Full Hearing - Conduct - Ryan Cochrane

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;
• the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland Register of teachers;
• ‘IOG’ means the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement; and
• ‘COPAC’ means the Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Preliminary issues

Proceeding in the absence

The Applicant was not present at the beginning of the hearing. The Presenting Officer made a submission to the Panel that the hearing should continue in the absence of the Applicant. The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to Rule 1.7.8 of the Rules and the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on postponements, adjournments and proceeding in absence. The Presenting Officer submitted that whilst the Applicant has the right to be present, the Rules allow for proceeding in absence if the Applicant fails to attend. The Panel must however be satisfied that notice of hearing has been served upon the Applicant in accordance with the Rules or that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. The Panel should also have regard to the factors set out in the Practice Statement at Part D. Those factors include considering fairness to the Applicant and their Convention rights, the interests of the public in the expedient hearing, the reasons for absence, and the consequences of refusing or granting an adjournment. Further, the decision must be made with the utmost caution. The Presenting Officer submitted that the notice of hearing was sent on 6 June 2025 and again an updated notice of hearing was sent on 6 October 2025. It was submitted that the Applicant had fair notice of the hearing, he had responded initially to the allegations but was now not engaging in the process. The Panel should consider whether his absence was voluntary or involuntary. If voluntary, taking all the other factors into consideration, it was submitted that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Applicant.

The Panel took into account the Rules and the Practice Statement. The Panel decided that the notice of hearing had been sent and received in accordance with the Rules and as such the Applicant had fair notice of the hearing. He had provided no reasons for his absence and therefore the Panel decided that he had voluntarily absented himself. The Panel considered whether it was likely that that the Applicant would attend if the hearing was adjourned. The Panel decided that it was unlikely that the Applicant would attend a future hearing given he had not engaged with the process and had not indicated that he would like to attend. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest and the Applicant’s interest for the hearing to be heard in a timely fashion further there were witnesses who had made themselves available who were living abroad. The Panel weighed all the factors and decided it was fair and proportionate to proceed in the absence of the Applicant.

After completion of Stage 1 and before Stage 2 of the Hearing, the Presenting Officer made an application to proceed in the absence of the Applicant at Stage 2. The Presenting Officer made the same submissions as at Stage 1. The Panel decided that the Applicant had voluntarily absented himself. The Panel did not think that if they adjourned to allow the Applicant an opportunity to attend at Stage 2 that he was likely to attend. The Panel noted that he had been made aware of the hearing and that the hearing would be both Stage 1 and Stage 2 in the same hearing diet. The Panel decided that in was in the public interest and the Applicant’s interest for the hearing to proceed.

Amendment Application by Presenting Officer

The Presenting Officer made an application to amend a small typographical error that had occurred in the allegations. He explained that the Panel were entitled to amend the allegations in terms of Rule 2.8.4. He submitted that allegation 4 should refer to Witness 2 not Witness 1. He explained that the Applicant was aware of the allegations and who they referred to, so there was no prejudice to the Applicant. He submitted that the amendment was a typographical amendment which did not change the allegation or have an impact on the merits of the case.

The Panel decided to allow the amendment. The Panel noted the terms of Rule 2.8.4 and decided that the amendment was a typographical error and that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the error. The Panel decided it was fair to the proceedings and there was no injustice in allowing the amendment.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. In September 2018, while a student at the University of Dundee, the Applicant did approach Witness 1 from behind, grab her by the bottom and kiss her without her consent.
2. In January or February 2019 while a student at the University of Dundee the Applicant did lift Witness 1 from the ground have his hands under her dress on her bare body without her consent, fail to put her down when she requested that he do so and then deliberately expose her lower body as he lowered her to the ground without her consent.
3. Between January and April 2019 while a student at the University of Dundee, the Applicant did attend [redacted] and did:
   
   • (i) Say to Witness 2 ‘why are you wearing that, are you wearing that out?’ or similar
   • (ii) Grab Witness 4 by the breasts and place your hands on her body,
   • (iii) Touch various people on the bottom.
4. Between January and April 2019, while a student at the University of Dundee, the Applicant did enter Witness 2’s bedroom, pull the duvet away from Witness 2, shout her name, hug her and place your face against hers, all whilst Witness 2 was asleep.
5. In January or February 2019 at the Education and Social Work Ball and while the Applicant was a student at the University of Dundee, the Applicant did repeatedly touch Witness 3 on the leg while at the ball and in a taxi afterwards despite being told to desist and attempted to follow her into a flat.
6. In September 2019 while a student at the University of Dundee, the Applicant did approach Witness 2 in the Union nightclub and grab her bottom.

In light of the above it is alleged that the Applicant’s fitness to teach is impaired and he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 4.2 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC).

Applicant’s admissions

The Applicant was not present and so did not admit any of the allegations.

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:

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1. Notice of Full Hearing with Delivery Receipt and Cover Email, dated 6 June 2025
2. Notice of Full Hearing with Delivery Receipt and Cover Email, dated 6 October 2025
3. Virtual Hearing Application and Vulnerable Witness Application Decision Annex, dated 19 February 2025

Presenting Officer’s Hearing Papers

1. Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 27 May 2024
2. Applicant Application Form, dated 9 November 2021
3. Notice of Investigation Response Form, dated 18 April 2022
4. Documents shared by University of Dundee:
5. Fitness to Practise 1st Contact Letter, dated 16 September 2020
6. Initial Assessment Outcome, dated 16 September (no year given)
7. Initial Findings and Assessment Form, dated 20 October 2020  
8. Reflective Piece Outcome dated 9 July 2021
9. Notes of Incidents, Undated
10. Notes from Meeting, dated 23 September 2020  
11. Reflective Essay, undated
12. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Witness 1, dated 8 October 2022  
13. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Witness 3, dated 27 November 2022  
14. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of Witness 2, dated 5 October 2022  
15. Video Footage

Summary of evidence

Witness 1:

Witness 1 attended to give evidence remotely from [redacted]. Witness 1 read her GTC Scotland statement into the record. Witness 1 explained that she knew the Applicant as he was a student with her at the University of Dundee between 2018 and 2022. They both studied the same course and both lived in the same halls of residence [redacted]. She explained however that she did not know him at the time of the first incident as it was still Freshers Week and she had not met him at that point. Witness 1 explained that in Freshers Week in September 2018 she was standing in the entrance to the Union nightclub with a group of friends when the Applicant approached her from behind and grabbed her bum with two hands. Witness 1 was taken unawares as she had her back to the Applicant. She turned round to see who had grabbed her and the Applicant grabbed her face with two hands and kissed her on the lips. Witness 1 said that after the Applicant had grabbed her he said ‘Hi, how are you’, ‘I know you from the course’. Witness 1 was shocked but didn’t want to be rude and so did not complain at the time of the incident.

Witness 1 explained that there was a second incident in January or February 2019 outside the halls of residence. Witness 1 was standing outside the halls of residence with some friends. The Applicant came out from the block of flats and said ‘hi’ to Witness 1. He then picked her up with both his hands under her dress on her bare body. He lifted her up and despite her asking to be put down, she was only put down on the ground when one of her flatmates intervened. When the Applicant put Witness 1 down on the ground, Witness 1 explained that the Applicant deliberately moved his hands and then lifted up her dress and exposed her body, bra and pants to the others. Witness 1 said she felt really uncomfortable, embarrassed and upset at the time of the incidents. She said she now felt very upset for her younger self. She felt that she was so eager to make friends that she did not want to upset anyone and so did not speak out.

As a result of the incidents, Witness 1 said she avoided contact with the Applicant. She said that looking back at her university experience it makes her look back at that time with some upset. She said that if the Applicant was to act that way with a colleague in teaching it would be wholly inappropriate. She confirmed on questioning by the Panel that the Applicant had never apologised to her for his actions.

Witness 3:

Witness 3 attended to give evidence remotely from [redacted]. She adopted her GTC Scotland statement and it was incorporated into the record. Witness 3 explained that in her first year at the University of Dundee she lived in halls of residence [redacted]. She explained that on the night of the Education and Social Work Ball they went in a taxi with the Applicant as he was in their halls. At the ball the Applicant kept on putting his hand on her thigh, near her genital area. She said that she spent the whole night batting his hand away and that he continued to touch her despite this. Eventually she had to get up and leave the table. On the way back to the halls in the taxi, the Applicant repeated the conduct and touched Witness 3 on the thigh despite Witness 3 asking him to stop. Once back at [redacted], Witness 3 went to a friend’s flat. They did not allow the Applicant in, but he pursued them and climbed in through the window. As a result of the Applicant’s behaviour, Witness 3 explained that she no longer felt comfortable attending Education social events and the Education and Social Work Ball as she did not want to come into contact with the Applicant. Witness 3 was asked if he had ever apologised for his behaviour. At first Witness 3 said ‘No, not that I remember’. When asked a second time she said that she did not remember him ever giving her an apology.

Witness 2:

Witness 2 attended to give evidence remotely from [redacted]. She adopted her GTC Scotland statement and read it into the record. Witness 2 explained that she had first met the Applicant at her group interview for the University of Dundee. She then met him again in her halls of residence at [redacted] and he also lived there. Witness 2 explained that he was a ‘touchy, feely, gropey’ character. She thought at first that he was gay as he put on an over the top ‘camp’ persona.

In early 2019, Witness 2 remembered the Applicant banging on the door of her flat and asking to be let in. She was with a group of girls and they were getting ready to go out for the evening. The girls were standing around in a circle and they were dressed to go out in tops and skirts, whereas Witness 2 was wearing a jumper. On entering the flat, Witness 2 recalled the Applicant commenting on her outfit saying ‘why are you wearing that? Are you wearing that out?’. She took it that he was implying that she was not skimpily dressed. She recalled him grabbing Witness 4’s breasts and moving his hands down her body. She described him going fully in, grabbing her ‘boobs’, pushing them up and touching her body. Witness 4 was wearing a corset top. Witness 2 explained that Witness 4 has a lot of gay friends and thought that the Applicant was gay. When it was explained to her he was not, she  felt very differently about his behaviour and said she was very uncomfortable with his actions. Witness 2 said that after the ‘boob’ incident, the Applicant grabbed the bums of the other girls but not her or Witness 4. She was unclear exactly who he grabbed but was sure he had grabbed most of the other girls. Everyone was very put out by the behaviour and thought it was weird.

Witness 2 recalled being in bed one evening in early 2019. She was very drunk and comatose. The next day she was shown a video of the Applicant coming into her room, lying on her bed with her, putting his face next to hers and hugging her. She was very upset when she realised what had happened and how vulnerable she was, given how drunk she was and that she had no recollection of him coming into her bedroom uninvited.

Witness 2 recalled in second year in September 2019, the Applicant coming up to her in the Union nightclub. By that time she did not want anything to do with the Applicant but he came up to her, grabbed her bum and hugged her. He trapped her with his arm against the pillar until Witness 1 saw she was trapped and came and pulled her away.

Witness 2 also recalled the night of the Education and Social Work Ball in 2018. She recalled Witness 1 telling her about the Applicant touching her and how it was unwanted. She recalled how Witness 1 was very upset afterwards and that she cried when telling her about it. She recalled that in order to protect Witness 1 from being with the Applicant, she and another friend used to walk back with him to make sure that Witness 1 could walk on her own and not be near him.

Witness 2 explained that as a result of the Applicant’s actions she, Witness 1 and Person A chose to absent themselves from Education and Social Work social events and balls. She was upset by that but felt they had no choice given the Applicant’s behaviours.

Findings of fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and the submission made by the Presenting Officer. The Panel did not have the Applicant’s submissions but took into account the documents he had lodged that were in the bundle when 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 the following:

1. The Panel accepted the evidence of Witness 1, Witness 2 and Witness 3 as wholly credible and reliable. All of the witnesses were [redacted] and yet took the time to recount what had happened when they were at university in relation to the allegations.
2. The Applicant, Witness 1, Witness 2 and Witness 3 started their teaching degree at the University of Dundee in 2018 and graduated in 2022. During the relevant time (2018-2019) all were students at the University of Dundee.
3. The Panel found that the Applicant, in September 2018, did grab Witness 1 by the bottom in the Union nightclub, University of Dundee. Further that when Witness 1 turned round to see who had done this, the Applicant grabbed her face and kissed her on the lips. The Panel found that said actions by the Applicant were wholly unwanted by Witness 1 and that Witness 1 was upset and uncomfortable as a result of that interaction.
4. The Panel found that the Applicant in or around January to February 2019, did approach Witness 1 outside the halls of residence [redacted]. Without consent he picked her up in the air and placed his hands under her dress on her bare body. Witness 1 remonstrated with the Applicant but he only put her down when one of her flatmates intervened. The Applicant put Witness 1 down and then proceeded to move his hands and push her dress up so as to reveal her body, bra and pants. Witness 1 was very embarrassed and upset by the Applicant’s actions.
5. The Panel found that between January and April 2019, the Applicant knocked on Witness 2’s door shouting ‘let me in, let me in’. The girls in the flat were getting ready to go out and Witness 2 was wearing a jumper whereas the others were wearing tops and skirts. The Applicant said to Witness 2 ‘why are you wearing that, are you wearing that out?’ or similar. The Applicant then looked at all the girls who were standing in a semi-circle and grabbed Witness 4 by the breasts and moved his hands on her body. Witness 4 was wearing a corset top and at first thought that the Applicant was gay and acting in jest. Once she realised he was not gay she felt very uncomfortable. The Applicant then looked at the 3 other girls, not Witness 2 and Witness 4, and grabbed their bottoms.
6. Between January and April 2019, the Applicant entered Witness 2’s bedroom uninvited. Witness 2 at the time was inebriated and did not know what was going on. The Panel accepted the terms of the video which showed the Applicant pulling the duvet away from Witness 2, shouting her name, hugging her and placing his face against hers. During this time Witness 2 was unaware of what was going on due to being under the influence of drink. Witness 2 was very vulnerable and in her own bedroom where she should have felt safe. When watching the video shown to her by her flatmate at the time she was extremely upset. Even watching it more than 5 years later whilst giving evidence it was clear that she was still extremely upset by the Applicant’s actions.
7. In January or February 2019 at the Education and Social Work Ball, the Applicant repeatedly touched Witness 3 on the leg near her genital area despite asking him to desist. He did this both at the ball and in a taxi on the way back to the [redacted] halls of residence. The Applicant, on returning to the halls of residence was told he was not welcome in the ground floor student flat where Witness 3 went after the ball. Despite that, he entered the flat uninvited via the window.
8. In September 2019 at the beginning of second year of Witness 2’s degree, the Applicant approached Witness 2 in the Union nightclub. Witness 2 had avoided the Applicant since the previous incidents but despite that he grabbed her bottom and trapped her up against a pillar in the nightclub.
9. The Panel found that despite saying in his reflective account that he wished to apologise, the Applicant had in fact never taken the opportunity to apologise to Witness 1, Witness 2 or Witness 3.
10. Witnesses 1, 2 and 3, along with other students, decided that they had had enough of the Applicant’s behaviour and reported his conduct to the university in or around early 2020. The University of Dundee carried out an investigation but their findings did not form part of the Panel’s consideration as many of the papers were heavily redacted and the Panel performed their own decision making, based on the evidence before it.

Findings on fitness to teach

Given that the Panel found that all of the allegations proved, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Applicant’s fitness to teach. Given the Applicant was not present the Presenting Officer made an application to proceed in the absence of the Applicant (see above). No additional evidence was presented at this stage of the hearing.

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the Presenting Officer and the reflective accounts given by the Applicant in relation to the Applicant’s fitness to teach. The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the IOG.

(a) Did the Applicant’s conduct at the time of the incidents fall short of the expected professional standards?

The Panel found that the Applicant’s conduct fell short of the expected professional standards in particular the Applicant breached the following parts of the Code:

• Code 1.3 – the Panel found that the Applicant breached 1.3 of the Code in that he did not avoid situations both within and outwith the professional context that could be in breach of the criminal law and may call into question his fitness to teach. The Panel found that whilst there was not an actual breach of the criminal law there were clear issues of unwanted physical contact and a lack of respect for the feelings of his fellow students. The Panel found that the Applicant’s conduct called into question his fitness to teach.
• Code 1.4 – the Panel found that the Applicant breached 1.4 of the Code in that he did not uphold standards of professional and personal conduct. The Panel decided that the Applicant’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of a teacher and that the public would not have confidence in him as a teacher or in the teaching profession if such conduct went unmarked.
• Code 4.2 – the Panel found that the Applicant breached 4.2 of the Code in that he did not treat all colleagues (namely his student colleagues) fairly and with respect, without discrimination. The Panel found that the Applicant’s conduct amounted to unwanted and repeated conduct towards Witnesses 1, 2 and 3. The Panel viewed the conduct as harassing in nature and found that the Applicant showed no respect for Witnesses 1, 2 and 3.

(b) Are the shortfalls identified remediable, have they been remedied and is there a likelihood of reoccurrence?

The Panel decided that in principle the shortfalls identified are remediable but they had very little evidence before them to reassure themselves that the shortfalls had been remedied. The Panel considered the IOG and the factors set out therein in deciding whether the Applicant’s fitness to teach was impaired or not, or whether the shortfalls identified fell significantly short of the standards expected, meaning that the Applicant was unfit to teach.

The Panel decided that the conduct found proved by the Panel was very serious in that the Applicant’s conduct, whilst not found proved to amount to criminal conduct, could in the Panel’s view amount to sexual assault and harassment on the civil standard of proof. Witnesses 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all made to feel uncomfortable. Witness 2 felt angry about the Applicant’s conduct toward her and in particular unsafe in her own bedroom. Witnesses 1, 2 and 3 were obliged to modify their behaviour as a result of the Applicant’s action. The Panel felt that no student should have to modify their behaviours due to fear of another student’s behaviour towards them. The Panel found that the Applicant’s behaviour towards the witnesses was wholly inappropriate.

The Panel decided that the Applicant’s conduct formed a pattern of sexualised and unwanted behaviour towards female students. The behaviour was repeated and when asked to stop, the Applicant did not. The Panel decided that the behaviour amounted to harassing behaviour and was predatory in nature.

The Panel also noted that the Applicant had shown no remorse as he had not apologised to any of the witnesses. The Panel, despite seeing his written reflection, did not see any evidence of genuine remorse or understanding that what he had done was upsetting to the witnesses in question.

Whilst the Applicant provided some reflective notes there was nothing recent that reflected the allegations before this Panel. Further, the Applicant provided no evidence of the reflections or studies that he may or may not have carried out. If the Applicant had insight, the Panel would have expected more evidence of that insight from the Applicant.

The Panel noted the Applicant’s account that he was drunk when at university and that would account for his behaviour. In weighing all of the above, the Panel had nothing before them to reassure themselves that the Applicant, faced with a similar situation, would not behave in the same way. The Panel had no information as to what steps the Applicant had taken to address his behaviour or his intake of alcohol. The Panel were concerned that there was a real risk that the Applicant would behave towards women in this way in the future. The Panel found therefore that there was a risk of recurrence.

The Panel decided that a member of the public would consider the Applicant’s conduct as concerning and would question whether such conduct was compatible with being a teacher. The member of the public would expect the regulator to maintain confidence in the profession and uphold standards in the teaching profession by taking action to protect the public from the Applicant’s conduct.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Applicant’s conduct falls significantly short of the standards expected of someone seeking registration with GTC Scotland and that he is therefore unfit to teach.

Disposal

As the Panel determined that the Applicant 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 Applicant not be granted registration with GTC Scotland.

Rule 2.10.6 outlines that a Panel may direct that the Applicant be prohibited from making a subsequent registration application until the expiry of such a period, not exceeding 2 years, as it may determine. In this case, the Panel directed that the Applicant should be prohibited from making such an application for a period of 1 year from the date of its decision. The Panel considered that a longer time period was inappropriate as the Applicant’s conduct whilst very serious was not at the most serious end of the scale of seriousness. The Panel found that the Applicant lacked insight as the Applicant did not engage and provide evidence of any remediation or insight. The Panel felt that one year was an appropriate time to allow the Applicant to reapply if he should so wish with evidence of remediation and insight. For clarity, the period of prohibition sets out how long the Applicant has to wait until a further application for registration can be made, which may or may not be granted. To be granted, a Fitness to Teach Panel would require to determine that the Applicant is fit to teach at that time.

Appeal

The Applicant has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of service of the Decision Notice.