Full Hearing – Conduct – David White

Teacher

David White

Date(s)

9, 10, 11 and 12 January 2024

Registration number

910485

Registration category

Primary Education

Panel

Pauline McClellan (Convenor), Michele Knight and Stewart Miller

Legal assessor

Mike Bell

Servicing officer

Aga Adamczyk

Presenting officer

Laura Bowen, Anderson Strathern

Teacher's representative(s)

Louise Bain, The Glasgow Law Practice

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.

Allegation(s)

The following allegation(s) were considered at the hearing:

1 On 12 January 2021, whilst employed by Renfrewshire Council as a teacher at Williamsburgh Primary School, and whilst working in a ‘Covid Hub’ for Primary 3 and 4 pupils, the Teacher did:

(a) Hold and rub the hands of pupils;

(b) Place his hands on the lower back of pupils and rub their backs;

(c) Place his hands on the chair seat close to the pupils’ bottoms;

(d) Bend down in front of Pupil A until their noses touched or almost touched;

(e) Whilst sitting on a chair with his legs open:

(i) hold Pupil B’s hand and rub the top of their hand

(ii) when Pupil B moved away, pull Pupil B closer until they were straddling the Teacher’s leg;

(f) Whilst Pupil A was demonstrating how another pupil had pulled his hood up:

(i) look at Pupil A’s exposed stomach

(ii) ask Pupil A to repeat the action a further four times

(g) Place his toes under the stomach of Pupil D near the hips.

And as a result of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and/or that he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher’s admissions

At the outset of the hearing, the Teacher’s representative advised the Teacher admitted Allegations 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)(i). Those particulars of the allegation were therefore held as proven in terms of Rule 1.7.21. The Teacher denied that he was unfit to teach.

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:

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

Notification of Full Hearing, dated 10 October 2023, with delivery receipts

Teacher’s Response Form with cover email, dated 26 October 2023

Procedural Decision, dated 28 June 2023.

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

Presenting Officer’s Form

Employer Referral Form dated 29 March 2021

Renfrewshire Council Fact-Finding Report and Appendices dated 5 February 2021

Notice of Investigation Response Form dated 5 May 2021

Signed statement of Witness 1 dated 8 October 2021

Signed statement of Colleague 1 dated 18 August 2022

Signed statement of Witness 2 dated 22 June 2022

Signed statement of Witness 3 dated 28 August 2022

Handwritten note of concern by Witness 1 dated 12 January 2021

Reducing Risks in Schools Guidance issued 2 November 2020

Risk Assessment issued by Headteacher to all staff dated 2 November 2020

Renfrewshire Council Operational Guidance for Schools issued 9 November 2020

Letter issued to staff alongside RC Operational Guidance for Schools dated 9 November

Risk Assessment dated January 2021

Teacher’s Response to Interim Report, dated 24 October 2022

Notice of Investigation dated 14 April 2021

Notice of Panel Consideration dated 11 November 2022.

Teacher’s hearing papers

Teacher’s Case form with supporting evidence.

Summary of evidence

Witness 1

Witness 1 affirmed. She referred to her GTC Scotland statement and confirmed that it was her statement, and signed by her. Witness 1 read out her witness statement and confirmed she did not wish to amend anything in it.

Witness 1 explained her academic and career background. She told the Panel she had been a teacher for 8 years.

Witness 1 told the Panel that she had worked in Williamsburgh Primary School (the school) on supply at the end of 2020 and start of 2021. She said that during this time she had met the Teacher a few times in the staffroom and that he seemed ‘like a lovely guy’.

Witness 1 explained that she left the school as she had secured a maternity cover contract in another school. She said that her last day at the school was Tuesday 12 January 2021 and she was in a class with the Teacher as a ‘second teacher’ for the Primary 3 and 4 Learning Hub. Witness 1 explained that the Learning Hub was made up of children whose parents were key workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said the Teacher was the ‘Lead Teacher’ and she was there as a second body. She said this was quite unusual but had happened because it was Witness 1’s last day at the school and she was surplus. Witness 1 said she had not worked with the Teacher in the Learning Hub prior to this. She told the Panel that there were approximately 10 pupils in the class. She explained that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were restrictions in place and the children were sitting at their desks with as much social distancing as possible. She could not recall if they were wearing masks. Witness 1 said the class was fairly quiet and she was able to hear what was being said.

Witness 1 said that the Teacher was going around the class looking at the pupils’ work and that with certain male pupils, he would bend down or kneel beside them. She said the Teacher put his hand on the pupil’s lower back sometimes rubbing the pupil’s back or having his hand in the space between the pupil’s bottom and the back of the chair. Witness 1 said this did not seem normal behaviour and she had never seen any other teacher behave like this. She said that she found this bizarre, that she understood the severity of what she was reporting and that she became more and more uncomfortable with what she was witnessing. She began to observe the Teacher more closely and the behaviour continued throughout the day. She said that the children appeared calm and there was nothing out of the ordinary going on.

Witness 1 also told the Panel that on several occasions during the day she had seen the Teacher take the hands of male pupils, stroke them and rub his fingers over them whilst he was having a conversation with the pupil. She said that the children were both standing and sitting when this happened and it did not ‘sit quite right with her’.

Witness 1 said that on one occasion the Teacher had been standing talking to a pupil and then sat down on one of the children’s seats which was quite low and pulled the pupil closer to him. Witness 1 explained that this resulted in the pupil straddling the Teacher’s leg and being very close to him. Witness 1 said the Teacher continued to rub the pupil’s hand as this happened. She said that this occurred for a long enough period for the pupil to try to ‘naturally’ pull away. She said that the pupil tried to naturally pull away but the Teacher’s grip remained tight and he pulled the pupil back. Witness 1 said she was a few metres away from the Teacher and saw what occurred and that the Teacher and pupil were ‘very close’. She said that she heard a conversation between the Teacher and the pupil but could not remember the details. Witness 1 said that the Teacher’s behaviour made her feel extremely uncomfortable.

Witness 1 also told the Panel that just before break on 12 January 2021 one of the pupils said something and the Teacher went over to the pupil and put his face so close to him that they were almost touching. She said that after lunchtime on that day, the same pupil came into the classroom and was explaining to the Teacher what had happened in the playground during the lunchbreak. The Pupil displayed the action of reaching up and when he did this his jumper rode up and a small section of the pupil’s stomach was exposed. Witness 1 said that the Teacher asked the pupil to repeat this action a further 3 times. Witness 1 said when this was happening she was only a few metres away and could see the Teacher’s eyes look down to the exposed section of the pupil’s skin. Witness 1 said she became more concerned each time the Teacher asked the pupil to repeat the action. She confirmed that the pupil did not appear distressed during this time.

Witness 1 said that at around 2 pm on 12 January 2021, the Teacher was taking pupils outside to complete their ‘daily mile’ and that she had taken the opportunity to talk to the school’s Deputy Head Teacher about her concerns. Witness 1 told the Panel that she became very upset when doing this. Witness 1 said the Deputy Head Teacher had asked her if she wanted to be moved elsewhere for the remainder of the day but that she did not want to go anywhere else due to her concerns for the pupils if the Teacher was alone in the classroom. Witness 1 said that when she became upset the Deputy Head Teacher asked her to write her concerns down and referred the Panel to her written note of concerns in the GTC Scotland bundle before the Panel. Witness 1 told the Panel she had not approached the Deputy Head Teacher before this as she was aware of the seriousness for everyone involved and wanted to be sure of what she had seen.

Witness 1 also told the Panel that the Teacher returned to the classroom with the pupils around 2 pm. She said that the Teacher put something on the smartboard for the pupils to watch and that the pupils had moved to the front of the classroom to watch the smartboard. Witness 1 said that the pupils were lying or sitting on the ground. She said the Teacher got a chair and sat close to a group of male pupils. She said he then stretched his legs out and slid the front half of his two feet under a male pupil around the hip area and this continued for a prolonged period of time, although she couldn’t recall the exact period of time. Witness 1 said she was sitting a couple of rows behind the Teacher in line with the Teacher and had a very clear view of what happened. She was adamant that the Teacher’s feet went under the pupil’s body. Witness 1 said this made her extremely uncomfortable.

Witness 1 told the Panel that she had not witnessed any behaviour during that day that would have suggested that the Teacher needed to calm down any of the pupils. She confirmed that another colleague, Colleague 1, was in the classroom at points during the day but not for any prolonged period. She also confirmed that COVID-19 guidelines were in place at this time and when referred to the COVID-19 Guidelines in the GTC Scotland bundle confirmed she recognised the document. She also said that there had been a lot of guidance posted around the school during this period. She said she would have read the guidance but could not specifically recall the exact nature of the guidance.

When it was suggested to Witness 1 in cross examination that the school was a nurturing school she replied that she would not say it was more than any other school. Witness 1 also accepted that the Learning Huib may also have been for pupils with additional support needs as well as children of key workers. She also accepted that January 2021 had been a stressful time for teachers, but denied that pupils were panicked due to the procedures in place for the pandemic. Witness 1 stated that she could not recall if the Teacher wore a mask and gloves in school at this time and did not think that she had done so. She said it was her recollection that simply social distancing was required. Witness 1 also denied that it was difficult to understand the changes to the COVID-19 guidance that took place and said that she was always aware of any changes. When it was suggested it was difficult to teach due to restrictions, Witness 1 stated it depended on the circumstances and explained how she taught at that time.

When asked if her position on the Teacher’s actions would change if she was aware that the Teacher was familiar with particular pupils, Witness 1 stated, ‘Absolutely not’. Witness 1 also did not accept that the Teacher had been balancing on pupils’ chairs when checking their work because the chairs were small. Witness 1 also maintained she was able to see the Teacher’s actions throughout the day clearly. She said as the day progressed her primary concern was around the Teacher and the safeguarding of the children. Witness 1 did not accept the suggestion put in cross examination that the Teacher was sitting in a child’s chair and his legs would not fit comfortably due to this and that the pupil was not straddling his legs. Witness 1 also did not accept that her view of what occurred had been affected by where she was positioned in relation to the Teacher. She explained in detail how she could see both the movement of the pupil and the Teacher’s eyes when the pupil’s jumper rode up. She did not accept that the Teacher was trying to make the pupil laugh to diffuse a difficult situation and continued to assert that the Teacher had looked at the pupil’s skin. Witness 1 reiterated that what had occurred earlier in the day had caused her to be more vigilant. Witness 1 also did not accept the suggestion that the Teacher had not put his feet under a pupil but instead, as the Teacher was sitting with his legs stretched out, had tapped the pupil on the back with his feet to get the pupil’s attention.

Witness 1 was referred in cross examination to the witness statement of Colleague 1 and that he had stated in it that he had not seen anything inappropriate occur. Witness 1 said she was not even sure when Colleague 1 had been in the room during that day. Witness 1 also did not accept that if the Teacher had been familiar with the pupils, this could explain the rubbing of the pupil’s hand. She stated she could not recall if two of the children were autistic and another had other issues.

In reply to Panel questions, Witness 1 confirmed what area of skin had shown when the pupil’s jumper rode up and why she found it distressing giving evidence. When questioned by the Panel, the Witness stated that it was about 15 cm of the lower stomach area near the hips. The witness said she was distressed for a number of reasons including feeling really strongly about what happened, it being horrible to think back, that she was saying this about someone else and that if it had been her children, she would have been outraged.

Witness 2

Witness 2 took the oath. She referred to her GTC Scotland statement and confirmed that it was her statement, and signed by her. Witness 2 read out her witness statement and confirmed she did not wish to amend anything in it.

Witness 2 explained her academic and career background. She told the Panel that she was employed as Deputy Head Teacher at the school and had been in this role since January 2015.

Witness 2 told the Panel that the Teacher had joined the school in January 2013 and that she had first worked with him in January 2021. She explained that the Teacher worked part-time Monday to Thursday and did not have a permanent class.

Witness 2 told the Panel that in January 2021 learning hubs had been set up at the school due to the pandemic. She said there were different hubs for different year groups and they were for pupils whose parents were key workers, but also for pupils with additional needs whose parents had asked for them to have time in school.

Witness 2 said that on 12 January 2021, the Teacher was working in the Primary 3 and 4 Learning Hub. The hub had around 15 pupils of which 3 or 4 had additional needs support. She said there was a rota system for this, and that the Teacher was often on this rota. Witness 2 said that Witness 1 told her that she was assisting in the class as was Colleague 1 who was an Additional Support Needs Assistant.

Witness 2 told the Panel that just after 2 pm on 12 January 2021, Witness 1 had knocked on her office door and asked to speak to her. Witness 2 said that she had not known Witness 1 before this as Witness 1 had only been at the school for 2 days. She said Witness 1 was very upset and crying and that initially, she thought something had happened to a family member of Witness 1. Witness 2 said that she had asked Witness 1 to write down what she wanted to tell her, and that Witness 1 had done this and given the handwritten note to Witness 2. Witness 2 was referred to Witness 1’s handwritten note in the GTC Scotland bundle and confirmed this was the note that Witness 1 had given her.

Witness 2 told the Panel that Witness 1 had indicated she had become concerned though the course of the day about the Teacher being inappropriately close to pupils and touching pupils in a way that Witness 1 felt was overly familiar. Witness 2 said Witness 1 had given some examples including the Teacher putting his feet under the body of a pupil when the pupils were watching something on the smartboard and ‘sort of tickling him with his foot’. Witness 2 said that Witness 1 had also told her that the Teacher had leaned over a male pupil who was sitting in a chair and put his hand on the chair behind the pupil’s bottom, rubbed another male pupil’s hand and had drawn a male pupil towards him so that the pupil was straddling the Teacher’s leg when the Teacher was sitting. Witness 1 also told Witness 2 that when a male pupil had put his hands up so that his stomach had become exposed that the Teacher’s eyes went to the pupil’s bare stomach and the Teacher asked the pupil to repeat the action.

Witness 2 said that in acting as alleged by Witness 1, the Teacher had not followed the Risk Assessment protocol in place due to the pandemic. She explained to the Panel what the guidance for interaction with pupils was at this time. Witness 2 said that there was no reason for the Teacher to have been so close to pupils and that the alleged touching was neither appropriate nor necessary.

Witness 2 told the Panel that she gave the note written by Witness 1 to the Headteacher of the school and the Headeacher had told her she had taken advice on what to do next. Witness 2 said the Teacher was then suspended. She said that she was then appointed to carry out a fact-finding investigation. Witness 2 explained how she had carried out her investigation and when referred to the investigation report in the GTC Scotland bundle confirmed that this was her report on the investigation. Witness 2 said that when she interviewed the Teacher he had said that one of the pupils in the class was autistic and that the Teacher understood that holding this child’s hands was helpful to him. Witness 2 said she knew the child being referred to and that there was nothing in the child’s action plan to suggest that holding his hands would help calm him down.

Witness 2 told the Panel how health and safety guidance produced by Renfrewshire Council was provided to the staff by email with any changes highlighted on the email and that paper copies were also available around the school.

During cross examination, Witness 2 accepted that the learning hubs had been introduced due to the pandemic and the situation had been unique. She also accepted she was not aware of any prior concerns regarding the Teacher. When it was suggested to Witness 2 that Witness 1 might not have an understanding of the Teacher’s teaching style, she stated this was a fair comment. When it was put to her that the chairs in the classroom were not the size of normal chairs, Witness 2 stated that she could not recall the chair sizes but accepted that there were different chair sizes in the school.

Witness 2 also accepted that the Teacher may have taught some of the pupils involved in the allegations on a number of occasions prior to 12 January 2021. When asked about the Teacher crouching down beside pupils and being close to them, she said this was acceptable in ‘normal times’. Witness 2 confirmed that she had spoken to Colleague 1 and that he had expressed no concerns about what had occurred on 12 January 2021, but explained that Colleague 1 may have been out of the classroom for periods of time during the day. Witness 2 also agreed that there had been talk about a pupil with additional needs being upset and screaming and that she had been aware of this being mentioned. When it was suggested to Witness 2 that social distancing was difficult due to the size of the classroom, she did not accept this and stated that the classroom was a fair sized room with only 15 pupils in it. She did not accept that confusion had existed in the school as to what guidelines were in place at any particular time during the pandemic. She commented that the Teacher liked to be close to pupils in class and that he had a jocular manner in class.

In response to Panel questions, Witness 2 provided further detail about certain pupils in the Learning Hub and their individual needs. She also clarified that she recalled that it was the Teacher who had spoken in his investigative interview about a pupil with additional needs being upset.

Witness 3

Witness 3 took the oath. She referred to her GTC Scotland statement and confirmed that it was her statement, and signed by her. Witness 3 read out her witness statement. She told the Panel that the words ‘had children from other schools’ in paragraph 9 were incorrect and explained what she had meant was that the Hub had children from different stages in the school, not from different schools.

Witness 3 explained her career and academic background. She told the Panel that she was the Headteacher at the school and had been in that role since December 2019. She said she knew the Teacher solely in his role as a part-time teacher at the school.

Witness 3 said that she became aware that something was going on at the school in the late afternoon of 12 January 2021. She explained that she had been approached by Witness 2 who told her that Witness 1 had been upset. Witness 3 explained that she had met Witness 1 when Witness 1 started at the school and possibly a handful of times after that.

Witness 3 told the Panel that shortly after school finished on that day she received Witness 1’s concern. She said that Witness 1 had reported seeing the Teacher rubbing children’s hands, pulling children towards him, putting his hands on their lower backs, rubbing their backs and things like that. She said she did not speak with Witness 1 that day.

Witness 3 said she contacted her Education Manager at Renfrewshire Council who told her to forward Witness 1’s written account to the principal HR adviser. Witness 3 said that following doing this she was contacted by the then Head of Service at Renfrewshire Council and was advised to suspend the Teacher which she did.

Witness 3 said she telephoned the Teacher to do this and that the call was ‘one of the most bizarre’ calls and reactions she could have imagined. Witness 3 explained that the Teacher did not ask any questions why he was being suspended and did not ‘seem phased’. Witness 3 explained that she did not tell him the details of the allegations just that he was being suspended following a child protection allegation.

Witness 3 told the Panel that it was decided that Witness 2 should be the Investigating Officer. She said she thought it was mentioned to her that the concerns could be reported to the Police but was not told if it had been reported. Witness 3 explained to the Panel that at the time of the allegations, the school was very strict about social distancing. She explained that pupils had their own desks and there was tape on the floor where the teachers were to stand and to give a visual reminder to pupils to remain at a distance from the Teacher. She said she didn’t think the Teacher had followed the relevant risk assessment on the day. She confirmed that teachers were updated of relevant guidance by email or it was discussed at staff meetings. She confirmed that at the time the guidance to teachers was to socially distance from pupils if possible.

Witness 3 said that to her knowledge no pupils were interviewed as part of the investigation and there were no complaints about the Teacher’s behaviour directly from pupils or parents. She also confirmed that there were a couple of pupils in the Hub with additional needs and one on the Child Protection Register. She said she thought the Teacher came across as socially awkward.

During cross-examination, Witness 3 agreed that the school was a nurturing school. She explained that children were valued and listened to. She confirmed that the children in the Hub being taught by the Teacher were a mix of P3 and P4 pupils. She accepted the pandemic was a stressful time and that the Teacher’s position was possibly stressful and teachers might be anxious. Witness 3 said that the school sent out weekly wellness surveys and followed up if necessary.

Witness 3 accepted that there had been different guidance provided during the pandemic and there was a lot of information but stated that it was every teacher’s responsibility to read and keep up with guidance and implement it. She accepted that during this period she recalled the Teacher wearing a mask and gloves around the school.

When it was suggested to her that it was difficult to keep distance from pupils she stated that staff were encouraged not to get close to pupils. She said if staff got close to pupils they would be asked why it had happened. She disagreed that it was not always possible for teachers to distance themselves from pupils and stated that it should only have occurred in emergency situations such as a child being injured or toileting requirements. She said that if additional support needs children became upset they should be taken to a bigger space and comforted if needed. She said that the Hub had a high teacher/pupil ratio and that this helped children with additional support needs. She said she was not aware of the size of the chairs in the Hub but explained that there were various sizes of chairs in the school during this time.

Witness 3 said she did not know if Colleague 1 had been in and out of the Hub that day and explained that the Hub was around 10 steps from the two deputy heads’ offices who were available to support if it was needed. Witness 3 said that the children had adapted to the required changes well and coped well. When referred to the Teacher’s written response to the allegation dated 24 October 2022 Witness 3 said she was not aware that the day prior to 12 January 2021 had been a stressful one in the Hub. She also stated she was not aware if the Teacher was the first in the school to contract COVID-19. She explained that if a child became unwell at school they were isolated in a specific room until the parents collected them.

She confirmed that she was not aware of any other incidents involving the Teacher. She said there would not always be two teachers and a classroom assistant in the Hub.

She accepted that some of the pupils in the Hub may have been familiar to the Teacher, but that his suggestion that he took hands and rubbed them to create a calm environment was not a strategy that was suggested or used and that if it was used the Teacher was putting himself in a difficult position by using this strategy. Witness 3 also commented on her personal views of the Teacher’s teaching style.

In reply to questions from the Panel, Witness 3 confirmed that the Teacher had not made any request for additional support and would have received the well-being survey.

Application to amend

At the close of evidence, the Presenting Officer applied to amend Allegation 1(f)(ii) to insert the words ‘three or’ between the words ‘further four’. She referred the Panel to Rule 2.8.4. and submitted the proposed amendment was minor and did not materially change the Allegation or give rise to injustice.

The Teacher’s representative objected on the basis that the Allegation was denied. She did not identify any specific prejudice or unfairness that would arise if the Allegation was amended.

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

The Panel determined that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the Allegation nor give rise to prejudice or unfairness to the Teacher. The Panel therefore granted the application to amend allegation 1(f)(ii).

Submissions on finding of fact

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel should find the Allegations admitted by the Teacher as proven by admission.

She referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland Fact-Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice statement in respect of the burden of proof and standard of proof.

The Presenting Officer submitted that all GTC Scotland’s witnesses had been credible and reliable. She submitted that the witnesses had been clear when they could not remember something and what they could and could not recall.

The Presenting Officer submitted that whilst some of the evidence might be hearsay it was also credible and reliable. She submitted that none of the Allegations relied solely on hearsay evidence and all relied on the direct evidence of Witness 1 and the hearsay evidence of other witnesses and documentary evidence.

The Presenting Officer addressed each of the denied Allegations in turn.

In respect of Allegation 1(e)(ii), the Presenting Officer submitted that Witness 1 clearly gave evidence that she had seen a pupil straddling the Teacher’s leg. The Presenting Officer submitted the oral evidence of Witness 1 was consistent with her written statement provided to Witnesses 2 and 3, given during Renfrewshire Council’s Fact-Finding Report, her written statement and her GTC Scotland witness statement. The Presenting Officer submitted that Witness 1 clearly said she had seen the Teacher sitting on one of the children’s chairs and that he pulled the pupil close to him until the was pupil straddling the Teacher’s leg. She said the Teacher was rubbing the pupil’s hands. She said that Witness 1 had related how the pupil had softly tried to pull away and that the Teacher had held onto his hands tighter and pulled the pupil closer.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel should apply caution to the evidence of the Teacher and Colleague 1 as the Panel had no benefit of hearing from the two at the hearing.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel should conclude that there was sufficiency of evidence to find this Allegation proven.

In respect of Allegation 1(f)(ii), the Presenting Officer again submitted that Witness 1 clearly gave evidence that she had seen a pupil describing something that had occurred during the lunchbreak and as he was doing this his jumper rode up and an area of skin was exposed. The Presenting Officer submitted that Witness 1 had also clearly stated that the Teacher had looked at the pupil’s exposed skin and then asked him to repeat the action three or four times and on each occasion had looked at the bare section of the pupil’s skin. The Presenting Officer submitted the oral evidence of Witness 1 was consistent with her written statement provided to Witnesses 2 and 3, given during Renfrewshire Council’s Fact-Finding Report, her written statement and her GTC Scotland witness statement. The Presenting Officer accepted that Witness 1 was unsure of the details of the conversation that had taken place.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel could conclude that there was sufficiency of evidence to find this Allegation proven.

In respect of Allegation 1(g), the Presenting Officer again submitted that Witness 1 had clearly stated that she had seen the Teacher put his feet under a pupil’s stomach near the hip area. Witness 1 stated that she was sitting a couple of rows behind the Teacher and pupil and had a clear sight of what had happened. The Presenting Officer accepted that the Teacher had stated in his written response that he had tapped a pupil with his feet to get the pupil’s attention and that Colleague 1 had stated he had not seen anything occur, but submitted that the Panel should rely on the eye witness evidence of Witness 1.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel could conclude that there was a sufficiency of evidence to find this Allegation proven.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that the burden of proof on the denied allegations was on the Presenting Officer, and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities and this did not vary dependent on the Allegations before the Panel. She also submitted that the Panel should consider all the evidence before it, but not speculate or guess.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that the only eye witness to the Teacher’s alleged conduct was Witness 1 and that the Teacher disputed her recollection of events in respect of the remaining Allegations and had provided an alternative version of what had occurred.

In respect of allegation 1(e)(ii), the Teacher’s representative submitted that the use of the term ‘straddling’ in Allegation 1(f) was open to interpretation. The Teacher’s representative also submitted that the Teacher could not provide an explanation of why Witness 1 had given the version of events that she had. She said that the Panel should also note that the Teacher had admitted a number of other limbs of the Allegation, that he had maintained his position in relation to the Allegations and not ‘shied away’ from them. The Teacher’s representative submitted that in the circumstances the Teacher’s version should be preferred. She referred the Panel to the hearsay witness statement of Colleague 1 in which he stated that he did not see anything occur and had no concerns.

In respect of Allegation 1(f)(ii), the Teacher’s representative again submitted that the Panel should prefer the evidence of the Teacher. She submitted that the Teacher was trying to make light of a situation by humour and there was no deliberate attempt on the Teacher’s part to get the pupil to repeat the actions. The Teacher’s representative questioned Witness 1’s evidence in relation to her being able to see what happened.

In respect of Allegation 1(g), the Teacher’s representative submitted that Witness 1 was at the back of the classroom and her view may not have been clear. She noted that Colleague 1 had apparently not seen anything happen. She submitted that the Teacher had remained consistent with his position and that the Panel should prefer his account of events.

Findings of fact

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred the Panel to the cases of Suddock v NMC [2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin), Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Khan v GMC [2021]EWHC 374 (Admin) and Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin). He also referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement.

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact on the Allegations in respect of the remaining Allegations before it.

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 the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

The Panel considered that Witness 1’s oral evidence was consistent with her statements to Renfrewshire Council and her GTC Scotland statement. The Panel considered that Witness 1 spoke with considerable conviction and was credible.

The Panel considered that there had been minor inconsistencies in the evidence of Witness 2 but this did not adversely affect her overall credibility and reliability. The Panel took into account that Witness 2 had not been an eye witness to any of the alleged conduct, but also took into account she could speak directly to the social distance and other guidelines in place at the time and how teachers were made aware of them.

The Panel considered that Witness 3 was professional in her approach to her evidence. It considered that she was credible and reliable in respect of the background in the school at the relevant time and the guidance in place.

The Panel took into account that Colleague 1 had not attended to give evidence and therefore attached appropriate weight to his evidence. The Panel concluded there was nothing before it to show when Colleague 1 had been in the classroom on 12 January 2021. The Panel considered that in these circumstances his evidence was of little assistance to it in its decision making process.

The Panel also took into account the Teacher’s statement to Renfrewshire Council and his response to the GTC Scotland’s Interim Report. The Panel considered that there were internal inconsistencies in the Teacher’s statement – for example, he initially said that the seats in the Hub were ‘big’ yet later stated that they were small. The Panel noted that the Teacher had admitted some of the Allegations at the outset of the hearing and described what had occurred from his perspective.

Allegation 1(e)(ii)

In reaching its conclusions the Panel took into account the evidence of Witness 1, the Teacher, Witnesses 2 and 3, and all relevant documentation. It also took into account the submissions of the Presenting Officer and the Teacher’s representative.

The Panel also took into account that the only witnesses who spoke directly to the alleged conduct were Witness 1 and the Teacher.

The Panel also took into account the comments of the Court in the case of Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) where it stated at paragraph 19:

‘Thirdly, corroborating documentary evidence is not always required or indeed available. There may not be much or any such documentary evidence. In a case where the evidence consists of conflicting oral accounts, the court may properly place substantial reliance upon the oral evidence of the complainant (in preference to that of the defendant/appellant). There is no rule that corroboration of a patient complainant’s evidence is required.’

The Panel noted that in her statement to Renfrewshire Council on 20 January 2021, Witness 1 stated

‘At one point he was sitting on a children’s chair and he pulled the boy in so close to him that his legs were straddling DW’s and he was rubbing his hands. None of the children looked uncomfortable. The boy went to move away, and Mr White held onto his hands tighter and continued to rub them.’

The Panel considered that this was consistent with the contents of her written statement provided to Witness 2 on 12 January 2021 and also consistent with her GTC Scotland statement, and her oral evidence. She did not vary this position during cross examination. The Panel considered that Witness 1 was clear that she was only a few metres away from the Teacher and the pupil and was specific that she saw the pupil straddling the Teacher’s leg.

The Panel considered that the Teacher’s evidence in relation to this Allegation was internally inconsistent. It took into account that he initially stated in his statement to Renfrewshire Council that ‘he had no recollection’ of a pupil straddling his leg. In his response to the GTC Scotland Interim Report, the Teacher stated that ‘he had trouble recollecting the exact details of this allegation’, andrecalled pulling the chair he was sitting on closer to the pupil, but denied pulling the child. The Panel also noted that the Teacher had admitted Allegation 1(e)(i) and therefore accepted that he had held the pupil’s hand and rubbed it whilst sitting in a chair. In these circumstances, the Panel considered that it was inherently improbable that he did not act as set out in Allegation 1(e )(ii).

The Panel determined that this was a case where the evidence consisted of conflicting oral accounts and following the guidance in Byrne that it should properly place substantial reliance upon the oral evidence of Witness 1 in preference to that of the Teacher.

The Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that when Pupil B moved away, the Teacher pulled Pupil B closer until they were straddling the Teacher’s leg.

The Panel therefore found Allegation 1(e)(ii) proven.

Allegation 1(f)(i)

The Panel also took into account that the only witnesses who spoke directly to the alleged conduct were Witness 1 and the Teacher.

The Panel also took into account the comments of the Court in the case of Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) where it stated at paragraph 19;

The Panel noted that in her statement to Renfrewshire Council on 20 January 2021, Witness 1 stated

‘One of the boys came into the class from Lunch and he was describing how another boy kept putting his hood up over his head, he was doing an example of what happened and his jumper came up and you could see an area of his skin. I was so busy look at [the Teacher], he glanced at the area of skin on display and asked him to repeat it 4 times, each time I observed [the Teacher] looking at the area of skin on display.’

In her GTC Scotland statement, Witness 1 stated:

‘After lunchtime the same Pupil …was explaining something that had happened in the playground along the lines that he was reaching up and he displayed the action of reaching up to [the Teacher.] When he did this, the pupil’s jumper rose up and exposed a small section of his stomach and David asked him to repeat this action a further three times…I watched David’s eyes go from eye level to looking down where the skin was showing.’

The Panel considered that this was consistent with the contents of her written statement provided to Witness 2 on 12 January 2021 and also consistent with her oral evidence. Witness 1 explained in her oral evidence where she was placed in the Hub when these actions occurred and how she was able to see both the pupil’s actions and where the Teacher was looking. Witness 1 did not vary her position during cross examination.

The Panel noted that in his statement to Renfrewshire Council the Teacher stated he had ‘no recollection of this, the child came in after lunch very upset about football there was an incident with hoods, if the tummy was showing I would have made a joke about it like saying cover up there are ladies present.’

In his response to the GTC Scotland Interim Report dated 24 October 2022, the Teacher then stated;

‘The accusation was taken out of context and I would suggest that my accuser had already made up her mind about me…one method that I have used to defuse situations in the classroom is to play the pantomime dame…I felt at the time that the child’s comment was not something I could fix. In hindsight my approach was too adult for the circumstances and I should have dismissed it in a few words.

The Panel determined that these amounted to internal inconsistencies in the Teacher’s evidence.

The Panel determined that this was case where the evidence consisted of conflicting oral accounts and following the guidance in Byrne that it should properly place substantial reliance upon the oral evidence of Witness 1 in preference to that of the Teacher.

The Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that whilst Pupil A was demonstrating how another pupil had pulled up his hood the Teacher looked at Pupil A’s exposed stomach.

The Panel found Allegation 1(f)(i) proven.

Allegation 1(f)(ii)

The Panel also took into account that the only witnesses who spoke directly to the alleged conduct were Witness 1 and the Teacher.

The Panel also took into account the comments of the Court in the case of Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) where it stated at paragraph 19;

In reaching its conclusion in relation to this Allegation, the Panel considered that the evidence before it was the same as outlined above in Allegation 1(f)(i).

For the circumstances set out above, the Panel found Witness 1’s evidence in relation to this allegation consistent and that the Teacher’s evidence was internally inconsistent.

The Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the Teacher asked Pupil A to repeat the action set out in Allegation 1(f)(i) a further three or four times.

The Panel found Allegation 1(f)(ii) proven.

Allegation 1(g)

In reaching its conclusions the Panel took into account the evidence of Witness 1, the Teacher, Witnesses 2 and 3, and all relevant documentation, including a hearsay statement of Colleague 1. It also took into account the submissions of the Presenting Officer and the Teacher’s representative.

The Panel also took into account that the only witnesses who spoke directly to the alleged conduct were Witness 1 and the Teacher.

The Panel also took into account the comments of the Court in the case of Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) where it stated at paragraph 19:

The Panel noted that in her statement to Renfrewshire Council on 20 January 2021, Witness 1 stated:

‘After the daily mile, the children were watching a film on the Smartboard. [The Teacher] watched the children, there was a group of boys lying on the floor, [the Teacher} sat down beside them on a child’s seat and slid his feet under the boy lying on the floor so he had his feet under the boys stomach, near hip area. Mr McLean was there at that time.’

In her GTC Scotland statement, Witness 1 stated:

‘4 male pupils …were grouped together and were lying on the floor. [The Teacher] got a chair and sat close to the group of boys and watched them as they watched the smartboard. [The Teacher] stretched out his legs and slid the front half of his feet underneath one of the boys around the hip area and this continued for a prolonged period of time.’

The Panel considered that this was consistent with Witness 1’s oral evidence. She did not vary this position during cross examination.

The Panel took into account that in his statement to Renfrewshire Council the Teacher stated:

‘This was at the end of the day. I didn’t expect them all to lie on the floor, I had stretched my legs. My recollection was that it was someone’s foot that I touched.’

In his response to the GTC Scotland Interim Report dated 24 October 2022, the Teacher then stated:

‘I recall tapping pupil on the back of his leg with my foot to get his attention. I called out his name 3 times and got no response. It was near the end of the day and I did not want to raise my voice. It was an impromptu action. I accept that this was a somewhat obscure reaction.’

The Panel considered that there was internal inconsistency in the Teacher’s evidence in respect of this Allegation.

The Panel also took into account the hearsay evidence of Colleague 1. In his statement to Renfrewshire Council when asked about this Allegation and if he saw the Teacher making any contact with children with his feet he stated:

‘No, I was at the back assisting other children.’

In his GTC Scotland statement, Colleague 1 stated that ‘he didn’t see anything appropriate. I could see everything in front of me including [the Teacher].

The Panel took into account that Colleague 1 had not attended to give oral evidence and that his evidence had therefore not been tested. The Panel noted that it was accepted that Colleague 1 would not have been in the Hub during the whole day on 12 January 2021 and would have been in and out of the classroom. In these circumstances, the Panel attached little weight on his evidence and concluded it did not assist it in relation to this Allegation.

For the circumstances set out above the Panel found Witness 1’s evidence in relation to this allegation consistent and that the Teacher’s evidence was internally inconsistent.

The Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the Teacher placed his toes under the stomach of Pupil D near his hips.

The Panel found Allegation 1(g) is found proven.

Late papers

Following the Panel providing its decision on Findings of Facts, the Teacher’s representative made an application to have late papers admitted. She submitted that the documents related to courses undertaken by the Teacher and were certificates of completion of these courses. The Teacher’s representative submitted that they were relevant to consideration of the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

The Presenting Officer advised GTC Scotland did not object to the admission of the late papers.

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to Rules 1.7.17 and 1.7.22 and the GTC Scotland Fact-Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement.

The Panel considered that the late papers were relevant and that it was fair in the circumstances to admit them. The Panel granted the application.

Findings on fitness to teach

As the Teacher’s representative advised the Teacher admitted Allegations 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)(i), those particulars of the allegation were therefore found proven in terms of Rule 1.7.21. Further to this, the Panel found Allegations 1(e)(ii), 1(f)(i), 1(f(ii) and 1(g) proven. Given that the Panel found that all of the allegations were proven, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. No further evidence was led at this stage.

Submissions

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011 (‘the Order’) and to the GCT Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement.

In respect of misconduct, the Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the case of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1AC 311 and submitted that the decision on the Teacher’s fitness to teach was a matter for the professional judgement of the Panel.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Allegations found proven were breaches of Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC.

In relation to Part 1.2, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher’s repeated physical contact with pupils was inappropriate and that he had made no attempt to follow the guidelines in place in relation to social distancing. She further submitted that there were no action plans in place to justify the Teacher’s actions as suggested by him. The Presenting Officer submitted that it was not appropriate at any time for a teacher to have a pupil straddling his leg at the same time as holding and rubbing his hand.

In relation to Part 1.3, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher’s behaviour called into question his fitness to teach. She again referred to his interactions with pupils and that this occurred during the pandemic. She submitted the Teacher had shown flagrant disregard for the safety of others.

In relation to Part 1.4, the Presenting Officer submitted the Teacher’s repeated physical contact with pupils were examples of not upholding standards of professional conduct.

In relation to Part 1.6, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher had failed to be a role model as a result of his physical contact with pupils and had failed to follow appropriate guidelines for social distancing during the pandemic.

The Presenting Officer further submitted that the Allegations found proven were serious. She accepted that the Teacher had engaged with the GTC Scotland investigation, but pointed out that he had not attended the hearing. The Presenting Officer also accepted that there was no history of prior regulatory concerns.

The Presenting Officer submitted that whilst the conduct found proven had taken place on one date, it was repeated throughout that day. She further submitted that whilst the Teacher had provided a written statement and training certificate, the Panel should consider whether the behaviour has been remedied.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher had not fully remediated the identified failings, there was a likelihood of re-occurrence and that the Teacher’s conduct had fallen significantly short of the standards to be expected and that he was therefore unfit to teach.

The Teacher’s representative also referred to the Order and the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement.

She submitted that the Teacher had admitted some of the Allegations and referred the Panel to the explanation he had provided for his action. The Teacher’s representative said the Panel should take into consideration that teaching during the pandemic had been stressful for teachers and this had been accepted by the witnesses.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that there had been no breach of Part 1.3 of COPAC as there had been no criminal procedure arising from the Teacher’s conduct. She further submitted that the Teacher would attempt to behave better in the future.

In relation to Part 1.4, the Teacher’s representative submitted that the conduct had taken place in the classroom, others had been present and that the Teacher had believed he was managing what was occurring correctly. She submitted that the public could have confidence in the Teacher.

In relation to part 1.6, the Teacher’s representative submitted that the Teacher was aware that he was required to act as a role model.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that the Teacher had not breached any parts of COPAC and the Allegations found proven did not amount to misconduct.

She further submitted that if the Panel did consider that the Allegations found proven amounted to misconduct, the Teacher’s Fitness to Teach was not impaired. She submitted that the conduct occurred on one day and did not amount to a pattern of behaviour. The Teacher’s representative further submitted that the Teacher had fully reflected on his actions. She submitted that the Teacher had engaged in the regulatory process and provided written submissions.

The Teacher’s representative stated that the Teacher’s position in relation to the Allegations that had not been admitted was that he could not admit something that did not happen.

She submitted that the Teacher had taken responsibility for his actions, ‘put his hands up’ and accepted that he had made the wrong choices on the day. She said the risk of repetition was low.

The Teacher’s representative referred the Panel to the references from the Teacher’s current employers and noted that he was willing to undertake a course equivalent to a return to teaching course if the Panel felt this was required.

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

The Panel first considered whether the Allegations found proven amounted to misconduct.

The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct admitted and found proven breached Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC.

The Panel further concluded that the Teacher’s conduct found proven involved repeated unnecessary physical conduct with pupils on a number of occasions. The Panel concluded that there were no care plans in existence in relation to the relevant pupils that identified that holding the hands of the pupils and rubbing them was appropriate or a recognised appropriate interaction with a pupil.

The Panel determined that the Teacher had repeatedly encroached on the pupils’ space without permission. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s conduct fell sufficiently below the standards to be expected of a Teacher to amount to misconduct.

Having found that the Allegations found proven amounted to misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether the shortfalls it had identified were remediable, had been remedied and whether there was a likelihood of reoccurrence.

The Panel determined that the Allegations found proven were serious, involving unnecessary physical contact with pupils on a number of occasions. The Panel considered that the Teacher had repeatedly failed to respect pupils’ personal space. The Panel considered that the conduct found proven was all of a similar nature and amounted to a course of conduct, albeit during one day. The Panel took into account that the Teacher had admitted some of the Allegations, but further took into account that he continued to deny serious allegations and sought to explain and contextualise his behaviour. However, the Teacher’s conduct was not at the most serious end of the scale of misconduct and was remediable. Considering matters holistically the Panel determined that the misconduct was not fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher.

The Panel determined that the Teacher had currently only shown limited insight and remorse, but that it was possible that such insight was developing. It took into account that the Teacher had no prior history of regulatory concerns and the training that the Teacher had undertaken. The Panel did not consider there were any external factors contributing causatively to the Teacher’s behaviour. In particular, the Panel noted the existence of the school well-being survey and that the Teacher had not indicated he had any stressors or reached out for assistance from the school or colleagues. However, the Panel was not satisfied that the Teacher had demonstrated that he had fully understood and taken ownership of the full nature and extent of his misconduct and its potential consequences for pupils, colleagues and the reputation of the profession. The Teacher had not provided evidence of his reflection on the courses he had attended and in what ways these had help him understand and change his behaviour.

Considering matters holistically the Panel determined that the Teacher has not remedied his behaviour and that therefore there remains a real risk of repetition of similar conduct. The Panel determined there remained concerns for the protection of the public.

The Panel further determined that a fully informed member of the public would be shocked by the misconduct identified and that his misconduct could undermine the public’s confidence in the profession and the GTC Scotland as its regulator.

The Panel considered all the information before it holistically and concluded 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

Having concluded that the Teacher’s fitness to teach was currently impaired, the Panel went onto consider what disposal would be appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. The Panel invited further evidence and submissions from the Parties.

Submissions

The Presenting Officer submitted that the issue of disposal was a matter for the Panel exercising its own professional judgment.

The Presenting Officer submitted that any disposal should not be punitive but protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession and the GTC Scotland as its regulator.

She submitted that the Panel should consider the seriousness of the Allegations found proven and that it involved repeated physical contact with pupils.

She accepted that the Teacher had admitted some of the Allegations and engaged with the process. She also accepted that he had provided evidence of some training.

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement and took the Panel through the disposals open to it in ascending order. She submitted that the Panel required to identify a disposal that satisfied public interest and maintained confidence in the profession and the GTC Scotland as its regulator.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that the Panel is also required to consider the interests of the Teacher and any disposal must be proportionate. She submitted that all the Allegations occurred only on one date, that the Teacher had admitted some of the Allegations, acknowledged his failings and that the conduct was remediable. She referred the Panel to the training undertaken by the Teacher.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that the Teacher’s actions had not been deliberate or intended and were ‘not sinister’. She further submitted that he had no prior history of regulatory concerns. She identified that the Allegation occurred during the Covid pandemic with consequent stress for teachers.

The Teacher’s representative referred the Panel to the Teacher’s evidence regarding his current employment and the reference from his employer supplied to the Panel.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that the Teacher was willing to undertake any further training identified by the Panel and referred to the training already undertaken by him.

She admitted that the Teacher was deeply embarrassed by what had occurred.

The Teacher’s representative referred to the disposals available to the Panel and addressed the Panel on the possible disposals in ascending order.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that a reprimand would be appropriate as the concerns identified were isolated and there had been no repetition.

She further submitted that if the Panel concluded that a reprimand was not appropriate, that a Conditional Registration Order or Conditional Registration Order and a reprimand would suffice. She submitted that the Teacher was willing to undertake any further training identified and submitted that any conditions should not require supervision as this was not required.

The Teacher’s representative submitted that the removal of registration was inappropriate. She argued that the misconduct identified amounted to poor errors of judgement. She submitted that if removed the Teacher could not work at all and that this was disproportionate. She submitted that the Teacher was ‘a work in progress’, that there was no pattern of behaviour and steps taken to address the concerns identified.

The Teacher’s representative finally submitted that if the Panel did conclude that removal was proportionate and appropriate it should be for a lesser period of time.

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement and advised the Panel should consider the disposals in ascending order and acting proportionately.

The Panel took into account the submissions of the parties, all relevant evidence before it and it prior decisions. It referred itself to the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement addressed the disposals open to it in ascending order and was aware that it had to act proportionately and take into account the public interest and the interests of the Teacher.

The Panel took into account its decisions set out above into the seriousness of the conduct identified, insight and whether the conduct had been remediated and the likelihood of reoccurrence.

The Panel considered that the Teacher’s conduct was an abuse of the trust put in him by pupils, pupils’ families and his colleagues. The Panel considered that the Teacher had repeatedly failed to respect pupils’ personal space. The Panel considered that the conduct identified involved unnecessary contact with children without the child’s permission and gave rise to the possibility of psychological harm to pupils. The Panel has already determined that the matters were a pattern of behaviour, but were remediable however, there remained a likelihood of reoccurrence. The Panel noted that there was no history of regulatory concerns and took into account the reference from the Teacher’s current employers. However, the Panel also took into account there was no reference before it that spoke to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Panel took into account that the conduct occurred during the Covid pandemic which potentially raised stressors for the Teacher, but also noted that despite the existence of the well-being survey the Teacher had not indicated he was under stress or reached out for support or assistance. The Panel did not consider that the circumstances that existed were causative of the conduct or a mitigating factor. The Panel took into account that the Teacher had made partial admissions at the outset of the hearing. The Panel has determined that the Teacher has shown some limited insight and remorse, but had not fully addressed the regulatory concerns it has identified.

The Panel considered each disposal open to it in ascending order and that it was required to act proportionately. The Panel first considered whether a reprimand would be appropriate.

The Panel had concluded that there had been an abuse of trust; there was potential for harm; the Teacher had not fully admitted the Allegations and had not demonstrated full reflection, insight, remorse and fully addressed the regulatory concerns identified. The Panel had also concluded that the matter was not an isolated incident. The had been no evidence of repetition of similar conduct since but the Panel took into account that the Teacher was not employed within the teaching profession. The Panel was aware that the Teacher had no history of prior regulatory concerns. It took into account the reference provided but noted that it was not from a member of the teaching profession.

The Panel considered that in all these circumstances a reprimand was not sufficient to address the regulatory concerns identified or protect the public or maintain public confidence in the profession and the GTC Scotland as a regulator. It concluded that a reprimand was not appropriate or proportionate.

The Panel then went on to consider a Conditional Registration Order. The Panel applied its conclusions set out above and its prior decisions. The Panel has determined that the conduct identified involved unnecessary physical contact with children without the child’s permission and gave rise to the possibility of psychological harm to pupils, and that the Teacher has demonstrated only limited insight.

The Panel concluded that the concerns identified raise issues of ‘behaviour management’. It concluded that conditions could not be formulated that would fully and appropriately address the regulatory concerns identified or effectively, appropriately and practically control them. Further, the Panel concluded that a Conditional Registration Order would not address the seriousness of the concerns identified, indicate to the profession and the public the seriousness of the matters and maintain public confidence in the profession and the GTC Scotland as a regulator.

The Panel therefore determined that a Conditional Registration Order was not the appropriate or proportionate disposal.

For the same reasons as set out above the Panel determined that a Conditional Registration Order and reprimand was also not the appropriate or proportionate disposal.

The Panel went on to consider the removal of registration. For the reasons fully set out above the Panel has determined that the Teacher’s conduct was not incompatible with being a registered Teacher. However, again for the reasons fully set out above, the Panel determined that a Conditional Registration Order and reprimand was also not the appropriate or proportionate disposal. Also, for the reasons fully set out above, the Panel determined that the public interest requires the removal of registration.

Once the Teacher’s name has been removed from the Register, his name remains so removed unless and until an application for re-registration is made by him and a Fitness to Teach Panel considers that the Teacher is fit to teach at that time and directs that the application be granted. Rule 2.10.6 outlines that a Panel may direct that the Teacher be prohibited from making such an application until the expiry of such a period, not exceeding 2 years, as it may determine.

In this case, the Panel directed that the Teacher should be prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of 18 months from the date of its decision. The Panel determined that a period of 18 months would be sufficient to allow the Teacher to further reflect on his conduct and allow him the opportunity to develop insight and demonstrate remediation. The Panel was also satisfied this was sufficient to satisfy the public interest.

For clarity, this is not a period of removal, meaning that the Teacher will not be automatically reinstated to the Register at the end of this period. It sets out how long the Teacher has to wait until an application for re-registration can be made, which may or may not be granted.

Right of appeal

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