Full Hearing - Conduct - Jordan Kai Vaughn

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

• “GTC Scotland” means 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 preliminary issues to address.

Allegations

The Panel chose to depart from the standard procedural practice of asking the Presenting Officer to read the allegations into the record and instead directed that the allegations be displayed on screen. This decision was taken in view of the length of the allegations and with regard to the Teacher’s welfare. The allegations shown were as follows:

1. Between 27 October 2023 and 4 December 2023, whilst employed as a teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) On 27 October 2023, ask Pupil A for her number;
   • (b) On 27 October 2023, provide Pupil A with his personal mobile number after knowing she was 16 years old;
   • (c) On 31 October 2023, restart the conversation with Pupil A after it ended on 28 October 2023;
   • (d) On 3 November 2023, message Pupil A again after the previous conversation ended;
   • (e) Form a physical relationship with Pupil A, a 16-year-old pupil at [redacted], in that he did:
     
     • (i) On 13 November 2023, hug Pupil A goodbye when dropping her back home in [redacted];
     • (ii) On 17 November 2023 in his house;
       
       • (a) kiss Pupil A once; and
       • (b) snuggle Pupil A in bed;
     • (iii) On 17 November 2023, cuddle Pupil A on the sofa whilst watching a movie;
   • (f) Have Pupil A round to his house four times on the following dates:
     
     • (i) On 7 November 2023 to use the toilet;
     • (ii) On 11 November 2023 to watch a movie;
     • (iii) On 17 November 2023 to watch a movie and stay over; and
     • (iv) On 2 December 2023 to help put the Teacher’s Christmas tree up;
   • (g) Access SEEMIS records for his own personal use to establish if Pupil A attended [redacted];
   • (h) On 7 November 2023:
     
     • (i) Pick Pupil A up in his car;
     • (ii) Go out for coffee to [redacted] with Pupil A; and
     • (iii) Go for a drive with Pupil A;
   • (i) On 9 November 2023, look out for Pupil A when visiting [redacted] High School in a professional capacity;
   • (j) On 11 November 2023, pick Pupil A up in his car and take her to his house;
   • (k) On 13 November 2023, pick Pupil A up in his car;
   • (l) On 13 November 2023, have an unprofessional discussion with Pupil A about Colleague A;
   • (m) On 16 November 2023, pick Pupil A up in his car and give her a lift to work;
   • (n) On 17 November 2023:
     
     • (i) Pick Pupil A up in his car; and
     • (ii) Go bowling with Pupil A in [redacted] ;
   • (o) On 21 November 2023:
     
     • (i) Pick Pupil A up in his car; and
     • (ii) Go for food with Pupil A at [redacted];
   • (p) On 23 November and 28 November 2023, have unprofessional discussions with Pupil A about Colleague B;
   • (q) On 23 November 2023:
     
     • (i) Pick Pupil A up in his car; and
     • (ii) Go for lunch with Pupil A to Asda in [redacted] ;
   • (r) On 25 November 2023:
     
     • (i) Pick Pupil A up in his car from her work;
     • (ii) Go for a drive with Pupil A; and
     • (iii) Take Pupil A back to [redacted];
   • (s) On 27 November 2023:
     
     • (i) Pick Pupil A up in his car; and
     • (ii) Go for a coffee with Pupil A;
   • (t) On 30 November 2023, pick Pupil A up in his car and give Pupil A a lift to work;
   • (u) On 2 December 2023, pick Pupil A up in his car and take her to his house;
   • (v) Send Pupil A text messages suggesting they engage in physical contact, namely:
     
     • (i) On 21 November 2023, send: ‘Kia requires a cuddle’;
     • (ii) On 25 November 2023, in relation to telling Pupil A that he had fun hanging out with her, send: ‘next time when/if you stay. back scratches’;
     • (iii) On 26 November 2023, send Pupil A a text saying that Sundays were good for sleepovers and back scratches; and
     • (iv) On 4 December 2023, send: ‘lying in bed feeling sorry for myself. Top of the list of wants is a back scratch (sad face emoji)’;
   • (w) On various occasions, ask Pupil A to spend time with him, including:
     
     • (i) On 3 November 2023. invite Pupil A to watch the fireworks with him in his car;
     • (ii) On 5 November 2023, ask Pupil A to let him know if she wanted to do something during the week;
     • (iii) On 5 November 2023, discuss getting a coffee with Pupil A on Tuesday;
     • (iv) On 8 November 2023, ask Pupil A to let him know if she wanted to do something together;
     • (v) On 8 November 2023, suggest to Pupil A that they could do something together;
     • (vi) On 10 November 2023, suggest to Pupil A via text that she could come to his house after she finished work;
     • (vii) On 11 November 2023, suggest to Pupil A via text that she could have ‘crashed’ at his house after their dinner;
     • (viii) On 12 November 2023, offer Pupil A a lift home from [redacted] multiple times despite her saying no;
     • (ix) On 20 November 2023, ask Pupil A to hang out;
     • (x) On 28 November 2023, ask Pupil A to hang out;
     • (xi) On 30 November 2023, ask Pupil A if she needed picked up, after being told that her mum was picking her up;
     • (xii) On 1 December 2023, offer to take Pupil A and her friend home from [redacted]; and
     • (xiii) On 3 December 2023, ask Pupil A if she wanted dinner;
   • (x) On 21 November 2023, send flirtatious texts to Pupil A stating:
     
     • (i) ‘Knock knock’, ‘who’s there?’, ‘Ion’, ‘Ion who?’, ‘I’ve got my ion you’; and
     • (ii) ‘Knock knock’, ‘who’s there?’, Baby owl’, ‘Baby owl who?’, ‘Baby owl see you later at my place’;
   • (y) On 3 November 2023, share the location of his house with Pupil A;
   • (z) On 3 and 5 November 2023, share a photo of his cat with Pupil A;
   • (aa) On 5, 7, 14 and 20 November 2023, share photos of his classroom with Pupil A;
   • (bb) On 23 November 2023, send Pupil A a photo of himself;
   • (cc) On 30 November 2023, send Pupil A a photo of his full bath with a candle;
   • (dd) On 30 November 2023, sketch what he thought Pupil A’s bedroom configuration looked like and send this to her via text message;
   • (ee) On 8 November 2023, try to influence Pupil A to take [redacted], a subject offered at [redacted] High School, as he had been asked to support teaching this class at [redacted] High School;
   • (ff) Between 25 October 2023 and 4 December 2024, text Pupil A using his personal mobile number, including, but not limited to, the following messages:
     
     • (i) On 28 October 2023: ‘you definitely look older than you are. In a good way, though of course’;
     • (ii) On 28 October 2023: ‘yeah, and I'm not really sure what the rules are for that kind of thing but I’m almost certain it’s against the rules’;
     • (iii) On 3 November 2023: ‘You were awfully smiley today. Just pointing that one out, here.’;
     • (iv) On 3 November 2023: ‘I’m just an animal person. Like that puppy that was in the pub tonight. He had my attention even slightly more than you did (laughing emoji)’;
     • (v) On 8 November 2023: ‘Well, I mean; can always do something a bit more than coffee if you fancy. I’m avoiding the term of ‘date’ here but you catch my drift’;
     • (vi) On 13 November 2023: ‘but yeah, weekdays may be a problem for us this week. I have weekend ideas though’;
     • (vii) On 18 November 2023: ‘I mean, I imagine probably not tonight but let it be known that you’re more than welcome’;
     • (viii) On 19 November 2023: ‘I’m making the bold assumption you’d like to do something else at some point’;
     • (ix) On 24 November 2023: ‘I reckon you should come round after work tomorrow. Tired or not;’
     • (x) On 22 November 2023, in relation to Pupil A saying it would be a perfect time to have fluffy socks as the Teacher’s heating was broken: ‘you could bring me some’;
     • (xi) On 23 November 2023, in relation to telling Pupil A he had plans: ‘<insert pick up line>’;
     • (xii) On 23 November 2023: ‘I’m being spontaneous. We’re going out for an hour or so’;
     • (xiii) On 27 November 2023, after thanking her for hanging out: ’And it was your idea (kiss emoji)’;
     • (xiv) On 28 November 2023, in the context of saying he missed seeing Pupil A when he was visiting her school for professional reasons: ‘For the best. I can’t remain a man of mystery if I was spotted I support eh’;
     • (xv) On 28 November 2023, in relation to finding out that Pupil A drew a heart on a whiteboard for him: ‘cute. It made me smile’;
     • (xvi) On 30 November 2023, in relation to having to cancel his trip: ‘Yeah, woe is me. Good news for you though, you don’t have to cat-sit’;
     • (xvii) On 30 November 2023, after giving pupil A a lift to work and offering her a lift home: ‘I have requirements that must be met prior. We discuss that closer to the time’ and ‘1) a compliment 2) something I don’t know about you 3)???’;
     • (xviii) On 30 November 2023, after Pupil A shared photos of her bedroom: ‘well SOMEONE isn’t comfortable enough with me it seems (emoji with steam coming out of nose)’;
     • (xix) On 30 November 2023: ‘school > [redacted] > Dinner > Movie > Crash > ???’;
     • (xx) On 1 December 2023, following comments to Pupil A that he had bought a Christmas related item: ‘come see I guess. I see no other way to resolve the mystery’;
     • (xxi) On 1 December 2023, after being told by Pupil A that she was on the bus home from Edinburgh with her friend: ‘then I get you after’;
     • (xxii) On 4 December 2023, after being told by Pupil A that she had double free periods: ‘so you’re bringing me children noodle soup I presume’ and ‘sounds like a “2 birds with 1 stone” kind of scenario’; and
     • (xxiii) On 4 December 2023, in relation to Pupil A saying he was nice and thoughtful: ‘the whole package…except old (emoji rolling eyes)’.
2. On 5 December 2023, whilst employed as a teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], the Teacher did state to Colleague C, Depute Head Teacher at [redacted] that there was no physical activity at any stage between him and Pupil A, when he knew this was not the case.
3. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 2 were dishonest or, in the alternative, lacking in integrity in that he sought to represent that his relationship with Pupil A was not physical, when in fact he had engaged in a physical relationship with Pupil A.
4. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1 were sexually motivated.

And in light of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and/or he is unfit to teach, as a result of breaching Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher admitted all the allegations except the following:

• Allegation 1f(iv)- the Teacher could not remember Pupil A coming over to help him put up a Christmas tree and on balance felt that she did not.
• Allegation 1(i) – the Teacher admitted in part that he had his eye out looking for Pupil A but was not hunting Pupil A
• Allegation 1(l) – the Teacher admitted the allegation in part but said he did not name names.
• Allegation 1q(ii) - the Teacher admitted the allegation in part as he stated he was not going for lunch with Pupil A, they went for a drive and bought a sandwich. He did not consider that as going out for lunch.
• Allegation 3 – the Teacher accepted that he did not tell the Depute Headteacher straight away that he had kissed Pupil A but not that he was being dishonest as he told the Depute Headteacher about the kiss within the next few days.
• Allegation 4 – the Teacher denied any sexual motivation.
• The Teacher denied that he was impaired or unfit to teach.

Hearing papers

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

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

• Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 17 July 2025
• Employer referral to GTC Scotland, dated 15 December 2023
• Notification of Investigation to Teacher, dated 12 January 2024
• Local Authority Investigation Report Appendix 3 – Summary of meeting with Pupil A’s mum, and Pupil A, dated 8 December 2023
• Local Authority Investigation Report Appendix 4 – Text Messages between the Teacher and Pupil A, undated
• Local Authority Investigation Report Appendix 5 Text Messages between the Teacher and Pupil A’s mum, undated
• Local Authority Investigation Report Appendix 6 – Teacher’s Statement to Local Authority, dated 17 January 2024
• Notification from Disclosure Scotland of Consideration for Listing, dated 6 June 2024
• GTC Scotland Statement from Colleague C, dated 16 August 2024
• Teacher’s Response to the Interim Report, dated 21 December 2024
• Response from Teacher dated 16 January 2025
• Email from Teacher to GTC Scotland dated 17 May 2025

Teacher’s hearing papers

• Teacher’s Case Form, dated 18 July 2025
• Testimonial from [redacted], dated 23 March 2024
• Testimonial from [redacted], dated 24 March 2024
• Character reference from [redacted], undated
• Character Reference[redacted], dated 3 March 2026
• Character Reference [redacted], dated 4 March 2026

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 13 May 2026
• Teacher’s Response to Notice of Full Hearing, dated 19 May 2026
• Procedural Panel Meeting Annex, dated 22 September 2025
• Confidentiality Key, undated

Summary of evidence

Colleague C – summary of oral evidence to the Panel

Colleague C was a former Depute Headteacher of the school in which the Teacher worked and appeared before the Panel to give oral evidence. Colleague C had provided a statement to GTC Scotland, dated 16 August 2024, which he read out to the Panel. Colleague C explained that he had quite a bit of interaction with the Teacher as he asked him for advice about new technology that he was thinking of introducing into the classroom. Colleague C thought the Teacher was a very capable teacher.

On 5 December 2023, Colleague C was made aware by the headteacher that there was an issue with the Teacher and Pupil A. He invited the Teacher into his room to discuss what interactions the Teacher had had with Pupil A. He found the Teacher to be open and forthcoming when challenged. Colleague C had experience of child protection matters and of others denying matters. He noticed that the Teacher was not denying anything and was keen to explain how he had met Pupil A. Colleague C knew the pub in which the Teacher had met Pupil A. Colleague C recognised how important it was for new teachers who were new to the area to make friends.

The Teacher told Colleague C that he found out very quickly after exchanging numbers that Pupil A was only 16. At the first meeting between the Teacher and Colleague C, the Teacher did not tell him that he had kissed Pupil A. Colleague C explained to the Panel that it is not unusual, in his experience of dealing with child protection matters, for some information to come out and then for more information to come out a few days later.

Colleague C confirmed that the Teacher came to see him again on 8 December 2023 on his own initiative. The Teacher told him that he kissed Pupil A. When he first met Pupil A, he had looked Pupil A up on SEEMIS to check that she was not a pupil at the school where the teacher worked. Colleague C explained to the Panel that teachers have access to SEEMIS but that there are different levels of access. The Teacher would not be able to see pupils’ addresses and would not be able to see pupils from a different school. SEEMIS would normally be used for registration purposes by the Teacher at the beginning of classes.

Colleague C explained that the Teacher volunteered to share with him the text messages between him and Pupil A. There were around 1500 text messages, and they agreed that the Teacher should download them to share for the purposes of the investigation. Colleague C felt that 1500 messages with Pupil A over a period of a month was a lot of messages. He accepted in cross examination that texting was different with young people and that many of the texts were one word followed by another one word response but still felt 1500 messages was a large amount. Colleague C confirmed that he was not involved in the investigation carried out by the local authority.

Colleague C explained that there would have been some child protection training in the induction period for the Teacher. He thought there would have been a group reminder of child protection procedures in the first inset day followed by a meeting for new teachers. During the year there would also be further training on child protection topics, for example prevention, domestic violence and grooming.

The Teacher – summary of oral evidence to the Panel

The Teacher gave evidence and answered questions in cross examination from the Presenting Officer. He also answered questions from the Panel.

The Teacher explained that he had been very lonely due to the recent break up of his long term relationship. This had left the Teacher feeling very isolated and unhappy. He sought new friendships and went to his local pub to try and meet new people. He met Pupil A who was working in the pub. Given she was working in a pub, he did not realise she was 16 but said that he quickly realised she was only 16 once they had exchanged mobile phone numbers. He looked at the SEEMIS system in his school to find out if Pupil A was a pupil at his school. She was not, but he knew she was a pupil at another school in the same local authority. He acknowledged that the text messages could seem flirty but denied he was trying to pursue a sexual relationship with Pupil A. He wanted to be friends with her and that was his motivation for pursuing the relationship. He asked her to go for drives and they went for coffee. He explained that when he suggested other activities like bowling, he just wanted to offer something different so as not to seem boring to Pupil A. He explained he was very unsure of himself at that time and described his ex partner turning up at his house to collect her belongings on 30 October 2023 with her new partner. The Teacher described [redacted].

The Teacher accepted going to Pupil A’s school but explained it was a pre arranged work trip to discuss joint teaching initiatives between the schools and a local college. He stated that he was in no way “hunting” for Pupil A.

The Teacher accepted that he invited Pupil A to his house and that this could be construed as being an offer of a romantic date but denied that this was the case. He explained that he was not trying to pursue a romantic relationship and just wanted to be friends with Pupil A. He accepted that he shared a kiss and a cuddle with her on one occasion. He told the Panel that it was not repeated. The Teacher was clear that in his mind he did not want a sexual relationship and that he wanted a friend. He was aware however that he had overstepped the mark in sharing a kiss with her.

He explained that after the kiss he felt some sense was slowly returning. He knew he was not stable at that time and that he reacted badly to stress. After the kissing incident, he stated that he was [redacted]. He sent text messages telling Pupil A that he was not well. He said he told her he had a cold because he realised she should not be coming round to his house. He told the Panel that he was trying to stop her from coming round.

Submissions on Facts

The Presenting Officer made her submissions on the facts of the case. In general terms the Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities, she referred them to the GTC Scotland practice statement on fact finding and submitted that the Colleague C was both credible and reliable. She also submitted that while the Panel may consider that the Teacher was credible in that he was doing his best to answer the questions objectively, there were issues surrounding his reliability.

The Presenting Officer’s submissions in relation to each allegation not admitted in full were as follows:

• Allegation 1f(iv) – the Presenting Officer accepted that the Teacher may not remember this incident happening. It was submitted that this allegation was capable of being proved on the balance of probabilities in that the Teacher had arranged to put the Christmas tree up with Pupil A and that was the purpose for her attending the Teacher’s home on 2 December 2023.
• Allegation 1(i) – the Presenting Officer submitted that taking wording of the allegation by its plain meaning, it was established that the Teacher attended Pupil A’s high school on 9 November 2023, in his professional capacity, during which he looked for Pupil A.
• Allegation 1(l) – the Presenting Officer submitted that she understood that the Teacher believed he did not name Colleague A in his correspondence with Pupil A but that the text message evidence showed a reference to Colleague A’s first name. It was submitted the nature of this correspondence showed the Teacher discussed a Colleague A, a member of staff at a college where pupils from Pupil A’s school attended, and that this was unprofessional.
• Allegation 1q(ii) - the Presenting Officer submitted that the evidence established that the Teacher went for lunch with Pupil A and that the location of getting lunch was Asda. It was submitted that it was irrelevant whether the food from Asda was consumed in the premises or in the Teacher’s car and that the essential elements of the allegations were capable of being proved.
• Allegation 3 – the Presenting Officer directed the Panel to the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 and explained the test for dishonesty was a two stage test. Firstly, the state of knowledge or belief of the Teacher must be established. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher admitted he told Colleague C that there had been no physical or sexual activity at any stage with Pupil A but then 3 days later told him he did kiss Pupil A once. Turning to the second stage, the question was whether ordinary decent people would regard the Teacher’s conduct as dishonest. The Presenting Officer submitted that ordinary decent people would regard this conduct as being dishonest. In the alternative, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher’s conduct could be viewed as lacking integrity and explained the test for this was set out in the combined appeals of Wingate and Evans v the Solicitors’ Regulatory Agency and Solicitors’ Regulatory Agency v Mallins [2018] EWCA Civ 366. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher would have known in his role that he was to inform senior management of all interactions with Pupil A at the earliest stage of disclosure rather than 3 days later.
• Allegation 4 – the Presenting Officer directed the Panel to the case of Basson v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin). This provided judicial authority regarding how the phrase ‘sexually motivated’ should be interpreted in this context. It was explained that in cases where sexual motivation is alleged there will often be no direct evidence as to the state of mind of the Teacher, instead the presence, or lack thereof, of a sexual motivation will often need to be inferred or deduced from the surrounding evidence. When considering sexual motivation, a Panel must take care to consider alternative explanations for the behaviour which is alleged to have a sexual motivation. It was held in Basson that a sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher’s assertion that he was not seeking sexual gratification was simply not credible when viewed alongside the following established facts that he: formed a close personal relationship with Pupil A; engaged in extensive personal communications; spent time alone with her; kissed her; slept in the same bed as her; requested cuddles and back scratches; and subsequently sought reassurance or insight into her feelings about the kiss. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel could properly be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Teacher’s conduct was motivated, at least in part, by sexual gratification or sexual interest and that the allegation of sexual motivation was, therefore, proved.

The Teacher’s submissions in relation to each allegation not admitted in full were as follows:

• Allegation 1f(iv) - the allegation related to the putting up of the Christmas tree with Pupil A. The Teacher did not remember putting it up with Pupil A, but was happy to accept that she did come round to see the Christmas tree.
• Allegation 1(i) – the Teacher stated that he looked for Pupil A but was not hunting Pupil A.
• Allegation 1(l) – the Teacher admitted the allegation in part but said he did not name names.
• Allegation 1q(ii) - the Teacher denied this allegation as in his view he was not going for lunch with Pupil A. They went for a drive and bought a sandwich. He did not consider that as going out for lunch.  
• Allegation 3 – the Teacher accepted that he did not disclose straight away that he had kissed Pupil A. He met with Colleague C on 5 December 2023 and told him many details about his interactions with Pupil A. He described to the Panel being caught in the headlights and said he froze. He accepted that he did not at first say that he shared a kiss with Pupil A. He reflected on what he had disclosed and decided that he needed to disclose to Colleague C all the details. He told Colleague C about the kiss on 8 December 2023.
• Allegation 4 – the Teacher denied any sexual motivation. His explanation was that he was lonely and seeking companionship. He was not, in his view, seeking sexual gratification or a sexual relationship with Pupil A.

After receiving legal advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel retired into private session to determine the disposal.

Findings of fact

The Panel considered all of the evidence presented, and submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact on the allegations.

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

The Panel found Colleague C to be a credible and reliable witness. He did not seek to embellish his evidence and answered the questions as fully as possible. The Panel accepted Colleague C’s evidence.

The Panel found the Teacher credible in that he was telling the truth as he saw it. The Panel accepted his account that he was lonely and seeking a friend and companionship. The Panel found the Teacher reliable in that he had the text messages to aid his account of matters that happened in 2023. Overall the Panel found his evidence reliable and credible.

The Panel found the allegations accepted by the Teacher as proved. In relation to the allegations in dispute the Panel found as follows:

• Allegation 1f(iv) - the Panel found, on the balance of probabilities that, Pupil A did not help the Teacher to put up his Christmas tree and found the allegation not proved.
• Allegation 1(i) – the Panel found the allegation proved.
• Allegation 1(l) –the Panel found that the allegation was very vague. GTC Scotland could not provide the colleague’s surname and the Teacher did not know it. In the circumstances, the Panel found the allegation too vague to make any findings in fact. The Panel found the allegation not proved.
• Allegation 1q(ii) - the Panel decided that buying a meal deal sandwich is not the same as ‘going for lunch’. The connotation of going for lunch with someone is different from going for a drive and eating a sandwich. The Panel found the allegation not proved.
• Allegation 3 – the Panel considered the two stage test for dishonesty as set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67. The Panel found that the Teacher did know about the kiss on 5 December 2023 but did not tell Colleague C about the kiss straightaway and that he told Colleague C on 8 December 2023. The Panel found that it was understandable that when faced with an allegation it was not unusual for somebody to give a certain amount of information, to reflect, and then, a day or two later, give more information. The Panel did not think that an ‘ordinary decent person’ would consider this conduct to be dishonest given all the circumstances. The Panel found that the Teacher was not dishonest. Furthermore, the Panel found that the Teacher did not lack integrity as he was forthcoming and told his employer about the kiss with Pupil A of his own accord. As a result, the Panel found allegation 3 not proved.
• Allegation 4 – the Panel decided that the Teacher was not seeking sexual gratification or a sexual relationship with Pupil A and, therefore, the conduct found proved in allegation 1 was not sexually motivated. The Panel accepted that the Teacher was lonely and seeking reassurance and companionship. The Panel recognised the Teacher had made a significant error in judgement in seeking a friendship with a 16 year old but accepted that when he first saw and spoke with her in the pub he did not realise how old she was. The relationship lasted less than two months and the Panel accepted that the Teacher was seeking a friendship and companionship rather than a sexual relationship. The Panel heard very little evidence as to the nature of the kiss. The Panel decided that a kiss did not in itself have to be sexually motivated and in this case found that it was not. The other interactions such as going to his house, drives together, getting coffee and going bowling were not, in the Panel’s view, sexually motivated and were more likely to have been in pursuit of friendship and companionship. The nature and content of the text messages, did not, in the Panel’s view, reveal a sexual motivation and had the tenor of a friendship, albeit a somewhat flirty one. The Panel accepted the Teacher's evidence that after the kiss he tried to pull away from the relationship. The Panel looked at the allegations found proved in the round and decided that taken as a whole the Teacher was not sexually motivated when developing a relationship with Pupil A. The Panel found allegation 4 not proved.

Given that the Panel found that some of the allegations were proved, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on the Fitness to Teach

The Presenting Officer made submissions and reminded the Panel that the test for fitness to teach is a current test and should not be punitive. She referred the Panel to the Fitness to Teach conduct cases: indicative outcomes guidance practice statement and the factors set out there which help the Panel determine whether the conduct of the Teacher is remediable, if it has been remediated and if there is a likelihood of recurrence. In making its decision she submitted that the Panel should have regard to the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) 2012. She submitted that the Teacher had breached parts of the Code namely 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3. She submitted that even if the Panel was satisfied that the Teacher was not currently impaired, the Panel should also consider the public interest before determining impairment and fitness to teach.

Teacher’s Submissions on the Fitness to Teach

The Teacher submitted a paper to the Panel explaining that he was fully aware that once he knew Pupil A’s age, he should not have continued to develop a relationship with Pupil A. He was conscious that he may have caused her harm by his actions and was very remorseful for that. He explained that he had been working as a care worker in the residential educational sector. He had submitted references from his employer and explained that he had learnt a lot since working in residential care. He was fully aware of safeguarding and child protection measures and realised that what he had done was wrong. He was clear in his mind that he would never get himself in that situation again and that he really valued being able to teach. He felt he had a lot to offer as a teacher and that he was good at his job. He submitted that he was fit to teach.

After receiving legal advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel retired into private session to determine the disposal.

Findings on fitness to teach

The Panel considered 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). The Panel considered the following:

The Panel found the following in relation to the relevant parts of COPAC:

1.2 you must maintain appropriate professional boundaries

The Panel found that most of the allegations found proved amounted to a breach of professional boundaries for example asking for Pupil A’s phone number, inviting and meeting her at his house, developing a friendship with her and exchanging numerous text messages most days during the time he knew her.

1.3 – you should avoid situations both within and outwith the professional context which may call into question your fitness to teach.

The Panel found that the Teacher put himself in a compromising situation by developing a friendship with a 16 year old which called into question his fitness to teach.

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 found that the Teacher did not uphold standards of personal and professional conduct. The Teacher accessed SEEMIS when he had no proper reason to access personal data of pupils. Such conduct breaches professional standards. The discussion of a colleague, namely Colleague B, with Pupil A breaches professional conduct. The failure to maintain professional boundaries would also be of concern to the public and would have an impact on public confidence in the Teacher and teaching as a profession.

1.6 – you should maintain an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to pupils

The Panel found that the Teacher was not a good role model to Pupil A or to other pupils for example one of Pupil A’s friends reported him as she knew the relationship with Pupil A should not have occurred. Pupils do not expect teachers to have personal relationships with pupils.

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 found there was no evidence of whether the relationship had an impact on Pupil A in terms of being a role model for her learning. Furthermore, there was no evidence of the impact on other pupils in terms of whether he failed to motivate and inspire them to realise their full potential. The Panel made no finding regarding Part 2.3.

The Panel found that the Teacher fell short of the standards expected in relation to Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC 2012.

The Panel went on to consider the factors as set out in the IOG in deciding whether the Teacher's fitness to teach is currently impaired. The Panel made the following findings:

• Age of behaviour – the conduct found proved took place between 27 October 2023-4 December 2023 and was less than 5 years’ old.
• Level of seriousness – the Panel found that the conduct is serious and that there was a risk of harm to Pupil A. The Panel did not have evidence that Pupil A had been harmed but found that there was a risk of emotional harm for a young person in the circumstances. The Panel did not find that the level of seriousness was at the highest end, given the lack of sexual motivation, but decided it was still serious.
• Level of seriousness increased by aggravating factors – the Panel found there were no aggravating factors.
• Previous history - the Panel found that there was no previous history of such conduct. The conduct involved a single pupil and was an isolated event over the course of a short period of time. The Panel found that given there was no previous history and no pattern of behaviour that the conduct is less likely to recur.
• Whether significant insight was shown - the Panel found that the Teacher admitted the allegations right from the start to the local authority and to Colleague C. He admitted what he had done was wrong. Having been required to reiterate his denials on multiple occasions, the Teacher acknowledged he was frustrated and this was reflected in the curt tone of some of the emails contained in the bundle. The Panel found that the Teacher’s insight that the conduct was wrong and inappropriate was quite developed. In oral evidence, the Panel found that he gave significant insight and reflection in that he had engaged in training and development and is working with young people in residential care. He apologised for any harm he may have caused. The Panel found that the Teacher had expressed genuine remorse and insight.
• Whether there was evidence of the steps taken had been verified by someone other than the Teacher - the Teacher offered to provide certificates of his training undertaken when working in the residential sector. The Panel noted that he had provided positive references from his employer in the residential sector and from its own knowledge the Panel were aware of the types of training needed to work in said sector. The Panel accepted the Teacher’s evidence that he had undertaken the training offered at the residential centres where he had been working. The Panel decided that it was more likely than not that he undertook the training he said he had taken.
• Whether the Teacher’s current circumstances or any other surrounding factors make the risk of recurrence unlikely - the Teacher had just completed his probationary period when he started at [redacted]. He was a relatively inexperienced teacher but should have been aware of COPAC. The Panel found however that there were a number of protective factors that make it less likely that the conduct will recur for example: having gained experience working with young people in residential care; training in safeguarding and child protection; self reflection; and a desire to succeed as a teacher.

Overall, the Panel decided that the shortfalls are remediable, have been remedied and that the likelihood of recurrence is low. However, the Panel was concerned about the public interest and the effects on the reputation of the teaching profession and the regulator if no finding of impairment was made against the Teacher. The Panel therefore found that a finding of impairment was required in the public interest.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s conduct falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and that his fitness to teach is therefore impaired, solely in the public interest.

Disposal

In her submissions on the appropriate disposal, the Presenting Officer referred the Panel to stage 3 of the GTC Scotland fitness to teach conduct cases – indicative outcomes guidance practice statement. She submitted that, in terms of the public interest, the breaches of COPAC were multiple and serious. She submitted that it was for the Panel to weigh up the circumstances of the case to determine which of the sanctions available was most appropriate to address the public interest and public protection concerns. The Presenting Officer summarised the disposals available to the Panel, in ascending order. If the Panel was to reach the conclusion that removal from the register was the appropriate disposal, she submitted that the period of prohibition from making a registration application should be 2 years.  

In his submissions on the appropriate disposal, the Teacher also referred the Panel to the disposals open to it in the practice statement. He submitted that he had shown insight, had had time for much reflection and demonstrated remorse. He understood the gravity of the matters. Accepting that a reprimand might have an effect on his ability to get a job, he was willing to accept a reprimand for however long the Panel wished to impose it.

With regard to a Conditional Registration Order, the Teacher said he was willing to accept any conditions, with no objection. The Teacher referred the Panel to the testimonials provided on his behalf, and his wealth of knowledge in his particular field that he could bring to the profession. With regard to removal, the Teacher stated that he had already been out of the teaching profession for over two years, while waiting for this case to be heard. However, the Teacher stated that he was willing to accept whatever sanction the Panel chose, as he was keen to return to teaching.

After receiving legal advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel retired into private session to determine the disposal.

As the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired, it moved on to consider the appropriate disposal of the case. In considering this matter, the Panel had regard to Stage 3 of the GTC Scotland fitness to teach conduct cases – indicative outcomes guidance practice statement. In line with that guidance, the Panel considered the available options from least to most severe. The Panel noted that not all indicating factors required to be present for a disposal option to be considered appropriate.

Reprimand – the Panel decided that a Reprimand was not sufficient to mark the seriousness of the conduct. In particular, the conduct amounted to an abuse of a position of trust and therefore the public interest would not be satisfied with a Reprimand.

Conditional Registration Order – the Panel decided that a Conditional Registration Order would be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the conduct and to meet the public interest. The Panel decided that given the breaches of COPAC the Teacher should be required to show that he continues to understand the importance of the standards required of a teacher as set out in COPAC. The public interest would also be met in reassuring the public that the Teacher would be monitored by management for a period of time if he returned to teaching. The terms of the conditional registration order are as follows:

For a period of one year, you (the Teacher) must:

• Inform GTC Scotland at regulation@gtcs.org.uk within 7 days if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment as a teacher or for which GTC Scotland registration is required. You must also provide GTC Scotland at regulation@gtcs.org.uk with contact details for any new employer within that same timescale.
• Inform the following parties that your GTC Scotland registration is subject to these conditions and provide them with a copy of the Decision Notice that resulted in this Order being imposed upon you:
  
  • (a) any organisation or person employing you as a teacher or in a post for which GTC Scotland registration is required (whether on a permanent, temporary or supply basis); and
  • (b) any prospective employer covered by (a) above at the time of making your application for employment.
• Inform GTC Scotland at regulation@gtcs.org.uk within 7 days of commencement of any disciplinary or fitness to practice proceedings against you by your employer or any other professional regulatory body.
• If you are employed as a teacher or in a role for which GTC Scotland registration is required, within 3 months of commencing employment, you must work with your headteacher or principal teacher or equivalent to formulate a Professional Development Plan focusing on COPAC 1.3 (maintaining professional boundaries) and keep a reflective record of this learning and application to your practice. You must obtain a report from your headteacher or principal teacher or equivalent confirming that you have met the above condition. Such a report must be forwarded by you to GTC Scotland at regulation@gtcs.org.uk before the end of each term.

Having identified the appropriate disposal, the Panel decided to issue a Conditional Registration Order in accordance with Rule 2.7. The terms of the Conditional Registration Order, as set out above, will also be set out in a separate document which the Teacher will be asked to consent to by signing. Should the Teacher fail to provide his consent to the order within 28 days from the date it is sent to him, under Rule 2.10.7, the Panel will review and revise its disposal decision as it sees fit.

The Panel agreed that the Temporary Restriction Order should remain in place until the Teacher consents to the Conditional Registration Order, at which point the Temporary Restriction Order will be removed. If the Teacher does not consent to the Conditional Registration Order, the Temporary Restriction Order will remain in place.

Anonymity

Under Rule 1.7.3, the Panel agreed that any references to the local authority, Pupil A or the Teacher’s school or the locations outlined in the allegations should be anonymised in the written decision to protect Pupil A’s identity.

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.