Full hearing - Conduct - Kirsty Buchan

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

The Teacher was not present in the virtual hearing and nor was she represented. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to proceed in her 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.  Notice of the hearing had been submitted via email dated 16 December 2024. It was submitted that it was just to proceed in the Teacher’s absence. She has had notice of GTC Scotland proceedings since a Notice of Investigation dated 10 January 2023. She has not engaged at all in the process. Reference was made to GTC Scotland's Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence Practice Statement. It was submitted that the crux of the matter is to determine whether absence is voluntary or involuntary. It was submitted that in this case the Teacher has chosen not to attend and therefore had waived her right to participate further. Proceeding would avoid delay and adjournment would serve no purpose.

The Panel agreed that notice of the hearing had been submitted via email dated 16 December 2024.  The Panel considered whether it was just to proceed in the Teacher’s absence. The Panel were of the view that the Teacher has had a fair opportunity to participate, and has not done so. She appears to have chosen not to attend. The Panel took into account that the Teacher would not be able to participate in the hearing were they to decide to proceed. The Panel also took into account that not proceeding would create delay and inconvenience to others involved in the proceedings. The Panel’s view was that there was no indication that the Teacher would be likely to participate should they decide to adjourn. The Panel were of the view that they could fairly proceed to determine the case in the Teacher’s absence. They accordingly determined that in the whole circumstances it was just to proceed in the Teacher’s absence.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. Between an unknown date in 2022 and 4 January 2023, whilst employed by Glasgow City Council as a teacher at Bannerman High School, the Teacher did:
   
   (a) Set up and maintain a profile on ‘OnlyFans.com’, a subscription based social media platform, under the name ‘Jessica Jackrabbit x’, and did:
   
   (i) Use this profile to advertise and sell subscriptions to access sexually explicit content of herself in the form of photographs and/or videos;
   (ii) Make reference in her profile ‘bio’ to being a teacher, by stating ‘good teacher gone bad…really bad [purple devil emoji] [winking face with tongue emoji].’;
   (iii) Make it clear she was producing sexually explicit content by stating ‘big tits and sexy tight body…pics will be uploaded every couple of days to see how this does and themed packages weekly…I would love to do your special requests [three water droplets emoji] and suggestions are always wel-come [winking face emoji] (sic).’
   
   (b) Whilst engaging in the conduct at allegation 1(a), fail to ensure that her profile picture and ‘bio’ could not be accessed by any member of the public, including those under 18 years of age, without the need for them to log in or register to the OnlyFans site.
   ‍
2. On or around 2 December 2022, whilst employed by Glasgow City Council as a teacher at Bannerman High School, the Teacher did engage in a publicly available video interview with the Daily Record newspaper in which she did discuss her role as a teacher at   Bannerman High School alongside her decision to join the OnlyFans site.
   ‍
3. The Teacher’s actions at allegations 1 and 2 were lacking in integrity, in that she failed to take steps to prevent herself being identifiable as a teacher and was aware that this risked bringing the teaching profession into disrepute.

In light of the above, it is alleged that Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired, or in the  alternative she is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1,3 1.4, and 1.6 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) 2012.

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher had not responded to any materials from GTC Scotland and hence there were no admissions by her, nor did she submit any material for consideration by the Panel at the hearing.

Hearing papers

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

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

1. Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 20 May 2024, with supporting documents:
   
   • Employer referral form from Glasgow City Council, dated 1 December 2022
   • Email from Glasgow City Council in response to request for information, dated 3 April 2023
   • Teacher’s Statement of Fitness for Work, dated 29 November 2022
   • Email from Witness 1 to pupil and Parent, undated
   • GTC Scotland statement of Witness 1, dated 4 October 2023
   • GTC Scotland statement of Witness 2, dated 26 September 2023 and exhibit HO/1, screenshots of OnlyFans profile
   • Daily Record Article entitled Scots Only Fans teacher is sent supportive messages from pupils who want her back at work, dated 2 December 2023
   • Screenshot video interview conducted with Teacher, taken from Daily Record article of 2 December 2022

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1. Notice of Investigation, dated 10 January 2023
2. Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 20 December 2023
3. Emails to the Teacher regarding case management, with delivery receipts
4. Virtual Hearing Procedural Decision Annex, dated 23 October 2024
5. Full Hearing Notice with delivery receipts, dated 16 December 2024

Summary of evidence

Witness 1

The Presenting Officer called two witnesses. The first witness was Witness 1. She had provided a witness statement to GTC Scotland which she read into the record. She has been Head Teacher of Bannerman High School since October 2016 and worked at that school since 2001. Her general experience of the Teacher was that she was keen to be a good teacher but had shown poor judgment around her social media accounts being open. [redacted].  

On Monday 28 November 2022 Witness 1 had become aware of the Teacher having a profile on the ‘OnlyFans’ website. This came at what was already a challenging period in the school as there was industrial action taking place in relation to pupil behaviour. Witness 1’s Depute Head Teacher had shown her photographs of a phone screen, which in turn was displaying photographs of ‘OnlyFans’ or the Teacher’s other social media. These showed the Teacher posing in lingerie. Witness 1 was at the school gates at the end of the day. She was approached by a group of S5 and S6 boys. They told her to look out for “Jessica Jackrabbit” and that she would “go ballistic” when she found out. Staff also approached her. The Head Teacher felt that everyone knew the Teacher had an ‘OnlyFans’ profile. [redacted]. Witness 1 tried to contact the Teacher. The next day Witness 1 became aware that the school had received an email from a pupil’s parent. Embedded in the email were photos of images from the Teacher’s ‘OnlyFans’ site, showing her topless and in lingerie. The profile stated “good teacher gone bad”. [redacted], as well as her resignation. Witness 1 then saw the Teacher on the front page of the Daily Record. In the associated article the Teacher described the school as a "warzone”. The Teacher had also said that she had not been paid for time off to look after a sick child, which Witness 1 deemed not accurate. There were news stories in the press for at least a week concerning the Teacher, one of which included a video interview.

Witness 1 stated that the school had received queries from parents in relation to the Teacher. One parent had said that their son had put messages on the Teacher's ‘OnlyFans’ profile. Another pupil had also told Witness 1 something similar. The situation was still spoken about 10 months later (that is at the time of Witness 1’s written statement). Witness 1 said she could not believe what she had seen. In her view it is inappropriate for young persons to be able to see the Teacher’s ‘OnlyFans’ profile. Young people need to have confidence in their teachers and this undermined that.

Witness 1 was shown a ‘screen grab’ of an ‘OnlyFans’ profile in the materials before the Panel. She confirmed that it contained an image of the Teacher. Witness 1 was played a video of an interview which was embedded in the article in the ‘Daily Record’ which was in the materials before the Panel.  She confirmed that this was the interview with the Teacher which she referred to in her statement.  

Witness 1 was asked about the impact of this on the school. She stated that there was a lot of commentary around the Teacher’s actions within the school and the ramifications of the Teacher being on ‘OnlyFans’. The school did a lot of safeguarding work with pupils around how to stay safe online. The school had to go over this again. There was already media about the school generally due to the industrial action, and the Teacher had gone to the press representing a negative image of the school. There was still talk about the Teacher’s ‘OnlyFans’ profile from parents now (that is  at the time that Witness 1 was giving her evidence). In Witness 1’s view the school has a responsibility to educate pupils in relation to online safety, including access to pornography. It does not help that a Teacher is on a website promoting content which appeared to Witness 1 to have a pornographic element. The school are trying to show pupils how to conduct themselves online and the Teacher as a role model was doing something which in Witness 1’s view was against what they are trying to teach.

Witness 1 explained that the Teacher had indicated that she was resigning from her employment on 29 November 2022 [redacted].  

Witness 2

The second and final witness was Witness 2. She was formerly a Regulatory Investigations Officer for GTC Scotland. She had provided GTC Scotland with a statement which she read into the record. At the time of her statement she was the Investigating Officer for the Teacher’s fitness to teach case. She was aware that the allegations under consideration concerned the Teacher having a profile on the ‘OnlyFans’ website. Witness 2 understood this to be a social media network which allows users to post content which subscribers can then pay to access. Witness 2 understood that the content uploaded to the site is predominantly pornographic or sexually explicit. Witness 2 was aware that restricted versions of individuals’ profiles on ‘OnlyFans’ can be viewed using open-source research and without the need to register or log in to the website. Witness 2 has had open source intelligence training in a previous role. She had seen press articles concerning the Teacher, many of which contained a screenshot of what appeared to be a section of the Teacher’s ‘OnlyFans’ profile. The username which could be seen was ‘@jessjack69’. She had located the 'OnlyFans’ profile for that username using a google search. She had taken screenshots of the profile, which the witness identified were in the materials before the Panel (being those previously put to Witness 1 by the Presenting Officer, which she identified as including images of the Teacher).

Witness 2 confirmed that what she had identified on the ‘OnlyFans’ site was publicly available through a google search. There was no requirement to sign up or take out a subscription. In Witness 2’s view the profile indicated that the content which subscribers could access would be pornographic or sexually explicit.

Findings of fact

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

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 Presenting Officer submitted that there is no dispute that the Teacher created an ‘OnlyFans’ page. He referred the Panel to the video in the Daily Record article in which the Teacher confirmed this. Witness 1 had reported to the Panel what everyone could see. Witness 1 had confirmed the profile contained images of the Teacher. Witness 2 had accessed a restricted version of the Teacher’s ‘OnlyFans’ page via a google search. This corroborates what Witness 1 said that she was shown. The Teacher is named in the article and video and Witness 1 confirmed that it was her. In relation to allegation 3, it was submitted that integrity is linked to the manner in which a teacher is professed to serve the public. In this context it was submitted that the evidence demonstrates that the Teacher failed to take any steps to prevent her identification as a teacher. Boundaries had been blurred and the Teacher’s conduct could have been detrimental to the reputation of the profession, and as such lacked integrity.

The Panel found Witness 1 and Witness 2 to be credible and reliable witnesses. They were both speaking in a professional capacity and gave their evidence in a straightforward manner. They appeared to be objective. Their evidence was supported by documentary material. There were no significant inconsistencies. The Panel determined to accept the evidence from both witnesses in its entirety.

In considering the facts of the allegations, the Panel found that the evidence showed that the Teacher was employed by Glasgow City Council as a teacher at Bannerman High School on the dates stated in the allegations. In relation to allegation 1(a)(i) the Panel were satisfied that the evidence had shown on the balance of probabilities that the Teacher had set up and maintained a profile on OnlyFans.com. Witness 2 had explained where the screen grabs of that profile had come from and Witness 1 had identified that an image of the Teacher was contained on that profile. The images show that the username is “Jessica Jackrabbit x”. This is all also confirmed by the Daily Record article which was put before the Panel, and the video embedded in that article. The profile extract put before the Panel indicates that both pictures and videos were available to subscribers. In the Panel’s view, the text and imagery on the profile gives rise to an inference that these will be sexually explicit. The pictures which the Panel had seen on the publicly available profile were in the Panel’s view sexual images in themselves. The implication to the Panel was that more graphic imagery would be available on subscription.  

In relation to allegation 1(a)(ii) and (iii), the provenance of the Profile having been established, it was clear to the Panel that the profile “bio” included the terms stated in this allegation. Again this gives rise to an inference that more sexually explicit material will be available.  

In relation to allegation 1(b), the Panel accepted that this was proven with reference to the evidence of both Witness 1 and Witness 2. Witness 2 explained how the profile could be located online. Witness 1 explained how this had in fact taken place in practice, by pupils at the school. The newspaper article also stated that pupils were aware of the Teacher’s ‘OnlyFans’ profile.

In relation to allegation 2, the Panel accepted the evidence of Witness 1 who spoke to the video in the Daily Record article. In that video interview the Teacher did discuss her role as a teacher at Bannerman High School alongside her decision to join the ‘OnlyFans’ site.

In relation to allegation 3, the panel accepted that the Teacher had not concealed the fact that she was a teacher. Rather, she had made public that she was operating an ‘OnlyFans’ profile while a registered teacher. The Panel agreed that this disclosed a lack of integrity. In the Panel’s view, a teacher putting apparently explicit images online under explanation that she is a teacher does not meet with the ethical standards of the profession. The naming of the school was also damaging. Witness 1 had explained the impact on the school’s reputation caused by the Teacher’s actions. The Panel agreed that there was a conflict between the school’s role in supporting children to navigate the internet safely, such as by being cautious when posting images of themselves online, and the Teacher’s operation of her ‘OnlyFans’ profile. The Panel agreed that the Teacher had failed to take steps to prevent herself being identified as a teacher and that this risks bringing the profession into disrepute. The Panel were of the view that the Teacher was likely aware of this. She resigned from her post shortly after the ‘OnlyFans’ profile came to light. In the Panel’s view this indicated that she was likely aware that this caused a professional issue for her.  

The Panel accordingly determined that the allegations were proved in their entirety, under deletion of the words “and/or” in allegation 1(a)(i) and substitution of the word “and”, given that the Panel had found on the balance of probabilities that both images and videos were available.

Findings on fitness to teach

The Panel advised the hearing that the facts of the allegations had been found proved. Before going on to consider the question of fitness to teach, the Panel considered whether it should proceed further in the Teacher’s absence. The Presenting Officer invited them to do so.  

The Panel decided that a further invitation to participate at this stage would be unlikely to bring about participation by the Teacher and therefore that adjournment at this point would likely serve no purpose. They determined in the whole circumstances that it was just to proceed to consider fitness to teach in the Teacher’s absence.

Given that the Panel found that 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 was content to move straight to his submissions.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the concept of being unfit to teach was defined in the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011. A person is unfit to teach if their conduct or professional competence falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. Reference was made to GTC Scotland’s Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement. The Panel require to make a rational decision in the public interest. The public interest requires the Panel to have regard to the interests of public protection, maintenance of public confidence in the profession, the need to uphold standards and to provide a deterrent effect. The test for impairment is a current test and the Panel should adopt a holistic approach when considering the allegations. A likelihood of repetition was a material consideration. It was submitted that the Panel should consider whether the Teacher’s conduct falls short of the standards expected, with reference to GTC Scotland’s COPAC. If the Panel finds that the Teacher has committed misconduct, the Panel should consider whether the shortfalls are remediable, whether they have been remedied, and the likelihood of recurrence. It was submitted that the Teacher’s conduct disclosed in the allegations breaches Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC. It was submitted that the Teacher has failed to maintain boundaries between the private and the professional. The Teacher has not acted as a role model. The behaviour is entirely inappropriate. The Teacher has shown no insight. There was a risk of repetition. The behaviour had an ongoing effect to the detriment of the Teacher’s colleagues. The Teacher’s conduct was submitted to have fallen significantly short of the standards expected and was said to be fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher. The Panel was accordingly invited to find that the Teacher was unfit to teach.

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

The purpose of the hearing procedure at ‘Stage 2’ is, in accordance with Rule 2.8.1(b), for the Panel to determine whether on the basis of any facts found proved the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired or she is unfit to teach.

These concepts are defined in the Rules. A person’s fitness to teach is impaired where their conduct or competence falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. A person is unfit to teach where, in accordance with the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Rules 2011, their conduct or competence falls significantly short of those standards.  

The Panel bore in mind that the Teacher’s online activities are an exercise of her freedom of expression, and a part of her private life. The Panel recognised that any interference with those interests required to be a proportionate measure in pursuit of a legitimate aim.  

The Panel considered whether the allegations as provided constituted an infringement of COPAC, and in particular parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6. In the Panel’s view this was the case. The Panel agreed that the Teacher did not show a proper respect for the boundaries between the personal and the professional. Her description of herself as a teacher on the profile page, and the statements attributed to her in the news article and video interview, demonstrated this to the Panel. Rather than try to avoid situations where these matters were kept separate, it appeared to the Panel that the Teacher had deliberately allowed these boundaries to be breached. In the Panel’s view the Teacher had not upheld standards of personal conduct. Her behaviour had brought the school into disrepute.   She has sought to generate publicity for herself by making negative press comments in respect of the school while simultaneously promoting her ‘OnlyFans’ activities and stating that she was a teacher. The Panel agreed that the Teacher had not demonstrated or maintained awareness of a teacher’s position as a role model. Teachers are involved in teaching children to be safe online in terms of what they make public. The Teacher’s activities as described in the proven allegations send a poor message to children, in the Panel’s view.

The Panel determined that the allegations disclose that the Teacher has engaged in misconduct. In other words, her fitness to teach is impaired.  

The Panel then proceeded to consider whether the Teacher is unfit to teach. In the Panel’s view the Teacher’s behaviour is not consistent with protection of the public and specifically children. Children are not to be exposed to explicit content however the Teacher’s presence in a teaching setting provides a direct link to that material and plainly had generated interest in it. In the Panel’s view, the public would not consider that establishing an ‘OnlyFans’ profile, offering the type of content that appears to be available from the Teacher, was appropriate behaviour for a registered teacher. In the Panel’s view this behaviour would impact on public confidence in the profession. In the Panel’s view most members of the public would not see this as reasonable conduct for a teacher. The behaviour has had an impact on the public view of the school. The Panel was aware that the case before it had generated significant publicity. In the Panel’s view it is important that teaching standards are upheld and that they are seen to be upheld.  

In the Panel’s view online safety is an important issue in modern schools, and one element is that young people are taught to maintain their privacy. The Teacher’s behaviour appeared to the Panel to be in stark contrast to, and conflicting with, this advice. In the Panel’s view the shortfalls in conduct identified are significant. There was no evidence of harm being caused to any child, but there was evidence that young people had viewed the Teacher’s profile, which is something to which they should not be exposed. The children who had spoken to Witness 1 knew that the Teacher’s behaviour was problematic, given that they told her that she would “go ballistic”. The Teacher had not engaged in the GTC Scotland fitness to teach process and had displayed no insight into her conduct or why it might be seen as problematic for a teacher. The video interview which the Panel had seen disclosed an absence of insight, although it was not a recent interview. there was no evidence of any remediative behaviour.  

The Panel noted that there was no evidence that the Teacher had previously been the subject of fitness to teach proceedings. However, the allegations disclose a course of conduct which in the Panel’s view was likely to be repeated. In that respect the Panel noted that the ‘OnlyFans’ profile contained a statement to the effect that there would be regular uploads of additional content. The Panel noted that Witness 2’s statement describing identification of the teacher’s profile was dated to October 2023, almost a year after the school were told of its existence. The extract from the profile provided to the Panel appeared to them to show that there were multiple photographs and videos available, and a number of ‘likes’. It was clear to the Panel that the Teacher had made a sustained effort to establish and maintain her ‘OnlyFans’ presence. In the newspaper article the Teacher was quoted as saying that publicity helped her business and that she hoped it goes up and up, indicating an intention to continue. In the Panel’s view there was a high likelihood of recurrence.

The Panel acknowledged that the Teacher is entitled to a private life and her freedom of expression.  She is free to pursue these interests, and the Panel acknowledged that a finding of unfitness to teach may be viewed as interference. The Panel has found as a matter of fact that the Teacher has been advertising the sale of sexual images, making clear that she was working as a teacher while doing so. The fitness to teach standards promote interests which are in competition with the Teacher’s interests to pursue her ‘OnlyFans’ activities. In the Panel’s view, the interests promoted by the teaching standards, such as maintaining standards of behaviour, upholding public confidence in the profession, outweigh the interests of the Teacher in the circumstances. In the Panel’s view, the allegations as found proved against the Teacher disclose conduct which is fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher. In the whole circumstances, the Panel determined that it was necessary and proportionate to find that the Teacher is unfit to teach on this basis. A reasonable and well informed member of the public would not expect a teacher to be undertaking the conduct disclosed in the allegations. That member of the public would, in the Panel’s view, expect that such a teacher would be viewed as being unfit to teach. In the Panel’s view the Teacher’s conduct has fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. She is therefore unfit to teach.

The proceedings concluded on 9 June 2025 and the subsequent days scheduled for these proceedings were not used.

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, the Panel directed that the Teacher’s name be removed from the Register.

Once the Teacher’s name has been removed from the Register, her name remains so removed unless and until an application for re-registration is made by her 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 two years from the date of its decision. The Panel considered that this was the appropriate period in the whole circumstances of the case. There was no acknowledgment from the Teacher of any difficulty caused by her behaviour. There was a high likelihood of repetition. The Teacher's behaviour was shown on the evidence before the Panel to have a continuing effect.  In the Panel’s view only the maximum period would be sufficient for the issues arising to be remedied.  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.

‍