Full Hearing - Conduct - James Devlin

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:  

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

Preliminary issues

There were no declarations of interest

The Teacher was not present at the remote hearing, nor was he represented. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to proceed in his absence. Reference was made to Rule 1.7.8 which provides that where a party fails to appear or be represented at the time and place fixed for a hearing, the Panel is required to satisfy itself that notice of the hearing has been given in terms of the Rules, and if so satisfied, the Panel may proceed to hear and dispose of the case in the Teacher’s absence.  Reference was also made to the GTC Scotland Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in Absence Practice Statement 2018, which provides guidance on the application of Rule 1.7.8.

The Presenting Officer submitted that reasonable enquiries were made to secure the Teacher’s attendance, and the Notice of Full Hearing had been sent to the Teacher at his nominated postal and email address. The Presenting Officer also stated that on 29 September 2025, GTC Scotland phoned the Teacher on his given phone number but that the call was declined. Reference was made to the following servicing history. The Panel noted that this included previous efforts to secure the Teacher’s attendance at an earlier hearing, which was originally scheduled to take place on 29 May 2025, but was subsequently rescheduled. The Panel noted that the Teacher did not respond to GTC Scotland’s attempts to make contact regarding either the original hearing date or this rescheduled hearing date.

1. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 20 March 2025 with cover email and undeliverable receipt
2. Email to Teacher from Servicing Officer in relation to additional papers, dated 10 April 2025 and undeliverable receipt dated 10 April 2025
3. Email from Facilities – hearing notice returned to sender, dated 2 May 2025
4. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 26 August 2025 with cover email and undeliverable receipt
5. Notice of Full Hearing Letter, dated 26 August 2025
6. Screenshot of Royal Mail tracking information stating that notice sent on 26 August 2025 was still pending after 4 delivery attempts, dated 1 September 2025
7. File note regarding phone call to serve Notice of Full Hearing, dated 29 September 2025
8. Confirmation of Royal Mail Return dated 29 and 30 August 2025.

The Presenting Officer submitted that GTC Scotland had exhausted all contact options and that the Teacher’s previous remarks to GTC Scotland (as outlined in allegations 2 and 3) indicated that the Teacher’s absence was voluntary. The Presenting Officer also highlighted Rule 1.3.8 (d) which stated the need to avoid delays in proceedings. Therefore, it was suggested to the Panel that it was proportionate to continue in the Teacher’s absence.

The Panel took legal advice to the effect that the Presenting Officer had referred to Rule 1.7.8 and the Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence Practice Statement. Accordingly, the Panel retired into private session to consider the Presenting Officer’s application that the hearing should proceed in the Teacher’s absence.  

The Panel had regard to Rule 1.7.8, and to GTC Scotland’s Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence Practice Statement, as well as the bundle of papers. The Panel agreed that reasonable efforts had been made to contact the Teacher via email, postal address, and phone, as outlined in the case papers, and considered these actions necessary and proportionate. It was noted that the Notice of Full Hearing was sent on 26 August 2025, to the Teacher’s nominated postal and email addresses which GTC Scotland confirmed were recorded in the Teacher’s ‘My GTCS’ account and that the Teacher was expected to ensure these details remained accurate and up to date. The Panel noted that the Teacher had previously engaged with GTC Scotland as the Notification of Investigation Information Form had been duly signed by the Teacher on 13 January 2022, and that he responded to email 2 (regarding a consent order not being accepted) on 16 November 2023. The Panel also noted that the Teacher gave no health reasons, mitigating factors nor had he requested a postponement to proceedings. The Panel agreed that all the above suggested, in the absence of any reasonable explanation by the Teacher, an absence of willingness to participate.

The Panel considered that that the allegations were serious as they involved an offence that had a racially aggravated component, and that it was in the public interest as well as in line with GTC Scotland’s general objective for it to be dealt with as quickly as possible. The Panel concluded that the Teacher was provided every opportunity to respond to the allegations and to participate in the fitness to teach conduct hearing but had not done so. Moreover, the Notice of the Full Hearing had been served correctly and in line with the Rules. Therefore, the Panel considered that the Teacher’s absence from the hearing was voluntary and that any further delay would not ensure his participation. For those reasons, the Panel determined that there was no reason for further delay, and it was in the Teacher’s interests as well as the public interest to proceed.

Accordingly, the Panel granted the Presenting Officer’s application to proceed in the Teacher’s absence. The Presenting Officer made the same application at the outset of stage 2 of the process, whereupon, on both occasions, the Panel granted her application to proceed in the Teacher’s absence for the same reasons.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. On 12 October 2021, the Teacher was convicted of the following offence at Stirling Sheriff Court:
   
   • On 16 September 2021 at [redacted] the Teacher did behave in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that the Teacher did shout and swear; utter threats and offensive comments; CONTRARY to Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 and in terms of Section 96 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 it was proved that the offence was racially aggravated.
     For the above offence, the Teacher was fined £335 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20. The Court also made an Enforcement Order in respect of the Teacher.
2. On 25 October 2023, whilst employed by Edinburgh Council as a secondary teacher, having been sent correspondence from GTC Scotland, the Teacher did reply by email stating “I have told you to go ’n f**k yourself. Now GO AND F**K YOURSELF!!!”
3. On 16 November 2023, whilst employed by Edinburgh Council as a secondary teacher, having been sent correspondence from GTC Scotland, the Teacher did reply by email stating “Suck my f**king c*ck…”

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 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct.

Teacher’s admissions

No admissions were received nor made.

Hearing papers

In accordance with Rule 1.7.17 and Rule 1.7.18, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

• Presenting Officer’s case form, dated 10 September 2024
• Email from Disclosure Scotland, dated 14 October 2022
• Extract of Conviction from Stirling Sheriff Court, received 31 October 2022
• Email from Disclosure Scotland, dated 1 November 2022
• Email from Disclosure Scotland, dated 2 December 2022
• Email from Teacher with further explanation, received 9 January 2023
• Email 1 (regarding Consent Order), dated 25 October 2023
• Email 2 (regarding Consent Order, not accepted), dated 16 November 2023
• Notice of Investigation Information Form, dated 13 January 2022
• Email containing Interim Response, dated 19 January 2024

Teacher’s hearing papers

None

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 20 March 2025 with cover email and undeliverable receipt
• Email to Teacher from Servicing Officer in relation to additional papers, dated 10 April 2025 and undeliverable receipt dated 10 April 2025
• Email from Facilities – hearing notice returned to sender, dated 2 May 2025
• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 26 August 2025 with cover email and undeliverable receipt
• Notice of Full Hearing Letter, dated 26 August 2025
• Screenshot of Royal Mail tracking information stating that notice sent on 26 August 2025 is still pending after 4 delivery attempts, dated 1 September 2025
• File note regarding phone call to serve Notice of Full Hearing, dated 29 September 2025
• Confirmation of Royal Mail Return, dated 29 and 30 August 2025

Summary of evidence

The Presenting Officer called no witnesses but relied on documentary evidence and the fact that an extract conviction was lodged showing that on 12 October 2021, the Teacher was convicted of the aforesaid offence at Stirling Sheriff Court.

Said conviction narrated inter alia that on 16 September 2021 at [redacted] the Teacher behaved in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that the Teacher did shout and swear; utter threats and offensive comments; CONTRARY to Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 and in terms of Section 96 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 it was proved that the offence was racially aggravated. For this offence, the Teacher was fined £335 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20. The Court also made a (Fine) Enforcement Order in respect of the Teacher. The sentence imposed was discounted in terms of section 196 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and would otherwise have been £500.00 on charge 1.

The Presenting Officer drew the Panel’s attention to Rule 1.7.15 regarding the burden and standard of proof, and to Rule 1.7.18, subject to Rule 1.7.19, regarding an extract conviction being conclusive proof of the conviction.

The Presenting Officer also exhibited before the Panel two separate emails showing offensive responses which included profanity to GTC Scotland from the Teacher:

• the first sent on 25 October 2023 from the Teacher’s nominated email address to GTC Scotland in which the Teacher replied to GTC Scotland regarding a consent order that had been sent to him, stating “I have told you to go ’n f*ck yourself. Now GO AND F*CK YOURSELF!!!”
• the second email was sent on 16 November 2023 to GTC Scotland from the Teacher’s nominated email address, in response to GTC Scotland’s email regarding the consent order not being accepted, in which the Teacher stated “Suck my f*cking c*ck.”

The Presenting Officer drew the Panel’s attention to the paper bundle and highlighted that all the Teacher’s email responses to GTC Scotland from 9 January 2023 to 19 January 2024 came from the same email address. It was submitted to the Panel that neither the Teacher’s earlier responses nor any other documentation before the Panel suggested that he was not the individual named in the extract conviction or in the emails. On that basis, the Presenting Officer invited the Panel to find the allegations proved.

Findings of fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the Presenting Officer 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 had regard to the Fact finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement. The Panel also noted Rule 1.7.17 which stated that a Panel may admit at a hearing oral, documentary or other evidence, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in court or criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom.

Allegation 1

Amongst the papers provided to the Panel was an extract conviction dated 12 October 2021 which contained details of the offences outlined above, as well as the sentence imposed by the Sheriff Court.

The Panel recognised in terms of Rule 1.7.18 that the extract conviction was conclusive proof of the conduct alleged. Furthermore, the Panel noted that Teacher had not provided evidence in rebuttal of the extract conviction nor had he denied that he was the person convicted. The Panel was therefore able to assess the Teacher’s conduct by reference to the detail contained in the allegations. In line with Rules 1.7.18 and 1.7.19, the Panel treated the extract conviction as conclusive proof of that conviction, and hence of the Teacher’s said offending.

Therefore, the Panel found this allegation proved.

Allegation 2

The Panel referred to documentary evidence before them in the form of email 1, dated 25 October 2023 which appeared to have been sent by the Teacher to GTC Scotland. The Panel noted that there was nothing to dispute that the Teacher made these statements to GTC Scotland from the documentary evidence the Panel had before them. The Panel noted that the Teacher’s response was sent from his nominated email address and that no application challenging the admissibility of evidence had been received. The Panel also considered documentary evidence, specifically ‘email 2’ dated 16 November 2023. In this email, the Teacher replied to GTC Scotland’s email, which was itself a response to his earlier email containing the comments referenced in allegation 1. Therefore, the Teacher had an opportunity to dispute the allegation or deny authorship of the comments but had not done so. The Panel also observed that the Teacher’s comment in the email that formed the basis of this allegation had a similar tone and tenor to the Teacher’s earlier responses to GTC Scotland which included his email response to the Interim Report received on 19 January 2024.

According, the Panel found this allegation proved.

Allegation 3

The Panel again referred to documentary evidence before them in the form of email 2, dated 16 November 2023 which appeared to have been sent by the Teacher to GTC Scotland. The Panel noted that there was nothing to dispute that the Teacher made these statements to GTC Scotland from the documentary evidence before them. The Panel also noted that the Teacher’s response was from his nominated email address and that no inadmissibility of evidence application had been received. Moreover, the Panel again observed that the comment in the email that formed the basis of this allegation had a similar tone and tenor to the Teacher’s earlier responses to GTC Scotland at earlier point of the fitness to teach process which included his email response to the Interim Report received on 19 January 2024.

According, the Panel found this allegation proved.

Findings on fitness to teach

Given that the Panel found that all the allegations were proved, the Panel invited the Presenting Officer to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Presenting Officer made reference to the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases - Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement. The Presenting Officer also made reference to the Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC), particularly parts 1.3 and 1.4.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher’s conduct in committing a S38 offence with a racial aggravation resulting in a conviction was very serious. It was also submitted that the emails related to allegations 2 and 3 were also serious as they demonstrate the Teacher’s contempt for his regulator, and a complete lack of understanding of his duties to cooperate with his regulator regarding the fitness to teach process.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the behaviour in question was recent and that these emails together with the other correspondence from the Teacher, in which he repeatedly used similar offensive language towards GTC Scotland demonstrated a pattern of behaviour increasing the likelihood of recurrence.

It was also submitted that the Teacher had shown no insight or remorse for his conduct, and with specific reference to his email dated 19 January 2024 he stated, “I will continue to return the abuse you bring to me in this way,” the Presenting Officer suggested it was reasonable to assume that the Teacher intended to continue this conduct if given the opportunity. The Presenting Officer reiterated that this demonstrated not just a lack of insight and remediation, but a threat to repeat the conduct if GTC Scotland contacted the Teacher and that there were no factors to mitigate that risk.

She submitted that the Panel should find that the Teacher’s conduct had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a teacher, and that he should therefore be removed from the register, failing which the Panel should find that his conduct had fallen short of those standards, and that his fitness to teach is impaired. The Presenting Officer also submitted that there was an overriding public interest to find the Teacher unfit to teach on the facts.

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the Presenting Officer in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to Fitness to Teach, as outlined in the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases - Indicative Outcomes Guidance.

The Panel took the view that the Teacher’s conduct had breached the Code of Professionalism and Conduct including parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. The Panel considered the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the standards because of his conviction and the pattern of offensive comments to his regulator. The Panel considered the conduct as being serious as the conviction involved a racially aggravated element, representing a significant departure from the standards expected of a teacher. Additionally, the Panel noted that the comments made to GTC Scotland contained profanity, some with sexualised undertones, which further compounded the seriousness of the behaviour. The Panel acknowledged that while the conviction and the emails themselves demonstrated shortfalls that may be remediable in theory, they had not in fact been remedied and there was not only a risk but a likelihood of ongoing repetition.

The Panel also considered the Teacher’s behaviour as recent and that the emails sent by the Teacher demonstrated a cumulative effect amounting to a pattern of behaviour with no apparent insight, remorse, reflection or remediation.

The Panel considered the public interest and agreed that the racially aggravated component of the Teacher’s conviction meant that there was a need to protect the public. The Panel also concluded that this behaviour was inconsistent with schools’ commitment to tackling racism and was particularly concerning given that teachers are expected to serve as role models.

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.

Disposal

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

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 agreed that a shorter time period was inappropriate given the seriousness of the conduct and in light of the fact the Teacher had not demonstrated any insight, remorse or remediation into his conduct.  

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.

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.

‍