Full Hearing – Conduct – Iain Weir

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 GTCS 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

At the outset of the hearing, the parties advised the Panel that they had agreed certain redactions to the papers before the Panel. The Panel was taken to these redactions, and it was noted that the Panel would have no regard to any of the information now redacted.

The Teacher’s representative then indicated that he was aware that it was the practice in GTC Scotland hearings for witnesses to read aloud their witness statements, but that the Teacher was content for the purposes of this hearing for all witness statements to be taken as read. The Presenting Officer stated that irrespective of this Witness A would read her witness statement aloud.

The Panel agreed this was appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case. In terms of Rule 1.7.25, the Panel instructed the Servicing Officer to have copies of the statements in question ready for inspection for any members of the public in attendance.

The Presenting Officer also advised the Panel that he no longer sought to call Person 1, Person 6 and Teacher B to give oral evidence at the hearing.

The Teacher’s representative raised no issue with regard to this matter and submitted that in the absence of the witnesses, their statements would be treated as hearsay, and the Panel would need to consider what weight should be attached to them.

Allegations

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

On dates unknown between August 1994 and June 1995, whilst employed by Inverclyde Council as a teacher at [redacted], and in the course of his employment, the Teacher did:

(a) enter into a relationship with Pupil A, then aged 15-16 years of age and did:

(i) repeatedly spend time alone with her in his classroom;

(ii) kiss her in the school gymnasium;

(iii) repeatedly kiss her on the mouth, touch her breasts and grab hold of her bottom in his classroom;

(iv) repeatedly engage in conversations with her of a sexual nature;

(v) repeatedly engage in the exchanging of notes with her during school time;

(vi) repeatedly telephone her at home when he knew her parents were not present;

(vii) repeatedly give her lifts in his car; and

(viii) repeatedly meet her outside of school.

(b) On or around February 1995, drive Pupil A, then aged 15 years of age, in his car to Cornalees, Greenock where he did kiss her on the mouth and breasts and insert his fingers into her vagina.

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

Teacher’s Admissions

The Teacher denied all the allegations.

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

• Follow-up email regarding the updated Full Hearing Notice to the Rep, with delivery receipts
• Notification of Full Hearing updated, dated 5 December 2023, with delivery receipts
• Notification of Full Hearing, dated 7 September 2023, with delivery receipts
• Emails with the parties regarding the updated case form
• Procedural Hearing/Meeting decisions:
• Procedural Decision dated 4 January 2023
• Procedural Decision dated 21 October 2022
  
  Additional procedural papers:
• Note of Objection sent to the Servicing Officer via email dated 10 January 2024
• Email response from the Servicing Officer dismissing the Note of Objection dated 12 January 2024

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

• Updated Presenting Officer’s Case Form
• Original Presenting Officer’s Case Form
• Police Statement of Pupil A dated 18 January 2017
• Police Statement of Pupil A dated 19 January 2017
• Police Statement of Pupil A dated 26 January 2017
• Police Statement of Pupil A dated 30 June 2017
• Police Statement of Person 1 dated 23 January 2017
• Police Statement of Witness 3 dated 24 January 2017
• Police Statement of Witness 4 dated 22nd January 2017
• Police Statement of Witness 6 dated 27 January 2017
• Police Statement of Witness 5 dated 26 January 2017
• Police Statement of Person 2 dated 21 January 201
• Police Statement of Person 3 dated 21 January 2017
• Police Statement of Witness 2 dated 21 January 2017
• Police Statement of Witness 7 dated 28 January 2017
• Police Statement of Witness 7 dated 6 July 2017
• Police Statement of Person 4 dated 27 January 2017
• Police Statement of Teacher B dated 26January 2017
• Police Statement of Person 5 dated 26 January 2017
• Police Statement of Person 6 dated 27 January 2017
• Police Statement of DC1
• Police Statement of DS 1
• Police Statement of PC 1
• Police Statement of PC 2
• Police Statement of PC 3
• Police Statement of DC 2
• Police Statement of DC 3
• Police Statement of DS 2
• Police Statement of PC 4
• Police Statement of DC 4
• Police Statement of PC 5
• Police Statement of DC 5
• Police Statement of PC 6
• Police Statement of DC 6
• Police Statement of PC 7
• Police Statement of DC 7
• Police Statement of DC 8
• Police Statement of DC 9
• GTCS Statement of Pupil A (dated 31st March 2021
• GTCS Statement of Person 1dated 17th April 2021
• GTCS Statement of Person 2 dated 3 May 2021
• GTCS Statement of Witness 2 dated 5 May 2021
• GTCS Statement of Person 3 dated 3 May 2021
• GTCS Statement of Person 6 dated 26 March 2021
• GTCS Statement of Witness 5 dated 31 March 2021
• GTCS Statement of Teacher B dated 10 May 2021
• GTCS Statement of Witness 6 dated 18 June 2021
• GTCS Statement of Witness 3, undated
• Letter from, Rector of St Columba’s School, dated 2 February 2017
• Notice of Investigating Panel Referral Response Form, dated 16 February 2017
• Teacher’s Response to Interim Report, dated 9 September 2021
• Notice of Referral to Investigating Panel, dated 13 February 2017
• Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 15 September 2021.

Teacher’s hearing papers

• Teacher Case Form dated 28 February 2022.

Summary of Evidence

Oral Evidence

Witness 1 – Pupil A

Pupil A took the affirmation and read out her written GTC Scotland and Police witness statements and was asked further questions.

In her Police statement, Witness 1 explained that she had commenced at [redacted], (the ‘School’), in 1991. She said that the Teacher taught Physics at the school, and she was aware that there were two teachers of the same surname in the school at that time. She said she recalled that the Teacher was ‘quite arrogant and well dressed’ and that when she started her third year at the School, she thought he was quite attractive. Pupil A described the layout of the school to the Panel and where the Teacher’s classroom was and the layout of the classroom.

Pupil A described how the Teacher looked at that time. She said she knew he was married as he wore a wedding ring and where he lived. She gave the Panel the Teacher’s wife’s name and family details and that he drove a black Audi car and gave its registration. She said he sometimes drove his wife’s car. She said the Teacher was ‘stand-offish’ with other teachers.

Pupil A told the Panel that she developed feelings for the Teacher during her third year at the School but nothing happened.

Pupil A told the Panel that when she went into fourth year the Teacher was still her teacher and that he had an ‘open door policy’ where he would encourage pupils if they needed extra help to go and see him.

Pupil A said that her friend Witness 7 went to see the Teacher to get help and that Pupil A went with her as it was a good excuse to see him as she had realised, she had feelings for him. Pupil A said that Witness 7 eventually stopped going but she continued. She explained that she received additional tuition from the Teacher and that other teachers and her parents were aware of this.

Pupil A explained that she was [redacted] and that she had given the Teacher a book about the faith. She said things developed from there and her conversations with the Teacher became more personal and they started writing each other letters and notes. She said these were not graphic. Pupil A said that she thought it was her who had instigated the notes and letters, but the Teacher never said they shouldn’t be doing it. Pupil A explained she kept the letters in a box in her wardrobe for a long time but destroyed them when she got married.

Pupil A said that before Christmas the Teacher gave her a lift home, but she could not recall the exact date. She said he would often hang around after classes had finished and she took the opportunity to go and see the Teacher. She said that before the Christmas holidays the Teacher had told her he could not go through the holidays without seeing her and she felt the same.

Pupil A told the Panel that one day the Teacher had picked her up in his wife’s car at Darroch Park and they had gone to Lunderston Bay in Gourock. She said she had been staying at a friend’s house and her friend knew she was going to see the Teacher and walked with her to Darroch Park. She said her friend saw the Teacher and Pupil A getting into his car. She said she and the Teacher just talked, and that there had been no sexual activity although the Teacher possibly kissed Pupil A’s cheek.

Pupil A told the Panel that her friend’s older sister became aware of the Teacher and her, and the older sister had told her mother who then told Pupil A’s mother. Pupil A said this caused a huge fight between her and her mother and father. She said that when she returned to school after the holidays, she told the Teacher that her mother and father wanted to speak to him and he was taken aback and said, ‘Oh Shit’. She said the Teacher went to her house and talked to her parents, but she was not allowed to be part of the conversation. She thought this would be around December 1994. She said she thought that the Teacher had admitted to her parents that they had an ‘emotional’ relationship, and her parents told him to ‘back off’.

Pupil A said that, despite this, the relationship continued, and she told the Teacher she had feelings for him, and he said he felt the same way. Pupil A said that the Teacher used the gym at the school and after she had told him she had feelings for him, she had met him there and he had kissed her. She said it was ‘a proper kiss’. Pupil A said she would have told her friends, Witness 4 and Witness 7, he had kissed her. Pupil A said that she and the Teacher then started to kiss every day in the classroom. She described how the Teacher would close the curtains over the windows and she would sit in a seat away from the door and take work out in case anyone came in. She said the Teacher would touch her breasts over her bra and grab her bottom. She said the kissing was passionate.

Pupil A said that during the next school holidays, she was at the library in Greenock with her friend, Witness 7. She said that the Teacher had arranged to pick her up. She said that when she got into the car, the seat back had been laid flat. She said they drove to Cornalees where the Teacher stopped the car and told her to move over saying ‘I am coming over whether you like it or not.’ Pupil A said her blouse was open and she felt exposed. Pupil A said the Teacher kissed her mouth and then kissed her breasts. He then put his hands down Pupil A’s trousers and his fingers inside her vagina. Pupil A said she was shocked. She said the Teacher was rough, and Pupil A felt tense. She said she tried to touch the Teacher’s penis, as she did not want to disappoint him, but he pushed her hand away. She said he asked if she was ok and that this all took about 10 minutes.

Pupil A said that during the summer holidays in 1995, she had not arranged to meet the Teacher but regularly spoke on the phone. She said she would go to Tesco in Greenock to see him shopping and he would wave to her.

Pupil A told the Panel that in August or September 1995, the Teacher told her that his wife was pregnant. She said that it was at this point she realised that the Teacher was not going to leave his wife and she became upset. She said that she then told her parents what had been going on. She said her parents told her she wasn’t going back to the School. It was agreed she would go to college to finish her Highers. She said the next day she went to school to get her leaver’s form and told the Teacher she was leaving. She said the Teacher became upset and indicated he didn’t want her to leave.

Pupil A said she told the Teacher that her parents wanted to speak to him. She said the Teacher came to her house, but that she was not allowed to be part of the conversation, but that her mother had said that the Teacher admitted he had feelings for her. Pupil A said she was told the Teacher had told her parents that she was very persuasive, and she felt everyone thought it was her fault.

Pupil A told the Panel that her friends were aware of what was going on. She also said that other pupils would snigger and laugh at her. Pupil A said that two pupils in her year had reported what was occurring to Guidance Teacher 1 who had told them to stop being ‘silly girls’ and spreading rumours.

Pupil A said she had gone to [redacted] but had not been able to concentrate and after discussing matters with her parents returned to the School. She said she sometimes would go to the Teacher’s classroom, but nothing happened. She told the Panel that at the end of that year, the Teacher left the School. She said that the other teacher, Teacher B, also spoke to the Headteacher about concerns and that the Headteacher had spoken to the Teacher.

Pupil A told the Panel that the Teacher had told her that he had been spoken to by the School’s Headteacher. She also said that the Teacher had talked to her about her education and that when she went to university, she could get a flat and it would be easier for them to see each other. Pupil A also said that the Teacher had told her that they would have to wait until she was 16 to have sex and that he would use a condom and spermicidal lubricants. She said the Teacher explained to her what their first sexual experience would be like and encouraged her to masturbate in the shower as this might break her hymen. She said at that time she did not really understand what he meant, and the conversation was a one-off.

Pupil A said that on and off over the years she had been in contact with the Teacher, but nothing ever happened between them. She detailed this contact to the Panel. She said that eventually she realised that what the Teacher had done was wrong. She said she had been in denial prior to this. Pupil A explained that in January 2017 she opened up to her friend, Person 1, who asked her if she wanted her to call the Police and she agreed, and the Police were contacted.

Pupil A told the Panel that she [redacted] following what occurred with the Teacher but had never been [redacted]. She also said she developed an eating disorder at the time things were occurring with the Teacher.

During cross-examination, Pupil A accepted that occasionally other pupils would come into the classroom when she was there with the Teacher. She also confirmed she was aware that at some point concerns had been raised with the Headteacher that she was spending too much time with the Teacher and that after this another teacher, Teacher B, made a point of regularly checking the classroom during lunch. Pupil A also explained that during this time the school was very quiet, and she and the Teacher would be aware of any noises outside the classroom. When asked if she had become infatuated with the Teacher, Pupil A stated that she thought she was in love with him at the time. She accepted that she wanted to see him as her boyfriend.

When asked about receiving lifts in the Teacher’s car, Pupil A accepted that initially the Teacher had given her and Witness 4 lifts but that ‘[Witness 4] eventually got the point’. She denied that the Teacher had gone to her parents’ house to discuss her religion.

When it was suggested to her that the Teacher only helped her with her studies, Pupil A denied this. She denied the suggestion that the Teacher had never kissed her or acted inappropriately. She specifically denied the suggestion that nothing occurred at Cornalees, and that the Teacher had never driven her to Lunderston Bay. Pupil A also denied that any contact with the Teacher, once he had left the school, was simply contact that a pupil might have with a former teacher. She also denied asking the Teacher for a reference.

When it was put to Pupil A that she had simply persuaded herself the Teacher would leave his wife for her, she did not accept this, and reiterated that the Teacher had encouraged her to get qualifications and go to university so they could carry on a relationship. She said she thought she had a future with him.

In relation to the passing of notes or letters, Pupil A explained that she would be in an English class and friends would tell the Teacher they had to go to the toilet and take a note from her to the Teacher. She said she would go to the Teacher’s classroom before school started or at lunchtime and he would give her notes or letters. She said she couldn’t recall the specific contents of the notes, but they were not sexual or graphic.

She said she had not told her friend the ‘graphic details’ of what was occurring, but they were aware of her relationship with the Teacher, and she got the impression that it was thought generally she was having sex with the Teacher. She accepted she was not teased directly but felt people were sniggering at her, particularly younger pupils. She said she was embarrassed.

She stated that he had first kissed her in the school gym. It was a quiet, isolated area and they would have heard someone coming along the corridor. Pupil A explained that she and the Teacher would have been aware if anyone had started to enter the gym when they were there.

She stated that she was not spoken to by any other teacher which she now felt was awful and she would have expected something to have been done by other teachers.

Pupil A said she had gone through the process of giving statements to the Police and the subsequent criminal procedure because she hoped to achieve some closure. She denied that her memory had degraded over time and explained that while giving Police statements, she had recollected more matters. She did add that if she had gone to the Police in 1996 or 1997, she could have been more accurate.

Pupil A denied the suggestion put to her in cross-examination that her evidence was a fantasy arising from a crush on the Teacher. She also denied that she had gone to the Police due to her friend suggesting she should.

In reply to Panel questions, Pupil A stated that the Teacher had made calls to her parents’ home number during holidays and weekends when the Teacher knew her parents would be working. She said that the Teacher also gave her his home number and she would call him at home from a phone box when she knew his wife was out and he would call her back. She confirmed that the conversation about a first sexual experience and hymen breaking was one conversation, and she could not recall specifically other conversations.

Witness 2

Witness 2 took the oath and adopted her GTC Scotland and Police witness statements and was asked further questions.

She told the Panel she was Pupil A’s mother. She said that she knew who the Teacher was as Pupil A had spoken about him when Pupil A was at the School. Witness 2 told the Panel that when she asked Pupil A how she had got on at school, she had told her that the Teacher was a good laugh and that he was helping her with her maths homework. Witness 2 said that Pupil A had told her that the Teacher had asked about the [redacted].

Witness 2 said that she thought everything was fine until the day Pupil A came home crying and said she was in a relationship with the Teacher. Pupil A had been upset because she had become aware the Teacher’s wife was pregnant. She said that Pupil A may have said at this time that the Teacher had kissed her, but that it was later she found out about the Teacher touching Pupil A’s breasts. Witness 2 explained this made her very angry.

Witness 2 stated that the Teacher had been to see her and her husband before this because one of the teachers had complained to the Headteacher that Pupil A was spending too much time with the Teacher. She said the Teacher had come to their house and explained that he was helping Pupil A with her Maths. Witness 2 said she thought she had written a letter to the School confirming they were aware of what was going on and that nothing inappropriate had occurred.

Witness 2 said that when Pupil A came home upset, Pupil A was told to ask the Teacher to come and speak to her and her husband again. She said that the Teacher had said that he had almost fallen in love with Pupil A. She said he had said he had tried to stop what happened. She said in her statement that the Teacher had said that [Pupil A] was like ‘a window’ in his life. She said she and her husband told the Teacher that matters could not continue and that if anything happened again, they would complain to the school.

Witness 2 explained that after this, Pupil A had been ‘in a state’ and it was suggested she go to college, but she did not settle in at college. Witness 2 said she and her husband said that the only way Pupil A could go back to the school was if the Teacher got another job. She said that Pupil A told the Teacher this and he said he would get another job.

Witness 2 said she didn’t report the matter to the School because she felt that the Teacher would say Pupil A had been chasing him and she did not want to make Pupil A feel any worse.

Witness 2 said it was long afterwards that Pupil A told her what had occurred at Cornalees. She said Pupil A had told her that the seat had been down in the car and initially had said they kissed. Witness 2 said it was only after the matter was reported to the Police that Pupil A told her about the Teacher touching her breasts and inserting his fingers in her vagina. She said she thought Pupil A had been too embarrassed to tell her. She said she did not think that the Teacher and Pupil A had had sexual intercourse.

She said that after the issues with the Teacher, Pupil A had [redacted]. She explained that she thought the matter had been reported to the Police after Pupil A had spoken to a friend about what had happened. She told the Panel how she had given a witness statement and about the criminal process.

During cross-examination, Witness 2 stated that she and her husband had felt reassured after the Teacher’s first visit. She also said that she had felt something was not right during the periods between the first and second visit. She denied the second visit was about the [redacted]. She explained that after the events had occurred, she had looked for Pupil A’s diary to try to see what had been going on.

Witness 3

Witness 3 took the affirmation and adopted her GTC Scotland and Police witness statements and was asked further questions.

Witness 3 was a childhood friend of Pupil A. She confirmed that she was two years younger than Pupil A. She described an incident in either 1993 or 1994 in which Pupil A was given a lift by the Teacher which she told her parents about and who, in turn, informed Pupil A’s parents. Witness 3 spoke to the relationship between Pupil A and the Teacher, and that Pupil A considered that she had a future with him. She conceded that the information which she knew about the alleged relationship and the Teacher came from Pupil A herself. She told the Panel about a particular occasion when Witness 3 was in her first year at school, and there was a meeting on a Sunday between Pupil A and the Teacher in advance of which Pupil A had put makeup on. The meeting had taken place at about three o’clock near Darroch Park and the Teacher had collected Pupil A by car. Witness 3 was present when Pupil A was picked up by the Teacher, and she waited at a friend’s house nearby until Pupil A returned by being dropped off by the Teacher. The weather had been lovely, she had been one metre away and she had seen Pupil A and the Teacher kiss. On her return, Pupil A had been dishevelled, her hair bedraggled, her make-up was off her face and there was a distinctive malodorous smell. Witness 3 told the Panel that as an adult she now knew that it would only come from sexual contact, but she did not understand that at the time.

In her Police statement, Witness 3 stated that she knew about Pupil A’s relationship with the Teacher from when she was in Primary 7. Pupil A thought that the Teacher was the love of her life, was convinced he loved her, and thought that he was going to leave his wife and that they would be together. Witness 3 said that Pupil A had told her that she would spend time with the Teacher in his class between classes and that they had kissed in his classroom. She clarified that the incident on the Sunday she described took place a year into their relationship, during the summer months of her first year of high school in 1993. She remembered Pupil A ‘getting all dicked up’, putting make-up on and getting into the Teacher’s car and they drove away. She also stated, ‘I think he had touched her vagina. That’s my memory of it anyway. It was definitely something sexual.’

Witness 4

Witness 4 was a childhood friend of Pupil A. She took the affirmation and adopted her GTC Scotland and Police witness statements and was asked further questions.

She stated she had been told by Pupil A that the Teacher was giving Pupil A extra tuition and that they were in a relationship including kisses and other things. She spoke about being given lifts by the Teacher in his car once or twice. On one occasion, the Teacher told Witness 4 that he was going to speak to Pupil A’s parents about their relationship.

She spoke to passing notes from Pupil A while she was in her English class close to the Teacher’s classroom. These often stated, ‘Could I come down after school, could I see you after school?’ and he would write something, and she would take it back to Pupil A. The notes took the form of scrap paper folded over. Witness 4 did not think she read them but discussed with Pupil A what they contained. She used the pretext of going to the bathroom to leave the classroom. The Teacher would look at the note, write something on the note and hand it back. She could not say for certain how often this happened but that it had happened on several occasions. She spoke to challenging the Teacher about his relationship with Pupil A. He responded by asking her to call him by his first name and that he was going to speak to Pupil A’s parents about the matter.

In her Police statement, she stated that it was in her third year when she was aware that Pupil A was seeing the Teacher, that Pupil A had told her that she was going to see the Teacher at lunchtimes for extra tuition and that they had kissed, that she was regularly visiting him at lunchtimes and this was pretty much every lunchtime. She did not witness this but was told about it by Pupil A.

She also described a meeting with Pupil A at the library in Greenock when Pupil A told her that she had just been with the Teacher, that they had been in his car up at Cornalees, and that they went ‘further’. She could not remember what had happened but said that Pupil A had told her that they had discussed ‘lube’, that they had not had sex but were planning it. While Pupil A was telling her this, she was flustered, Witness 4 could clearly see that ‘something had went on’, Pupil A used to wear lots of make-up and Witness 4 could tell that Pupil A had been ‘up to no good’. Witness 4 told the Panel that this incident at Cornalees had occurred during her study leave for her Standard Grade exams in March or April of 1994.

Witness 4 did not know when the relationship between Pupil A and the Teacher ended but she thought that it was around the time when the Teacher’s wife was expecting their second child.

Witness 5

Witness 5 took the oath and adopted his GTC Scotland and Police witness statements and was asked further questions.

Witness 5 was the former headteacher of the School and had been in post at the time of the allegations. He stated that he was certainly not aware of any relationship taking place between the Teacher and Pupil A when the Teacher taught at the School. He spoke to three senior colleagues coming to his office at the end of the school day about a female pupil being in the Teacher’s car. He had a concern about the public perception of that, but could not remember what was discussed specifically, due to the passage of time. He had what he described as a reasonable supposition that they had already spoken to the Teacher about it and that the Teacher had ignored them, so they had wanted to take it up with Witness 5. He stated that, with hindsight, if he had been a headteacher now and it had happened, he would have investigated with much greater depth, but that was not what had happened then, and he recognised that the climate had changed over 30 years. He did not recall who the student was that was involved. He was not aware of anyone having told him that Pupil A had developed a crush on the Teacher. He recognised that sometimes teenage girls developed crushes and if he had thought that a girl thought that she was in love, he would have taken steps involving a number of people including parents and a guidance teacher and that this would have been a child protection issue. He had made it clear to his staff that anything untoward had to be reported upwards. He spoke to the Teacher and explained to him that taking a pupil home in his car was not a sensible thing to do. He never heard anything more so he could not get involved. He was not aware of any enhanced supervision by other staff as the Teacher had a classroom within a lab and other classrooms on either side, so there was no need to monitor this formally, as people were around. He stated that he probably would have got back to them and told them what the result of his interview with the Teacher had been and said to let him know if there were any issues that arose there.

He was surprised at the suggestion that two pupils spoke to a guidance teacher, Guidance Teacher 2, who had told them to ‘stop spreading gossip’ and taken no further action. He stated that he certainly did not hear about a relationship which it was suggested was ‘the talk of the year group’ and was surprised that he had not heard about it, if this had been the case. He had never heard about the Teacher asking to be called by his first name and had never heard of anything of that nature. When asked about the passing of notes during class time, he stated that pupils were not allowed to wander around school during class time. There would need to be a very good reason before a pupil was let out of a class during class time and that sensible teachers would very quickly know the pupils who are ‘at it’. He said he walked around school a lot.

Witness 6

Witness 6 took the oath and adopted his GTC Scotland and Police witness statements and was asked further questions.

Witness 6 had been in post as Principal Teacher of Chemistry at the School at the time of the allegations. He thought he had seen the Teacher with Pupil A in his car in the staff carpark and was concerned that things could be misconstrued; that there was a danger of infatuation and with a youngish teacher it was unwise. This concern was brought to the attention of the Teacher’s Principal Teacher, Teacher B, and he had a word with the Teacher about it. He also spoke to Pupil A being picked up by the Teacher outside of school but could not remember if he had seen this or if someone had told him. The Teacher had already been spoken to and warned. He had not been concerned about Pupil A spending time in the Teacher’s classroom. He described the three heads of the science department reporting this to Witness 5 but did not recall him saying what he would do or any follow-up. He was not sure how long this was before the Teacher’s departure for Greenock. He stated that they had a staff room round the corner from the Teacher’s room and Teacher B’s room and an understanding that doors should always be open. In addition to teaching staff, there were laboratory technicians and a technicians’ room with technicians sometimes in classrooms, store cupboards or rooms where apparatus was kept adjacent to classrooms and a tech room.

Witness 7

Witness 7 took the oath and adopted her Police statements and was asked further questions.

She spoke to two Police witness statements. She corrected a reference in the statement dated 6 July 2017 to a place name which should be “Cornalees” not “Connelly’s”. Witness 7 stated that she could not remember the time frame of the events which were the subject of the allegations. She explained that when in her statement she stated that the Teacher and Pupil A would be flirtatious, she meant that the way they interacted with each other was more familiar than with others and there were looks between the two indicating a different level of relationship. In her statements, she described contact between Pupil A and the Teacher: that Pupil A developed a crush on the Teacher; that she called him by his first name; that she started going to his class at lunchtimes, then breaktime and after school; that he gave her compliments; that when she went to his classroom he would close the blinds, kiss her and touch her on the breasts; and that he kissed her in the gym. The Teacher started giving lifts home from school to Pupil A and sometimes Witness 4 was also there. Witness 7 provided her diary to the Police and in her statement reproduced an entry from 31 December 1994 in which she stated that the Teacher and Pupil A were having secret meetings. In her statement, Witness 7 stated that the Teacher and Pupil A started meeting outside school in the early evenings.

She stated that she could not remember when she met Pupil A at the library in Greenock, but they were studying for either Standard Grade exams or prelims and they met midweek when they were not at school and were either on holiday or study leave. She went to the library most days. She was told that Pupil A was meeting up with the Teacher and would ‘get her afterwards’ at the library. In her statement, she stated that she had met Pupil A outside the library and Pupil A was flustered, agitated, not upset but did not appear herself. Pupil A told her and Witness 4 that it was more than just kissing, and that the Teacher had touched her in the vaginal area and inserted his fingers in her vagina and that this occurred in the Teacher’s car.

She spoke to receiving a telephone call from Pupil A who was very upset and told her that she was leaving school and had told her parents about what was happening. This occurred after a conversation when Pupil A found out that the Teacher’s wife was pregnant with her second child and Pupil A realised that the relationship was not necessarily what she thought it was. Pupil A had told her parents she had been getting lifts from the Teacher and that she had been romantically involved with him. Pupil A’s parents asked to speak to the Teacher at their house and he also had to speak to Witness 5, the headteacher. Pupil A left the School and went to [redacted] then returned and the Teacher left the School and went to Greenock High School. As far as Witness 7 was aware the Teacher and Pupil A had met after school times, and he would provide a lift home. Pupil A and Witness 4 had told her about this. She was told this a few times. Witness 4 was given a lift from school. She was dropped off first then Pupil A.

When Pupil A telephoned her, the Teacher was still Witness 7’s Higher Physics teacher. She spoke to him at lunchtime during fourth year. She let him know that she knew what had been happening in terms of a relationship with Pupil A. Witness 7 denied that Pupil A was going to the Teacher’s classroom for extra study and tutoring. She acknowledged that she was told about the events which were subject to the allegations by Pupil A rather than witnessing these herself.

She stated that Pupil A and the Teacher started passing notes to each other. This had happened in the first half of  fourth year but Witness 7 could not provide details of the timeline for the development of when she and Witness 4 started taking notes. Either she or Witness 4 would excuse themselves from their English class on the pretext of going to the toilet or something like that and they would take said notes to the Teacher’s physics class. The notes were written on paper and the girls were hidden away at the back of the class, so they did not need to be particularly covert. In her statement, she stated that she could not remember reading the notes but when she gave evidence, she stated that she would read the notes and that Pupil A did not know that she was reading them at the time. They consisted of a folded over piece of paper not a sealed envelope and were romantic in nature, but she could not specify what was said. The Teacher read the notes, but he did not really say anything, sometimes he would have a smile or a smirk, and occasionally there was something to take back in the form of a small note on folded paper without an envelope. If he wrote anything it was just a couple of words, but this was based on Witness 7’s assumption. When asked how often this happened, she stated that it was periodic, and she could not comment on the frequency of Witness 4 passing notes.

Witness 8 – The Teacher

The Teacher took the affirmation.

The Teacher stated that he retired from teaching in June 2017 at the same time as his daughter left school. He had benefited from a discount on school fees as a teacher. The timing of the allegations and his retirement were a coincidence and his intention had been to work at his wife’s [redacted] which had expanded.

He spoke first to becoming aware of Pupil A when she was in her third year in 1993 and that she studied Standard Grade Physics. He spoke to giving her lifts in his car on three occasions. On the first occasion, this had been at the end of one of the school days, there had been a substantial amount of equipment to move, and pupils offered to help. After loading things into the boot, there was some banter and they suggested that he give them a lift home. The pupils were Pupil A, Witness 4, and 2 other students. Pupil A and Witness 4 lived in the same street. He thought this was in fourth year or 1994.

He stated that at the end of the day, he would leave school through a fire exit next to his classroom rather than taking a circuitous route out of the school building, as his classroom was one of the farthest from the main front door. He only had to walk 20 metres to reach his car. On the second occasion when he gave Pupil A a lift in his car, she came to give him some work and he invited her to leave through the fire door like all the rest of the science staff instead of taking the long route back through school.  As they went out, ‘in a fit of charity’, he offered her a lift home which she accepted, and he dropped her outside her house.

On the third occasion on which he gave Pupil A a lift in his car, he went to visit her mother and father. This was at the end of September 1995. Witness 4 joined them, and he drove Witness 4 and Pupil A home. Then Pupil A and he went into her house, and he had a discussion with her parents. After the second occasion when he gave Pupil A a lift, he was spoken to by Witness 5, the Headteacher. Witness 6 had noticed the second occasion and passed this onto Witness 5 who had asked to see him. Witness 5 and the Teacher discussed not giving students lifts home. When the Teacher was asked if he could have given Pupil A lifts without this being noticed, he stated that the whole school looked onto the carpark, and he had nothing to hide anyway.

In response to a question about the use of the expression ‘she was like a window in my life’, the Teacher said this was in relation to talking with Pupil A about [redacted]. The Teacher said he did not take [redacted].

In response to the suggestion that Pupil A came to his classroom for tutoring, he stated that he always made it clear to all his classes that if they needed help, they should ask and that he was always available at lunchtime. His normal practice was to spend lunchtime in his room marking, as Physics was labour intensive for marking. He had a young toddler, and he was the ‘chief cook and bottle washer’ in the house. He would rather mark work at school than take it home as he was dealing with a toddler and preparing for his wife returning home. Pupils took him up on this offer fairly often with people turning up asking for assistance once or twice per week. There was no particular pattern, and his door was always open except when he was doing experiments with light. There was a technician’s base immediately adjacent to his classroom. The technicians serviced science classrooms, taking equipment to and from, and sorting out chemicals. To the side of his room, there was a Physics prep room with a common filing cabinet and some materials and to the other side of that, his head of department, Teacher B’s room. Teacher B would appear on a regular basis and look after him as his subordinate making sure that he was doing the right job. Teacher B used to sneak up on him because of the rubbery soled shoes he would wear.

A number of pupils were looking for help and Pupil A was doing herfourth year prelims in November and December 1994 and into 1995. She was in the average category; she was enthusiastic, diligent and a good student. He recalled Pupil A and Witness 7 arriving asking for additional assistance. They would appear together for extra help then after a time Witness 7’s attendance dropped off. Pupil A sought help from him with Physics and Maths. He acknowledged that she was coming to his department noticeably more than anyone else and that there were times when it would only be him and her in the classroom. Teacher B would ‘pop in’ to see if everything was ok, chat to him a bit then disappear. He had no sense at the time of Pupil A forming any sort of attachment to him or having any sort of crush on him. He rejected the suggestions that there was any relationship with Pupil A, that he gave her compliments and that he kissed her. He used the fitness suite but never encountered Pupil A in the fitness suite or school gymnasium. He denied any suggestion that things progressed and that when they were alone in the classroom, he would kiss her, touch her breasts over her clothing, touch her bottom and hold hands. He never had any conversation of a sexual nature with Pupil A. It was virtually impossible to be alone in the environment of a science class, anyone could appear at lunchtime: technicians would appear to change equipment, guidance staff, pupils for assistance, other members of staff and members of senior management. The arrangement of the science classrooms meant that no one was ever on their own.

He denied passing notes between himself and Pupil A or anything that indicated a romantic interest. No other pupil ever delivered any note to her on his behalf. The Teacher stated that it was not normal to pass notes to one teacher or another with a pupil to deliver them. If he wanted to speak to them, he would speak to them by seeing them in the morning before the bell.

He described the cars which he and his wife drove at the time, their travel to work arrangements, their four-year-old daughter, and the childcare when he was at work. He had not met Pupil A outside of school except for arranged meetings. He coincidentally met her when he was leaving the DIY store, Homebase, probably in 2005. She was leaving and her mother was there also, and Pupil A approached him and asked for a reference. He gave her his email at the time but did not hear anything from her.

He denied the allegations that in 1994-95 he met her outside of school at Darroch Park and drove with her to Lunderston Bay. He had never met Witness 3. He denied the allegation that he arranged to meet Pupil A out of school and took her to Cornalees. He stated that the trip did not take place and he never had any sexual contact with Pupil A. When Standard Grade pupils were on study leave arrangements at the beginning of May, staff would be in the school. He denied ever calling Pupil A or repeatedly telephoning her when her parents were not present. In 1994-95, he had no mobile, and his landline was listed in the telephone directory; in those days telephone bills came in on paper and would be spotted by his ‘very sharp’ wife.

He described two occasions when he visited Pupil A at home. On the first occasion, he went with his youngest daughter who was then a toddler. He was invited by Pupil A’s parents for a chat. He assumed the conversation would be about tutoring but it was not. Her parents described Pupil A as difficult to live with, determined and that she always got what she wanted. They spoke about tutoring and her father asked him to reduce the tutoring. He saw less of Pupil A for a period of time. On the second occasion in September 1995 he was invited to the house, Pupil A informed him that she was leaving the School to undertake a college course and he was invited to speak to her parents about results attainment in the exam diet. He gave both Pupil A and Witness 4 a lift home, dropped off Witness 4 and went into the house with Pupil A. Pupil A seemed upset, which he took to be upset at leaving school and her friends. He regarded it as a mistake that he did not follow Witness 5’s instructions and considered that he should have told the girls to walk home. Pupil A’s father did not want him to have any more contact with her and threatened to report him to the authorities. He had no further contact with Pupil A at the School.

He had no contact with Pupil A over the years by email or text. He received a telephone call from Pupil A to St Columba’s School before 2017 and perhaps in 2015. She was aggressive and he thought she was making some kind of allegation that he had abused her daughters. He did not know what she was talking about, so he ended the conversation and considered taking legal advice. He was prosecuted in 2017 and acquitted. He had no further contact with Pupil A. He took his wife’s car to school on occasion. The Teacher stated further that there had been evidence that Pupil A had been hunting around his family’s social media. Details of his daughter’s car could be found out retrospectively from Facebook or Instagram. His wife is a [redacted]. In September 1995, she would have been pregnant and ‘showing’ which could have been found out but certainly not from him. His second daughter was born on [redacted].

In cross-examination, the Teacher did not recall being spoken to by Guidance about tutoring Pupil A. In relation to the occasion on which he gave Pupil A a lift in September, he acknowledged it was a mistake, but Pupil A was no longer a pupil at the School at that time. He denied having any conversations with Pupil A of a sexual nature. He denied leaving the School because of any relationship with Pupil A and had been applying for jobs for a number of years for a principal teacher role. He had previously been a student at Greenock High School and an unpromoted post arose. He was friendly with the head of Physics who encouraged him to apply. A year later he was promoted to senior teacher and then Principal Teacher.

Submissions on the Alleged Facts

Prior to the parties providing submissions, the Panel advised that it had requested and received advice on the use of the word ‘repeatedly’ in the allegations. The Panel indicated it had accepted legal advice from the Legal Assessor that it should apply the ordinary everyday meaning to the word and would consider this to be ‘many times’.

The Presenting Officer and the Teacher’s Representative noted this position. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel would have the power to amend any allegation if it felt fit, and the Teacher’s Representative agreed.

Both parties provided the Panel with full written submissions as set out below. Both parties adopted their written submissions and highlighted certain aspects of them in supplementary oral submissions.

In his written submissions the Presenting Officer submitted as follows:

1. Introduction

1.1. These submissions are produced to assist the Fitness to Practise Panel (“the Panel”) in reaching its findings in fact. The submissions focus on the evidence led and how the facts set out in the allegations against the Teacher have been proved.

2. Allegations

2.1 The allegations against the Teacher are:

On dates unknown between August 1994 and June 1995, whilst employed by Inverclyde Council as a teacher at [redacted], and in the course of his employment, the Teacher did:

(a) enter into a relationship with Pupil A, then aged 15-16 years of age and did:

(i) repeatedly spend time alone with her in his classroom;

(ii) kiss her in the school gymnasium;

(iii) repeatedly kiss her on the mouth, touch her breasts and grab hold of her bottom in his classroom;

(iv) repeatedly engage in conversations with her of a sexual nature;

(v) repeatedly engage in the exchanging of notes with her during school time;

(vi) repeatedly telephone her at home when he knew her parents were not present;

(vii) repeatedly give her lifts in his car; and

(viii) repeatedly meet her outside of school.

(b) On or around February 1995, drive Pupil A, then aged 15 years of age, in his car to Cornalees, Greenock where he did kiss her on the mouth and breasts and insert his fingers into her vagina.

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

2.2 The Presenting Officer invites the Panel to find the facts alleged proved for each of the allegations.

3. Approach to Decision-Making

3.1 The Panel has available to it the ‘Fact-finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement’ (the Practice Statement) and the advice of the Legal Assessor in carrying out its fact-finding role.

3.2 Rule 1.7.15 of the Fitness to Teach Rules provides that:

“Where facts alleged by the Presenting Officer are in dispute, the burden of proving such facts rests with the Presenting Officer. Where facts advanced or arising in a case are disputed, a Panel will only find such facts proved where it is satisfied that they have been established on the balance of probabilities…”

3.3 As explained in the Practice Statement: ” The Rules set out that in terms of finding facts at any hearing, the required standard of proof will be on the balance of probabilities. Another way of describing this test is to say that a fact will be proved if it is judged more likely to have happened than not. This is the standard of proof that also applies to civil court proceedings in Scotland.

It is important to note that it has been established through case law that this standard of proof does not shift or vary depending on the gravity of the allegations or the seriousness of the consequences for the person concerned: the one standard is applied universally. “

3.4 Rule 1.7.17 of the Fitness to Teach Rules provides that:

“Subject to the requirements of relevance and fairness, a Panel may admit oral, documentary or other evidence, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in civil or criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom.”

3.5 This means there is no rule against hearsay evidence in proceedings before this Panel. The Panel is entitled to accept evidence from witnesses even if it is hearsay evidence i.e. evidence where they have been told what happened by another person. However, it will be for the Panel to determine what weight they place on hearsay evidence taking into consideration how they view the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

3.6 As described later in the submission, the Panel also has before it a great deal of circumstantial evidence. It will be suggested by the Teacher that limited weight ought to be placed on that evidence. By its nature circumstantial evidence is open to more than one interpretation. A counter-interpretation will be offered by the Teacher as to what the circumstantial evidence in this case means. It is for the Panel to decide what interpretation to accept. The Panel can accept circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the Teacher having committed the allegations. In looking at circumstantial evidence the Panel should consider it with all of the other evidence in the case, as opposed to examining discretely each individual element of that evidence.

4. Summary of Evidence

4.1 On 4 January 2023 at a Procedural Hearing the Panel determined that police statements lodged by the Presenting Officer could form part of the evidence in chief of those witnesses. The Teacher did not oppose that application.

4.2 The Procedural Hearing decision is at pages 44 and 45 of the Bundle and an extract of the Panel’s decision is below.

4.3 Application to treat police statements as evidence in chief

An application dated 11 November 2022 was made by the Presenting Officer to use the available police statements of those witnesses listed at Appendix 1 to the application as their evidence in chief at the Full Hearing. The application was supplemented briefly in oral submissions and was unopposed.

Decision

The Panel considered the application, the Rules, the GTC Scotland Practice Statement relating to Witness and Hearsay Evidence and the legal advice provided in relation to Rule 1.7.17.

The Panel considered the general objective to act fairly and justly and went on to consider each of the factors relating to hearsay evidence contained in the Practice Statement. The Panel noted that there was no objection raised as to the fairness of using the police statements in this way. The Panel was satisfied that proportionate efforts had been made to obtain fresh statements for the GTC Scotland proceedings. However, practical difficulties arose from the time that had passed since the date of the alleged events and since the criminal trial. The Panel noted that the weight to be attached to police statements must still be applied by the Panel at the Full Hearing. The Panel was satisfied that the application to use police statements as evidence in chief should be granted.

4.4 Rule 2.5.3 of the Fitness to Practise Rules provides that the decision of the Panel at the Procedural Hearing binds this Panel.

4.5 The Panel had before it oral evidence from Pupil A, Witness 2, Witness 3, Witness 4 Witness 5, Witness 6, Witness 7, and the Teacher.

4.6 Parties agreed that the GTCS witness statements and police witness statements of Person 1, Person 6 and Teacher B would form their evidence in these proceedings.

4.7 It is accepted by the Presenting Officer that the evidence before the Panel contains a mix of direct evidence, hearsay evidence and circumstantial evidence. As will be developed later in the submission it is the weight of all of this evidence taken together that supports a finding that the allegations are proved.

5. Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses

5.1 As explained in the Practice Statement: “Making findings in fact requires a Panel to carefully assess all of the evidence which has been admitted and presented to it…This will require a Panel to distinguish between what evidence is and what evidence isn’t as follows:

• What a witness says orally under oath/affirmation is evidence. [Note: questions or suggestions put to a witness aren’t evidence unless the witness agrees with what has been put to him/her and if all that the witness does is agree with what has been put to them, it may affect the weight that the Panel gives to the evidence…
• Matters put to a witness who can’t remember those matters or who doesn’t know about them, aren’t evidence.
• Submissions, speeches or views on the evidence made by the parties aren’t evidence.”

5.2 The Practice Statement then goes on to explain that: “Assessing the evidence will require a Panel to determine what evidence it accepts because it believes it to be true and what evidence it rejects because it believes it to be false or unreliable.

Assessing witness evidence will require the Panel to consider credibility and reliability. A credible witness is an honest one, doing his/her best to tell the truth. A witness is reliable if he/she recalls events accurately (i.e. not affected by things like: failure of memory; a defect of observation or a misconstruction of what was observed).”

5.3 The Practice Statement then lists a series of questions that a Panel may find helpful to ask itself in assessing the credibility and reliability of witness evidence. The Panel ought to apply those questions to considering the credibility and reliability of the witnesses in this case.

Credibility and Reliability of Key Witnesses for the Presenting Officer

5.4 A key consideration in this case is the passage of time since the alleged incidents occurred. The events described in the allegations having taken place almost 30 years ago. As noted in the Practice Statement: ” Where inconsistencies are identified in witness evidence, a Panel should bear in mind that quite often witnesses give differing accounts of the same event because the ability to observe and recall can vary (and this will inevitably be exacerbated with the passage of time). If witness accounts on crucial matters are substantially similar, minor differences of detail don’t matter. Where, however, there are differences on important matters, the Panel will need to decide which version it accepts and whether the relevant facts alleged have been proved.”

5.5 As set out in more detail below, in this case the witnesses’ accounts on crucial matters are substantially similar.

5.6 Pupil A – The Panel heard oral evidence from Pupil A. Despite the difficulties of giving evidence in this case Pupil A attended the hearing and conducted herself in an admirable and straightforward fashion. She gave her evidence candidly in a public hearing and was willing to answer any question that was put to her.

5.7 There has been no evidence led by the Teacher that there were any personal issues or grievances that might cause her to give an account which is untrue. Pupil A was able to describe clearly that only now, with the support of her friend Person 1, her husband, and her family did she have the strength to speak about her relationship with the Teacher.

5.8 Pupil A also described for the Panel that she had reflected on the events of her time at school and come forward now because she has children of her own and understands the risk the Teacher’s behaviour posed to her as a young person.

5.9 Despite the passage of time Pupil A was able to describe the development of her relationship with the Teacher and the events that happened clearly. Although there are some discrepancies in the statements she has provided throughout the years that is natural given the passage of time. However, the key elements of Pupil A’s evidence has been consistent throughout and the Panel can be satisfied that Pupil A is a credible and reliable witness in these proceedings.

5.10 Her description of key events is also consistent with the independent accounts of other witnesses. However, where she could not remember a fact, she was candid to say so. This also speaks to both her credibility and reliability. I discuss the evidence in further detail below.

5.11 Finally, there was evidence led by the Teacher to the effect that Pupil A had knowledge about his family’s circumstances because she “had been sniffing around his family’s social media, which we find creepy and disturbing”. As the Panel is aware, if that is an explanation for Pupil A having knowledge about the Teacher’s life then that was not put to Pupil A whilst she was giving her evidence, which would have allowed Pupil A to provide an explanation to the Panel. The Panel should therefore treat that evidence with caution and give it no weight.

5.12 Witness 2, Pupil A’s mother – Also attended the hearing and conducted herself in an admirable and straightforward fashion. Despite recalling events some time ago she has given a consistent account of the circumstances around the Teacher’s visit to her house, and in particular his second visit some of which was consistent with the Teacher’s own recollection (e.g the Teacher’s comment about Pupil A being a ‘window in his life’).

5.13 Witness 4 and Witness 7 – Were also credible and reliable witnesses. They gave their evidence in a direct and straightforward manner. They were candid to admit when they did not know the answer to a question or where they could not remember because of the passage of time. However, their descriptions of key events is consistent, including in relation to the note passing, what they were told by Pupil A about the relationship, and what they witnessed first hand. That strengthens each of their credibility and reliability.

5.14 Witness 3 – Was also a credible and reliable witness. She gave her evidence in a straightforward manner. Whilst there were some inconsistencies in her account, including in relation to Pupil A’s description of what allegedly happened at Darroch Park, her evidence is consistent with other witnesses in material respects (e.g. her description of what Pupil A told her about the relationship, Pupil A’s parents finding out about the relationship). Crucially Witness 3 was not at school with Pupil A nor in the same friendship group as Witness 4 and Witness 7, that she was able to describe similar events strengthens her credibility.

5.15 Both Witness 5 and Witness 6 were credible and reliable witnesses. As former teachers they had no personal interest in the outcome of these proceedings and gave their evidence in a straightforward way.

5.16 The witnesses Person 1, Person 6 and Teacher B did not attend the hearing and their evidence was based on a written witness statement only. As recognised in the Practice Statement: “If the Panel is satisfied that the witness provided the written statement and that it has been accurately recorded, the Rules are clear that it can be regarded as part of the evidence in the case. The Panel will, however, still have to make determinations about the credibility and reliability of the witness concerned.”

5.17 The Panel is entitled to find those witnesses on the whole credible and reliable. However, the Panel should treat paragraph 10 of Teacher B’s GTCS witness statement (page 194 of the Bundle) with caution. Teacher B provides no basis for making the allegation he does, it was not put to Pupil A, and the Panel did not have the benefit of his evidence being tested before the Panel.

5.18 It will likely be suggested by the Teacher that some of the evidence given by witnesses is implausible, including: (1) the ability of a teacher and pupil to kiss in an ‘open’ classroom or in the gym; (2) the passing of notes by Witness 4and Witness 7; (3) Pupil A being able to call the Teacher at his home, or for him to call a phone box without being discovered; and (4) the Teacher giving Pupil A lifts from school without it being observed. By way of response the Panel is asked to note:

• 5.18.1 the alleged kissing either occurred at lunchtimes when both staff and pupils would not be in classrooms, or in parts of the school that were described as more isolated;
• 5.18.2 the passing of notes was not a complex or sophisticated task and could easily have been carried out without detection;
• 5.18.3 similarly, it would not be difficult for Pupil A and the Teacher to agree suitable times to contact each other; and
• 5.18.4 there was differing evidence about the frequency of lifts (Witness 4 spoke to this happening on only a few occasions) and by the teacher’s own admission these took place outside of school hours.

Credibility and Reliability of the Teacher

The credibility and reliability of the Teacher is more difficult to assess. The Teacher clearly has an interest in the outcome of disputed facts as the person accused of the allegations. With that in mind, the Teacher’s evidence had a rehearsed feel in parts, and he often offered additional explanations without prompting by Mr Brown. It is accepted that the Teacher made concessions (e.g. that he gave lifts on three occasions, and that he visited Pupil A’s house on two occasions) that strengthen his credibility. However, when comparing the Teacher’s evidence against the other evidence in the case the Panel should treat his evidence with caution. On several key issues the Teacher’s evidence lacked credibility, namely:

• 5.19.1 he appears to have given different explanations at different times for why Pupil A was in his classroom (e.g extra tuition (Pupil A’s parents, Witness 5), because she was being picked on (Teacher B, potentially Guidance Teacher 1), and at what times he was providing that extra tuition (at lunchtime or after school);
• 5.19.2 the circumstances around both of his visits to Pupil A’s house, and in particular the second visit where the Teacher thought he was going to be thanked for tutoring Pupil A but instead was confronted by Pupil A’s parents, the reaction of Pupil A’s parents being more consistent with both Pupil A, Witness 4 and her mother’s accounts of why the Teacher was there (i.e. to talk about the relationship and Pupil A’s reaction to it ending);
• 5.19.3 that the Teacher went to Pupil A’s parents’ house because he had “forgotten” the instruction from Witness 5;
• 5.19.4 that the Teacher did not tell anyone about Pupil A’s parents’ reaction, notwithstanding concerns had already been raised about his contact with Pupil A. and whilst the Panel were told the conversation lasted 15 minutes very little explanation was given as to what the Teacher actually said and what he thought he would achieve by being there;
• 5.19.5 the lack of explanation as to how Pupil A and the Teacher came to speak about religion, to the extent that the Teacher made the comment about Pupil A being a ‘window in his life’;
• 5.19.6 the coincidental nature of his exit from [redacted] and his retirement from teaching, against the backdrop of these allegations; and
• 5.19.7 finally that there has been no plausible explanation why so many witnesses would have consistent accounts about key facts, that they have repeated over a number of years, including to Police Scotland, and in circumstances where each has a different relationship with Pupil A.

5.20 On that basis I would invite the Panel to prefer the evidence of the Presenting Officer’s witnesses over the Teacher’s.

6 Key evidence that proves the allegations

6.1 The evidence contained in the witness statements and the oral evidence provided to the Panel overwhelmingly suggests that the facts alleged occurred. A table is included at Appendix 1 that sets out the parts of the witness statements that provide evidence to support each part of the allegation. In summary:

• 6.1.1 the Panel heard direct evidence from Pupil A about the relationship, as more fully described in her witness statement and her evidence before the Panel (see also Appendix 1);
• 6.1.2 the direct evidence of two former teachers who spoke to the Teacher about him giving Pupil A a lift home, and also their concerns about the Teacher being alone in a classroom with Pupil A;
• 6.1.3 the circumstantial evidence given by Pupil A’s mother about the house visits and the hearsay evidence of what she was told by Pupil A about the nature of her relationship with the Teacher;
• 6.1.4 the hearsay evidence of Witness 2, Witness 4 and Witness 7 as to what Pupil A told them about the nature of the relationship, and it is powerful hearsay evidence that Witness 7 was compelled to keep a contemporaneous note in her diary about her thoughts at the time;
• 6.1.5 the direct evidence of Witness 4 and Witness 7 that they saw Pupil A prepare notes to the Teacher in their English class, and that they would deliver those notes to the Teacher; and
• 6.1.6 the direct evidence of Witness 2, Witness 4 and Witness 7 who all witnessed Pupil A receiving a lift in the Teacher’s car, including importantly the evidence of Witness 4 and Witness 7 who were there on the day that the Teacher and Pupil A went to Cornalees, the trauma of what occurred there being described in detail by Pupil A.

6.2 The cumulative effect of this evidence is overwhelming and supports the conclusion that Panel should find the facts in the allegations proved.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The Panel is being asked to decide whether the facts in the allegations have been proved. It is asked to do so on the basis of the evidence presented by the Presenting Officer and needs only to be satisfied that this is more likely to be the case than not.

7.2 If the Panel were to decide the facts were not proved, it would be reaching a conclusion that it prefers the evidence of the Teacher to that of the Presenting Officer’s witnesses who spoke to the events in the allegations.

7.3 The Presenting Officer’s position is that the Panel should prefer the Presenting Officer’s witnesses in respect of each of the complaints. The overwhelming evidence in this case is that the Teacher engaged in a relationship with Pupil A as alleged.

7.4 For all the reasons above, the Panel should find the facts alleged proved for each of the allegations. [sic]

The Presenting Officer made further oral submissions.

He submitted that the allegations were straightforward. He said the Teacher was a young engaging teacher who was liked by the pupils. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher had started to spend time with Pupil A, become fond of her and crossed emotional and physical boundaries.

He referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland Fact Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement and repeated his written submissions on the approach the Panel should take to evidence.

In relation to Pupil A, the Presenting Officer adopted the comments of his written submissions and submitted that the Panel should recall that she had become physically upset when giving evidence. He also submitted that she had been able to explain why she had raised her concerns with GTC Scotland and referred to paragraph 5.8 of his written submissions. The Presenting Officer also referred to paragraph 5.9 of his submissions and stated that he accepted that there had been some discrepancies in Pupil A’s statements over the years, but this was natural given the passage of time. He drew the Panel’s attention to paragraph 5.11 of his written submissions.

The Presenting Officer submitted that what was striking about the evidence of Pupil A’s mother was its consistency with the evidence of others. He also submitted that there was no evidence any of the witnesses had colluded with each other.

In relation to Witness 3, the Presenting Officer accepted that there had been some inconsistencies in her evidence but stressed that she had been consistent in its material aspects.

The Presenting Officer submitted that, in relation to the Teacher, the Panel should take into account that some of the explanations he had proffered to the Panel had not been made earlier. He reiterated his written submission that the Teacher’s greatest difficulty was as set out in paragraph 5.19.7 of his written submissions.

In relation to the use of the word ‘repeatedly’ the Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel should interpret this as meaning ‘more than once’. He submitted that there was evidence that in respect of the allegations where the word was used that the events had occurred on more than one occasion.

Late Paper

Prior to the Teacher’s Representative making any oral submission on facts, he applied to have a late paper received. He explained that this was a letter confirming the Teacher’s evidence about when and why he retired. The Presenting Officer did not object.

The Panel accepted legal advice. The Panel considered it was fair to allow the late paper.

The Teacher’s Representative also adopted his written submissions and made short supplementary oral submissions.

In his written submissions the Teacher’s Representative submitted as follows:

On behalf of Mr Weir it is submitted that the Panel should find the allegations have not been proved, for the reasons set out below.

Legal Framework for decision

• The GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 afford a wide discretion in relation to admitting evidence and receiving statements as the evidence of witnesses (see Rules 1.7.17, 1.7.23, 1.7.25 and 1.7.26). It is not thought that any issue arises in respect of the admissibility of any of the material placed before the panel. The submissions for the teacher proceed on the basis that all of the material placed before the panel was properly before it. The question for the panel is accordingly one of weight rather than admissibility.
• Rule 1.7.15 provides that the burden of proof is on the presenting officer and that the panel must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a disputed fact has been proved.

Substantive law

• Proof on the balance of probabilities means no more than that the panel must find it more likely than not that the asserted thing occurred. The task of the judge in a case such as the present was considered by the House of Lords in In re B (Children)(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2009] 1 AC 11. As it was put by Lord Hoffmann (paragraph 2, at p17B):
  
  “If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a “fact in issue”), a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are zero and one. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of zero is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened. If he does discharge it, a value of one is returned and the fact is treated as having happened.”
• In Rhesa Shipping Co v. Edmunds (the Popi M) [1985] 1 WLR 948 the House of Lords considered reasoning by a process of elimination and the significance of the burden of proof. Lord Brandon of Oakbrook offered the following formulation:
  
  “My Lords, the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his book The Sign of Four, describes his hero, Mr. Sherlock Holmes, as saying to the latter’s friend, Dr. Watson: “How often have I said to You that, when You have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” It is, no doubt, on the basis of this well-known but unjudicial dictum that Bingham J. decided to accept the shipowners’ submarine theory, even though he regarded it, for seven cogent reasons, as extremely improbable. In my view there are three reasons why it is inappropriate to apply the dictum of Mr. Sherlock Holmes, to which I have just referred, to the process of fact-finding which a judge of first instance has to perform at the conclusion of a case of the kind here concerned.
  
  The first reason is one which I have already sought to emphasise as being of great importance, namely, that the judge is not bound always to make a finding one way or the other with regard to the facts averred by the parties. He has open to him the third alternative of saying that the party on whom the burden of proof lies in relation to any averment made by him has failed to discharge that burden. No judge likes to decide cases on burden of proof if he can legitimately avoid having to do so. There are cases, however, in which, owing to the unsatisfactory state of the evidence or otherwise, deciding on the burden of proof is the only just course for him to take.
  
  The second reason is that the dictum can only apply when all relevant facts are known, so that all possible explanations, except a single extremely improbable one, can properly be eliminated. That state of affairs does not exist in the present case: to take but one example, the ship sank in such deep water that a diver’s examination of the nature of the aperture, which might well have thrown light on its cause, could not be carried out.
  
  The third reason is that the legal concept of proof of a case on a balance of probabilities must be applied with common sense. It requires a judge of first instance, before he finds that a particular event occurred, to be satisfied on the evidence that it is more likely to have occurred than not. If such a judge concludes, on a whole series of cogent grounds, that the occurrence of an event is extremely improbable, a finding by him that it is nevertheless more likely to have occurred than not, does not accord with common sense. This is especially so when it is open to the judge to say simply that the evidence leaves him in doubt whether the event occurred or not, and that the party on whom the burden of proving that the event occurred lies has therefore failed to discharge such burden.”
• The ratio of the Popi M is not to exclude entirely reasoning by elimination. The point principally made by Lord Brandon is that an account which is in and of itself improbable, or extremely improbable, cannot logically be found to be proved on the balance of probabilities simply because it is less improbable than all of the alternatives which are canvassed before the judge. As Lord Brandon makes clear it is legitimate to exclude possible explanations, but what may be left at the end of the process of elimination is the conclusion that the party upon whom the burden of proof rests has failed to discharge it.

Evaluation of witness evidence

Before turning to the detail of the evidence and legal analysis it may be helpful first to consider some general analysis of the process of evaluation of oral evidence. The most influential modern discussion is in Gestmin SGPS SA v. Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & another [2020 1 CLC 428; [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm.). Leggat J. (as he then was; Lord Leggat as he has since become) made the following observations:

• “16. While everyone knows that memory is fallible, I do not believe that the legal system has sufficiently absorbed the lessons of a century of psychological research into the nature of memory and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. One of the most important lessons of such research is that in everyday life we are not aware of the extent to which our own and other people’s memories are unreliable and believe our memories to be more faithful than they are. Two common (and related) errors are to suppose: (1) that the stronger and more vivid is our feeling or experience of recollection, the more likely the recollection is to be accurate; and (2) that the more confident another person is in their recollection, the more likely their recollection is to be accurate.
• 17. Underlying both these errors is a faulty model of memory as a mental record which is fixed at the time of experience of an event and then fades (more or less slowly) over time. In fact, psychological research has demonstrated that memories are fluid and malleable, being constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved. This is true even of so-called ‘flashbulb’ memories, that is memories of experiencing or learning of a particularly shocking or traumatic event. (The very description ‘flashbulb’ memory is in fact misleading, reflecting as it does the misconception that memory operates like a camera or other device that makes a fixed record of an experience.) External information can intrude into a witness’s memory, as can his or her own thoughts and beliefs, and both can cause dramatic changes in recollection. Events can come to be recalled as memories which did not happen at all or which happened to someone else (referred to in the literature as a failure of source memory).
• 19. The process of civil litigation itself subjects the memories of witnesses to powerful biases. The nature of litigation is such that witnesses often have a stake in a particular version of events. This is obvious where the witness is a party or has a tie of loyalty (such as an employment relationship) to a party to the proceedings. Other, more subtle influences include allegiances created by the process of preparing a witness statement and of coming to court to give evidence for one side in the dispute. A desire to assist, or at least not to prejudice, the party who has called the witness or that party’s lawyers, as well as a natural desire to give a good impression in a public forum, can be significant motivating forces.
• 20. Considerable interference with memory is also introduced in civil litigation by the procedure of preparing for trial. A witness is asked to make a statement, often (as in the present case) when a long time has already elapsed since the relevant events. The statement is usually drafted for the witness by a lawyer who is inevitably conscious of the significance for the issues in the case of what the witness does nor does not say. The statement is made after the witness’s memory has been ‘refreshed’ by reading documents. The documents considered often include statements of case and other argumentative material as well as documents which the witness did not see at the time or which came into existence after the events which he or she is being asked to recall. The statement may go through several iterations before it is finalised. Then, usually months later, the witness will be asked to re-read his or her statement and review documents again before giving evidence in court. The effect of this process is to establish in the mind of the witness the matters recorded in his or her own statement and other written material, whether they be true or false, and to cause the witness’s memory of events to be based increasingly on this material and later interpretations of it rather than on the original experience of the events.
• 21. It is not uncommon (and the present case was no exception) for witnesses to be asked in cross-examination if they understand the difference between recollection and reconstruction or whether their evidence is a genuine recollection or a reconstruction of events. Such questions are misguided in at least two ways. First, they erroneously presuppose that there is a clear distinction between recollection and reconstruction, when all remembering of distant events involves reconstructive processes. Second, such questions disregard the fact that such processes are largely unconscious and that the strength, vividness and apparent authenticity of memories is not a reliable measure of their truth.”

It is for the panel to assess the weight of each piece of evidence. That is often best done by looking at the evidence as a whole. The evidence of a witness may be tested by asking how it fits with other pieces of evidence. No particular type of evidence is inherently more persuasive than another. The panel may accept the evidence of a witness in part and reject it in part. In assessing the evidence the panel is entitled to bring to bear its own life experience, but it is also in this context an expert tribunal. Although the present case is generally concerned with primary fact rather than with any particular aspect of educational practice, in assessing the evidence the panel is entitled to bring to bear its own specialist knowledge and expertise of the way in which Scottish secondary schools operated and were organised at the relevant time.

Overview of evidence

It may assist to identify certain things that may safely be taken as established, and which provide anchor points for the resolution of the contested issues. It is submitted that the following may be found proved:

(i) That Pupil A developed some sort of crush or infatuation with Mr Weir.

(ii) That she claimed to at least Witness 2, Witness 4 and Witness 7 to be having a relationship with him.

(iii) That the principal science teachers expressed some concern about the amount of time being spent and/or Pupil A being in Mr Weir’s class, and reported the matter to the headmaster.

(iv) That the headmaster spoke to Mr Weir and issued a firm instruction that he should not be alone with pupil A in a car.

(v) That following upon her discovery of Mr Weir’s wife’s pregnancy Pupil A became distraught or hysterical, and at that point told her parents that she had had a relationship with him.

(vi) That no report of anything untoward ever reached the headmaster or any principal teacher.

Against that background the panel has to consider the credibility and reliability of the evidence. The following observations are offered, dealing first with the witnesses other than Pupil A and Mr Weir.

Witness 5

An impressive witness. A clear recollection of the discussion with Mr Weir and the circumstances leading up to it. Very firm on no further issue coming back to him and on explaining why he would have expected conduct such as that spoken to by some of the witnesses to get back to him. Persuasive in his scepticism of the account of pupils wandering the corridors passing notes.

Witness 6

Gave his evidence straightforwardly. Corroborated Witness 5 and Mr Weir on the essential set up.

Teacher B

Corroborates Witness 5 and Witness 6. Confirms heightened scrutiny of Mr Weir and to seeing no cause for concern. Gives a spontaneous assessment of Pupil A as “deceitful and manipulative”.

Person 6

Adds relatively little, but is consistent with the other staff members.

Person 5

Corroborates what was said about lab technicians being around the classroom. Makes clear she saw nothing untoward and would have spoken out if she had done.

Witness 3

A witness that it is difficult to accept as credible in all respects. Her account of being told by Pupil A of a relationship with a teacher when Witness 3 was in primary 7 does not tally with Pupil A’s account. That may indicate unreliability, although it is equally consistent with Pupil A having been telling her some sort of fantasy version of events that bore no relationship to reality.

More fundamentally her account of seeing Pupil A with Mr Weir cannot be reconciled with the account of the same incident given by Pupil A. Pupil A was very specific about the car and maintained it was the silver Audi owned by Mr Weir’s wife. She was also very specific about the date – shortly before the Christmas holidays, which she contextualised by recounting that Mr Weir had said he couldn’t go through the holidays without seeing her. She maintained she was picked up at Darroch Park and driven to Lunderston Bay where they just talked and perhaps held hands. She was quite specific in placing this incident as the one linked Witness 3. (see generally p59).

Witness 3by contrast said it was the black car and it was summer. The panel’s recollection is what matters, but the note taken for Mr Weir records her saying it was “a lovely summer day” She described being a metre away and observing them kissing in the car with the passenger side window down. She describes Pupil A as having her make up messed up, and she recounts learning of sexual activity (p77-78). In her GTCS statement she describes what she says she has since come to know as a sexual smell. (p200).

None of this can be reconciled with Pupil A’s version and yet the coincidences between them cannot be accidental either. One explanation for that is subsequent telling and re- telling of the story over many years. The account of Mr Weir brazenly kissing Pupil A in a public place while her then 13 year old friend stood watching a metre away is so bizarre as to cast doubt on the credibility of the whole account.

Witness 4

Another witness who is clearly not credible and reliable. The “note passing” chapter of her evidence defies reason and belief. Moreover she was very firm that it ceased before they entered S4 (in reply to panel question put by [the Panel]). Her evidence that the alleged relationship was raised with a guidance teacher, Guidance Teacher 2 who took no action is wholly implausible and cannot be reconciled with the other evidence. Her account of confronting Mr Weir and, separately, of her being invited to call him by his first name is similarly outlandish. Notably the only source of information on the core allegations as what she was told by Pupil A and to that extent is equally consistent with Pupil A having been a fantasist. Notably her account of seeing Pupil A at the library in Greenock is at odds with Pupil A’s account.

Witness 7

In many respects similar to Witness 4. The “note passing” evidence similarly was unable to withstand any scrutiny. A similarly incongruous account of a supposed confrontation, when seen against her self description as a quiet, well behaved girl. Beyond that recounting only what she maintains she was told by Pupil A. Striking as to how often she makes clear that she had no direct knowledge but “Pupil A said” or “Pupil A told me” As with Witness 4 inconsistent with Pupil A as to events at Greenock library.

Witness 2 – Pupil A’s mother

Vague and unable to supply relevant detail. Recounting only what she had been told by Pupil A. her evidence of searching Pupil A’s room is of some significance. She found a diary which had nothing of any note in it. That was apparently found in the wardrobe but what Pupil A said was a box of love letters in the same place was apparently not found.

Witness 1 – Pupil A

Against that assessment of the other key witnesses Pupil A’s evidence cannot be taken to be either credible or reliable. One striking aspect of her evidence was that she spoke fluently, with the impression of much prior thought and consideration, to the events in her statements, but defaulted to claiming to be unable to remember anything else, including things that might be expected to stick in her mind. The notes or letters – which she claimed to have kept for many years and to have re-read many times – was perhaps the most obvious example but by no means the only one. The absence of objectively checkable detail is eye catching.

The account has been given many, many times to many people over a period of thirty years. It seems clear that whatever else was the case it was materially exaggerated and fabricated at the time of the events in question. Her account to her friends in real time simply cannot have been true and bears all the hallmarks of a fantasist. There is no basis to hold the reconstruction now offered as credible or reliable. [sic]

The Teacher – Iain Weir

The foregoing is a sufficient basis for the Panel to find that the Presenting Officer has failed to discharge the burden of proving the allegations. But the panel also has the evidence of the Teacher . That evidence is exculpatory and the Panel is invited to accept it. In particular the obvious and dramatically heightened risk of detection which would be present if the accounts of other witnesses were true points strongly in favour of the Teacher’s account being truthful and those of his accusers being false. Whatever else the Panel might take from the evidence he is clearly not a careless idiot which he would have to be for the accounts of other witnesses to be accepted. [sic]

In his oral submissions, the Teacher’s Representative submitted that in relation to evidence the issue before the Panel was what weight it should attach to any evidence. He accepted unreservedly that the Panel could consider circumstantial evidence and that what mattered was its overall assessment of the evidence and overall impression. He referred to his written submissions in respect of the approach a Panel should take to the assessment of the credibility and reliability of witnesses with particular reference to the issue of demeanour.

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Panel had the expertise to understand how schools organised and recognised patterns of behaviour that occurred in schools and that the Panel should use this experience in assessing the witnesses. The Teacher’s Representative referred the Panel to the particular paragraphs in his written submissions setting out his suggested assessment of the witnesses. In particular, he referred the Panel to the evidence of Witness 5 that he was sceptical that the alleged relationship could have been the talk of the school, and he would not have known about it or that it would have been possible for notes to be passed as suggested by the GTC Scotland witnesses.

The Teacher’s Representative also submitted that Teacher B in his witness statement had stated that he had made it his business to heighten scrutiny of the Teacher and in his GTC Scotland statement had corrected his Police statement relating to concerns about the Teacher.

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the collective body of evidence was that this was a school run along orthodox lines, that all senior staff were aware when a concern was raised, and the Teacher had received a warning.

The Teacher’s Representative repeated his written submissions in relation to the various witnesses who had given evidence to the Panel.

In respect of Witness 3, he further submitted that she was not at the school and that it was her older sister who was friends with Pupil A and that their parents were friendly. He submitted that Witness 3 was only friendly with Pupil A ‘to an extent’ who from time to time were in each other’s company. He submitted they were not peer group associates.

In relation to Pupil A, he submitted that her perception of what occurred was ‘filtered’ through her studies and discussions with Person 1. He submitted that this process could not but affect the nature of her recollection and how and why she gave evidence as she did. The Teacher’s Representative further submitted that there was no objectively checkable detail to support the allegations – for example, the alleged letters retained by Pupil A.

He submitted that the Panel should look at what Pupil A had said to friends historically and, if this was inconsistent with the existence of a relationship, then there had not been one. He submitted that the evidence showed that Pupil A was a fantasist who wanted more interest from the Teacher. He submitted that the Panel should consider explanations such as Pupil A being the sort of person who needed to tell exaggerated tales to make herself more interesting and once this occurred the process simply went on. It had then resurfaced in her conversation with Person 1 and once statements had been given to the Police it was very difficult to ‘walk back’ from that and Pupil A had ’doubled down’.

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Panel should accept the Teacher as wholly credible and reliable for the reasons set out in his written submissions. He emphasised that the Teacher was not stupid and would have had to have been, to act in the reckless way he was alleged to have done. The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Panel should ask why, having been talked to by the Headteacher, the Teacher would continue to act as alleged within the school or use other pupils to pass notes. He submitted that the answer was that this was all in Pupil A’s mind and there was no objective evidence of how this could have occurred ‘under the radar’ in a Scottish school.

In respect of the use of the word repeatedly, the Teacher’s Representative accepted that the Panel should apply the ordinary definition but also look at the surrounding context in which it was used. With regard to the Panel potentially amending, he submitted that whilst it had such a power, it should not seek to broaden the allegations or add to them.

Findings of Fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties, and accepted the advice provided by the Legal Assessor 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 addressed each allegation in turn.

The Panel first considered the live witnesses it had heard from. It took into account the guidance in the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement (the ‘Statement’).

Witness 1 – Pupil A

The Panel considered that Pupil A gave her evidence in a clear straightforward manner. The Panel considered that her oral evidence was consistent with her Police statements, GTC Scotland statement and the other documentation before it. The Panel considered that any inconsistencies in Pupil A’s evidence were due to the passage of time. Her evidence was consistent with other witnesses in respect of the key elements of the allegations. The Panel also considered that Pupil A maintained her position during the examination in chief and cross examination even when she became distressed. The Panel also considered that she did not attempt to avoid questions. The Panel concluded that Pupil A was credible and reliable.

Witness 2 – Pupil A’s mother

The Panel considered that Pupil A’s mother gave her evidence in a clear and straightforward manner. Her evidence was consistent with her prior statements and other documentation. She did not avoid questions and sought to assist the Panel. The Panel considered that she was candid. The Panel overall considered her credible and reliable.

Witness 3

The Panel considered that Witness 3 gave her evidence in a clear and straightforward manner. Her evidence was consistent with her prior statements and other documentation. She did not avoid questions and sought to assist the Panel. The Panel considered that she was candid. The Panel did however consider that in relation to her recollection of being told what occurred at Cornalees, her evidence was inconsistent, and her recollection confused. The Panel concluded that it would attach little weight to this section of her evidence. The Panel otherwise considered her credible and reliable.

Witness 4

The Panel considered that Witness 4 gave her evidence in a clear and straightforward manner. Her evidence was consistent with her prior statements and other documentation. She did not avoid questions and sought to assist the Panel. The Panel considered that she was candid. The Panel overall considered her credible and reliable.

Witness 5

The Panel considered that Witness 5 gave his evidence in a clear and straightforward manner. His evidence was consistent with his prior statements and other documentation. He did not avoid questions and sought to assist the Panel. The Panel considered that he was candid. The Panel overall considered him credible and reliable

Witness 6

The Panel considered that Witness 6 gave his evidence in a clear and straightforward manner. His evidence was consistent with his prior statements and other documentation. He did not avoid questions and sought to assist the Panel. The Panel considered that he was candid. The Panel overall considered him credible and reliable.

Witness 7

The Panel considered that Witness 7 gave her evidence in a clear and straightforward manner. Her evidence was consistent with her prior statements and other documentation. She did not avoid questions and sought to assist the Panel. The Panel considered that she was candid. The Panel overall considered her credible and reliable.

Witness 8 – The Teacher

The Panel considered that the Teacher gave his evidence in a confident and articulate manner. The Panel did not accept the Presenting Officer’s position that parts of his evidence appeared rehearsed. The Panel considered that parts of the Teacher’s oral evidence were inconsistent with his previous position on the allegations – for example, his position in relation to giving Pupil A lifts. However, the Panel considered that the Teacher maintained his position in respect of the core elements of the allegations. The Panel considered that the Teacher’s evidence was inconsistent with that of other witnesses. The Panel also considered that the Teacher’s explanation for events that occurred was in places inherently improbable. Overall, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s evidence could not be relied on.

The Panel attached appropriate weight to the witness statements of witnesses who did not attend the hearing.

Allegations

On dates unknown between August 1994 and June 1995, whilst employed by Inverclyde Council as a teacher at [redacted], and in the course of his employment, the Teacher did:

(a) enter into a relationship with Pupil A, then aged 15-16 years of age and did:

The Panel noted that it was not disputed that between the relevant dates, the Teacher was employed as a teacher at [redacted].

In considering this limb of the allegation, the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 2, Witness 3, Witness 4, Witness 7 and the Teacher. Where this evidence was hearsay, the Panel took this into consideration.

The Panel took into account Pupil A’s evidence in her Police statement of 30 June 2017 and her oral evidence where she identified talking to the Teacher about what her first sexual experience would be like between December 1994 and February 1995. Pupil A also stated that the Teacher kissed her in the gym in January 1995 and that the Teacher’s second visit to her parents’ house was in August – September 1995. Pupil A also gave evidence that after the ‘February holidays’ the Teacher continued to kiss her and touch her breasts in the classroom and that her parents became aware that something was going on resulting in the Teacher visiting her parents’ house on two occasions.

The Panel also noted the evidence of Witness 2 that Pupil A had come home upset and told her she was having a relationship with the Teacher.

The Panel also took into account that in her Police statement and oral evidence Witness 3 stated that around 1993 she became aware that Pupil A was in a relationship with the Teacher. Witness 3 also said she spoke directly to the Teacher confronting him about his relationship with Pupil A and stated that the Teacher did not deny the existence of a relationship. The Panel also noted that Witness 7 had told it about an entry she made in her diary on 31 December 1994 that Pupil A ‘fancied’ the Teacher ‘stinking’ and spoke generally about a relationship between the Teacher and Pupil A. Witness 3 also spoke about becoming aware of Pupil A meeting the Teacher.

Given the evidence of these various witnesses, the Panel considered that the Teacher’s position, namely that no relationship existed between him and Pupil A, to be inconsistent with these witnesses and his explanation inherently improbable. Considering the evidence in the round, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s explanation that he simply provided tuition and occasional lifts home was improbable.

The Panel therefore concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, on dates unknown between August 1994 and June 1995 the Teacher entered into a relationship with Pupil A, then aged 15-16 years of age.

(i) repeatedly spend time alone with her in his classroom;

The Panel applied the ordinary everyday meaning to repeatedly, this being, ‘many times’.

The Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A that on many occasions she had been alone with the Teacher in his classroom. The Panel also took into account the evidence of Witness 7 that she was aware of Pupil A being alone with the Teacher in his classroom. Pupil A’s oral evidence was consistent with her Police statements and with that of Witness 7. Where this evidence was hearsay, the Panel took this into consideration.

The Panel noted that the Teacher did not dispute that during the relevant period he was alone with Pupil A in his classroom. The Panel also took into account that Witness 6 had given evidence that Pupil A spent time in the classroom alone with the Teacher. The Panel noted this was also the position of Teacher B and Person 6 in their witness statements. Witness 6 also referred to his concerns about the Teacher being alone in his classroom with a pupil, in his Police statement, but added no further detail when giving his oral evidence. The Panel considered that this further evidence was generally consistent and supportive of the evidence of Pupil A.

The Panel therefore concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Teacher repeatedly spent time alone with Pupil A in his classroom.

Allegation (a)(i) is therefore found proven.

(ii) kiss her in the school gymnasium;

In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 7 and the Teacher. Where this evidence was hearsay, the Panel took this into consideration.

The Panel considered that the only direct evidence that the Teacher had kissed Pupil A in the school gymnasium was from Pupil A herself. The Panel also took into account that the Teacher in his evidence denied that this had occurred. The Panel also took into account the evidence of Witness 7 that Pupil A had told her that the Teacher had kissed her in the school gymnasium. The Panel had regard to this evidence being hearsay and that Witness 7 had not witnessed the event herself. The Panel considered that Pupil A told Witness 7 what had occurred contemporaneously. The Panel further considered that Pupil A’s evidence of what occurred was very detailed, including a reference to the Teacher chewing gum and removing it before kissing her and Pupil A’s explanation of the location of the gym.

The Panel was aware of the comments made in relation to the assessment of the credibility and reliability of witnesses in the case of Byrne V GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 which the Legal Assessor had referred it to that:

‘In a case where the evidence consists of conflicting oral accounts, the court may place substantial reliance upon the oral evidence of the complainant to that of the defender/appellant… Fourthly, in a case where the complainant provides an oral account and there is a flat denial from the person concerned, and little or no independent evidence, it is commonplace for there to be inconsistency and confusion in some of the detail.’

The Panel applied this guidance in approaching this allegation. The Panel considered that it could place substantial reliance on the detailed evidence of Pupil A and the supportive evidence of Witness 7. It also took into account the surrounding circumstantial evidence and its finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A. Given the evidence of these various witnesses, the Panel considered that the Teacher’s denial was inconsistent with these witnesses and his explanation inherently improbable.

In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Teacher kissed Pupil A in the school gymnasium.

Allegation (a) (ii) is therefore found proven.

(iii) repeatedly kiss her on the mouth, touch her breasts and grab hold of her bottom in his classroom;

In considering this allegation, the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 2 and Witness 4 and the evidence of the Teacher. In relation to the evidence of Witness 2 and Witness 4 the Panel bore in mind that this evidence was hearsay and that Witness 2 had not witnessed the event herself.

Pupil A told the Panel that she and the Teacher kissed every day in the classroom and that he touched her breasts over her bra, but under her shirt, and grabbed her bottom. She explained how the Teacher had closed the curtains in the classroom. She also described the layout of the classroom, where she and the Teacher were located in the classroom, and how they would have been aware if anyone started to come into it.

The Panel also took into account the evidence of Witness 2 that Pupil A had at a later date told her that she and the Teacher had kissed in the classroom.

The Panel also took into account the evidence of Witness 2 and Witness 4 that Pupil A had told them that the Teacher had kissed her in the classroom and Witness 7 had stated that Pupil A had kissed her and touched her breasts, and this had occurred on a number of occasions.

Again, the Panel took into account the Teacher’s evidence that this did not occur and the suggestion that Pupil A had developed a crush on him. The Panel took into account the evidence of Witness 6, and hearsay evidence from Teacher B but concluded that the explanation provided by Pupil A in relation to both her and the Teacher being aware if someone was going to enter the classroom was plausible.

The Panel again adopted the guidance set out in the case of Byrne.

The Panel considered that it could place substantial reliance on the detailed evidence of Pupil A and the supportive evidence of Witness 2, Witness 4 and Witness 7. It also took into account the surrounding circumstantial evidence and its finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A. The Panel considered that the Teacher’s denial was inconsistent with these witnesses and his explanation inherently improbable. The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher had acted as narrated in this allegation and that it had occurred repeatedly.

In all the circumstances, the Panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Teacher had repeatedly kissed Pupil A on the mouth, touched her breasts and grabbed hold of her bottom in his classroom.

Allegation (a) (iii) is therefore found proven.

(iv) repeatedly engage in conversations with her of a sexual nature

In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A and that of the Teacher.

The Panel noted that in her Police witness statement dated 26 January 2017 and 30 June 2017 and in her oral evidence before the Panel, Pupil A talked about the Teacher having conversations with her of a sexual nature. The Panel particularly noted that Pupil A stated ‘[the Teacher] was always saying we had to wait until I was 16 before we could have sex’. The Panel considered that the use of the word ‘always’ indicated a number of such conversations. The Panel also took into account that Pupil A had told it about a specific conversation between December 1994 and February 1995 where the Teacher had talked to her about what her first sexual experience might be and had encouraged her to masturbate. The Panel further took into account that Pupil A had also spoken of the Teacher discussing using condoms and spermicidal lubricant with her. It also took into account the surrounding circumstantial evidence and its finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A.

Again, the Panel took into account the Teacher’s evidence that this did not occur and the suggestion that Pupil A had developed a crush on him.

The Panel again adopted the guidance set out in the case of Byrne.

The Panel took into account all the relevant evidence, including the surrounding circumstantial evidence and its finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A. The Panel considered that the Teacher’s denial was inconsistent with this evidence and his explanation inherently improbable. The Panel determined, on the balance of probabilities that the Teacher repeatedly engaged in conversations with Pupil A of a sexual nature.

Allegation (a) (iv) is therefore found proven.

(v) repeatedly engage in the exchanging of notes with her during school time

In considering this allegation, the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 4, Witness 5, Witness 7 and the Teacher.

Pupil A told the Panel that she and the Teacher had started writing notes and letters to each other around December 1994. Witness 4 spoke directly to Pupil A giving her notes on a number of occasions. She would ask to go to the toilet, take the note to the Teacher’s classroom and hand it to him, saying it was from another teacher. The Teacher would write something back in the note and Witness 4 would take the note back to Pupil A. Witness 7 also explained to the Panel how she would be given notes by Pupil A on a number of occasions and then ask to leave the classroom and go to the Teacher’s classroom. She said he would read the note, chuckle and grin, write something, and she would take it back to Pupil A.

When asked about the possibility of passing notes, Witness 5 told the Panel that pupils would have to have a very good reason to be allowed to leave class. The Teacher denied the passing of notes.

The Panel took into account that the evidence of Pupil A was supported by the direct evidence of Witness 4 and Witness 7. The Panel considered that Witness 5 may have believed that it was not likely that pupils would be allowed to leave class without a good reason, but concluded he could not actually speak to whether it occurred as stated by Pupil A, Witness 4 and Witness 7. The Panel considered it was entirely possible that pupils would have been allowed to leave class to the toilet.

The Panel again adopted the guidance set out in the case of Byrne.

Given the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 4 and Witness 7, and the Panel’s finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s explanation that no notes were ever passed was inherently improbable.

The Panel therefore concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the Teacher repeatedly engaged in the exchanging of notes with Pupil A during school time.

Allegation (a) (iv) is therefore found proven.

(vi) repeatedly telephone her at home when he knew her parents were not present;

In considering this allegation, the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 7 and the Teacher.

Pupil A told the Panel that during school holidays she would regularly speak to the Teacher on the phone and gave a detailed explanation of when and how this would occur. She explained how the Teacher would call her at home when he knew her parents would be out. The Panel also took into account the hearsay evidence of Witness 7 that Pupil A had told her that she would phone the Teacher and that she would use a phone box and call the Teacher when his wife was not at home. Pupil A also explained how the Teacher would call her at home when he knew her parents were not present.

The Panel also took into account the evidence of the Teacher that this did not occur and that at the time of the allegations he only had a landline and that his wife would have noticed something unusual on the bill if Pupil A had been calling him.

The Panel again adopted the guidance set out in the case of Byrne.

Given the evidence of Pupil A and Witness 7, and the Panel’s finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s explanation that no telephone calls took place was inherently implausible.

The Panel therefore concluded, that on the balance of probabilities, the Teacher repeatedly telephoned Pupil A at home when he knew her parents were not present.

Allegation (a)(vi) is therefore found proven.

(vii) repeatedly give her lifts in his car

In considering this allegation the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 2, Witness 4, Witness 5, Witness 6, Witness 7 and the Teacher.

Pupil A told the Panel that just before Christmas 1994, the Teacher had given her a lift home and then further lifts on a few subsequent occasions. She said that on some occasions, Witness 4 was also given a lift. Witness 4 also spoke directly to the Teacher giving her and Pupil A a lift on one occasion. Witness 7 told the Panel she was aware of the Teacher dropping Pupil A off from school. Witness 2 in her Police statement said that on one occasion she had come home and found the Teacher’s car parked outside her house and that Pupil A was in the passenger seat and that she was annoyed and told Pupil A that this was not acceptable.

The Panel also took into account the evidence of Witness 6 who told the Panel that it had been brought to his attention that the Teacher had been seen driving away with a pupil in his car. He said that he raised this with Teacher B, who had ‘a word’ with the teacher and after this the Teacher was again seen picking up a pupil outside the school car park.

Witness 5 confirmed that he was aware teachers had concerns about seeing the Teacher driving out of the car park with a female pupil in his car.

The Teacher told the Panel that he had given Pupil A a lift home on three occasions. He said that on the first occasion, Pupil A and other pupils had helped him load some things into his car and it was suggested that he give Pupil A and Witness 4 a lift home, which he did. He said that on the second occasion, Pupil A had come to give him some work and he then offered her a lift home along with Witness 4. The Teacher said that the third occasion was when he went to speak to Pupil A’s parents. He accepted that after the second occasion he was spoken to by Witness 5, and they discussed not giving pupils lifts home. Teacher A denied that he could have given Pupil A lifts without anyone noticing as the school overlooked the car park.

The Panel again adopted the guidance set out in the case of Byrne.

Given the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 2, Witness 4, Witness 5, Witness 6, Witness 7 and the Panel’s finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A, the Panel considered that the Teacher’s evidence that he only gave Pupil A lifts home on three occasions, in the circumstances described by him, to be inherently improbable. The Panel determined that the Teacher had given Pupil A a lift in his car on many occasions.

The Panel therefore concluded, on the balance of probabilities that, the Teacher had repeatedly given Pupil A a lift in his car.

Allegation (a)(vii) is therefore found proven.

(viii) repeatedly meet her outside of school.

In considering this allegation, the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 4, the witness statement of Person 1 and the evidence of the Teacher.

The Panel considered that Pupil A herself had only told it that she had met the Teacher outside of school during the period set out in the allegations on two occasions – firstly when he picked her up at Darroch Park and went to Lunderston Bay and, secondly, when the Teacher took Pupil A to Cornalees. Witness 3 told the Panel that she was with Pupil A when Pupil A met the Teacher at Darroch Park. There was no evidence before the Panel of any further meetings outside school. Person 1 simply spoke to Pupil A telling her she had gone out in the Teacher’s car a number of times.

The Panel noted that the Teacher denied that either of these trips ever took place.

The Panel again adopted the guidance set out in the case of Byrne.

The Panel concluded that given the evidence of Pupil A and the hearsay evidence of Witness 3 and Person 1, and the Panel’s finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A, that the Teacher’s evidence that he never met Pupil A outside school, to be inherently improbable.

However, the Panel further concluded that as the allegation narrated that the Teacher ‘repeatedly’ met Pupil A outside school – and with reference to the everyday definition of repeated set out above – that meeting on two occasions did not constitute repeated meetings.

The Panel considered whether it would be appropriate and fair to amend this allegation under Rule 2.8.4. However, the Panel was acutely aware that the burden of proof was on the Presenting Officer to prove the allegation as narrated. The Panel further noted that the trip to Cornalees had been already narrated in allegation (b) by the Presenting Officer.

Allegation (a) (viii) is therefore found not proven.

(b) On or around February 1995, drive Pupil A, then aged 15 years of age, in his car to Cornalees, Greenock where he did kiss her on the mouth and breasts and insert his fingers into her vagina.

In considering this allegation, the Panel took into account the evidence of Pupil A, Witness 2, Witness 4 and Witness 7. The Panel also took into account that the evidence of Witness 2, Witness 4 and Witness 7 was hearsay as they spoke to what Pupil A had told them.

The Panel noted that it was not a matter of dispute that on or around February 1995 Pupil A was aged 15.

Pupil A in her Police witness statement of 18 January 2017 and in her oral evidence told the Panel that in February 1995 the Teacher had driven her to Cornalees. She explained to the Panel where she met the Teacher initially and that when she got into the car the passenger’s seat back had been laid back. She also told the Panel that when the Teacher stopped the car, he moved over beside her, started kissing her mouth and then moved to kissing her breasts. She said she felt exposed. Pupil A told the Panel that ‘out of nowhere’ the Teacher put his right hand into her trousers and his fingers inside her vagina.

Witness 2 gave evidence that Pupil A had initially told her that the Teacher had driven her to Cornalees, and they had kissed. She said that prior to the criminal court case, Pupil A had then explained that the Teacher had also opened her shirt and put his fingers in her vagina.

Witness 4 told the Panel that Pupil A had told her that the Teacher had driven to Cornalees and they had ‘gone further’. Witness 4 could not recall exactly what Pupil A had said had taken place.

Witness 7 told the Panel that she could not remember when Pupil A had said to her and Witness 4 that what had occurred was more than just kissing and that the Teacher had touched her vagina and inserted his fingers into her vagina. The Panel considered that in relation to these matters, Witness 7’s evidence had been inconsistent and vague, and it concluded it could not rely on it.

The Teacher denied that he had taken Pupil to Cornalees or that he had behaved as set out in the allegation.

The Panel again adopted the guidance set out in the case of Byrne.

The Panel concluded that given the evidence of Pupil A and the hearsay evidence of Witness 2 and Witness 4, and the Panel’s finding that the Teacher had entered into a relationship with Pupil A, that the Teacher’s evidence that he never met Pupil A outside school was inherently improbable. The evidence of Pupil A was consistent with the hearsay evidence of Witness 2 and Witness 4.

The Panel determined that Pupil A’s evidence was supported by the evidence of Witness 4 regarding what Pupil A had told her shortly after the event. The Panel also considered that Pupil A repeating the same version of events to Witness 2, albeit a long time after the events, was further support of her evidence.

The Panel therefore determined that on or around February 1995, the Teacher did drive Pupil A, then aged 15 years of age, in his car to Cornalees, Greenock where he did kiss her on the mouth and breasts and insert his fingers into her vagina.

Allegation (b) is therefore found proven.

Following its announcement with regard to the alleged facts, the Panel agreed with the parties, in line with Rule 1.7.6, that it would be appropriate to continue with the Fitness to Teach stage via MS Teams.

Findings on Fitness to Teach

Given that the Panel found that allegations (a)(i)-(vii) and (b) were proven, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

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

In respect of misconduct, the Presenting Officer submitted that the decision on the Teacher’s fitness to reach was a matter for the professional judgement of the Panel.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the conduct found proved fell significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and that the Teacher was unfit to teach in terms of article 18(3) of the Order. He submitted that this finding was required in the public interest, to protect members of the public, maintain confidence in the profession and the GTC Scotland as a regulator, declare and uphold professional standards and act as a deterrent for other Teachers.

The Presenting Officer further submitted that if the Panel found that the Teacher was unfit to teach then he required to be removed from the register.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the conduct found proved was in breach of Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of COPAC and amounted to misconduct.

The Presenting Officer also submitted that the conduct was not remediable and thus the Teacher was unfit to teach.

The Teacher’s Representative provided the Panel with further short written submissions in which it was stated:

Mr Weir maintains his stated position that he never at any time behaved inappropriately towards Pupil A. He wishes to reserve his right to appeal against the conclusions reached by the panel on the facts. It is acknowledged that at stage 2 the panel must proceed on the basis of the facts as found by it, and so must approach the stage 2 analysis on the hypothesis that Mr Weir did act in the manner the panel has found proved.

The written submissions then set out the terms of Article 28 of the order and went on to state:

As the GTCS Indicative Outcomes Guidance makes clear this is a matter of judgment for the panel. It is not something that requires to be proved in the way that primary facts have to be proved. It is an inferential or evaluative exercise. Notwithstanding what is said in the guidance about an alternative test of asking whether the conduct constituted misconduct, the Inner House of the Court of Session held in AD v. General Teaching Council for Scotland 2019 SC 463 that it was unhelpful to deviate from the statutory test (Opinion of the Court delivered by Lord Glennie at paragraphs[54]-[55]). The question for the panel is therefore whether Mr Weir’s “..conduct….falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher…” as that phrase is used in article 18(3).

It is very difficult to identify any argument that the conduct found proved would not meet that test. That is so particularly when regard is had to the requirement to consider the requirement to preserve public confidence in the profession and its disciplinary procedures. Recognising the inevitability of such a conclusion on the facts found proved by the panel, Mr Weir accepts that a finding of unfitness to teach is inevitable and does not seek to persuade the panel to any other conclusion.

If such a finding is made removal from the register is mandatory: see Article 18(2)(b) as explained in AD v. GTCS. Mr Weir therefore accepts that removal from the register is the inevitable consequence of the conclusions reached on the facts. It follows that there is no requirement to move to stage 3 of the exercise. [sic]

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

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

• Did the Teacher’s conduct or competence at the time of the incident(s) fall short of the expected professional standards? i.e. has the Teacher been guilty of misconduct or lack of competence?

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

The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct admitted and found proved breached Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of COPAC.

The Panel determined that the allegations were very serious, but that the seriousness had not been increased by other aggravating factors. The Panel had no evidence of any previous history of misconduct but concluded that the conduct found proven did amount to a pattern of behaviour. The Panel considered that the pattern of behaviour involved just one person and was historic.

• are the shortfalls identified remediable, have they been remedied and is there a likelihood of reoccurrence?

The Panel, having considered the conduct very serious, was not convinced the conduct was remediable in this case. There was no evidence of any remediation before the Panel and no evidence that the Teacher’s current circumstances or other factors might make the risk of reoccurrence unlikely. The Panel also took into account that the Teacher denied the allegations and maintained this position. The Panel concluded that the Teacher had failed to demonstrate insight.

• is a finding of impairment required in the public interest?

The Panel also considered the issue of the public interest as defined with the IOG. In particular, the need to protect members of the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and GTC Scotland as a regulator, declare and uphold proper professional standards. The Panel also took into account the deterrent effect its determination may have upon other registered teachers.

Considering matters holistically, the Panel determined that the Teacher has not remedied his misconduct and that 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 this misconduct could undermine the public’s confidence in the profession and GTC Scotland as its regulator.

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

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

Having found that the Teacher is unfit to teach, the Panel advised parties and requested any submissions.

The Presenting Officer advised he had no formal position and the Teacher’s Representative indicated he had no further submissions.

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 2 years from the date of its decision. The Panel considered that a shorter time period was inappropriate given the multiple breaches of COPAC and the serious nature of the allegations. 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.