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

Preliminary issues

The Teacher’s Representative made an application for a late paper to be admitted into process. This was a certificate of certain training undertaken by the Teacher. It was said that this was submitted late due to the Teacher having been on holiday. The Presenting Officer did not oppose the application.

The Presenting Officer asked the Panel to amend allegation 1(a) against the Teacher from year 2017 to year 2018. This was an administrative error. The Teacher’s Representative did not oppose this. There was no confusion caused and parties both knew to what was being referred.

The Panel determined that both applications should be granted. In relation to the amendment, the Panel determined that it should exercise its discretion to amend under 2.8.4 of the Rules. The Panel considered that it was appropriate and fair in the circumstances to do so. In relation to the late paper, the Panel took the view that the document described to them appeared to be relevant. The application was not opposed and there was no apparent prejudice in the late submission. The Panel was not persuaded that there was a good cause for a failure to lodge timeously offered to them, in terms of rule 1.7.22 of the Rules. However, that rule entitles, but does not oblige, the Panel to refuse to receive a document. The Panel was not minded, in the exercise of its discretion, to do so in this instance. Rather, the Panel determined for the purposes of rule 1.7.17 that the document was relevant and that it would be fair to admit it, in the circumstances.

Allegations

The allegations, as amended, were as follows:

1. Between 2018 and May 2022 whilst employed as a teacher at [redacted] and in the course of his employment, the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) On a date unknown in summer 2018 whilst at a staff social event at [redacted] restaurant rub his hand up and down the legs of Colleague A causing her to feel uncomfortable.
   • (b) On 23 November 2018 whilst at the after party of a staff social event at [redacted] place his hand on the leg of Colleague C causing her to feel unsettled.
   • (c) On 23 November 2018 whilst at a staff social event rub his hand up and down the leg of Colleague A causing her to feel uncomfortable.
   • (d) On 26 May 2022 at a staff social event at [redacted] restaurant stroke the leg of Colleague B causing distress to her.
2. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1 (d) above occurred after he had been spoken to informally on 7 December 2018 regarding the analogous behaviour, referred to at allegation 1 (b).
3. The Teacher’s actions at allegations 1 (a)- 1 (d) above were sexually motivated.

And in light of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and he is unfit to teach, as a result breaching Parts 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher’s admissions / findings in fact

The Panel was informed that the Teacher admits allegations 1(a)-1(d), 2 and 3 but does not admit he is unfit to teach. Having regard to rule 1.7.21 the facts of allegations 1(a)-(d), 2 and 3 were therefore found proved. No evidence was led by either party as to the facts of the allegations.

Hearing papers

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

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

• Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 11 September 2025 with following amendment  
• Presenting Officer confirming no witnesses at stage 2 required, dated 29 October 2025
• Referral form, dated 7 July 2022
• Teacher’s consent to information gathering, dated 01 August 2022
• Teacher’s declaration of appointment of representative, dated 01 August 2022
• Teacher’s notification of investigation response, dated 01 August 2022
• Statement of Colleague A, dated 12 September 2022 (not in attendance)
• Statement of [redacted], dated 6 September 2024 (not in attendance)
• Statement of [redacted], dated 4 November 2024 (not in attendance)
• Disciplinary Hearing Documentation, dated 6 July 2022 including:
  
  • Summary of behaviour, dated 6 July 2022
  • Character reference, dated 23 June 2022
  • Chronology, 24 June 2022
  • Letter to Teacher, dated 15 June 2022
  • Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, 6 July 2022
  • Meeting [redacted], dated 8 June 2022
  • Emails June 2022, dated 14 June 2022
  • Meeting [redacted], dated 13 June 2022
  • Meeting with Teacher, dated 9 June 2022
  • Meeting [redacted], dated 14 June 2022
  • Meeting with Teacher, dated 7 December 2018
  • Canada Life Health Policy, undated
  • Email, dated 15 June 2022
  • Witness statement of [redacted], 27 August 2025

Teacher’s hearing papers

• Teacher’s Case Form, dated 18 September 2025
• Teacher’s response to Interim Report, undated with appendices:
  
  • Appendix A – Text message to the Teacher’s wife in November 2018 after party
  • Appendix B – Communication from Colleague A showing friendship
  • Appendix C – Email to union representative on learning of imposition of TRO
  • Appendix D – Leaflet from [redacted]
  • Appendix E – Evidence of completion of online courses
  • Appendix F – Email declining invite to work Christmas party
  • Appendix G – [redacted]
• Professional Development Certificate, dated 26 February 2025

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 17 March 2026 with cover email and delivery receipt
• Remote Hearing decision, dated 29 September 2025
• Privacy and Anonymity decision, dated 16 December 2025

Fitness to teach

Given that the Panel found the allegations proved, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

Teacher’s Fitness to Teach Evidence

The Teacher began by apologising to his former colleagues and to his family for his conduct and the consequences of his actions. He then outlined details of his teaching career. He qualified in the academic year 2010 to 2011 and moved to boarding school [redacted] in 2015 as a [redacted] teacher. He was also part of the housemaster team at that school from 2017. He was dismissed in 2022. The Teacher then provided his view on the culture at the school. He stated that alcohol consumption was prevalent. As it was boarding school, staff worked seven days a week, leading to the blurring of lines between family, personal, and professional life. There was a “work hard, play hard”, attitude, with alcohol being the release. While stressing that this was not an excuse, he invited the Panel to consider the nature of the workplace and life in a boarding school.

The Teacher went on to provide his insight and reflections on his actions. He said that he had been honest and shown remorse throughout the process. He had admitted fault and faced up to the consequences of his actions. The personal consequences were that he had lost his job and his home. He and his family had to move across the country and away from friends and family. After a Temporary Restriction Order (TRO) was imposed, [redacted]. He had implemented steps to ensure that he would never be in the same situation again. Specifically, he had completed an online training course on preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, giving him insight into the effect of such behaviour. He had also developed greater recognition of the demarcation between friends and colleagues. This was much easier to maintain out with the boarding school environment. An example of this was only contacting colleagues through the approved channels (rather than using personal contact details). He had consciously decoupled his personal and private communication from his work. He had reviewed and revised his relationship with alcohol, abstaining in the work context. He explained that in the incidents alleged and admitted, he had misread social situations. He had apologised to the persons involved. He stressed that these incidents did not involve an abuse of position or abuse of a position of trust. He had gained employment again and had not been subject to any disciplinary procedure or action since. He was clear that he would never repeat the conduct alleged and pointed to the steps he had taken to ensure this.

In questions from his Representative, the Teacher explained that he had completed an online course which he had self funded. He had also completed training on sexual harassment through his work annually. He explained the usefulness of these courses. He described his present approach to managing workplace relationships. He maintains distance in various ways. He was taken to documents where the persons involved in the admitted incidents gave their reaction. He said that he felt ashamed. He asked for forgiveness and said he would apologise in person if he could. He explained that he had tried to make a culture change in himself. He did this by trying to educate himself on women’s perspectives through literature and broadcasting. He had also had frank conversations with his wife and friends who are women about their experiences in the workplace. He recognised that what he did was wrong and unacceptable and said he would not do it again. He was now teaching at a school in England, [redacted]. He said that his career is progressing and shows he is making a positive impact.

The Presenting Officer did not cross examine the Teacher.

In questions from the Panel, the Teacher described the process of professional review and development in his present role. He explained how he was engaged in this as both a manager and with his own line manager. He described the importance of this in making people feel valued. He then described his involvement in extracurricular activities, both in his present role and previously. He gave the Panel further information on the course on prevention of sexual harassment which he advised he self funded. This was an online course working through five modules. He did it in the evenings, over a couple of months, and advised the Panel it took around fifteen hours to complete.

The Presenting Officer did not lead any evidence.

The Panel accepted the Teacher as a credible and reliable witness.

Fitness to Teach Submissions

Both parties provided the Panel with notes of their submissions in advance of making oral submissions.

The Presenting Officer’s written submissions mentioned additional parts of COPAC to those referred to in the allegations. These were not mentioned in oral submissions, and it was later clarified that only breaches of those parts of COPAC mentioned in the allegations were contended for by GTC Scotland.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the expected professional standards, specifically parts 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of COPAC 2012. It was then submitted that the Teacher’s fitness to teach was currently impaired. It was submitted that the allegations were serious, in that the actions caused colleagues discomfort and distress. There were aggravating features, in that the 2022 allegation occurred after the Teacher had been informally warned regarding analogous behaviour. There was said to be a clear pattern of behaviour. It was acknowledged that the Teacher admitted the allegations, expressed remorse, and apologised, recognised the difficulties that alcohol can cause, and undertaken training. However, it was then said, that the Teacher’s regret and reflection was on the personal consequences, rather than those for others. As such, the issue had not been addressed in full. The Panel had to be satisfied that underlying boundary, judgement, and conduct issues had been properly remediated and understood. It was submitted that the Panel should place limited weight on the Teacher’s assurances as to alcohol consumption. Safeguards were informal and unenforceable, and do not demonstrate that boundary and conduct issues were adequately addressed.

It was then submitted that even if the Panel were to conclude that the shortfalls identified are remediable, have been remedied, and that recurrence is unlikely, it may nevertheless make a finding of impairment where required in the public interest. It was submitted that the nature of the admitted conduct in this case was such that the public interest required a finding that the Teacher was unfit to teach. The submissions which followed were to the effect that the Panel cannot be satisfied that the conduct has been fully remediated or that recurrence is unlikely.

The Teacher’s Representative started his submissions by replying to certain points from the Presenting Officer. He said that simply because the Teacher had addressed the consequences of his actions on himself in his evidence did not mean that he was not taking responsibility or showing insight. In terms of proposed safeguards, he accepted that steps that the Teacher was taking personally to abstain from alcohol and maintain workplace boundaries were not formally enforceable but showed that the Teacher was doing what was within his control to reassure the Panel that he was mindful of his responsibilities. He then addressed the Panel in terms of the written submission provided. He directed the Panel to the practice statement “Fitness to teach conduct cases: indicative outcomes guidance”. It was submitted that the Teacher understood that his conduct fell short of the standards required. However, he had taken ownership of his conduct and reflected, with the effect that his conduct was not currently impaired. Current impairment was the ultimate question for the Panel at this stage in the proceedings. It was submitted in this respect that since the allegations were put to the Teacher he has acted with absolute honesty and integrity. Although he did not initially accept that allegations were “sexually motivated” (a term which, he said was, in fairness to the Teacher, capable of a variety of interpretations), but his understanding and insight had developed over time. Although he had an impaired memory of certain events, he had taken a victim centred approach in believing those who had raised concern as to his conduct. This demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility.

It was submitted that the Teacher recognised and addressed his behaviours through [redacted], and the training courses referred to. These were genuine actions intended to ensure there is no prospect of a repeat of the admitted behaviour. He had reflected on work relationships and managed these in a different way. He had undertaken genuine reflection and taken steps to mitigate risk. It was stressed that the allegations did not take place in the workplace and did not involve children or young persons. In relation to the public interest, it was submitted that there was no risk to children or young persons. In the present circumstances there is no risk to the public or current and future colleagues. Public confidence did not require a finding of current unfitness to teach or impairment. It was highlighted that there had been a significant period of time since the admitted conduct took place. The allegations were accepted as serious. There were said to be no aggravating factors. The incidents were isolated to particular work circumstances and there was no evidence of similar behaviour before or since. There was a very low risk of recurrence.

Legal Advice

The Legal Assessor gave the Panel advice that the public interest was a consideration to be taken into account when assessing whether a person was presently fit to teach. It was part of a holistic assessment, rather than a second stage analysis which could render a person who was otherwise fit to teach, unfit to teach. The entire system for registration and regulation of teachers is operated in the public interest. The public interest is in teachers who are unfit to teach not being entitled to work as registered teachers. A person’s conduct even if somehow remedied, and incapable of recurrence, can be so incompatible that they are unfit to teach. On the other hand, a person’s conduct is not in that category, there can be no public interest in a finding of unfitness, for a person who is fit to teach because their shortfalls have been remedied and are unlikely to recur. The Panel accepted that advice.

Decision

The Panel carefully considered tall of the evidence presented, and submissions made by the parties in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

The Panel determined that at the time of the alleged and admitted conduct, the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the expected professional standards, specifically parts 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of COPAC. Part 1.2 is concerned with maintenance of professional boundaries and avoidance of improper contact. It was not disputed that the Teacher’s conduct infringed these requirements. It was straightforward for the Panel to see that this standard was breached. Part 1.3 of COPAC is a requirement that teachers avoid situations which may call into question their fitness to teach. It is inherent from the whole circumstances that the Teacher had not adhered to this requirement. Part 1.4 of COPAC is also somewhat circular, in that it is a standard that requires the upholding of standards, other standards having been identified as having been breached, it follows that this standard is also breached by the Teacher’s admitted conduct. The conduct admitted did, in this respect, give rise to a risk to public confidence.

The Panel then considered whether the shortfalls identified were remediable, whether they had been remedied, and whether there was a likelihood of recurrence. In this respect the Panel noted the age of the allegations. The allegations were serious, although not at the highest level of seriousness. The Panel considered that the behaviour is remediable, and that the Teacher had taken steps to remediate his conduct. He appeared to the Panel to be open and honest. They considered his remorse to be genuine. The Panel considered that he had taken important steps to address his conduct. They did accept that the 2022 allegation took place after an informal warning, which gave rise to a degree of aggravation, but having regard to the informal terms of the record of that warning, the Panel took the view that the aggravation was not highly significant in their assessment. The Panel took the view that the Teacher’s conduct may have formed something of a pattern, but it was a pattern in a particular set of circumstances arising in the working culture of a particular school. The Panel took the view that the conduct was unlikely to occur elsewhere. The Panel were of the view that the Teacher had shown genuine and real insight in his evidence to the Panel. It was understandable and to his credit that his insight had developed over time. The Panel recognised that the Teacher did at times focus on the personal consequences for him, but they were not persuaded that he had not shown insight into the consequences for the other persons involved. It appeared to the Panel that the Teacher is now in an established position in a new school. They believed him when he said that he understood boundaries and felt assured by what he said about the steps he had taken to maintain these. There were protective factors in place [redacted] there was no evidence of any problems at his present school., The Panel accepted that the Teacher was capable of teaching on a day to day basis without incident.

In the Panel’s view, based on the Teacher’s evidence of the steps he has taken to reflect and address his conduct, the Teacher’s shortfalls are capable of remedy, have been remediated to a significant decree, and are thus unlikely to recur. In connection with the public interest, the Panel took the view that although the Teacher’s conduct was reprehensible, it was not quite at the at the level of being fundamentally incompatible with being a registered Teacher. The Teacher was not, in the Panel’s view, a risk to the public. They did not consider that a reasonable and well informed member of the public would lose confidence in the profession, or the regulator, by the Teacher remaining on the register, in the circumstances. The Panel considered that the need to uphold standards is served by their having determined that these were infringed and did not require that the Teacher be found impaired.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is not presently impaired.