether there had been an attempt to copy. In re-examination she said she had seen no evidence of an attempt to copy.

Submissions on evidence

The Presenting Officer submitted that where the alleged facts were in dispute, the burden was on GTC Scotland to prove those facts, on the balance of probabilities. She referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland practice statement on fact finding. This has a list of questions which the Panel might ask itself when considering the credibility and reliability of witnesses. It was submitted that all of the witnesses called for GTC Scotland were credible and reliable.  The evidence of Witness 1 and Witness 3 was materially consistent as to what they saw. The Panel was invited to find them credible and reliable where they were not consistent with the evidence of the Teacher. The witnesses from Tiree High School were consistent with each other. Pupil A had clearly found giving evidence difficult, but she did attend and sought to assist as much as she could. The Panel were invited to prefer her evidence where it was inconsistent with the Teacher. Submissions were made as to the concepts of dishonesty and integrity. A dictionary definition of the word “homophobic was referred to. The Teacher’s comment met this description.  The ECHR rights to free speech and freedom of religion were referred to. These are qualified rights. A definition of the word offensive was provided. The comment on abortion was submitted to be capable of causing a reasonable member of the public to feel upset or angry. The Panel were invited to find all allegations proved on the balance of probabilities.

The Teacher’s representative invited the Panel to find the allegations proved only insofar as admitted by him at the outset and not otherwise. There were submissions as to burden and standard of proof and the notions of credibility and reliability. There is no requirement on the Teacher to prove anything. If the Panel cannot conclude where something is more likely than not to have happened then it must not find it to be proved. It was highlighted that the allegations had constituent elements. Allegation 2b required the Panel to be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Teacher intended to intimidate. This cannot happen accidentally. Authorities on the value of character evidence in assessing credibility and reliability were referred to. This was relevant here standing the accusation of dishonesty and inappropriate physical contact. An absence of analogous conduct may be relevant. There was reference to articles 9 and 10 ECHR. GTC Scotland and the Panel are public bodies for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. They must abide by these rights. Interference can be justified only in limited respects.  Interference has to be proportionate. Case law was cited.

It was submitted that there were issues with the reliability of the witnesses Witness 1 and Witness 3. It was questionable whether the incident of 26 April 2017 could have possibly played out in the manner they described given the layout of the room. They both delayed reporting anything until the next day. They were said to have evolving accounts. Witness 3 in particular was said to have given different accounts at different times, tailored to the circumstances.  In relation to Pupil A it was submitted that there were issues of reliability. She had said in evidence that it was possible that she had provided the Teacher with answers after handing in her exam script. There were also said to be issues with credibility in regard to the timing of her raising the possibility of issues with her exam paper. Grades were issued in early August, but her reporting was in late September or early October. Her evidence was said not to align with the expert evidence as to what may have been written by the Teacher. It was submitted that Pupil A had sought to give an account which protects her from trouble. Her evidence should be rejected for that reason. The Panel were invited to prefer the Teacher’s account in respect of disputed matters. While his account was unpolished, it had been consistent. The conduct alleged was said to be out of character, with regard to the character evidence submitted from Witness 4, Witness 15, Witness 16, Witness 17, Witness 18 and Witness 22.

In relation to allegation 1 it was submitted that the Panel should find that the Teacher had inserted himself between two pupils and used a caring gesture to show the pupil to his seat, in line with appropriate procedures. The subsequent events were inconsistent with the pupil having been manhandled. In relation to allegations 2(a) and 3, the panel was invited to reject the suggestion that alteration of the paper was without consent. The Teacher held a genuine if misguided belief that adding answers provided verbally by Pupil A was not inappropriate. Consent was implicit from the circumstances described by the Teacher. In those circumstances the Teacher’s conduct was not dishonest nor lacking integrity. Reference was made to the concept of dishonesty as defined (for the purposes of the meaning of cheating at gambling) by the Supreme Court in Ivey v. Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67. The Panel must determine the Teacher’s state of knowledge. Once they have done so, dishonesty is to be determined by reference to the standards of ordinary decent people. On the Teacher’s account an ordinary person would not have thought that the Teacher’s actions were dishonest. A lack of integrity is a broader and more nebulous concept. Reference was made to Wingate v. The Solicitors Regulation Authority [2018] EWCA Civ 366 at paragraphs 93 to 97.  Integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of the profession. Not every breach of professional standards will involve a lack of integrity. Professional integrity is linked to the manner in which the profession professes to serve the public. It was submitted that there requires to be conduct approaching recklessness as to professional standards. The Panel was invited to find that this was not proved.

In relation to allegation 2(b) it was submitted that there was no evidence which would allow the Panel to conclude that the Teacher attempted to intimidate Pupil A. There may have been other ways to deal with the issues which arose, but this does not equate to an attempt to intimidate. In relation to allegations 2(c)(i) and (ii) the comments themselves were admitted. In relation to the connected allegations 4 and 5 submissions were made as to the context in which the comments were made. The definition of homophobic in the Cambridge Dictionary was provided (which the presenting officer also relied on). It is conduct which comes from or demonstrates a fear or dislike of gay people. With reference to Campbell v. Dugdale [2019] SC EDIN 32 it was submitted that the essence of homophobic treatment is that it arises from core beliefs. The Teacher’s remark about “Adam and Eve” did not indicate a fear or dislike of gay people. The phrase “can’t do the time don’t do the crime” is a well known phrase. It means that one should not undertake an action if not willing to bear the consequences. It might be a crass or clumsy phrase but the panel is to consider whether the phrase is offensive. This word is not a term of art. The Teacher was not trying to say that abortion should be illegal, but that in certain circumstances it should not be paid for on the NHS. The Panel should consider whether any action they take in relation to comments by the Teacher is compatible with articles 9 and 10 ECHR. Interference requires to be proportionate. The concept of proportionality was discussed.

In legal advice from the Legal Assessor a preliminary point was raised as to the significance of articles 9 and 10 ECHR to the Panel’s determination of the facts of allegations against the Teacher, rather than other matters which may be for the Panel’s determination once those facts are determined. The Panel invited the Teacher’s Representative to comment. It was submitted that the Panel may be of the view that these issues are not relevant to fact finding but that articles 9 and 10 were certainly relevant to other stages of the procedure.

The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that the Panel is to determine whether (and to what extent) they find the facts set out in the allegations to be proved (in terms of Rule 2.8.1(a)). The burden of proof is on GTC Scotland, and the standard is the balance of probabilities. The Panel will require to determine the evidence which it accepts on that basis. The credibility and reliability of witnesses will require to be considered on material matters. Certain of the allegations have more than one factual element and the Panel requires to determine whether and to what extent each element is proved where the elements are in dispute. There are a number of adjectives in the allegations and the Panel will require to determine whether those adjectives apply to the principal facts. So, in allegation 1 the Panel will require to determine whether any physical contact was “inappropriate” and “aggressive”. Inappropriate means not appropriate to the circumstances. In allegation 2(a) the Panel will require to determine whether what took place in respect of Pupil A’s paper had her consent. Consent can be expressed or implicit. The basic factual elements of allegation 2(b) did not appear to be in dispute. The core question for the Panel was whether the Panel can find it proved that the Teacher’s actions constituted an attempt to intimidate Pupil A. This was for GTC Scotland to prove. The Panel require to consider whether there is any evidence on which they can infer that the Teacher’s actions were an attempt to intimidate. The Panel is not being asked to determine whether the Teacher’s actions were unwise, unusual, or unnecessary. Allegation 2(c)(i) and (ii) are admitted. Allegation 2(d) is withdrawn and the Panel should not make any findings. In relation to allegations 3, 4 and 5 the Panel are required to place a judgment on the Teacher’s conduct. Integrity is a concept which goes beyond dishonesty into other areas of propriety.

In relation to allegation 4 the Panel were referred to the case of Campbell v. Dugdale [2019] SC EDIN 32. In that case a newspaper article had made a tweet which was described as homophobic. The sheriff (now the Sheriff Principal of Lothian and Borders) determined that the tweet was not homophobic and the comment was therefore untrue and defamatory. There had been subsequent appeals although this element of the decision had not been disturbed. The Panel were referred to paragraph A of the “summary” section of the sheriff’s decision, which states:

There are various definitions of homophobia, but most have as a central theme the fear, hatred or dislike of homosexuals, whether or not it involves discriminatory treatment as a result. The essence of homophobic speech or acts is that the mistreatment arises from core beliefs or feelings, not just the effects of the actings;

The Panel were advised to adopt this approach when considering whether the Teacher’s comment was homophobic as alleged. The Panel were advised that a person may say something regrettable, or inappropriate about gay people, but it may not be viewed as homophobic on that basis alone. The issue is not focussed solely on the effects, but the core beliefs which are the source of the comments. This comment was not alleged by GTC Scotland to have been offensive. The Panel should consider whether the comment, rather than simply being crass, evinces or indicates a fear or dislike of gay people on the part of the Teacher. That is a different question to the appropriateness of the phrase in a teaching setting. The views of the witnesses were not irrelevant, but nor were they conclusive.

In relation to allegation 5, the Panel were asked to determine whether the relevant comment was offensive. Various witnesses gave their views on the comments, without objection, but those are not conclusive. The determination is for the Panel to make. An intellectual discussion could be had in relation to sensitive topics such as abortion or the position of the NHS in the UK. A person with dissenting or opposing views may well feel offended when confronted with the opposing position. The question for the Panel is whether, viewed objectively, the comments were offensive on the balance of probabilities. That is a different question to the appropriateness of the phrase in a teaching setting. The Panel should approach their determination by reference to the views of the hypothetical reasonable person. That person is of average sensitivity, they do not take offence lightly but nor are they immune to so doing.

Neither the Presenting Officer nor the Teacher’s Representative had any comments on the advice provided to the Panel. The Panel accepted that advice.

Findings of fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact on the allegations.

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 considered Witness 1 to be an impressive witness. Her evidence was clear and she fairly accepted what she could not remember. The Panel did not accept that she should be criticised for a delay in reporting what had taken place on 26 April 2017. In the Panel’s view the chain of events she described appeared reasonable and plausible. The Panel accepted that there was a difference between describing the Teacher using one arm or two arms to manoeuvre the pupil concerned. The Panel did not consider this to be a significant discrepancy between Witness 1 and Witness 3. They did not consider that it was necessary for them to resolve that discrepancy.  Their descriptions were otherwise broadly consistent. On the whole the Panel accepted Witness 1 as a credible and reliable witness.

Witness 2 was not a particularly helpful witness. He plainly had no memory of his involvement in matters as described in his witness statement. The Panel did not feel that they could place reliance on his evidence.  Little turned on this as he was not a witness to primary facts.

Witness 3 was a straightforward witness. Her explanation for the manner in which she reacted to the events of 26 April 2017 were plausible particularly with regard to her relative inexperience at the time. The Panel also accepted that the firmer views she offered in her evidence when compared to those taken previously could be explained with reference to her greater confidence as a professional through becoming more experienced. The Panel did not accept that differences with previous accounts should lead them to conclude that she was unreliable or incredible. Discrepancies with Witness 1 were not considered to be material by the Panel. The Panel accepted Witness 3 as a credible and reliable witness.

Witness 4 was not a witness who could assist the Panel with the primary facts of the allegations against the Teacher. The Panel accepted that he had said positive things in respect of the Teacher in good faith. It was not however clear to the Panel that Witness 4 was aware of the allegations against the Teacher. He did not appear to the Panel to be speaking from an informed position, although the Panel accepted that his views were genuinely held.

Witness 7 provided his evidence in a reasonable way. The Panel did not accept that he had any plan to discredit the Teacher, as was put to him. He did not recollect a conversation with the Teacher about writing over pencil answers in ink. The Panel considered it highly unlikely that this is what took place. It is an inherently improbable course of action. The Panel rejected the Teacher’s evidence in this respect. For what his evidence was worth, the Panel found Witness 7 to have been a credible and reliable witness.

The Panel found Witness 8 and Witness 10 to be credible and reliable witnesses.

The Panel considered that Pupil A was an impressive witness. Her evidence remained consistent. The Panel did not accept that she had conceded in her evidence that she had provided the Teacher with answers verbally at the conclusion of her exam. The Panel accepted that the prompt from her to raise a concern as to her paper was the visit of [Person 1] (the reasons for that visit not being known to the Panel). The Panel accepted, based on Pupil A’s evidence, that she did not agree to the Teacher modifying or changing her paper. The Panel found Pupil A to be a credible and reliable witness.

Witness 13 gave evidence in a reasonable manner. She had heard the comments made by the Teacher and appeared to feel strongly about them. The Panel accepted the facts of her evidence as credible and reliable.

The Panel accepted Witness 6 as a credible and reliable witness.

The Panel found the Teacher to have been inconsistent in his answers to questions. He became defensive and appeared to be working hard to avoid doing so more. He had a striking tendency to blame others. For example, when asked for his reflections he did not explain how he might have acted differently himself but referred to other teachers not passing on information. He appeared to bring new points into evidence which were not mentioned in his statements nor put to previous witnesses. He was not a sympathetic witness however the Panel reminded itself that this in itself does not demonstrate that facts of allegations are proved. However, the Panel did not accept his account of relevant events as accurate. They preferred the accounts of Witness 1 and Witness 3 in relation to 26 April 2017.  They preferred the account of Pupil A as to her exam paper. In relation to the diagram of the classroom which the Teacher had prepared, the Panel did not consider that this was helpful. It was clear that the misbehaving pupils were moving around the classroom. The diagram appeared to have been prepared in a manner designed to fix the pupils in a location which would be helpful to the Teacher’s position. The Teacher’s evidence as to what took place on 26 April 2017 appeared to the Panel to have been retrospectively designed to fit within the TCI guidance from his then employer. The phrase “caring gesture” was used regularly and this is a term used in that guidance. The Panel did not consider that what was described by Witness 1 and Witness 3, whose evidence they preferred of that of the Teacher on material points, constituted a “caring gesture” in terms of that guidance. They did not decide whether what the Teacher had described would do so, although they considered that also to be questionable. The Panel noted that the Teacher had made admissions but in the Panel’s view these were only in relation to matters which could not plausibly be denied. The Panel did not find the Teacher to be a credible and reliable witness where his evidence conflicted with other witnesses on material matters.

The Panel found Witness 21 to have been a straightforward and professional witness. Her task had been made more difficult by not having the original exam paper. Her opinion amounted to the proposition that four words were “probable” to have been written by Pupil A and not the Teacher. This is the lowest on her scale although the scale was not explained on a percentage basis, but it has two higher rankings indicating that considerable doubt may still arise. Pupil A had advised that she had not written certain terms. The Panel accepted that evidence. They did not accept that they could rely on Witness 21 opinion in respect of the four words. In any event, it was not clear to the Panel how much assistance this evidence actually was to the core matters for their determination. There was no dispute that the Teacher had written on Pupil A’s paper. The key point of dispute was whether this took place with or without Pupil A’s consent. This witness could offer no assistance in that respect.

In relation to the statements of the witnesses who had provided character references for the Teacher, the Panel accepted that these persons were people who knew the Teacher and had a positive view of him. They accepted that regard can be had to those views when assessing the likelihood of the Teacher behaving as alleged. They did so.

In relation to allegation 1 the Panel considered that it was indisputable that the Teacher had physical contact with the pupil concerned. They preferred the evidence of Witness 1 and Witness 3 as to the nature of that contact. They determined that the contact was inappropriate in the circumstances. They did not consider that the contact was in line with the TCI guidelines lodged before them. In any event, they did not consider that the contact was appropriate in the circumstances. The Panel considered it more likely that the Teacher had lost his cool and reacted inappropriately albeit in what may have been a difficult situation. Witness 3 and Witness 1 described the Teacher acting in an aggressive manner on that occasion. The Panel accepted the evidence from those witnesses that this caused a reaction amounting to distress on the part of the pupil concerned. They found allegation 1 to be proved, on the balance of probabilities.

In relation to allegation 2(a), that the Teacher modified and changed Pupil A’s exam paper was a matter of admission. It was in any event proved on the balance of probabilities. The Panel rejected the Teacher’s explanation of how this came to take place. The Panel accepted Pupil A’s version of events. There was nothing in the evidence which they accepted which in the Panel’s view amounted to an expressed or implicit consent to modification and changing of the Paper. They found allegation 2(a) to be proved on the balance of probabilities.  

In relation to allegation 2(b), the Panel accepted that Pupil A had felt intimidated which they felt was, in the least, highly unfortunate. The Panel accepted that they required to consider the Teacher’s intention. They considered that the Teacher’s reasons for attending Pupil A’s classroom were unsatisfactory, it appeared to the Panel that the Teacher knew that he ought not to do this and proceeded to do so anyway. However, the Panel were conscious that defiance of authority in this manner does not in itself prove an intention to intimidate Pupil A. It was not clear to the Panel what the Teacher might stand to gain from intimidation of the Pupil. In the Panel’s view, while the Teacher may not have considered the impact of his actions on Pupil A, they were not able, on the evidence available to them, to draw the inference that his intention was to intimidate. The Panel found allegation 2(b) not to be proved on the balance of probabilities.

Allegations 2(c)(i) and (ii) were admitted and, in any event, established with reference to the evidence of various witnesses. The Panel found them to be proved on the balance of probabilities.

In relation to allegation 3, based on the evidence which they accepted, in the Panel’s view the Teacher must have known that Pupil A’s exam paper did not constitute her own work, and had been modified by him. At the point of submission of the paper for external marking he took no steps to explain this. The information was concealed by the Teacher.  The Panel did not accept that the waters were muddied by any suggestion to mark exams sympathetically.  They did not consider that what the Teacher did amounted to the implementation of that guidance. In the Panel’s view this amounted to an act of dishonesty. They found allegation 3 to be proved in that respect. In the Panel’s opinion the phrasing of this allegation required them to determine whether an act was either dishonest or lacking integrity (but not both) having decided that the act was dishonest, they did not make a finding in fact that the act lacked integrity. Had they been required to do so, they would have made that finding.  The Panel found allegation 3 to be proved, on the balance of probabilities, under deletion of the words “or, in the alternative, lacked integrity”.

In relation to allegation 4, the Panel considered that the “Adam and Eve” comment was a highly unfortunate one for a teacher to have made whatever the context. The Panel considered whether it was proved on the balance of probabilities that the comment was demonstrative of a fear or dislike of gay people. The Panel did not consider that they were able to make that conclusion on the basis of the evidence available to them. The Panel felt that the comment was crass, insensitive, and unwise, but this is not what they are asked to decide in relation to this allegation. On the evidence available the Panel were unable to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the comment was homophobic in the sense described by the sheriff in Campbell v. Dugdale. They therefore did not find allegation 4 to be proved.

In relation to allegation 5 the Panel considered that the Teacher’s comment in relation to abortion was one which in the context of a health and wellbeing lesson, a reasonable person would consider to be offensive. It had sexist undertones, given that it is women who carry a pregnancy to term (the “time”) and are thus being accused of the “crime” of the initial act of unprotected intercourse (and not the subsequent abortion as the Presenting Officer suggested).  The Panel found this allegation to be proved, on the balance of probabilities.

Submissions on fitness to teach

Given that the Panel 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.

No additional evidence was led by either party.

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the definition of being unfit to teach in the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011. An individual is unfit to teach where their conduct or professional competence falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher.  The Panel were referred to GTC Scotland’s “Indicative Outcomes” practice statement, part A. The Panel should consider on the facts found provided the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the standards of the profession, such as those set out in the Code of Professionalism and Conduct (“COPAC”). In other words, does it amount to misconduct. It was submitted that allegation 1 amounted to a breach of paragraph 1.2 of COPAC, as it involves a failure to adhere to appropriate professional boundaries. Standing the finding of dishonesty, paragraph 1.4 of COPAC which requires teachers to uphold standards of conduct, honesty and integrity was clearly breached. The allegations disclosed a failure to maintain awareness of the Teacher’s position as a role model, in breach of paragraph 1.6 of COPAC.  If the Panel were in agreement that the Teacher had engaged in misconduct, they should then consider whether they are remediable and whether there is a likelihood of recurrence. It was said that allegations 1 and 2(a) were fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher. Allegation 2(c)(i) and (ii) with allegation 5 added to it fell short of the standards to be expected. The Teacher has engaged with the process, but has sought to minimise and deflect his responsibility. Apologies offered were insincere and he had not shown genuine remorse. The character evidence should be treated with caution, it did not refer to remedy of conduct or an absence of similar events. The statements do not demonstrate insight of the allegations against the Teacher. They are dated to 2017 and 2018 prior to the events of allegation 2. The risk of repetition was said to be high and it was said that a finding that the Teacher was unfit to teach is needed to maintain confidence in the profession.

The Teacher’s representative also referred to the “indicative outcomes” practice statement. It was stressed that professional regulation is concerned with public protection and not punishment. In relation to allegation 1, there was no suggestion of any physical injury to the pupil involved nor long term emotional or psychological injury. Distress is the extent of the harm caused. The actions were not premeditated nor intended to cause harm. The Teacher accepts that acting in the manner now found proved would not be appropriate, but in the spectrum of inappropriate physical contact, allegation 1 is at the lower end. In respect of allegations 2(a) and 3 the exam as taking place in unprecedented and unrepeated circumstances. The Teacher was motivated by a desire to help the student. The grade was not altered. There was no evidence of premeditation. The comments in allegation 2(c) were not made maliciously or with the intention of causing fear or upset.  Any upset which was caused was not prolonged.  It was accepted that a finding of misconduct was likely. The Teacher’s conduct was remediable and unlikely to recur. The allegations are all different in nature and do not show a propensity to act in a particular manner. The Teacher had practiced for 11 years before 2017, with no allegation to GTC Scotland. There is also evidence as to his performance after 2017, the Teacher performed to an extremely high standard in creating a department and bringing pupils to SQA qualifications at Tiree High School. The Teacher has engaged in the process throughout and did so by instructing courteous challenge to the witnesses. There was evidence as to positive relationships in the teaching and extracurricular environment. There is a track record that suggests that remediation is possible. His ability to demonstrate remediation has been limited due to the imposition of a temporary restriction order.  The risk of recurrence is low. It was accepted that a finding of unfitness would be under consideration, but the Panel were invited not to do so.

Legal advice provided was restricted to referring the Panel to the appropriate practice statements as referred to by the Presenting Officer and Teacher’s Representative.

Findings regarding Fitness to Teach  

The Panel considered the applicable version of COPAC (2017). They agreed that the allegations as found proved amounted to breaches of paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6, as well as 2.3. In the Panel’s view, the conduct falls below the standards to be expected of a registered teacher. Inappropriate and aggressive physical contact with a pupil is by definition not in accordance with the standards of the profession. A teacher should show a higher level of respect for the integrity of the examinations process.

Having determined that the Teacher had engaged in misconduct the Panel considered whether this was so significant as to render the Teacher unfit to teach. The Panel accepted that the allegations were different in nature and did not amount to a pattern of similar acts being repeated. The Panel accepted that the Teacher had practiced for 11 years without an allegation of misconduct.  The Panel were not persuaded on the evidence that the Teacher had shown a high level of insight, however, the Panel were of the view that the exam conditions prevailing in relation to allegation 2(a) were unusual. The Panel considered that as a matter of practical reality the allegation was highly unlikely to be capable of repetition. The Panel noted that the positive character assessments provided were of some vintage but did accept that the Teacher is held in good regard by those persons. In the Panel’s view, the shortfalls in the Teacher’s conduct are remediable. They did not accept that they had been remedied. Overall, and while they retained concerns as to the Teacher’s level of insight, the Panel did not consider that the allegations as proved and taken as a whole amounted to a ‘removal’ matter. They did not consider that the public interest required a finding of unfitness and the consequences of that. The Panel were of the view that the teacher’s conduct is serious and was of some concern however with regard to the allegations and in the whole circumstances the Panel are of the view that a finding of unfitness is not justified in the circumstances

The Panel agreed that the Teacher’s conduct described in the allegations as found proved amounted to misconduct. This was not substantially in dispute between the parties by the time of submissions on fitness to teach.  The Panel determined that the Teacher’s fitness to teach was impaired on that basis. The Panel stressed that while they did not find the Teacher to be unfit to teach, his representative was correct that this was a finding which was under consideration. While they ultimately decided not to arrive at that conclusion, the Panel do encourage the Teacher to reflect further on his actions which resulted in the bringing of these proceedings.

The Panel accepted that the Teacher has an entitlement to freedom of expression and to express his religious beliefs. The Panel were not necessarily persuaded that the Teacher was expressing a genuine religious belief, rather than seeking to retrospectively justify flippant and inappropriate comments. However, the Teacher was not challenged on this in evidence. The Panel were aware that articles 9 and 10 ECHR were not absolute rights. Interference is lawful where it is proportionate. A legitimate aim in that respect is the upholding of teaching standards. The Panel took the view that in the circumstances of the present case, their finding that the Teacher had engaged in misconduct, to the extent that it interferes with either right (which was not the subject of any detailed explanation in submissions), was a proportionate one in pursuit of that legitimate aim.

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.

Disposal

The Panel having determined that the Teacher’s fitness to teach was impaired, they were required to determine what disposal to impose, under rule 2.8.1(c).

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the “Indicative Outcomes” practice statement. The purpose of a disposal must be protection and not punishment.  The allegations proved were said to involve abuse of a position of trust and put the reputation of the profession in question. A range of factors were to be taken into account. The Panel should consider sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. In this case a reprimand would not be sufficient to preserve the reputation of the profession. The other options were discussed. No particular outcome was urged upon the panel.

The Teacher’s Representative commenced his submission on disposal by indicating that links to sample courses had been sent to the servicing officer, should the Panel wish to take that into account as part of conditional registration order. Reference was then made to the “Indicative Outcomes” guidance. It was recognised that the Panel could have considered a finding of unfitness. The Teacher also recognised that he is now essentially afforded a second chance and it was submitted that he intends to show the Panel, and GTC Scotland, that he has learned and is capable of grasping that chance. The matters canvassed in relation to stage 2 as to seriousness and risk of repetition were referred to in respect of disposal. The focus of the submission was on conditions that the Panel might impose. The Panel could identify areas of training. Conditions of that nature plus measures to ensure that an employer was aware of the Panel’s decision could be sufficient for public interest and protection. It was added that removal would not be contradictory to the Panel’s decision that the Teacher is not unfit to teach. Overall, the disposal which was urged on the Panel was one which allows the Teacher when in the right environment with the right support to be an effective teacher who brings quality to the profession in an area where resources are limited.

Findings on Disposal

The Panel considered the options for disposal with regard to the Rules and the “Indicative Outcomes” guidance.

The Panel did not consider that it was appropriate to apply no sanction, standing their findings.

The Panel considered whether to give the Teacher a reprimand. In the Panel’s view, a reprimand would not on its own reflect the seriousness of the allegations found proved. In the Panel’s view the expressions of remorse from the Teacher had not been complete or compelling, and the Panel considered that the Teacher had work to do to complete the process of reflection. The Panel considered that a reasonable member of the public would not consider that a bare reprimand was sufficient in the circumstances of the case. The public interest required more, in the Panel’s view.

The Panel considered a conditional registration order. In the Panel’s view, they considered that the Teacher should engage in some further training or education to complete the process of reflection and to minimise the risk of recurrence of misconduct in the future. The Panel took into account the examples put forward by the Teacher’s Representative. The Panel took from this that the Teacher was ready and willing to participate in an appropriate course, albeit that the Panel did not consider that the suggestions made went to the heart of the problems which arose in this case. The Panel was aware of the Edinburgh University (Moray House) Return to Teaching Course. This is an online course aimed at primary and secondary teachers who have been out of the profession for a period of time. The Panel understood that the topics covered involved the teaching standards in Scotland, critical awareness of teaching practices, and engagement with social justice and equality in the classroom. In the Panel’s view this was a well-known and recognised course from a respected establishment, which would address the shortcomings identified particularly with regard to insight and reflection. The Panel were aware that the participation in that course required payment of a fee. With regard to the fees payable in respect of the courses suggested by the Teacher, the Panel took the view that this course was likely affordable by the Teacher.  The Panel also agreed that conditions requiring that the Teacher alert an employer to a conditional registration order against him and providing that employer with the decision notice imposing same.  The Panel determined that a conditional registration order on this basis, as more fully set out below.

The Panel considered whether it was necessary and proportionate to impose a reprimand, in addition to a conditional registration order. In the Panel’s opinion, a reprimand would indicate to the profession and the public the gravity of the charges and maintain public confidence in teachers and the profession as a whole.

Given that the course selected runs twice per year, to give the Teacher sufficient time to comply with that condition, the Panel decided that the conditional registration order should be imposed for a period of two years. The notification elements would also be imposed for two years to ensure that employers were made aware pending completion of the course.

The Panel determined that the reprimand should be recorded for two years. A reprimand will be recorded against the Teacher’s entry in the GTC Scotland’s Register for an aggregated period of two years from the date the sanction was imposed (12 September 2025).

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 two years from the date of the sanction imposed (12 September 2025).

The conditions in full, are as follows:

The Panel agreed that they would impose the first two of the conditions per the appendix to the IOG but subject to the modification per my note being (as modified):

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); and
   • (b) Any prospective employer covered by (a) above at the time of making your application for employment.
2. 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’s Fitness to Teach Department with contact details for any new employer within that same timescale. 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. In the event that you are the subject of enquiry or investigation in relation to alleged criminal conduct, you must inform GTC Scotland's Fitness to Teach Department of such enquiry or investigation within 7 days of the date upon which the relevant authorities first contacted you.
3. You are required to complete satisfactorily the Edinburgh University (Moray House) ‘Return to Teaching Course’ within two years of 12 September 2025 and to provide GTC Scotland’s Fitness to Teach Department with written evidence of your successful completion of it.

Appeal

The Applicant has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of service of the Decision Notice.