Full hearing - Conduct - Peter McInnes
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 Rules2017 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 at the virtual hearing and nor was he represented. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to proceed in his absence. Reference was made to Rule 1.7.8 which provides that where a party fails to appear or be represented at the time and place fixed for a hearing, the Panel is required to satisfy itself that notice of the hearing has been given in terms of the Rules, and if so satisfied the Panel may proceed to hear and dispose of the case in the Teacher’s absence. Reference was also made to the GTC Scotland Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence Practice Statement 2018, which provides guidance on the application of Rule 1.7.8.
The Panel took legal advice to the effect the Presenting Officer had made reference to the relevantly engaged rule and GTC Scotland Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence Practice Statement. Accordingly, the Panel retired into private session in order to consider the Presenting Officer’s application that the hearing should proceed in the Teacher’s absence.
The Panel had regard to Rule 1.7.8, and to GTC Scotland’s Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence Practice Statement , as well as to the bundle of papers, wherein it noted evidence that the Teacher was made aware of the hearing by way of the Notice of Full Hearing, dated 16 May 2025, and that that notice had been successfully delivered to the Teacher’s most up to date email address.
The Panel considered that that the allegation was serious. It was an assault on a pupil during the school day for which the Teacher had a conviction and, on that basis, it was in the public interest and in line with GTC Scotland’s general objective for it to be dealt with as quickly as possible. The Teacher had been provided every opportunity to respond to the allegation and participate in the fitness to teach proceedings (including the hearing) and had not done so. Moreover, notice of the hearing had been served correctly and in line with the Rules. Therefore, the Panel considered that the Teacher’s absence from the hearing was voluntary. For those reasons, the Panel determined that there was no reason for further delay and it was in the Teacher’s interests and the public interest to proceed in the Teacher’s absence and that there would be no prejudice to the Teacher in doing so.
Accordingly, the Panel granted the Presenting Officer’s application, and determined to proceed in the Teacher’s absence. The Presenting Officer made the same application at the outset of stage 2 of the process (during the first day of the hearing), and again at the outset of stage 3 (at the beginning of the second day), whereupon on both occasions the Panel granted her application for the same reasons, and determined to proceed in the Teacher’s absence.
Allegations
The following allegations were considered at the hearing:
- On 3 December 2019, at Braeview Academy, Berwick Drive, Dundee, the Teacher did assault Pupil 1, a pupil there, [redacted] c/o Police Service of Scotland, and did seize hold of [redacted] clothing. The Teacher was convicted on 17 March 2022 at Dundee Sheriff and JP Court and was admonished.
And in light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and he is unfit to teach, as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.
Teacher’s admissions
The Teacher had not responded to any materials from GTC Scotland and hence there were no admissions by him, nor did he submit any material for consideration by the Panel at the hearing.
Hearing papers
As set out below in the summary of evidence section, following legal advice provided by the Legal Assessor to which the Presenting Officer had no objection (and in accordance with Rules 1.7.17 and 1.7.18), the Panel excluded as evidence all documents and statements listed in the Presenting Officer’s case form with the exception of the extract conviction.
Presenting Officer’s hearing papers
- Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 20 May 2024,with supporting documents:
- Letter dated 9.12.2019 – Alternate to Suspension on Full Pay
- Letter dated 20.12.2029 - Alternate to Suspension on Full Pay
- Letter dated 10.01.2020 - Suspension on Full Pay/Cessation of Supply Placement
- Letter dated 24.01.2020 – Suspension on Full Pay/Cessation of Supply Placement
- IRD Extract, dated 6 December 2019
- Extract Conviction, dated 21 September 2022
- Notice of Investigation Response Part A
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 10 December 2019
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 19 December 2019
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 7 February 2020
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 11 December 2019
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 19 December 2019
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 19 December 2019
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 19 December 2019
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 10 February 2020
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 5 February 2020
- Police statement of [redacted], dated 5 February 2020
Servicing Officer’s hearing papers
- Notice of Investigation, dated 18 February 2020
- Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 21 July 2023
- Emails to the Teacher regarding case management, with delivery receipt, dated 16 May 2025
- Virtual Hearing Procedural Decision Annex, dated 11 September 2024
- Full Hearing Notice with delivery receipts, dated 16 May 2025
Summary of evidence
The Legal Assessor provided legal advice in public to the Panel in relation to the evidence in the Presenting Officer’s papers. He advised the Panel that other than the extract conviction, dated 21 September 2022, the other evidence in the Presenting Officer’s papers had not been introduced as evidence and the Panel should not have regard to them. The Presenting Officer did not object to the Legal Assessor’s advice and advised she was content for the Panel to proceed to consider the case on the extract conviction alone. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and took the view that they were able to consider the case on that basis.
On that basis, the only admissible and materially relevant evidence that the Panel had in front of it bearing on the substantive merits of the allegation was the extract conviction issued by Dundee Sheriff Court on 21 September 2022 proving conclusively that on 17 March 2022 the Teacher was convicted of the offence he committed on 3 December 2019, consisting of assault on a pupil at school, [redacted], and of seizing [redacted] clothing. The Panel noted the deletions from the original criminal libel as detailed on the extract, and the sheriff’s disposal of the prosecution by way of admonishment.
Findings of fact
The Panel gave careful consideration to the evidence presented and submissions made by Presenting Officer in making its findings of fact on the allegations.
The Panel had in mind that the burden of proof rested on the Presenting Officer and that the standard of proof required is that used in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.
The Presenting Officer’s submissions at Stage 1 – Findings in Fact – were to draw the Panel’s attention to Rules 1.7.15 regarding the burden and standard of proof, and to Rule 1.7.18, subject to Rule 1.7.19, regarding an extract conviction being conclusive proof of the conviction. The Legal Assessor provided legal advice to the extent that the Presenting Officer’s submissions referred to the appropriate Rules. There were no further comments from the Presenting Officer on the legal advice provided to the Panel.
The Panel gave effect to Rule 1.7.18, and thus treated the extract conviction as conclusive proof of that conviction, and hence of the Teacher’s said offending. The Panel decided that Rule 1.7.18(b) was not engaged as the sheriff had not issued any findings in fact on which the conviction was based. Therefore, all other documents and statements were excluded, except where merely to the extent of consisting of anodyne recording of GTC Scotland’s administration of this case. The Panel noted that, under Rule 1.7.19, the Teacher had not provided any evidence that he was not the Teacher in question, and therefore the Panel was satisfied that the Teacher was the subject of the extract conviction. For clarity, the Panel found the facts proved at Stage 1.
Findings on fitness to teach
Given that the Panel found that the allegation was proved, the Panel invited the leading of evidence and submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Presenting Officer made reference to the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases - Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement (IOG).
The Presenting Officer was content to rely solely on the extract conviction, which she submitted was for a serious offence, being a serious breach of COPAC, particularly given the professional context. She further submitted that the Panel should find that the Teacher’s conduct had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a teacher, and that he should therefore be removed from the register, failing which the Panel should find that his conduct had fallen short of those standards, and that his fitness to teach is impaired. She drew to the Panel’s attention that he had produced no evidence of insight or remediation. The Presenting Officer referred to the public interest, stating that it would undermine the public’s confidence in teachers and the teaching profession, if a finding of impairment were not made for a teacher who had assaulted a [redacted] child.
Legal advice was provided to the extent that the Presenting Officer had made reference to the correct practice statement, and the Presenting Officer made no further comment on the legal advice provided to the Panel.
The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the foregoing 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 IOG.
The Panel took the view that for the Teacher to assault a pupil was a serious departure from the standards expected of a teacher and therefore constituted misconduct. The Teacher had placed himself in breach of COPAC at parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6. However, the Panel took the view that part 2.3 was not relevantly engaged, as it envisages a pedagogical context, which the evidence did not support. While the sheriff’s disposal of the prosecution by way of admonishment tended to justify a reasonable inference that the assault probably lay towards the lower end of the scale of physical seriousness in a criminal sense, nonetheless the professional context, and the Teacher’s apparent lack of insight and effort towards remediation, rendered it a serious matter to come in front of the GTC Scotland.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s conduct falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and that he is therefore unfit to teach.
Disposal
As the Panel determined that the Teacher is unfit to teach, in accordance with the terms of Article 18(2)(b) of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011, it directed that the Teacher’s name be removed from the Register.
Once the Teacher’s name has been removed from the Register, his name remains so removed unless and until an application for re-registration is made by him and a Fitness to Teach Panel considers that the Teacher is fit to teach at that time and directs that the application be granted. Rule 2.10.6 outlines that a Panel may direct that the Teacher be prohibited from making such an application until the expiry of such a period, not exceeding 2 years, as it may determine. In this case, the Panel directed that the Teacher should be prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of 2 years from the date of its decision. The Panel considered that a shorter time period was inappropriate given the seriousness of the conduct (an assault on a pupil carried out at school during the school day) and in light of the fact the Teacher had not demonstrated any insight or remediation into his conduct.
For clarity, this is not a period of removal, meaning that the Teacher will not be automatically reinstated to the Register at the end of this period. It sets out how long the Teacher has to wait until an application for re-registration can be made, which may or may not be granted.
Appeal
The Teacher has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of service of the Decision Notice. The Teacher’s name will remain on the Register until the appeal period has expired, and any appeal lodged within that period has been determined.
