Full Hearing - Conduct - Phillipe Magalon
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 – Day 1
A number of preliminary issues arose at the hearing, as set out and discussed further below.
(1) Late Evidence
Firstly, the Presenting Officer brought to the Panel’s attention a number of items of email correspondence that had been exchanged between himself and the Teacher in very recent times. The Presenting Officer applied for these to be admitted as late evidence.
The Presenting Officer submitted that the tests for admissibility in this context were those of relevancy and fairness and that these were met in this case.
Legal advice was provided to the Panel to the effect that the Presenting Officer had identified the correct tests for admissibility. In assessing the second test a key issue would be whether fair notice had been provided to the Teacher. A relevant factor in this assessment would be the fact that the Teacher was a party to all of the emails in question (including being the writer of some of them).
The Panel convened in private session to discuss this first preliminary issue.
The Panel noted that the emails were relevant in that they related, potentially, to the Teacher’s current medical condition and also to various procedural matters that had been identified (as discussed further below). The reason why the materials were late was understandable (being that they were emails from within the last week). The Panel took into account that much of the materials comprised the Teacher’s own communications and the others comprised emails to which he was a party. As such he would be aware of the contents of all of the materials.
For all of these reasons the Panel decided that the late evidence should be admitted.
(2) Proceeding in Absence
When the public hearing was reconvened, the Presenting Officer indicated that he wished to make an application for the Teacher to be excluded from proceedings in terms of Rule 1.7.10.
At this juncture the Legal Assessor intervened to indicate that before such an application could be considered in the Teacher’s absence, an application would first need to be made to proceed in the absence of the Teacher.
Accordingly the Presenting Officer made such an application in terms of Rule 1.7.8. In so doing he pointed out that the Notice of Hearing had been correctly served on the Teacher in terms of Rule 1.6.1. The Teacher was aware of the hearing taking place today.
The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland practice statement on ‘postponements, adjournments, and proceeding in the absence’. It was submitted that the Teacher had absented himself from the proceedings by his own volition. Furthermore, if the Panel was minded to exclude the Teacher, then it would be immaterial if proceedings were to continue in his absence.
When asked by the Legal Assessor, the Presenting Officer indicated that if the hearing did proceed this morning, he would intend asking some supplementary questions to the witness regarding the provenance of some of the documentary evidence (screenshots) and also how she felt when she saw the original posts and message in question.
The Panel retired into private session to consider the application to proceed in the Teacher’s absence.
During the private session legal advice was given in the following terms. Firstly, it was advised that the Presenting Officer had referred to the correct (relevant) Rules and GTC Scotland practice statement. Secondly, it was advised that when considering the application in terms of Rule 1.7.8 one relevant factor for the Panel to consider would be the degree to which the Teacher would be prejudiced by proceeding in his absence this morning. Thirdly, and in anticipation of the proposed application in terms of Rule 1.7.10 (exclusion) it was advised that it would be open to the Panel to defer consideration of any such application until such time as the Teacher attended or sought to attend.
The Panel considered the application to proceed in the Teacher’s absence. It was noted that the Notice of Hearing had been correctly served in terms of Rule 1.6.1. It had been served to an email address which the papers indicated the Teacher had used and continued to use (as per the recent evidence lodged, which consisted of various emails to and from the Teacher). Moreover, the content of the recent emails made it clear that the Teacher was aware that the hearing was due to take place today.
The Panel considered the terms of the practice statement to which they had been referred. In line with that practice statement, they went on to consider if the Teacher’s absence was voluntary. It was noted that differing reasons had been provided why he could not attend, the most recent of which was that it was due to a childcare emergency. However, he had been given plenty of notice of the hearing so it was not clear why adequate alternative arrangements could not have been made, in order to make a postponement request in person. The content of previous communications from the Teacher suggested that even if a postponement was granted he might not be able to attend any postponed hearing.
The Panel also considered to what extent the Teacher would be prejudiced by his non-attendance. It was noted that, taking his written evidence at its highest, he would be able to attend from 2pm onwards. As such the only part of the hearing he would miss would be the evidence of the first witness. This meant he would not have the opportunity to cross-examine her. At the same time, however, much of what the first witness said in her statement was not controversial. The first chapter of her evidence was covered by the evidence of the criminal conviction against the teacher. The second chapter was a summary of social media posts and a WhatsApp message sent by the Teacher and which the Teacher had acknowledged making. In these circumstances it was not clear how it would advantage the Teacher to cross-examine the witness and, accordingly, how he could be disadvantaged by being absent during the hearing of her evidence. He had sight of her statement, which contained what were likely to be the key parts of her evidence.
It was noted that there might also be an application to exclude the Teacher. However, he had been given prior written notice of this and had the opportunity to make representations on the matter in writing. He had chosen not to do so and instead had responded by saying, among other things: “YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE ME, FINE…”.
After considering all of these matters the Panel decided that the day’s proceedings should continue in the absence of the Teacher. It was noted that the Teacher had indicated that he would be available to attend from 2pm onwards. The Panel decided that if the Presenting Officer did wish to make an application to exclude the Teacher from proceedings, then this could be made and considered in the event of the Teacher attending later in the day.
The Panel also directed the Servicing Officer to email the Teacher in order to make him aware of their decision in these respects and so that he would be aware that an application to have him excluded from proceedings might be made at 2pm. That way the Teacher could be invited to attend and make any representations he wished to make in person.
There were no further preliminary matters to be decided and accordingly the Panel reconvened in public in order to proceed with the hearing.
Allegation(s)
At the reconvened public hearing the Presenting Officer was asked to read out the allegations against the Teacher, which he did. The allegations to be considered were as follows:
1 On 18 August 2020 at Forfar Sheriff Court, the Teacher was convicted of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm contrary to Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, in that, on 28 February 2019 at Lochside Primary School, he did act in an aggressive manner towards the children in his care, repeatedly shout, repeatedly bang his hands down on a table and throw a book across the classroom causing the book to strike off the wall or bookcase.
2 (a) Between 22 February and 1 June 2019, whilst employed by Angus Council as a teacher at Lochside Primary School, in various comments, pictures, and videos posted to his personal Facebook page, the Teacher did:
(i) Alongside an article titled ‘Travellers who wrecked historic brewery are jailed for eight years’ state: ‘Travellers, no wonder why in Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and other countries, these "people" are, let's say "unloved" everywhere they go they wreck places, steal, leave rubbish, criminality is rising. [U***********n].’
(ii) Alongside a link to clarionproject.org, state: ‘This is the death cult that Shemina Begum, the Isis [w***e] joined. More atrocities. She and her little inbred should never be allowed back in Europe’
(iii) In sharing a post by another with a picture containing the heading ‘Christianity History’ and the comment ‘If you think ISIS is bad. This is what Catholics use (sic) to do. Think people’ state: ‘A [m**z] trying to take the moral stance, ignoring today’s actions by his fellow cult followers and instead trying to deflect their tortures, rapes and murders by showing actions from the distant past (at least 500 years ago). Get a life [m**z]. [angry swearing emoji]’
(iv) In sharing a post by another which contained a picture of Kermit the Frog holding a wine bottle with the comment ‘Awww you’re spreading rumours about me…at least you found a hobby spreading something other than your legs [b***h]!’ state: ‘Sure someone will know what I mean and recognise herself [angry face emoji]’.
(v) Alongside a photograph of what appears to be a group of people wearing garments covering their face and body, state: ‘Never, in the history of sun shades, so many black parasols been put on display. On a more serious note, these filthy tarts are the remnants of Isis terrorist brides. Can’t believe so many were missed by air strikes [angry face emoji]’
(vi) State: ‘Just had the misfortune meet to a woman that is angry at the fact that she is working class and does not like middle class because her mother was a single mother, hello, not my fault, don’t cry baby, not my fault if your understanding is…well…rather flawed by a lack of, yes, you guessed it, neuron count. Well obviously not highly educated, an IQ the size of my shoe size. Well can’t stop laughing. Poor her. Gave me the example of Maggie Thatcher from…30 years ago!!!...err…wake up women, it is the 21st century! Now be a good girl, get a proper education, now I know, difficult if you don’t have enough data storage. Never mind. Life can be so cruel. [laughing face emoji].’
(b) The comments at allegation 2(a) were posted on the Teacher’s open Facebook page, and as such would have been accessible to parents, pupils, colleagues, and members of the public.
(c) The comments at 2(a) were:
(i) abusive;
(ii) offensive;
(iii) inflammatory; and/or
(iv) discriminatory.
3 (a) On 12 March 2020, whilst employed by Angus Council as a teacher at Lochside Primary School, the Teacher did send a text to Witness A, which contained the words ‘Now, inevitably, me not being able to say anything will change on 31st and rest assured, I will not hesitate to open up and say what I couldn’t as an Angus employee. There will be special mention for the snowflakes that took exception of my Facebook posts and whether they were from school or the education dept. at Orchardbank they will definitely not be spared and will be named and likely to be shamed as terrorist sympathisers, and why not. I am really looking forward to this in fact. As I said previously, my parting shots will be straight to the point. Sadly, I am not Jesus, I neither forgive nor forget therefore those who have wronged me will bear the brunt of my anger and will not be forgotten.’
3 (b) The text at allegation 3(a) was threatening in nature.
4 On 19 January 2021, the Teacher sent an email to GTC Scotland in response to a newsletter to registrants stating ‘Amazing, after all that time, weeks into second lockdown, (not to mention the first lockdown), the GTC, at least, decide to take their fingers out of their asses and publish something, something that is obviously completely inadequate and irrelevant. Bravo and thank you (not).’
5 The Teacher’s actions at allegations 1-4 were lacking in integrity.
In light of the above, it is alleged that Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired, and he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.4 and 5.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) 2012.
Teacher’s admissions
In the absence of the Teacher no admissions were made by him.
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 PO completed Case Form, dated 8 May 2024
2 Employer statement of Witness A, dated 31 May 2019 (signed 24 June 2019)
3 Employer statement of Teacher, dated 11 June 2019 (unsigned)
4 Investigation Report Form, dated 3 July 2019
5 Handwritten statement of [redacted], dated 1 March 2019
6 Precautionary suspension letter, dated 12 March 2019
7 GTCS witness statement of Witness A
8 Screenshots of Facebook posts
9 Screenshots of text to Witness A
10 Copy of email from Teacher to GTC Scotland, dated 19 January 2021
11 Screenshot of Teacher’s contact details from GTC Scotland’s system
12 Extract conviction – Forfar Sheriff Court
13 Email to Teacher, dated 5 June 2023, enclosing Interim Investigation Report, and delivery receipt.
In addition to these papers and, as noted above, the Presenting Officer made an application for late evidence to be admitted into process. As also noted above the Panel permitted the submission of that evidence. It comprised as follows:
1 Email correspondence between GTCS and the Teacher dated 18 and 19 May 2026
2 Email correspondence between GTCS, the Teacher and the Presenting Officer dating from 18 to 21 May 2026
3 Email correspondence between GTCS and the Teacher dated 25 May 2026
4 Further email correspondence between GTCS, the Teacher and the Presenting Officer dated 27 May 2026
Teacher’s hearing papers
Nil
Servicing Officer’s hearing papers
1 Notice of Full Hearing, dated 5 January 2026 with cover email and delivery receipt
2 Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 2 October 2023 and delivery receipt
3 Virtual Hearing Decision, dated 23 October 2024
4 Email from Teacher, dated 23 September 2025
5 Teacher Email to PO, dated 6 October 2025
6 Further email from Teacher, dated 15 October 2025
7 Email from Teacher, dated 10 November 2025
8 CMD re RO and delivery, dated 15 December 2025
9 Final Request for Additional Papers and delivery, dated 23 March 2026
Summary of evidence
There was only one witness, namely [Witness A], who [redacted] Lochside Primary School. She had provided a statement to GTC Scotland, dated 8 September 2020, and read this out in full. Thereafter she was asked some supplementary questions by the Presenting Officer. In summary, she explained in response to these questions that the Facebook Screenshots in the bundle had been taken by her. She had been able to access the Teacher’s Facebook page online, that it was publicly accessible; she had accessed it and taken the screenshots. She found the posts disturbing and upsetting. She did not think the language used was appropriate for a teacher.
The witness was then asked about the screenshot of a WhatsApp message from the Teacher. She explained that she had taken this. The message had been sent to her. When she received it, she felt nervous, in particular due to the last part of the message where the Teacher had referred to ‘my anger’. She felt that such comments could mean various things, that it was unpredictable and that she found it alarming.
The Panel did not have any questions for the witness, who was therefore discharged, after which the hearing broke for lunch.
The hearing resumed at 2.00pm on 27 May 2026. This timing was important as the Teacher had indicated he would be able to attend from that time onwards. In the event, however, the Teacher did not attend any of the afternoon session.
It was noted that the Presenting Officer had previously indicated that he would be making an application for the Teacher to be excluded from proceedings. In the event, in the ongoing absence of the Teacher he did not seek to make that application, but reserved his right to do so in the event that the Teacher sought to attend at a later stage in proceedings. It was also stated that the Presenting Officer had been concerned around any possible disruption to the witness’s evidence, by the Teacher, but as the Teacher had not been present during the witness providing her evidence this had lessened the requirement to seek the Teacher’s exclusion.
Submissions on the Facts
Thereafter the Presenting Officer made his submissions on the facts of the case. A summary of these is set out below.
In general terms the Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities, he referred them to the GTC Scotland practice statement on fact-finding and submitted that the witness was both credible and reliable. Her oral evidence was supported by documentary evidence in the bundle.
Regarding Allegation 1, the Presenting Officer referred to Rule 1.7.18, as a result of which this allegation should be taken as proved.
Regarding Allegation 2(a) it was submitted that the witness had spoken to the posts, the Teacher had not denied making them, and indeed the Teacher appeared to have acknowledged making some or all of them.
Regarding Allegation 2(b), the evidence from both the witness and the Teacher confirmed that the posts were public.
Regarding Allegation 2(c) it was submitted that all of the comments set out at 2(a) met all four of the criteria set out in 2(c).
Allegation 3(a) was said to have been spoken to by the witness. In terms of 3(b) the witness had indicated that she found the message threatening. Objectively speaking it was obviously threatening. For example, it contained language such as to say people ‘would not be spared..’ and would ‘..bear the brunt of my anger’.
Allegation 4 was said to be clearly established by the evidence, which included a copy of the Teacher’s email to GTC Scotland.
Regarding Allegation 5, the Presenting Officer directed the Panel to the case of Wingate and Evans v SRA and SRA v Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366. This provided judicial authority regarding how the word ‘integrity’ should be interpreted in this context. Teachers were not expected to be ‘paragons of virtue’. However, society and fellow professionals expected higher standards from them. Members of the teaching profession deal with some of society’s most vulnerable members. Their views must respect diverse values. In the present case the Teacher had not adhered to the ethical standards expected of the profession.
Findings of fact
Following the Presenting Officer’s submissions the Panel reconvened in private to discuss their findings on the facts of the case.
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.
Legal advice was provided to the Panel regarding the caselaw referred to by the Presenting Officer (Wingate and Evans v SRA and SRA v Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366). The Legal Assessor confirmed that this caselaw was relevant to the context and in particular as to how the word ‘integrity’ should be interpreted. In summary the Court had held that ‘integrity’ in this context expressed the higher standards society and professions expected from professionals. It connoted adherence to the ethical standards of one's profession.
The Panel found the witness to be entirely credible and reliable. In reaching that conclusion they took into account the professional and clear manner in which she gave her evidence. She acknowledged the points that she could not remember (due to the passage of time) and, as such, it did not seem that she had sought to embellish matters. Her statement was relatively contemporaneous with the events of which it spoke, and her evidence was supported by the documentary evidence provided.
The witness’s claims regarding her reactions to seeing the Teacher’s Facebook posts and WhatsApp message were also regarded as being understandable, reasonable, and credible.
The Panel went on to consider the specific allegations against the Teacher.
• Allegation 1.
The Panel found this allegation to be proved as a result of Rule 1.7.18, which was evidenced by the panel being provided with a copy of the extract conviction. No evidence had been provided to suggest that this could be a case of mistaken identity (per Rule 1.7.19).
• Allegation 2(a)
The allegation was supported by documentary evidence, by the oral evidence of the witness and by the Teacher’s written evidence acknowledging some of these posts. As such the Panel found Allegation 2(a) to be proven.
• Allegation 2(b)
The witness’ evidence and also the written evidence of the Teacher supported the allegation that the Facebook posts were publicly accessible. As such, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this allegation was found to be proved.
• Allegation 2(c)
This allegation was that the posts in question were (i) abusive, (ii) offensive, (iii) inflammatory and (iv) discriminatory.
In considering this allegation the Panel relied on the following definitions from the Collins online Dictionary. This is publicly and freely accessible, and the definitions provided in this instance appear to reflect the normal, everyday usage of the words in question.
- ‘Abusive’: extremely rude and insulting.
- ‘Offensive’: rude and insulting.
- ‘Inflammatory’: tending to arouse violence or strong feelings of anger.
- ‘Discriminatory’: based on or showing bias towards a particular group or groups.
Applying these definitions to the Facebook posts quoted in allegation 2(a) the Panel decided that all of the posts in question were abusive, offensive, inflammatory, and discriminatory. It was undeniable that the Teacher had used language which was extremely rude and insulting. For example, he had used terms redolent of the Third Reich to refer to traveller communities, he had referred to people as ‘whore’, ‘inbred’, and ‘filthy tarts’; he had mocked others for being (in his view) uneducated and having a low IQ; and he had used misogynistic terminology to refer to women. Objectively viewed such comments could clearly be expected to arouse feelings of anger in those to whom they were directed (and others). Finally, much of it was directed towards specific groups. As such the posts were also discriminatory.
• Allegations 3(a) and (b)
That the Teacher had sent this WhatsApp message was proved by the evidence of the witness and the documentary evidence (screenshot). The Panel felt that the use of language such as ‘they will definitely not be spared’, ‘[they] will be named and shamed as terrorist sympathisers’, and ‘those who have wronged me will bear the brunt of my anger’ was clearly threatening. They were bolstered in this conclusion by the evidence of the witness who had said the message had made her feel nervous. As such, the Panel found that these allegations were proved.
• Allegation 4
The Panel found this allegation to be proved by the documentary evidence regarding it (a copy of the email sent by the Teacher to GTC Scotland).
• Allegation 5
Viewing matters objectively, the Panel felt that neither members of the public nor other professionals would deem the making of such posts in publicly accessible social media fora to be appropriate for a Teacher. The same applied to the language used by the Teacher in his WhatsApp message to his headteacher (Allegation 3) and the email he had sent to GTC Scotland.
As such and taking guidance from the caselaw referred to by the Presenting Officer (re the definition of ‘integrity’ in this context) the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s actions, as set out in Allegations 1 to 4, were lacking in integrity. In other words, Allegation 5 was also proved.
The Panel then reconvened in the public session.
The Legal Assessor disclosed the legal advice he had provided during the private session.
The Presenting Officer had no comment to make regarding this legal advice.
The Panel then announced its findings in fact, which were that the allegations were found to have been proved in their entirety.
This concluded the first day of proceedings.
Preliminary issues – Day 2
At the commencement of the second day of proceedings it was noted that the Teacher still was not present. The Servicing Officer informed the Panel and the Presenting Officer that there had been no further communications received from the Teacher since the previous day.
The Panel informed the Presenting Officer that in light of this the Panel would need to consider afresh whether to proceed in the absence of the Teacher now that they had reached their findings in fact [in line with Part B of the GTC Scotland practice statement ‘postponements, adjournments, and proceeding in the absence’ (at Part B, bullet point 5)].
Accordingly the Presenting Officer made a further application to proceed in the absence of the Teacher. He referred to Rule 1.7.8, to the same arguments he had made the day before and submitted that it was fair and just to continue in the Teacher’s absence. He pointed out that the communications from the Teacher proved he was aware of the hearing date, yet no explanation had been provided as to why he had been unable to attend since 2pm on Day 1. In the absence of explanation it was said that the Teacher had forfeited his right to attend.
The Presenting Officer referred to the General Objective of the Rules and in particular the need to avoid delay. In light of this and the seriousness of the allegations it was in the public interest to proceed.
Legal advice was then tendered to the effect that the Presenting Officer had correctly referred to part of the General Objective but also that the General Objective also required the Panel to ensure that parties could participate effectively in proceedings. The Panel was advised that they would need to balance this requirement with the need to avoid delay.
In response to this the Presenting Officer reiterated that no explanation had been provided for the continuing non-attendance. Whilst previous reference had been made to health matters, no evidence had been provided in respect of these, in spite of requests for this.
The Panel considered the matter in private session.
In so doing they considered again the GTC Scotland practice statement on ‘postponements, adjournments, and proceeding in the absence’. The Panel considered the circumstances today to be the same as when they considered the same matter yesterday other than that today, there was now no explanation for the non-attendance (a child-care emergency had been claimed yesterday morning). As a result the Panel continued to view the Teacher’s absence as voluntary.
In terms of the need to ensure effective participation it was noted that GTC Scotland had not only notified the Teacher of the hearing dates but had pro-actively contacted him yesterday so he could attend to make representation re any exclusion application that afternoon (in which event he had not attended). It was further noted that it was not clear if the Teacher would or could attend any adjourned hearing.
In all of these circumstances the Panel considered it was just to continue in the Teacher’s absence. They reconvened in public to announce this decision.
Submissions on fitness to teach
The Presenting Officer then made submissions on this matter.
He reminded the Panel that they must consider whether the Teacher’s conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected and that the test for fitness to teach is a current one.
He referred to COPAC and submitted that all the COPAC paragraphs referred to in the allegations were clearly breached.
The first allegation related to conduct which occurred in the classroom and represented a clear breach of the trust that was placed in a Teacher in that situation.
The second allegation related to Facebook posts, the contents of which raised issues regarding the Teacher’s values. In these posts he had made comments which were dehumanising, hostile, insulting and degrading towards minority groups. They endorsed gender-based discrimination and violence in general. They demonstrated misogyny, exclusion, and contempt.
He submitted that the public expect higher standards from teachers. The content and tone of such messages would undermine trust in the teaching profession, especially when they were made in a public forum.
Furthermore, the posts disclosed intolerance towards gender, ethnic, and religious groups. Allowing a teacher with such abusive and intolerant views into the classroom could create a risk to learners.
The Presenting Officer submitted further that the Teacher had shown no indication of insight, remorse, or reflection upon his behaviour. Indeed, all of his recent interactions with GTC Scotland had been inappropriate and intransigent. As such, even if the behaviour was remediable, it had not been remedied in this case. The recent communications from the Teacher had, if anything, aggravated matters. They disclosed a risk of repetition.
The Presenting Officer also addressed the Teacher’s written remarks regarding ECHR Article 10. He said that Article 10 was a qualified right. Its protection did not extend to speech which was designed to insult and offend. In this respect it was necessary to distinguish between legitimate expression of political beliefs and expression intended to promoted hatred and dehumanisation. The Teacher’s public comments on Facebook fell into the latter category. As such they were excluded from the protection of ECHR Article 10.
Alternatively, in the event that ECHR Article 10 was engaged, the Teacher’s exclusion from the register would be a necessary and proportionate interference with his rights under that article.
Ultimately, in all of these circumstances, it was submitted that the public interest requires a finding that the Teacher is unfit to teach. It would undermine public confidence in the profession and in GTC Scotland if the Panel found otherwise.
Findings on fitness to teach
The Panel convened in private to consider its findings on fitness to teach.
Legal advice was given to the Panel regarding ECHR Article 10. If the Panel were to find that it was not engaged, for the reasons submitted by the Presenting Officer, that would require a finding that ECHR Article 17 was engaged. ECHR Article 17 reads: ‘Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention’.
The threshold for engaging ECHR Article 17 is a high one, the legal advice continued. Caselaw (Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109) has indicated that it would apply to the graver forms of hate speech.
The legal advice continued. If Article 10 was engaged then it is, as submitted by the Presenting Officer, a qualified right. Removing the Teacher from the Register would interfere with his rights under ECHR Article 10. This could only be permitted if it was for the furtherance of one of the legitimate aims set out in ECHR Article 10(2) and if the proposed interference was necessary and proportionate with regard to those aims.
The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented, to the submissions made by the parties, and to the legal advice provided. The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the GTC Scotland indicative outcomes guidance.
The Panel considered each of the parts of COPAC referred to in the allegations in turn, and as set out in summary form below.
• COPAC 1.2
The Panel found that the angry and aggressive behaviour underlying allegation 1 amounted to a breach of the position of trust in which a teacher is placed. The involvement of the criminal law in the matter indicated its seriousness. Furthermore, such behaviour disclosed inappropriate class management which failed to respect the professional boundaries which should exist in such situations.
In all of the circumstances it was decided that the facts found in relation to allegation 1 contravened COPAC 1.2.
The Facebook posts spoken to in allegation 2 had been found to be inappropriate communications from a teacher, particularly because they had posted in a publicly accessible site. This was held to amount to inappropriate communications on a social networking site and, as such, a further breach of COPAC 1.2.
• COPAC 1.3
Allegation 1 amounted to a breach of the criminal law and so by putting himself in this position the Teacher had clearly breached COPAC 1.3.
The facts spoken to at allegation 2 were not a breach of criminal law but still brought into question the Teacher’s fitness to teach. As such they were also a breach of COPAC 1.3.
• COPAC 1.4
The Panel had previously made a finding in fact that the Teacher’s communications spoken to in allegations 2 to 4 were lacking in integrity. Accordingly, they also found them to be a breach of COPAC 1.4.
• COPAC 1.5
The communications spoken to in allegations 3 and 4 were with the Teacher’s (then) headteacher and with GTC Scotland respectively. The Panel had already made a finding that these communications were lacking in integrity. Accordingly, they were also a breach of COPAC 1.5.
• COPAC 1.6
The Panel were concerned that the facts spoken to in all of the allegations revealed a pattern of the Teacher acting aggressively and inappropriately in situations where others had disagreed with him. They had also made previous findings in fact that many of the communications were abusive, inflammatory, discriminatory, and lacking in integrity. In all of these respects the Teacher was found to have failed to act as a good role model to pupils. He appeared to show a lack of insight into how to be such a role model. As such the facts found proved represented a failure to comply with COPAC 1.6.
• COPAC 2.4
The Panel read this part of COPAC in conjunction with the relevant commentary thereto. Amongst other things, this requires Teachers to display a sensitive and positive attitude to diversity amongst learners. It was simply not possible to reconcile the tone of the Teacher’s social media posts with this requirement. The facts found in relation to allegation 1, also indicated that the Teacher had not been able to ensure a safe and secure classroom environment for learners. All of this represented failure to comply with COPAC 2.4.
• COPAC 5.3
The Panel found that the Teacher’s online communications (as spoken to in allegation 2) demonstrated intolerance and prejudice. The posts were misogynistic, they sought to dehumanise, and they targeted specific groups. Such behaviour by the Teacher indicated a lack of awareness of how to be an appropriate role model to learners in these respects. The facts referred to contravened COPAC 5.3.
In light of the various contraventions of COPAC identified and the seriousness of these, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s conduct at the time of the allegations had fallen short of the professional standards expected of a Teacher.
The Panel went on to consider if the behaviour was (a) remediable, (b) had been remedied and (c) if there was a likelihood of reoccurrence?
In considering these questions the Panel considered the bullet-points set out under the heading ‘Step 2’ on page 9 of the GTC Scotland indicative outcomes guidance practice statement.
The Panel noted that the facts all related to behaviour which had taken place from 2019 to 2021. However, the Teacher’s more recent comments to GTC Scotland suggested that many of the problems underlying the adverse behaviour in question had not gone away.
The Panel found the behaviour in question to have been serious. It had engaged the involvement of the criminal law in some respects. The intolerant and abusive attitudes displayed risked harming learners. There was also a risk of adversely influencing learners, particularly given that the Teacher was enrolled as a Modern Studies and History teacher, that he had made the posts in question in a public forum, and had indicated that he felt entirely justified in so doing.
The Teacher’s recent communications with GTC Scotland were found to be aggravating factors. Up until the first day of the hearing, he had been communicating with GTC Scotland by email in a manner which was abusive to GTC Scotland staff and to other parties to the hearing. Amongst other things the tone of emails indicated an apparent inability to disagree with others constructively or without resorting to abuse. Furthermore, the recent emails contained threats to bring harm to the Panel by disclosing information about them and/ or the hearing on the ‘dark web’. The threatening, intimidatory and offensive tone of these communications served to cement many of the Panel’s concerns regarding the Teacher’s previous poor conduct (as spoken to in the allegations against him).
The Panel considered the likelihood of the Teacher’s behaviour recurring. The allegations related to an apparent pattern of behaviour rather than isolated incidents. The papers previously lodged included records of meetings between the Teacher and his local authority in which the Teacher had maintained his right to communicate in the manner in which he had in a public forum. In the Teacher’s favour there was an apparent recognition that he perhaps should have expressed himself differently in at least one of those communications. At the same time more recent communications (the emails lodged at the hearing) suggested that he continued to use inappropriate language in his communications. Indeed it displayed ongoing attitudes of intransigence and recalcitrance, all of which gave no reassurance that the Teacher would not continue to indulge in such inappropriate communications.
In light of the above it was also noted that the Teacher showed no apparent insight, let alone, remorse regarding the behaviour underlying the allegations.
Whilst there had been some reference to medical problems in prior correspondence, the Teacher had provided no evidence in relation to these and there was also no explanation of how such problems might have affected his behaviour and, if so, what steps were being taken to alleviate such problems.
The Panel then went on to consider ECHR Article 10.
The Panel found that, notwithstanding the Presenting Officer’s submissions to the contrary, ECHR Article 10 was engaged in the case. Removing the Teacher from the Register would interfere with the Teacher’s freedom of expression.
However, the Panel found that the proposed restriction would be for the furtherance of the legitimate aims of protecting health or morals and protecting the rights and reputations of others.
The Panel considered whether the proposed interference would be proportionate. In so doing they considered the Teacher’s right to be able to express himself as he wished and balanced this with the need to protect the public interests identified in terms of Article 10(2). They took into account that, even applying the most severe sanction available, the Teacher would not be prevented from communicating in the manner he wished. He would simply not be allowed to do so whilst remaining a registered teacher in Scotland.
The Panel took into account teachers’ position in society in which they have a unique position of influence over young people and, accordingly, a corresponding duty to model appropriate behaviours to learners. By failing to model appropriate behaviour to young people the Teacher posed a risk of harm to young people and to communities in general as a result.
The Panel took into account GTC Scotland’s ‘Standard for Full Registration’. It was noted that in terms of COPAC all teachers registered with GTC Scotland are expected to be aware of the standards expressed in that code and to maintain them. The code includes a requirement to understand and challenge discrimination in all its forms. It was felt that the Teacher’s behaviour wholly failed to meet this standard. There was an expectation amongst the general public that teachers would adhere to these standards.
The Panel reminded itself of the seriousness of the allegations against the Teacher and the extreme nature of the communications in question. These had been found to be intolerant, abusive, inflammatory, and discriminatory.
Taking all of this into account the Panel found that the proposed interference in ECHR would be necessary and proportionate.
With regard to the public interest, the Panel felt that members of the public would struggle to see how the Teacher’s behaviour could be deemed acceptable for a Teacher. It was thought that a reasonably informed member of the public would be shocked to find that a teacher behaving in such a way had been found to be fit to teach. There was an important public interest in maintaining confidence in the teaching profession and the regulation thereof by GTC Scotland.
Taking all of this into account the Panel determined that the Teacher’s fitness to teach remained currently impaired and that his conduct continued to fall significantly short of the standards expected of a professional teacher. As such the Panel decided that the Teacher is currently unfit to teach.
Disposal
The Panel delivered its verdict on fitness to teach and thereafter invited submissions regarding the disposal of the case.
The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher had shown no insight and no remorse. In all of the circumstances the risk of repetition was high. He referred to his previous submissions and adopted these again. Whilst the starting point would be to consider removal from the register for 6 months, this was a case where the maximum period of 2 years would be more appropriate.
The Panel considered this matter in private session.
The Panel found this to be an exceptional case whereby not only had the Teacher’s past behaviour fallen significantly short of the standards expected but his very recent behaviour towards GTC Scotland demonstrated ongoing lack of insight or remorse and a resultant high risk of repetition. That recent behaviour comprised communications to GTC Scotland in terms which were abusive, threatening, intimidatory and, in short, wholly unacceptable. The Panel found it difficult to see how the Teacher would be able to remedy such behaviour in anything less than 2 years. Accordingly the Panel decided that the teacher should be removed from the GTC Scotland Register and prohibited from making an application for re-registration for 2 years.
It is emphasised that, in terms of paragraph 2.10.6 of the Rules, 2 years is the maximum length of time for which the Panel is permitted to prohibit a teacher from reapplying for registration. In other words the Teacher received the maximum sanction available to the Panel.
Ultimately, therefore, the Panel reached the following decisions:
• 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. This period will begin 28 days after the date of service of the Decision Notice, or on conclusion of any appeal raised as outlined below. The Panel considered that a shorter time period was inappropriate for the reasons explained above. 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. To be granted, a Fitness to Teach Panel would require to determine that any applicant is fit to teach at that time.
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.
