Full Hearing - Conduct - John Kerr

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

Joint Minute of Agreed Statements

The Parties informed the Panel that they had agreed a Joint Minute of Agreed Statements   regarding the content of the witness statements given to GTC Scotland by:

• Witness 1
• Witness 2
• Witness 3

The Panel noted that the evidence could be accepted as agreed, and that the Parties were not required to call the above witnesses to give live evidence. The said three witness statements were given to GTC Scotland and were read into the record.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. In December 2018, while employed by Borders Council as a teacher at Berwickshire High School the Teacher:
   
   • (a) in response to being asked by Pupil B whether he would be attending the school production of Grease said, ‘I will if you are going to be wearing the low-cut crop top and tight trousers, but I might not have a job the next day’, or words to that effect; and
   • when advised by Pupil B that she would not be appearing in a particular role said, ‘I would be less inclined then’ or words to that effect.
2. On 26 February 2019, while employed by Borders Council as a teacher at Berwickshire High School, the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) shout at Pupil A, spit on his own hand, wipe it on Pupil A’s arm and push Pupil A;
   • (b) shout at Pupil C and state the following or words to that effect:
     
     • (i) ’I am going to burn you’;
     • (ii) ’I am going to kick your teeth in’;
     • (iii) ’I don’t give a shit what you think’;
     • (iv) ’You’ll never be as smart as me…I have written over 50 books’;
     • (v) ’I will wipe the floor with you’.
     • (vi) ’You are thick and stupid…you will never make anything of your life’;
     • (vii) ’You think you are big and tough’;
     • (viii) ’I will be the end of you’; (ix) ‘I will be the last thing you see’; and
     • (x) ‘You’re taking the piss out of me’.

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, 1.6 and 2.3 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher denied the Allegations and made no admissions.

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:

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

1. Referral Form, dated 28 August 2019
2. Teacher’s Response to Notice of Investigation, dated 4 October 2019
3. Response from Employer, dated 14 October 2019
4. Local Authority Investigation Report, undated
5. Email Chain Requesting Witness Contacts and Confirmation of Sending, dated 18 May – 27 June 2022
6. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Witness 1, dated 11 January 2021
7. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Witness 4, dated 20 February 2021
8. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Witness 2, signed but undated
9. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Witness 5, dated 16 March 2022
10. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Pupil D, dated 24 February 2023
11. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Pupil B, dated 28 February 2023
12. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Pupil E, dated 5 May 2023
13. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Witness 3, dated 18 May 2023
14. GTC Scotland Production 1 – Local Authority Statement of Pupil B, undated

Teacher’s hearing papers

1. Submission from John A Kerr (the Teacher), undated
2. Card from Pupils, undated
3. Social Media Post, undated

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 16 February 2025, with cover email and delivery receipt
2. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 1 September 2025, with cover email and delivery receipt
   
   Procedural Hearing/Meeting decisions:    ‍
3. Virtual Hearing and Vulnerable Witness Panel Meeting Decision, dated 10 February 2025
4. Postponement Application Convener Decision, dated 19 January 2026

Findings of Fact  

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

The Panel had in mind that the burden of proof rested on the Presenting Officer and that the standard of proof required is that used in civil proceedings, namely on the balance of probabilities.

1. In December 2018, while employed by Borders Council as a teacher at Berwickshire High School the Teacher:

(a) in response to being asked by Pupil B whether he would be attending the school production of Grease said, ‘I will if you are going to be wearing the low-cut crop top and tight trousers, but I might not have a job the next day’, or words to that effect;

The Panel had regard to all the documentation including the Teacher’s, Pupil B’s and Pupil E’s written statements as well as each witness’s oral evidence which was given under oath/affirmation.

The Panel noted that the Teacher’s account at the time of his undated written statement was that it seemed clear that the ‘allegation against him made by Pupil B was totally false and malicious'. The Teacher gave evidence that he had no recollection of the production of the musical ‘Grease’ being on at school. The Teacher further stated that until shortly before the hearing in August 2026, his recollection had been supported by his internet search for “any production of Grease, either professionally or in schools within the Scottish Borders between 2018 and 2019”.

The Teacher gave evidence at the hearing that his internet search now did support that there was such a performance of ‘Grease’ and he accepted this information but stated that he was not aware of it at the time he was working at the school. Furthermore, the Teacher stated that at the relevant time in December 2018 he had been away from the school and in Seville for ten days.  

Pupil B’s statement which she adopted and her oral evidence spoke to the allegation that in response to the Teacher being asked by Pupil B whether he would be attending the school production of Grease he said, “I will if you are going to be wearing the low-cut crop top and tight trousers, but I might not have a job the next day,” or words to that effect. Pupil B further stated that she had only reported the Teacher’s comments to her mother on being asked by her mother whether anything had happened with the Teacher.

Pupil E, who was also in the classroom, gave evidence that supported the account given by Pupil B regarding the nature of the Teacher’s comments. Pupil E gave evidence that Pupil E was ‘shocked and speechless’.  

Pupil E gave evidence that whilst she could not remember the exact words stated by the Teacher it was similar to “if you will be the one wearing the tight trousers, then I will be there.”

The Panel in considering the evidence noted that the Teacher denied Allegation 1(a) and stated he had no recollection of the ‘Grease’ production being on at school, although he subsequently had found out that it had been on. In relation to the allegation, his position was that the conversation with Pupil B did not happen. The Teacher stated his belief that the allegation was malicious.

The Panel was satisfied that Pupil B and Pupil E did correctly recall the incident in December 2018. The Panel noted that the exact words recalled by the two witnesses were slightly different and it was content that this supported the independence of each one’s evidence. It was satisfied that the explanation given by Pupil B for the 5 months between the occurrence of the incident the subject of 1(a) and the reporting of the incident was because as stated by Pupil B, ‘she was a child’ and was not aware of what to do.

The Panel found 1(a) proved.

1. In December 2018, while employed by Borders Council as a teacher at Berwickshire High School the Teacher:

(b) when advised by Pupil B that she would not be appearing in a particular role said, ‘I would be less inclined then’ or words to that effect.

The Panel had regard to all the documentation including the Teacher’s, Pupil B’s and Pupil E’s written statements as well as each witness’ oral evidence given under oath/affirmation.

The Panel noted that the Teacher’s position at the time of his undated written statement was that the ‘allegation against him made by Pupil B was totally false and malicious’. The Teacher gave evidence that he had no recollection of the production of the musical ‘Grease’ being on at school. He further stated that until shortly before the hearing in August 2026, the Teacher’s recollection had been supported by his internet search for “any production of Grease, either professionally or in schools within Scottish Borders between 2018 and 2019”.

The Teacher gave evidence at the hearing that his internet search now did support that there was such a performance of ‘Grease’ at the school in 2018 and he accepted this information. He stated that he was not aware of there being a production of ‘Grease’ being put on whilst he was working at the school. Furthermore, the Teacher stated that at the relevant time, December 2018, he had been away from the school and in Seville, Spain for ten days, hence reducing the available school days in December that he would have been teaching at the school.  

Pupil B’s signed written statement which she adopted as her evidence and Pupil B’s oral evidence spoke to the allegation that in response to the Teacher being advised by Pupil B that she would not be appearing in a particular role [in the school’s production of Grease] the Teacher said, “I would be less inclined [to attend] then” or words to that effect.

Pupil B further stated that she had only reported the Teacher’s comments to her mother in response to being asked by her mother, whether anything had happened with the Teacher.

The Panel noted that the Teacher denied Allegation 1(a) and had no recollection of the Grease production being on at school. The Panel was satisfied that Pupil B’s evidence was credible and reliable, and she did correctly recall the incident in December 2018, and Pupil E recalled the incident and that it referred to Pupil B’s clothing and the ‘Grease’ production. The Panel was satisfied by Pupil B’s explanation that she was ‘a child’ of 16 at the time of the incident and was not aware what to do, hence the 5 months between the date of the incident and Pupil B reporting to her mother.

The Panel found 1(b) Proved

2. On 26 February 2019, while employed by Borders Council as a teacher at Berwickshire High School, the Teacher did:

(a) shout at Pupil A, spit on his own hand, wipe it on Pupil A’s arm and push Pupil A

The Teacher gave evidence at the hearing that he become aware of Pupil A ‘mucking about’ and putting glue on the sleeves of another pupil who wore a smart ‘school jumper'. He stated that he had seen a group of five boys annoying this pupil. The Teacher stated that before he intervened, he had put his hand to his mouth and had “loudly cleared his throat and then with arms outstretched like the bow of a ship, moved forward to separate the huddle and to secure the victim’s safety.”

Pupil D attended the hearing and adopted her written statement and gave evidence that the Teacher lifted his hand to mouth and wiped his hand on Pupil A’s sleeve. Pupil D stated that she then noticed that there was a wet patch on Pupil A’s jumper at the elbow. Pupil D stated that it was as if Pupil A was looking for a reaction and behaving in a challenging way to the teacher in the class. Pupil D said that Pupil A appeared ‘gobsmacked’ when the incident happened.

Witness 5, a Guidance Teacher, gave evidence that on the day of the incident, after the Teacher’s class, she was approached by Pupil D and Pupil J regarding the Teacher spitting on his own hand and then wiping the spit on Pupil A’s sleeve, Pupil A being a boy in the class. Pupil D had stated that Pupil A’s sleeve had been wet with the Teacher’s spit as a result.

Witness 5 gave evidence that she had spoken to Pupil A about the incident after lunch time on the same day and he could not really remember too much. Witness 5 stated that Pupil A could be disruptive and that may be the reason why he had not reported the incident.

Witness 5 gave evidence that Pupil A told her that he thought that the Teacher had spat on his own hand and then wiped it on him (Pupil A). Witness 5 stated further that Pupil A did not really remember anything else. Pupil A had indicated to Witness 5 that he did not know what the Teacher had been trying to achieve. Witness 5 also stated that Pupil A told her that he had been messing around with some glue with another pupil, but he felt that the Teacher ‘had taken it a bit far’ when the Teacher had wiped his hand down him.

Witness 5’s evidence was that Pupil J had told her that she was in the classroom and had seen Pupil A messing about with Pupil H, and the Teacher had approached them to try and get them to work. Pupil A had answered the Teacher back, and the Teacher had spat on his hand and wiped it down Pupil A and hit Pupil A.

The Panel was satisfied that Pupil D did not appear to be embellishing what she was saying or making things up and it accepted her account as credible and reliable.  

The Panel noted that the Teacher’s account provided at the time of the incidents was different from his evidence he gave at the hearing. It noted that the Teacher now described five boys being involved in the incident against Pupil H, who was being ‘bullied’. The Teacher described his needing to intervene to help Pupil H because Pupil A was wiping something on Pupil H’s jumper. The Teacher stated that he needed to lay hands on Pupil A to separate him and Pupil H:  

”I cleared my throat loudly and with arms outstretched like the bow of a ship I moved forward to separate the huddle and to secure the victim’s safety.”

The Panel noted this was inconsistent with the Teacher’s earlier account around the time of the incident, where the Teacher described two pupils, Pupil A and Pupil H, fighting in the classroom and he had to put hands on Pupil A to break up the fight. The Teacher had denied spitting on his hand and wiping it on Pupil A and did not offer any explanation.

The Panel accepted the consistent account provided by Pupil D who had reported the incident to Witness 5, the Guidance Teacher, immediately following the class. It noted that Pupil D’s account was supported by Witness 5’s written note of what she was told by pupils including Pupils D, A and J around the time of the incident. The Panel also took account of the Teacher’s evidence regarding Pupil D’s account and Pupil J’s parent’s alleged motivation to have the Teacher removed from teaching.

The Panel accepted the consistent account provided by Pupil D as both credible and reliable and noted that it was also supported by Witness 5’s evidence of speaking to Pupil A who had not sought to make any complaint. Pupil A responded to Witness 5’s own inquiries.

The Panel determined it was satisfied that on 26 February 2019, the Teacher while employed by Borders Council at Berwickshire High School, shouted at Pupil A, spat on his own hand, wiped it on Pupil A’s arm and pushed Pupil A;

The Panel found 2(a) proved.

2. On 26 February 2019, while employed by Borders Council as a teacher at Berwickshire High School, the Teacher did:

(b) shout at Pupil C and state the following or words to that effect:

(i) ’I am going to burn you’;

(ii) ’I am going to kick your teeth in’;

(iii) ’I don’t give a shit what you think’;

(iv) ’You’ll never be as smart as me…I have written over 50 books’;

(v) ’I will wipe the floor with you’.

(vi) ’You are thick and stupid…you will never make anything of your life’;

(vii) ’You think you are big and tough’;

(viii) ’I will be the end of you’;

(ix) ‘I will be the last thing you see’; and

(x) ‘You’re taking the piss out of me’.

The Panel heard the evidence of Pupil D, Guidance Teacher Witness 5 and the Teacher. It also had regard to the written evidence. The Teacher accepted that he had reacted in response to Pupil C using the word ‘Mongo’ towards him when he was accessing the internet to put some work on the board. The Teacher explained that the word caused him to react as he was used to working with and had a good relationship with the additional needs' children in the school, some of whom had Down’s syndrome.  

The Teacher gave evidence that the manner of his reaction was intentionally delivered as a ‘performative thing,’ not in a way where he lost self-control. The Teacher gave evidence that speaking as he did was to demonstrate to Pupil C that if Pupil C were to act like this in the outside world, i.e. calling someone ‘Mongo,' ’other people may respond’ in this way to her for using that type of language.  

The Teacher gave evidence that he was stating those ‘threats’ as things that other people might do to Pupil C in the outside world, but the Teacher was clear that he, himself, was not threatening to do any of the actions alleged in 2(i) to 2(x). The Teacher did not in any event accept all of the statements alleged or words to that effect, had been said by him.

The Teacher did appear to accept the word ‘shit’ had been used in a different context, and he accepted that he had referred to the number of books he had written. The Teacher accepted that some of the phrases or ‘words to that effect’ had been used but he was clear that it was not directed towards Pupil C. The Panel was satisfied that Pupil D gave evidence about what she could remember being said and she also identified words that were noted at the time of the incident that she could not now recall.

Witness 5 gave evidence that Pupil J and Pupil D came to see her immediately after the incident and that Pupil D had appeared upset. Pupil D confirmed to the Panel that her GTC Scotland written statement was correct.

The Panel noted that Pupil C did not attend to give evidence, and this seemed inconsistent with the Teacher’s evidence that at the time of the event Pupil C ‘was out to get him’. The Panel noted that Pupil D did not recall hearing the phrase, nor did the Teacher accept saying 2(b)(i) ’I am going to burn you’.

The Teacher denied using the phrase ‘I am going to burn you’ and he stated in his evidence that the phrase sounded like something that had been ‘taken [from a character in] a comic.’ Pupil D gave evidence that she could not recall the Teacher stating the words ‘I am going to burn you’.

The Panel did accept Pupil D’s evidence that the Teacher shouted at Pupil C and stated the following or words to that effect: 2b(ii) to 2b(x). It also took account of Witness 5’s evidence who spoke to Pupil J reporting the words in Allegations 2(b)(ii) to 2(b)(x)

The Panel noted the Teacher’s evidence that Pupil J is the daughter of the Referrer of the Teacher to GTC Scotland. He stated the Referrer had conducted a campaign against him. The Panel accepted Pupil D’s evidence where she described the Teacher leaning over Pupil C’s desk, red-faced and angry, and was satisfied that the Teacher had shouted at Pupil C and made the comments or ‘words to that effect’ as alleged in 2(b)(ii) to 2(b)(x) and as recalled by Pupil D and/or noted at the time of the incident. The Panel was also satisfied that this was consistent with the written information and the evidence from Witness 5.

Accordingly, the Panel determined:

’I am going to burn you’;

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(i) not proved.

The Panel took account of and accepted Pupil D’s evidence, the Fact-Finding report and Witness 5’s statement regarding what Pupil C said to her, the Referral and Pupil J’s response:

(ii) ’I am going to kick your teeth in’;

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(ii) proved.

(iii) ’I don’t give a shit what you think’;

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(iii) proved.

(iv) ’You’ll never be as smart as me…I have written over 50 books’;

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(iv) proved.

(v) ’I will wipe the floor with you’.

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(v) proved.

(vi) ’You are thick and stupid…you will never make anything of your life’;

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(vi) proved.

(vii) ’You think you are big and tough’

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(vii) proved.

(viii) ’I will be the end of you’;  

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(viii) proved.

(ix) ‘I will be the last thing you see’;  

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(ix) proved.

(x) ‘You’re taking the piss out of me’.  

The Panel found Allegation 2(b)(x) proved.

Findings on Fitness to Teach

Parties Submissions

The Panel, having found Allegation 2(b)(i) not proved, and Allegations 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b)(ii), 2(b)(iii), 2(b)(iv), 2(b)(v), 2(b)(vi), 2(b)(vii), 2(b)(viii), 2(b)(ix), and 2(b)(x) proved, invited the Parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.  

The Panel heard submissions from both the Presenting Officer and the Teacher’s Representative on fitness to teach.

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

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

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

The Presenting Officer further submitted that public interest factors include protecting the public, maintaining confidence in registrants, the profession and GTC Scotland as regulator, upholding standards, and the deterrent effect on other registrants. She submitted that the core proven conduct consisted of three incidents which had a pattern of the Teacher not taking control of his emotional responses and not having control of his reactions. She described his actions as an abuse of the teacher's position of trust and role-model status.

The Presenting Officer submitted that there is likely to be recurrence of the behaviour found proved and such conduct was attitudinal and not remediable, citing its seriousness and that it was repeated and deliberate and it demonstrated a lack of control and abuse of trust with the potential for ongoing harm.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher had shown no insight or remorse and that the Panel heard evidence of the detrimental impact from Pupil B and Pupil E.

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

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Teacher does understand the Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) Standards and accepts that in each case he fell short of COPAC. He accepts that at the time of the allegations his judgement was impaired, but he does not accept that he is currently impaired. The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Teacher has had a long time to reflect having listened to the evidence of the witnesses. The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Teacher is now 75 years old and has no plans to return to teaching.

Panel Findings on Fitness to Teach

The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took account of the Parties’ submissions, the oral evidence, the documentation and GTC Scotland Guidance.

The Panel considered each allegation individually to decide if it was sufficiently serious including whether it was in breach of the expected standards of the profession and engaging the need for public protection and the public interest so as to amount to conduct falling short or significantly short of standards.

The Panel considered all 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.

The Panel considered (i) whether the Teacher’s conduct at the time of the incidents fell short of the expected professional standards having regard to the Teacher’s behaviour both at the end of 2018 and in 2019 and (ii) whether he was breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC).

The Panel was satisfied that the findings in each of the three sets of allegations against the Teacher were serious and represented a falling short of the standards required of a teacher.

The Panel determined that the actions of the Teacher in speaking to Pupil B about the type of clothes she might be wearing, a crop top and tight trousers, in this context; the Teacher wiping his spit on a Pupil A’s sleeve and pushing him, and using aggressive language to Pupil C and shouting, taken individually and cumulatively, undermined the Teacher’s duty to act as a role model and show a good example and uphold standards of professional conduct. Hence, the Panel determined that the Facts found Proved amounted individually and cumulatively to behaviour falling short of the Standards expected of a registered teacher.

The Panel having found the Teacher’s behaviour falling short of the expected standards of a registered teacher then went on to decide the question of impairment:

The Panel considered Parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012

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

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

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

The Panel reached the view that the behaviour exhibited by the Teacher was in clear breach of Part 1.4. The Teacher’s behaviour was highly inappropriate and did not show a good example and was not in accordance with the high standard expected of a teacher’s behaviour.

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

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

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

The Panel was concerned that on several occasions the Teacher's behaviour had impacted on Pupils A, B, C and E.  It also heard evidence that the Teacher’s conduct had affected Pupil D emotionally, to the extent that she had expressed that she did not want to attend class with this teacher. The Panel was satisfied that there had been a clear breach of Part 2.3.

The Panel had regard to the Indicative Outcomes Guidance and the three step process in deciding on fitness to teach. The Panel was satisfied for the reasons set out above that the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the expected professional standards.

The Panel went on to assess whether the conduct was

• (a) remediable and
• (b) if it was remediable whether it has been remedied; and  
• (c) whether there is a likelihood of recurrence.

The Panel bore in mind that the facts found proved had taken place in December 2018 and 2019, approximately 7 years ago. It noted that, whilst there was no evidence of any repetition, the information provided to the Panel by the Teacher’s Representative was that the Teacher had not been teaching since shortly after the 2019 incidents. It determined that the conduct was very serious, involving multiple pupils and three separate incidents and displayed a pattern of concerning behaviour.  

The Panel noted that the Teacher did not appear to accept full responsibility for his behaviour or acknowledge that such behaviour would have had an adverse effect on the pupils present. The Teacher appeared to attribute responsibility to the pupils and their behaviour. There was no evidence before the Panel of any insight from the Teacher, no apology, no mitigation and no evidence of remediation. The Panel did note that the Teacher had engaged with the GTC Scotland regulatory proceedings as he is required to do.  

The Panel was satisfied that given the seriousness of the behaviour, the Teacher’s lack of recognition and insight, whilst such conduct may be remediable, it had not been remedied. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s conduct falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and there remains the likelihood of repetition and that his fitness to teach is therefore impaired. A finding of impairment was also necessary to maintain public confidence in teachers, the integrity of the teaching profession and GTC Scotland as a professional regulator.

Disposal

The Panel heard submissions from both Parties regarding any aggravating and mitigating aspects of the case and the appropriate sanction to be imposed. It was agreed that the Teacher had no regulatory history.

The Presenting Officer submitted, given the circumstances and seriousness of the facts found proved, the risk of harm, recurrence and the Teacher’s lack of remediation, that the Removal of the Teacher from the Register was the appropriate disposal.  

The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the Teacher recognised that his practice including his judgement was impaired at the time, but it was submitted that his practice is no longer impaired. The Teacher’s Representative further submitted that no sanction was required but if the Panel decided that a sanction was appropriate, the Teacher would comply with conditions laid out in a Conditional Registration Order and that was sufficient. The Teacher’s Representative reminded the Panel that the Teacher has not taught since 2019 and does not plan to teach.

The Panel heard and accepted the Advice of the Legal Assessor. It considered the Sanctions in ascending order of seriousness and the GTC Scotland Guidance.

The Panel found that the shortfalls in this case were remediable but that the shortfalls had not been remedied, nor had the Teacher demonstrated any willingness or insight to remediate his behaviour hence the likelihood of recurrence and its consequences.

The Panel noted the information on behalf of the Teacher that he has not worked since shortly after these incidents in 2019, around 7 years ago. The Panel noted that in the absence of any remediation and reflection or demonstration of remorse, there was the likelihood of recurrence. The Teacher displayed a lack of control of his own behaviour especially when provoked, or in response to comments from young people.

For all these reasons, the Panel was wholly satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct had fallen short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. The behaviour demonstrated a loss of self-control and had taken place more than once and involved more than one pupil.

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

The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s culpability in relation to the Facts found proved. The Panel considered that the Teacher failed to demonstrate some basic and fundamental teaching skills or seek support to keep control when required. The failings all had the potential to place vulnerable children/young people at risk of harm at a time when they should have been able to rely on the Teacher to act as a role model and control himself and the class in an orderly, measured way without losing self-control. The Panel noted that a pupil had stated that they did not want to attend the Teacher’s class in future, following his behaviour, and Pupil B was upset. The Panel was mindful that throughout the hearing the Teacher had tried to deflect responsibility for what had occurred, blaming the behaviour of the children/young people and alleging a ‘malicious and false’ reporting regarding speaking to Pupil B about her wearing a ‘crop top and tight trousers’. The Panel was not satisfied that the Teacher had focussed on his responsibility for his actions or the impact of his actions.  

The Panel concluded that the Teacher failed to act professionally and had demonstrated a total disregard for the impact of his actions on others.

The Panel identified the following aggravating factors regarding the Teacher’s conduct:

• no insight
• no apology/remorse
• more than one incident
• emotional harm caused
• vulnerable children/young people

The Panel identified the following mitigating factors regarding the Teacher’s conduct:

• no regulatory history  

The Panel first considered whether a Reprimand was appropriate and proportionate noting the guidance where a reprimand would be appropriate including:

• the matter does not constitute an abuse of a position of trust for personal gain
• harm has not been caused to a child/pupil or there was no risk or low risk of harm
• the matter has been admitted
• the teacher has reflected on the matter and demonstrates insight, shows genuine remorse and has taken steps to properly address the issue(s) (see further explanation of insight on page 5)
• the matter represents an isolated incident or set of events rather than a pattern of behaviour
• there has been no repetition of the matter, or matters of a similar nature, since the incident concerned
• there is evidence attesting to the good character and history of the teacher
• a reprimand is in the public interest: it appropriately indicates to the profession and the public the seriousness of the matter, therefore maintaining public confidence in teachers, the integrity of the teaching profession and us as a professional regulator

The Panel was not satisfied that a Reprimand would adequately reflect the seriousness of the facts proved and were not satisfied that there was evidence of remorse or reflection and there was risk of repetition.

The Panel then went on to consider whether the imposition of a Conditional Registration Order would be the appropriate, proportionate disposal. It noted the guidance where Conditions are indicated including:  

• it is possible to identify specific areas of the teacher’s conduct that are at issue, that are remediable and that could be effectively, appropriately and practically controlled or restricted by imposing a conditional registration order
• conditional registration will adequately protect the public (including children and young people, as well as colleagues) from risk of harm
• the teacher shows the potential and willingness to respond positively to the imposition of conditions on their registration
• the teacher shows sufficient insight to suggest that they will be able to comply with conditions
• a conditional registration order appropriately indicates to the profession and the public the seriousness of the matter, therefore maintaining public confidence in teachers, the integrity of the teaching profession and us as a professional regulator

The Panel was not satisfied that Conditions could be identified which would be workable, measurable and proportionate to the concerns identified. The Panel noted the seriousness of the facts proved and that there was a pattern of the Teacher not taking control of his emotional responses and not having control of his reactions.

The Panel took a provisional view that the concerns found proven were capable of remediation. However, a Conditional Registration Order would not be workable in this case as the Panel could not be assured at this time that the Teacher had demonstrated any insight throughout the hearing nor had he demonstrated any appreciation of the gravity of the concerns, or the impact of them upon others.  

The Panel considered that the Teacher posed a risk of harm to children/young people which could not adequately be managed with Conditions. Any such Conditions would be so restrictive that they would be tantamount to a suspension and would not be sufficient to mitigate the risks identified.

The Panel considered the misconduct to be serious in nature, repeated and in the absence of developed insight and reflection, the risk of repetition remains high. Accordingly, it did not consider conditions of practice to be an appropriate or proportionate sanction in this case.

The Panel next considered whether to impose a Reprimand plus a Conditional Registration Order.  

It noted the guidance where a Reprimand plus Conditional Registration Order is indicated including:  

• it would more appropriately indicate to the profession and the public the gravity of the conduct, therefore maintaining public confidence in teachers, the integrity of the teaching profession and us a professional regulator, if a reprimand was recorded against the teacher’s entry in the Register as well as a conditional registration order
• or that although a conditional registration order is appropriate with reference to some of the matters at issue, there is one (or more than one) area that is not remediable and/or that it is not considered possible to effectively, appropriately and practically control or restrict by imposing a conditional registration order and, with reference to the guidance above, the panel considers a reprimand to be an appropriate disposal in this respect

The Panel found that, as there was little evidence of insight, it could not be satisfied that there was no risk of the behaviour being repeated. The concerns were serious and there was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Teacher was committed to remedying the failings as he had failed to demonstrate or reflect on this in the seven years since the failings occurred. The Panel determined that the Reprimand plus a Conditional Registration Order was not appropriate and proportionate in this case.

The Panel determined that the Removal of Registration was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case:

The Panel was satisfied having heard and considered the submissions, the evidence, written documentation and the Guidance and Standards including COPAC that the Teacher’s conduct is incompatible with being a registered teacher and the public interest requires removal of the Teacher’s registration.

The Panel was satisfied that a Conditional Registration Order and/or Reprimand is inappropriate or impractical in the circumstances of the case and with reference to the guidance.

The Panel then went on to consider the period of removal before which the Teacher should be prohibited from making a registration application. The Panel noted that the usual starting time for removal would be 6 months and the maximum is 2 years.

The Panel was satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that one year may be sufficient time for the Teacher to commence his reflection, undertake some relevant professional development and thereby develop sufficient insight into how to control his emotional reactions in the classroom. The Panel considered that this would prepare the Teacher to act as a role model to learners/young people in difficult circumstances in the classroom and be able to demonstrate this, so that in future the public can have confidence in him as a teacher and in teaching as a profession.  

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

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

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 for the period of one year.

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.