Full hearing - Conduct - Simon Foster

Teacher

Simon Foster

Date

Dates

8 December 2025

Registration number

079346

Registration category

Secondary - Modern Studies

Panel

Alison Reid (Convenor), Ruth Sharp and Sally Ross

Legal assessor

Alice Stobart

Servicing officer

Callum Gow

Presenting officer

Lauren Doherty (Anderson Strathern)

Teacher's representative(s)

n/a

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

Proceeding in absence

The Teacher did not attend the hearing nor was he represented at the hearing. The GTCS Presenting Officer (PO) submitted that the Panel should hear the matter in the absence of the Teacher. The PO referred the Panel to Rule 1.7.8 of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 (‘the Rules’) and to the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Postponement, Adjournment and Proceeding in Absence. The PO submitted that the Teacher had been sent the notice of hearing in accordance with the Rules and that it was just to proceed to hear and dispense of the case in the absence of the Teacher.

The Panel decided that the hearing would proceed in the absence of the Teacher. In reaching its decision the Panel had regard to the fact that the Teacher was notified of the dates of the hearing by email. The Teacher had received the email notice of hearing evidenced by the email receipt in the bundle. The Teacher had responded to other email communication from GTC Scotland at his same email address and as such the Panel decided that it was reasonable to assume that was his current email address. It is for the Teacher to inform GTC Scotland if he was using a different email address.

The Panel then went on to consider whether it was just to proceed in the Teacher’s absence. The Panel took into account the fact that the Teacher would not be able to give evidence if they proceeded in his absence. The Panel also took into account the fact that the Teacher had not engaged with GTC Scotland since 2022 and had indicated that he did not want to participate with the process. The Panel decided that the Teacher had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. The Panel decided that the allegations are serious and that there was a public interest in having the hearing heard in a timely manner. The Panel weighed up the impact on the Teacher in not being present against the public interest in having the hearing heard. The Panel also considered the likelihood of the Teacher engaging were the Panel to adjourn and concluded that there was little likelihood of the Teacher engaging if they were to adjourn the hearing to another day. The Panel decided that it was just to proceed in the absence of the Teacher.

At Stage 2 of the hearing, namely the fitness to teach stage, the Panel considered anew whether to proceed in the absence of the Teacher. The Panel took into account the fact that the Teacher had been made aware in the notice of hearing that the hearing was to be a full hearing which would include consideration of his fitness to teach. The Panel decided that if they were to adjourn at Stage 2 there was very little likelihood that the Teacher would engage with the process given his lack of engagement to date. The Panel decided to proceed to Stage 2 in the absence of the Teacher.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

On 19 January 2021 the Teacher was convicted of the following offences at Livingston Sheriff Court, both offences occurred while the Teacher was employed as a teacher by the Scottish Borders Council:
- (a) On 21 March 2020 at [redacted] the Teacher did behave in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that you did utter threats to damage property, utter threats of violence, throw liquid on Witness 1, your [redacted]; Contrary to Section 38 (1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 and it will be proved in terms of Section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 that the aforesaid offence was aggravated by involving abuse of [redacted].
- (b) On 23 March 2020 on a road or other public place, namely [redacted] and elsewhere, the Teacher did drive a motor vehicle, namely motor [redacted] registered number [redacted] after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath was 112 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath which exceeded the prescribed limit, namely 22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; Contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 5 (1) (a).

For the above offences the Teacher was sentenced to a Community Payback Order which involved a supervision period of 15 months and 130 hours of unpaid work and a Non-Harassment Order for 2 years. The Teacher was also disqualified from driving for 18 months, his licence was endorsed, and his car was forfeited.

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 GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct.

Teacher's admissions

The Teacher was not present at the hearing and therefore made no admissions.

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

Disclosure Scotland referral, dated 5 March 2021
Initial Extract Conviction
Second Extract Conviction
Response from Police Scotland, dated 25 May 2022
Signed Police Statement of Witness 1 [redacted], dated 23 March 2020
Correspondence between Investigating Officer and Teacher, dated 25 - 27 July 2022
GTC Scotland File Note 1 [redacted], dated 22 August 2022
GTC Scotland File Note 2 [redacted], dated 24 August 2022
Response from Police Scotland, dated 28 October 2022
Email Request to Police Scotland regarding CCTV, dated 28 October 2022
Email with Interim Report sent to Teacher, dated 22 February 2023

Teacher's hearing papers

None

Servicing Officer's hearing papers

Notice of full hearing, dated 12 June 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt
Procedural Hearing/Meeting decisions, dated 11 September 2024

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 Panel took into account the extract conviction from Livingston Sheriff Court. The Panel decided that the extract conviction was as it purported to be and related to the Teacher. In forming that decision the Panel noted that the Teacher had never denied that he had been convicted of allegations 1(a) and (b). Further the Panel noted that the transcript of Witness 1 provided by Police Scotland was in respect of the Teacher. Further, the Teacher was under referral by Disclosure Scotland following his conviction. The Panel therefore decided that the extract conviction in the Teacher’s name related to said Teacher.

The Panel noted the terms of Rule 1.7.18 which states that evidence of a criminal conviction will be conclusive proof of that conviction. Further that any findings of fact upon which the conviction is based will be admissible as evidence of those facts.

The Panel therefore found that on 19 January 2021, the Teacher was convicted of the following offences at Livingston Sheriff Court, both offences occurred while the Teacher was employed as a teacher by the Scottish Borders Council:

(a) On 21 March 2020 at [redacted], the Teacher did behave in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that you did utter threats to damage property, utter threats of violence, throw liquid on Witness 1, [redacted]; Contrary to Section 38 (1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 and it will be proved in terms of Section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 that the aforesaid offence was aggravated by involving abuse of [redacted].

(b) On 23 March 2020 on a road or other public place, [redacted] and elsewhere, the Teacher did drive a motor vehicle, namely motor [redacted] registered number [redacted] after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath was 112 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath which exceeded the prescribed limit, namely 22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; Contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 5 (1) (a).

The Panel found that for the above offences the Teacher was sentenced to a Community Payback Order which involved a supervision period of 15 months and 130 hours of unpaid work and a Non-Harassment Order for 2 years. The Teacher was also disqualified from driving for 18 months, his licence was endorsed, and his car was forfeited.

Findings on fitness to teach

Given that the Panel found that all of the allegations were proved, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Teacher was not present or represented at the hearing.

The Presenting Officer submitted that standing the findings of fact made by the Panel that the Panel should make a finding that the Teacher is currently unfit to teach on the basis that he falls significantly short of the standards expected of a teacher. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher had breached section 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of Code of Conduct and Professionalism (COPAC) 2012. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel should take into consideration the factors set out in the Indicative Outcomes Guidance. It was submitted that the conduct was particularly serious in that it amounted to threats of violence, domestic abuse and drink driving. It was submitted that the conduct amounted to a pattern of deliberate behaviour rather than a one off event. It was submitted that the public would expect the Teacher to model lawful behaviour and that his conduct undermines confidence in the profession and GTC Scotland as regulator if the conduct remained unchecked. Given the lack of evidence from the Teacher there was nothing to suggest that the behaviour would not be repeated. Further it was submitted that the conduct was not easily remediable. It was submitted given all of the above that the Teacher’s behaviour falls significantly short of the standards expected of a Teacher and that he is 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, as outlined in the GTC Scotland Indicative Outcomes Guidance.

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

The Panel took into account the GTCS Code of Conduct and Professionalism 2012. The Panel decided that the Teacher breached Code 1.3 in that he failed to avoid situations both within and outwith the professional context which could be in breach of the criminal law. The Panel found that in acting as he did the Teacher breached the criminal law and was convicted of a crime of violence and domestic abuse. He was also convicted of drink driving when he was approximately 5 times over the limit.

The Panel decided that the Teacher was in breach of Code 1.4 in that he did not uphold standards of personal conduct. It was acknowledged that the conduct did not take place as part of his professional role, but teachers are held to the standards of COPAC both within and outwith the working day. Given the nature of the convictions the Panel decided it raised concerns about the Teacher’s suitability to work with young people.

The Panel decided that the Teacher was in breach of Code 1.6. The Teacher’s conduct amounted to a lack of awareness that in his role as a Teacher he should be a role model. Pupils in a school would be learning to drive in the near future and the Panel were very concerned about the message that a teacher found guilty of drink driving sends to pupils were they to become aware. Further having a conviction for domestic abuse is extremely concerning when schools are trying to educate and prevent pupils from engaging in any form of violence but in particular peer on peer and intimate partner violence.

The Panel decided that the Teacher was in breach of Code 2.3. The Teacher, in behaving as he did, was not a positive role model to pupils and did not aim to inspire them. Pupils knowing of the convictions are unlikely to respect the Teacher and would be likely to cause a barrier between pupil and the Teacher. Further peer on peer gender based violence is currently a big issue in schools and it would be very damaging for young people to know that their teacher had been convicted of domestic abuse.

The Panel found that the Teacher has fallen short of the standards expected of a teacher registered in Scotland.

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

The Panel considered the factors set out in the Indicative Outcomes Guidance in answering the above questions. The Panel took into account the following factors:

The conduct found proved by the Panel is very serious. Driving whilst approximately 5 times over the alcohol limit shows a disregard for the safety of others. The risk of harm to others when driving over the alcohol limit is high. The Panel noted that the Teacher had made threats of violence to Witness 1 and had thrown liquid on her. Whilst there does not appear to be actual physical harm, the threat of harm is likely to have caused significant distress and emotional harm to Witness 1. The Panel decided that in both convictions there was significant risk of harm to members of the public including Witness 1.
The Teacher has failed to engage in the GTC Scotland investigation and hearing process. As such the Panel has no evidence before it to assess the risk to the public. There is no reflection on the consequences of his actions in the correspondence from the Teacher when he did engage in 2022. In fact the correspondence reveals a contempt or dismissal by the Teacher of the seriousness of the allegations in 2022. The Panel looked at the papers in the round to see if the Teacher had provided any expression of remorse but had nothing before it to reassure themselves.
The Panel did not think that the 2 incidents amounted to a pattern of behaviour. The 2 incidents were closely linked in time over a 48 hour period and as such could not be said to form a pattern of behaviour.
The Panel were not satisfied that the Teacher has demonstrated any insight into his behaviour. The Teacher had indicated that he did not intend to return to teaching but he has given no insight into his behaviour. There was nothing before the Panel that could reassure them that the Teacher was unlikely to repeat the same behaviour.
The Panel noted that Witness 1 commented on the Teacher’s [redacted] which may have had some impact on his behaviour but the Teacher himself has provided no information and so the Panel were unable to form any view about the [redacted] of the Teacher.
The Panel considered the public interest and formed the view that a member of the public would have concerns about the Teacher’s behaviour and the possible consequences on the public’s perception of GTC Scotland as a regulator were he to repeat such behaviour. Further a member of the public would expect the Regulator to take some action to protect the public, uphold confidence in the profession and the regulator.

The Panel accepted that in general terms the shortfalls identified should be capable of being remedied. The Panel found however that the Teacher has not remedied the shortfalls as he has provided no insight or remorse. Given the lack of insight shown by the Teacher, the Panel formed the view that there is a likelihood of the shortfalls being repeated by the Teacher. The Panel decided that the shortfalls were very serious in that they amounted to domestic abuse and threatened violence. Further the conviction for drink driving showed a total disregard for the safety of others.

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.

Removal

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 would not provide sufficient time for the Teacher to remedy his behaviour should he wish to decide to apply for re-registration. The Panel noted the IOG which states that 2 years will be imposed in the majority of cases and the Panel had no evidence or mitigation before it to suggest that a shorter period would be in the public or the Teacher’s interest. 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.