Full hearing - Conduct - Teacher A

Teacher

Teacher A

(

not present, not represented

)

Date

Dates

2 to 6 June 2025

Registration number

[redacted]

Registration category

Secondary - English

Panel

Helen James, Michele Knight and Alison Reid

Legal assessor

David Anderson

Servicing officer

Joanna Gray

Presenting officer

Jane Pothan, Anderson Strathern

Teacher's representative(s)

n/a

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

“GTCS” 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 GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them; and
the “Register” means the GTCS register of teachers.

Preliminary issues

The Teacher was not present and was not represented. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to proceed in his absence in terms of Rule 1.7.8. It was submitted that notice of the hearing had been given to the Teacher in accordance with the Rules, and that it was just to proceed in the absence of the Teacher. Reference was made to the Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence Practice Statement. It was submitted that the Teacher’s absence was voluntary and that the Teacher could be taken to have waived his right to participate in the hearing. It was said to be in the public interest to proceed to a determination of the allegations against the Teacher in his absence.

The Panel agreed that the Teacher had been given notice of the hearing by email dated 7 April 2025 in the materials provided to the Panel. His response form dated 21 April 2025 indicated that he did not intend to attend or be represented at the hearing. In the Panel’s view it was clear that he had decided not to attend the hearing. There was no opposition to proceeding in his absence. In the Panel’s view the Teacher has had ample opportunity to participate in the hearing. He had submitted a case form dated 26 March 2024 and an undated statement which set out his position on the allegations against him and indicated that he would not be participating further. The Panel did not consider it necessary to investigate his absence further. In the Panel’s view, adjournment of the hearing would not be likely to result in further participation by the Teacher. He had not requested an adjournment. The Panel acknowledged that by proceeding with the hearing the Teacher would not be able to participate by questioning witnesses or making further submissions. The Panel was of the view that it could fairly deal with the case in the Teacher’s absence. The Panel considered that adjournment would impact on others involved in the proceedings, by way of further inconvenience to witnesses and delay in arriving at a conclusion. In the whole circumstances the Panel determined that it was just to proceed in the Teacher’s absence.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

On 13 June 2019, whilst employed as a Supply Teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], and whilst attending a school play rehearsal in a voluntary capacity, the Teacher did:

(a) touch Former Pupil A’s leg with his hand and move his hand up and down her leg; an
(b) allow Former Pupil A to place her head on his body.
‍
On or around 24 June 2019, whilst employed as a Supply Teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], the Teacher did allow Former Pupil A to sit on his knee in the staff base.
On dates unspecified, whilst employed as a Supply Teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], on more than one occasion, the Teacher did allow female pupils and/or former pupils including Former Pupil A to sit on his lap.
On dates unspecified, whilst employed as a Supply Teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], on more than one occasion, the Teacher did embrace pupils and/or former pupils and/or did kiss them on the cheek.

And as a result of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and/or he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching parts 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Teacher's admissions

In his response to the Interim Report the Teacher stated that:

He has no specifically detailed memories of the alleged conduct;
The allegation involving a former pupil lying with her head on his legs or lap was most unlikely. He believed the former pupil’s head was on the seat next to him and not on him;
It was highly probable that he had been offered a seat while in the staff base because he was “old” which was essentially a standing joke and taken in that spirit. He possibly then indicated that anyone could sit on his lap, in continuation of the same spirit. The witness then did so for a matter of seconds. This was nothing more than a throw-away moment;
Any references to kissing pupils would be more accurately described as “air-kissing”.

In an email dated 7 June 2023, the Teacher stated that he denied the allegation that on more than one occasion he did allow female pupils and / or former pupils, including Former Pupil A to sit on his lap.

In his case form dated 26 March 2024 the teacher stated that he admitted the allegations only in part. He denied allegation 1. He admitted allegation 2, although stressed this had been taken out of context. He denied allegation 3. He partially admitted allegation 4 although stated that “theatrical air kiss” would better describe his actions.

Hearing papers

n 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

Presenting Officers Case Form, dated 22 February 2024
PO Confidentiality Key, undated
[redacted] Preliminary Investigation Report, dated 14 August 2019
[redacted] Parental Concern Email, dated 16 June 2019
[redacted] Notification of Complaint Letter to Teacher, dated 5 August 2019
[redacted] Email Enclosing Photograph, dated 28 June 2019
[redacted] Appendix B - Photograph
[redacted] Appendix C - Interview with the Teacher, dated 14 August 2019
[redacted] Q and A document, dated 14 August 2019
[redacted] Emails, dated 4 September 2019
[redacted] Final Outcome Letter, dated 9 September 2019
Initial Response to Notice of Investigation, dated 2 November 2019
Email from Former Pupil A to the Teacher re: removal, dated 12 November 2019
Supplementary Response to Notice of Investigation, dated 21 November 2019
Telephone Note, dated 22 November 2019
Email Response from Employer, dated 10 July 2020, with appendices thereto
- SEEMIS Screenshot
Signed Statement of Colleague A (redacted), dated 26 August 2020
Signed Statement of Former Pupil A, dated 8 September 2020
Signed Statement of Colleague B, dated 21 September 2020
Signed Statement of Colleague C, dated 5 October 2020
Signed Statement of Colleague D, dated 3 November 2020
Signed Statement of Colleague E, dated 27 October 2021
Letter to Pupil B, dated 23 February 2023
Email Correspondence with Colleague E re: Pupil B, dated 5 March 2023
Teacher’s Response to Interim Report, dated 23 May 2023
Response from the Teacher, dated 7 June 2023
Notice of Investigation, dated 30 October 2019
Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 7 June 2023

Teacher's hearing papers

Teacher’s Case Form, dated 26 March 2024
Teacher’s Statement, undated

Servicing Officer's hearing papers

Notice of Full Hearing, dated 7 April 2025
Teacher’s Response to Notice of Full Hearing, dated 21 April 2025
Procedural Panel Meeting Annex, dated 24 September 2024

Summary of evidence

Witness 1 – Colleague A

The Witness stated that she is 60 years old and is a retired instrumental instructor. She confirmed that she provided GTC Scotland with a witness statement dated 26 August 2020, which she read into the record. The Witness stated that she retired in August 2020. She stated that prior to retirement she had worked at [redacted] for 29 years, mostly one day per week.

The Witness stated that she knew the Teacher as he was the Head of the English Department when she started. She stated that he sang in the staff/pupil choir and worked on the school shows doing stage work. She advised that he continued to work in the school on a supply basis after retirement.

The Witness stated that on 24 June 2019 she was coming back into the school after lunch. She stated that she walked into the foyer of the performing arts building and looked to the left where the staff base and office are. She explained that the foyer and the staff base are separated with a glass window. The Witness stated that she looked through that window and saw the Teacher sitting on a chair in the staff base with a young female on his right knee. She stated that there were other children around them. The Witness stated that she started to go through the door into the staff base. She said that the Teacher noticed her and “jumped straight up like a startled rabbit”. She explained that she walked through the staff base saying nothing.

The Witness stated that she understood that the female in question had just left the school. She advised that she spoke to the Faculty Head (Colleague B) about what she had seen, and emailed the rector of the school on 25 June 2029, copying in the Faculty Head. The Witness stated that she was horrified and shocked at what she had seen, and as a teacher it gave her cause for concern.

Witness 2 – Former Pupil A

The Witness confirmed that she provided a witness statement to GTC Scotland, dated 8 September 2020, which she read into the record. She stated that the Teacher was a supply teacher, covering English or Drama, while she was at the school. The Witness stated that the Teacher was always very friendly. She stated that when she and her classmates were all leaving the school in May 2019, he gave all of them a hug. The Witness also stated that they were welcomed into the staff room to chat with him after they left in May 2019. She stated that she did this a couple of times, and if there were no available seats the Teacher would offer her and other female students to come and sit on his lap. The Witness stated that some would do it and others would ignore it. She stated that she did this a couple of times and had witnessed other female students doing it. The Witness said that she did not think anything of it and it did not make her feel uncomfortable.

The Witness stated that Colleague D, the school’s Child Protection Officer, made her aware of a photo of her and the Teacher, although she was not shown it at that point. She stated that when the photo was taken she was 17 and had already left school. She provided that it must have been taken sometime in June 2019 as she was still involved in the school show, helping backstage. The Witness stated that she had been shown the photograph by the Investigating Officer for the purposes of her statement and confirmed that it was her and the Teacher. She confirmed that the Teacher had his hand on her leg but advised that it was nothing sinister and that the Teacher was just being friendly.

In response to questions from the Presenting Officer, the Witness restated that she had seen the Teacher hugging pupils when they left the school in 2019. She stated that the Teacher hugged her at that time. She also stated that she had witnessed the Teacher hugging other pupils or former pupils. She confirmed that this was mainly female pupils. The Witness stated that the Teacher had hugged her on other occasions. She stated that if the Teacher saw her outside of school he would give her a hug. She also stated that if she was returning to school for any reason he would give her a hug. The Witness stated that she had witnessed the Teacher hugging others on other occasions.

She stated that Teacher offered her and other females to sit on his lap maybe three or four times. She stated that when there weren’t any seats available he would say ‘come and sit on my knee’. The Witness stated that the other people who sat on his knee would have been the same age as Former Pupil A, 16 or 17 years old and that this would include current pupils. The Witness stated that she had witnessed other people being asked to sit on the Teacher’s lap in the classroom but had not done this herself. She confirmed that this was mostly females.

The Witness was shown a photograph which was produced in the materials before the Panel. She confirmed that this showed herself and the Teacher. The Witness recognised her Nike leggings from the picture. She agreed with the suggestion that the photograph may have been taken on 13 June 2019. She said that the picture showed her lying on a chair with her legs up towards the Teacher’s arm. The Witness stated that there was nothing to do on the stage so he had sat beside her. When asked to describe how she was positioned in relation to the Teacher her initial view was that her head was away from the Teacher and her feet were next to his body. The Witness did not at that point agree with the suggestion that her head was on the Teacher. However, she also stated that she did not really remember the incident and the way she was lying. She stated that she could not recall how the Teacher’s hand came to be on her leg although she identified that this was shown in the picture. The Witness could not recall his hand moving up and down her leg, and she did not know why the Teacher’s hand was on her leg.

In questions from the Panel the Witness was asked further about the photograph. She was directed to the Nike slogan on the leggings which she was wearing in the photograph and asked if that helped her with her recollection as to her orientation. The word “Just” forming part of that slogan was visible on the part of the Witness’s leg which could be seen in the photograph. The Witness agreed that when wearing the leggings the slogan could be read looking down at her leg. She acknowledged that this would indicate that in the photograph her head would be towards the Teacher. However, she did not remember this taking place at all and she could not give a clear impression of the situation. On reflection the Witness considered that what was shown in the photograph was inappropriate, but she was not concerned at the time.

Witness 3 – Colleague B

The Witness confirmed that he had given GTC Scotland a statement dated 21 September 2020 which he read into the record. He stated that he was Principal Teacher of Expressive Arts at [redacted]. The Witness stated that he had known the Teacher as a colleague for many years. Latterly, while the Teacher had been working as a supply teacher, the Witness was his line manager, although prior to the Teacher’s formal retirement they were both Principal Teachers. The Witness stated that an incident had been brought to him by Colleague A on 24 June 2019. He stated that Colleague A advised him that she had discovered a female whom she believed to be a former pupil sitting on the Teacher’s knee in the staff base. He stated that this was reported to him again by Colleague A via email on 25 Jun 2019. He stated that by the time he had received the email, he had already reported the matter to Colleague D, the Child Protection Co-ordinator. In answer to supplementary questions from the Presenting Officer the Witness stated that he had no concerns as to the Teacher’s interactions with pupils at the school. He stated that the Teacher's general actions or behaviour with pupils could be familiar, involving an arm on the shoulder or something like that. The Witness stated that he thought it was possible that he had seen this. He stated that it was not something that he would do as a teacher himself.

The Witness stated that Colleague A was concerned when she contacted him on 24 June 2019, as was he. He stated that he contacted the child protection officer because it was not something that he considered acceptable in an educational establishment.

The Witness stated that he could not recall witnessing a pupil sitting on the Teacher’s lap himself.

The Panel asked the Witness if he could provide more detail on his observation that the Teacher could be familiar. The Witness said that the Teacher was a demonstrative person and he could recall having taken an issue with the Teacher having his arm around a pupil to a head teacher as it had made him uncomfortable. He stated that this took place about 15 years ago, in a corridor. The Witness stated that had seen the Teacher with an arm on the shoulder of a pupil since, when passing in a corridor. He confirmed that this was mostly female students although male students as well. The Witness stated that it was not a frequent occurrence, and not an embrace, more an “affirmation of greeting”.

The Witness was asked if he recognised a description of behaviour as theatrical or air kissing and he responded that the Teacher was quite a theatrical flamboyant character. He also explained that teachers in the school would have annual child protection training. In further questioning from the Presenting officer the Witness stated that it was possible that the Teacher had kissed pupils on the cheek but he had not witnessed this, although he did recognise the term “air kissing”.

Witness 4 – Colleague C

The Witness stated that he was a drama teacher. He confirmed that he provided a statement to GTC Scotland dated 5 October 2020 which he read into the record. The Witness stated that he had worked at [redacted] since he joined as a probationer drama teacher in 2014. He stated that he had known the Teacher since that time as he had been covering drama classes as a supply teacher.

The Witness described an incident in 2019 in the staff base. He stated that he was on his way out of the staff base when Former Pupil A was sitting on the Teacher’s lap. He stated that he could not recall if he had seen this through the window to the staff base or when leaving the room. In questions from the Presenting Officer the Witness confirmed that he had seen Former Pupil A sitting on the Teacher’s lap. He stated that this lasted about 20 or 30 seconds. The Witness stated that he had not seen other pupils sitting on the Teacher’s lap.

The Witness stated that he took the matter to Colleague B who told him that he was already aware. He also described the child protection training given to teachers in the school. The Witness stated that he had seen the Teacher hugging former pupils returning to the school to see a show, as a greeting, but could not recall anything like that with present pupils, which he thought difficult to believe.

Witness 5 – Colleague D

The Witness stated that she is the Depute Head Teacher at [redacted]. She confirmed that she provided a statement to GTC Scotland dated 3 November 2020 which she read into the record. She stated that at the time of providing her statement, she was the Child Protection Co-ordinator at the school.

The Witness stated that in 2019 two incidents were brought to her attention in relation to the Teacher. She stated that one was raised by Colleague B and another by a parent. The Witness stated that the first was brought to her by Colleague B following the report to him by Colleague A of what she had seen in the staff base. She stated that she met with Former Pupil A who by that time was a former pupil having left in May 2019. The Witness stated that the second matter brought to her attention was a parental complaint which shared a photograph. She stated that the photograph showed the legs and knees in shot of someone lying down on chairs, with the angle suggesting the person’s head was in the lap of the adult sitting down next to them. The Witness stated that she met with Former Pupil A in this respect on 27 June 2019. The Witness confirmed that Former Pupil A identified herself and the Teacher in the photograph. She stated that Former Pupil A had told her

that the Teacher was an older teacher and in his earlier career such behaviours would have been more acceptable. She also stated that Former Pupil A advised that she was perfectly fine. The Witness advised that she passed the information from both meetings with Former Pupil A to the Head Teacher. She stated that she believes it was then passed to the local authority.

In questions from the Presenting Officer the Witness explained the role of child protection co- ordinator. She stated that she was now the Depute Child Protection Co-ordinator as a result of a change in her remit. She stated that in her view a member of staff having a young person on their knee is a breach of boundaries. The Witness stated that her focus in dealing with these matters was in speaking to the young person concerned. She said that Former Pupil A did not seem stressed or upset when she spoke to her.

The Witness stated that the parental complaint had come from a parent of a child who had been in the main hall. She explained that the complaint said there was a young person in a horizontal position across a few chairs and potentially with her head in the lap of a member of staff. The Witness stated that a child had noticed this and taken a photograph during the school show rehearsal. She stated that the child who took the photo was a younger child, and that the child’s class had probably been watching the rehearsals. The Witness stated that it must have been before the school show which takes place in the second last week of term, usually the second last week of June.

The Witness stated that from a safeguarding perspective the nature of the photograph is concerning. The Presenting Officer showed the Witness the photograph in the materials before the Panel which the Witness identified as that which she had seen previously. She stated that her take on the photograph was that with the direction of the knees and legs shown in the photograph the person’s head is going to be on the Teacher’s lap. She stated that it was inappropriate for a teacher to have a young person lying on their lap or anything like that. The Witness stated that it did not make much difference that the young person may have recently left the school, it would still be unacceptable. She stated that she had not specifically observed the Teacher hug or put his arm around pupils or former pupils. The Witness stated that the incidents she did deal with were of a concerning nature based on what she had been told.

In response to a question from the Panel the Witness stated that the Teacher did have a habit of greeting colleagues with a continental, “French style” greeting.

Witness 6 – Colleague E

The Witness stated that he is the Head of Education and Chief Education Officer at [redacted]. He confirmed that he gave a statement to GTC Scotland on 27 January 2021, which he read into the record. The Witness stated that he was head teacher of [redacted] from 2015 to 2020 and was the deputy head for three years before that.

The Witness stated that the school had been sent a photograph, he believed on 14 June 2019, reportedly taken in the school assembly hall the previous day. He stated that the photo showed the back of a person who looked like the Teacher sitting in a seat watching a rehearsal. He explained that on the seats next to this person, a young girl was lying across some seats with her head on the lap of the man. He stated that it appeared from the photo that the man had his hand on her leg. The Witness stated that the photo was taken from behind the two people. The Witness stated that he made inquiries and the girl was identified as a 6th year pupil who had left the school a week or two before the photo was taken, having completed her exams and the school leaver process. He said that he discussed the photograph with the school’s Child Protection Co-ordinator and the local authority’s education department who started an investigation.

The Witness stated that he spoke to the Teacher about the allegation. He stated that the Teacher was furious and demanded to be shown evidence. The Witness stated that the Teacher refused to make any further comment claiming that he had done nothing wrong and had nothing to explain. He explained that following the incident shown in the photo, the Teacher stopped doing supply work.

In response to questions from the Presenting Officer the Witness spoke of the Teacher’s teaching practice in positive terms. He stated that the Teacher’s lessons were strong and people found his lessons interesting and engaging. He stated that he had seen the Teacher interact with pupils outside the classroom. The Witness stated that there was an informality about the Teacher’s interactions, and he would be able to greet children in a corridor and have a positive response.

The Witness confirmed that the email containing the photograph had arrived in his inbox on 14 June 2019. He stated that he called the parent to acknowledge receipt and that appropriate action would be taken. The Witness was shown the photograph which was in the materials before the Panel which he identified as that which he had been sent. The Witness identified that the person’s head must have been in the vicinity of the Teacher’s lap from the way that the person’s legs appeared to be pointing. He stated that the Teacher’s hand was on the person’s leg. The Witness stated that when he met with the Teacher he was not aware of the purpose of the meeting. He said that the Teacher was very angry indeed and refuted what had been suggested to him, and did not give any explanation of what had taken place. The Witness stated that he did not recall having been told that the Teacher’s hand was moving up and down the person’s leg. The Witness explained his recollection of the picture and recalled seeing a hand being on the young person’s leg and the young person head likely being on the lap and this is what he would have described to the Teacher as what he had seen.

The Witness stated that he found it very hard to understand why this had happened, the optic of it was horrific with a trusted adult flagrantly touching the leg of a young person who has just left the school. He stated that he could not understand why a teacher would put themself in that position. He stated that he had discussed this incident with Colleague D. He also stated that he emailed the then head of education on 16 June 2019 stating that he would speak to the teacher. He confirmed that he did not provide a copy of the photograph when he did so. The Witness recalled Colleague D mentioning the same pupil sitting on the Teacher’s knee in the staff base. He stated that he did not recall much more than that there had been a conversation. He stated that he would find pupils sitting on the Teacher’s knee problematic. The Witness stated that it did not matter whether the Teacher was working on the day in question or not and it did not matter that Former Pupil A had left the school a short time before these incidents. He stated that this was irrelevant to him as there was a power differential which precludes the kind of behaviour that the photograph describes.

The Witness was shown email correspondence dated 16 June 2019 which he had sent to Person B and Person C who were the head of service and a senior directorate officer at the local authority respectively. This was an email which the Witness wrote to those persons two days after he received the photograph. In the email the Witness forwards an email to him from Colleague D. That email states that a parent had witnessed the Teacher behaving inappropriately with a female student while watching show rehearsals. It states that the child had taken a photo of the Teacher when a female student had her head in his lap and he had his hand on her leg, moving it up and down, and he then kissed her. In his own email the Witness identified that he had previously had to warn the Teacher about physical contact with a girl by repeatedly patting her on the head. The Witness stated that he had no recollection of what was described but acknowledged that he did write the email. His recount of the conversation with the parent also stated that the parent suggested that there had been concern over the Teacher’s “sleaziness” for some years. In his evidence before the Panel the Witness said that unsubstantiated comments like this were not helpful, but he was narrating to his boss what had been put to him. He confirmed that he had not witnessed sleaziness himself. He stated that he did not identify other concerns about the Teacher, adding that there were things in his email which he did not remember and may have forgotten about, for which he apologised with reference to the passage of time. The Witness accepted that hugging or putting his arm around pupils was consistent

with the Teacher’s understanding of boundaries and stated that this was not something he considered appropriate. He stated that he could not remember seeing this himself although he may have done. The Witness’s position on the suggestion that the Teacher kissed pupils or former pupils on the cheek was the same. He stated that he had seen the teacher kiss female staff on the cheek.

In questioning from the Panel the Witness was taken to the email from Collegue D to him dated 13 June 2019. The Witness identified this as one he had received but could not remember it clearly. The correspondence seemed to indicate to the Panel that the Witness had spoken to the child who had taken the photograph but the Witness did not remember this. He stated that he would have spoken to the Teacher as soon as he could after sending the email dated 16 June 2019. He stated that he suspected that this would have been in the following school week (16 June 2019 having been a Sunday).

Documentary Evidence

The Panel had before it a number of documents from [redacted]. This included a preliminary investigation report dated 14 August 2019. The report was based on an interview of the Teacher conducted by [redacted], and email correspondence provided by [redacted]. In this report the Teacher advised [redacted] during the interview that he was not in school on supply on 13 June 2019, and on that day he was not sitting with a class. The Teacher also stated during the interview that it was not correct that he was stroking the leg of a female pupil. He did accept that he could have been in the school on that date for show rehearsals, as he stage managed the school show. The Teacher confirmed during the interview that he was the person shown in the photograph. His explanation of the photograph was that a female volunteer lent against him and possibly fell asleep. He said that the image shows him tapping her leg to wake her up. He did not recall the female having her head in his lap. Rather, she could have been resting her head against his shoulder. The report states that the Teacher told [redacted] that he could vaguely picture the moment. He confirmed that the female volunteer was Former Pupil A, and that she was not a pupil at the time. The Teacher said in the interview that he absolutely did not kiss the female. [redacted] referred the Teacher to paragraph 1.2 of the Code of Professionalism and Conduct. The report records that the Teacher stated that this did not apply in the case, as the individual concerned was not a school pupil. The report states that the Teacher when asked said that he would not do anything differently.

Although the Teacher did not give evidence he had made a number of written representations as part of the fitness to teach process. In response to the Notice of Investigation the Teacher had submitted a handwritten note dated 2 November 2019. He stated that he was surprised to have received a fitness to teach communication. He questioned and denied all of the allegations then made against him (which at that time were concerned only with the events of 13 June 2019) and was surprised that GTC Scotland would seek to comment on his behaviours with former pupils many of whom were said to have become close personal and family friends. Due to personal circumstances however he did not have the time or the inclination to pursue the matter further. He had already decided to fully retire thus rendering his fitness to teach irrelevant. He reiterated that he denied all of the (then) allegations as a misrepresentation of an innocent incident, but to save time and effort he tendered his resignation from the GTC Scotland. In response, GTC Scotland had written to the Teacher advising that as there was an active conduct case in his name he could not be removed from the Register. The Notice of Investigation was re-sent to the Teacher to allow him to make fuller representations if he chose to do so. He submitted a further response where he added that he accepted that while acting in a voluntary capacity he unwittingly acted in a manner considered not in keeping with expected professional standards towards a former pupil who was also helping in a voluntary capacity. He stated that he regretted acting unprofessionally, but strenuously denied any sexual motivation or intent. He stated that this was a light moment after a successful but challenging afternoon’s work, and that the mood was more frivolous than normal because effort and hard work had paid dividends. The accusations were said to be a misrepresentation of a possibly silly but wholly innocent incident.

In the Teacher’s response to the Interim Report, dated 23 May 2023 the Teacher added (in addition to what is stated above) that two other members of staff were in front of him in the photograph related to allegation 1, who would have noticed had anything inappropriate taken place. He stated that he did not believe he had ever stroked any pupil past or present.The Teacher stated that the incident relating to allegation 2 took place in a staff base full of staff and former pupils. He had bullishly told the interviewer for the local authority that he did not regret his actions because he felt that any implication being made was horrendously misconstruing wholly innocent actions taken at a time of high spirits.

In the Teacher’s case form he stated that during the events related to allegation 1 no member of staff saw anything untoward. He stated that he was frequently in the habit of moving to the stage, which would not have been possible if his movement was restricted in any way. He stated that the events relating to allegation 2 involved a joke where he offered his knee for a person to sit on. He stated that he had no idea where allegation 3 came from. He advised that as a supply teacher it would often be weeks between seeing some members of the school community – staff and pupils - and in a light hearted manner he would theatrically throw an “air kiss”. He did not agree that if the facts of the allegations were provided, he would be unfit to teach. Establishing a healthy rapport with pupils is, he said, never deemed to be significantly below the standards expected of a registered teacher. Nor did he agree that his fitness to teach was impaired. The Teacher stated that he was fully retired and had no intention of ever changing that status. He stated that he could not understand why his fitness to teach was being examined. In a statement attached to his case form the Teacher stated that he looked back on his career with pride and no regrets. He had never been accused of being disrespectful or making any pupil feel uncomfortable in any way. He stated that he has maintained relationships with former pupils, and was hurt and shocked that his professionalism was being considered. He stated that neither of the “so called incidents” was the result of any complaint from anyone involved. And at no time in 40 years teaching had he invited a pupil to sit on his knee. He asked the Panel to dismiss all allegations of unprofessionalism.

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on the Facts (Stage 1)

The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to find all of the witnesses credible and reliable. On that basis, the Panel could conclude that the allegations were proved on the balance of probabilities.

In relation to the element of allegation 4 which alleged that the Teacher had kissed pupils “and/or” former pupils on the cheek, the Presenting Officer submitted that, depending on the Panel’s view of the facts proved, the Panel could amend the allegation to remove this element, or add the words “air kiss” at an appropriate point. It was also submitted that given that the allegation uses the formulation “and / or”, the Panel could find the allegation as a whole proved even if it did not find the kissing element to be established in itself. The Panel considered this submission. It took legal advice on this in private session, on which the Presenting Officer was invited to comment. The Panel took the view that its function in terms of rule 2.8.1(c) of the Rules is to determine whether it finds that facts of allegations are proved. In the Panel’s view, a statement which includes the formulation and / or is not a proposition of fact, but a description of a number of factual possibilities offered in the alternative. The Panel decided that it would not be fulfilling its duty to determine the facts of the allegations against the Teacher if it did not determine which, if any, factual possibility had been proved. The Panel therefore did not accept the submission of the Presenting Officer that it could find any allegation, and particularly allegation 4 proved on an and / or basis, in the present case. The Panel did not have a view on whether this would be appropriate in other cases.

Credibility and Reliability of Witness Evidence

The Panel considered the credibility and reliability of the witnesses from whom it had heard evidence. The Panel determined that they were all credible and reliable in relation to the material facts of the allegations. The Panel noted that the witnesses evidence was consistent with their written statements given several years previously. They did not appear to lack objectivity nor have a personal interest in the outcome of the case. Although there were minor differences in witnesses’ recollections of events, this was understandable given the passage of time, and not material. The Panel concluded that was no material conflict between the witnesses in relation to the facts of the allegations. It was noted by the Panel that a number of witnesses had faded memories of the relevant events. Former Pupil A was unclear as to what was shown in the photograph put to her in evidence. She was clear that it was of her and the Teacher, but did not recall the direction in which she was lying. She was ultimately just not able to offer a view on that matter. Colleague B and Colleague D appeared to the Panel to have surprisingly poor recollections of dealing with events which the Panel might have expected them to be clearer upon given that what they were being told was likely unusual and concerning, but this was not of any real significance given that they were not direct witnesses to the events concerned and were called to discuss their role in the handling of concerns raised with them. The Panel found what they were able to remember to be credible and reliable.

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 found that the allegations against the Teacher were proved on the balance of probabilities, subject to certain deletions.

In relation to allegation 1, the email to Colleague D from the concerned parent was dated 13 June 2019, which indicated to the Panel that the photograph referred to was taken on that date. Colleague B had confirmed that the Teacher was employed as a supply teacher at that time. Colleague D confirmed that date. Various witnesses confirmed that this was a school show rehearsal and that the Teacher assisted in these productions in a voluntary capacity. The Panel was satisfied as to the provenance of the photograph which was provided to it. Colleague D confirmed she had received it from a parent. Colleague E had confirmed he had received it from her. It was clear on the evidence that the Teacher and Former Pupil A were shown in the photograph. The photograph plainly shows the Teacher’s hand touching Former Pupil A’s leg. The Panel noted that the Teacher admitted to touching Former Pupil A’s leg in his interview with the local authority officer, albeit with an explanation for that. The Panel were not satisfied that there was evidence upon which it could find, on the balance of probabilities, that the Teacher had moved his hand up and down Former Pupil A’s leg. Former Pupil A only went as far as saying that this was possible. No other witness spoke to this happening. The parent’s email to Colleague D referred to this, but neither that parent nor the child who took the photograph was called as a witness. The statement in the email was untested secondary hearsay and the Panel did not consider it a safe basis to find on the balance of probabilities that this element of the allegation was proved.

In relation to the element of allegation 1 that the Teacher allowed Former Pupil A to place her head on his body, the Panel noted that Former Pupil A was unclear as to the direction in which she was lying. In his interview with the local authority the Teacher had stated that Former Pupil A’s head was on his shoulder, which would amount to an admission of this allegation, however he had subsequently changed his position in representations in the fitness to teach process. He appeared to be accepting that Former Pupil A’s head was lying towards him however the Panel took the view that it had to interpret the photograph for itself. The Panel found on the balance of probabilities that

Former Pupil A was lying towards the Teacher. Given where the Teacher was sitting in the photograph, and the position and angle of Former Pupil A’s knees, in the Panel’s view, it was more likely than not that Former Pupil A’s head was placed somewhere on the Teacher’s body. They accordingly found this element of allegation 1 to be proved.

In relation to allegation 2 this was admitted by the Teacher, albeit that he sought to explain what he contended to be the context. The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher was employed as a supply teacher at [redacted] on 24 June 2019. Colleague A described the incident, as did Colleague C. Their descriptions of what took place were similar. The Panel accepted their evidence. The Panel found this allegation to be proved on the balance of probabilities.

In relation to allegation 3, the Panel had already found it proved that the Teacher had allowed Former Pupil A to sit on his lap on 24 June 2019. By that point Former Pupil A was a former pupil. Allegation 3 is broader than a single incident, alleging that the Teacher had acted in a similar manner on at least one more occasion and with both current and former pupils. The Panel considered whether there was evidence of the Teacher acting in this manner beyond the particular facts of allegation 1. This came from Former Pupil A, whose evidence the Panel has accepted. Former Pupil A had give evidence that she had witnessed other people being asked to sit on the Teacher’s lap in the classroom. Given that this refers to activity within a classroom environment the Panel inferred that this involved current, rather than former pupils. Former Pupil A had also described herself sitting on the Teacher’s knee a couple of times and referred to others the same age as her also doing so. The Panel determined, on the basis of Former Pupil A’s evidence, that allegation 3 was proved on the balance of probabilities in relation to both pupils and former pupils. They accordingly decided that allegation 3 was established under deletion of the word “or”.

In relation to allegation 4, Former Pupil A had given evidence that at the point of leaving school in May 2019 the Teacher gave her and her classmates a hug. Her evidence appeared to the Panel to be referring to the hugging of both current and former pupils. Colleague C also gave evidence of the Teacher hugging former pupils, although it appeared to the Panel that this may have been a reference to persons who had left school some years previously. Colleague B had stated that he had witnessed the Teacher with his arm around pupils. He was keen to stress this was not an embrace, but characterised it as a greeting. It was not clear to the Panel whether Colleague B was describing a hug or some other form of greeting which involves putting an arm around another person. The Teacher’s own response was that he partially admitted the allegation but characterised his conduct as a “theatrical air kiss”. This left the Panel unsure as to whether he admitted that he had embraced pupils or former pupils. Overall, the Panel was clear that there was a body of evidence of the Teacher embracing former pupils by hugging them. There was less support in the evidence for the hugging of current pupils however the Panel found reference to this in the evidence of Former Pupil A, which the Panel had accepted. The Panel also inferred support for this in the general descriptions provided of the Teacher’s manner in the school, Colleague B’s description of an arm around the shoulder, and the Teacher’s admission of the “theatrical air kiss” all of which is behaviour of a tactile nature. The Panel found it proved on the balance of probabilities that, while employed as a supply teacher at [redacted] the Teacher had hugged both pupils and former pupils. The Panel was not so satisfied as to the allegation that the Teacher had kissed pupils and / or former pupils. Former Pupil A did not state that she was kissed by the Teacher. She did not state that she had seen other Pupils being kissed by the Teacher on the cheek. No other witness spoke to the Teacher kissing other pupils or former pupils on the cheek. The Panel did not accede to the Presenting Officer’s submission that the words “air kiss” or similar should be amended into the allegations. This was not an allegation which had been put to the Teacher as part of the fitness to teach process. The Panel did not consider that it should exercise its discretion to amend the allegations in this way under rule 2.8.4. The Panel determined that it had not been established on the balance of probabilities that the Teacher had kissed pupils or former pupils on the cheek.

For completeness, the Panel found the allegations against the Teacher to be proved as a matter of fact in the following terms:

On 13 June 2019, whilst employed as a Supply Teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], and whilst attending a school play rehearsal in a voluntary capacity, the Teacher did:

(a) touch Former Pupil A’s leg with his hand; and
(b) allow Former Pupil A to place her head on his body.
‍
On or around 24 June 2019, whilst employed as a Supply Teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], the Teacher did allow Former Pupil A to sit on his knee in the staff base.
On dates unspecified, whilst employed as a Supply Teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], on more than one occasion, the Teacher did allow female pupils and former pupils including Former Pupil A to sit on his lap.
On dates unspecified, whilst employed as a Supply Teacher at [redacted] by [redacted], on more than one occasion, the Teacher did embrace pupils and former pupils.

Findings on Fitness to Teach

Given that the Panel found that the allegations were proved, subject to certain deletions, the Panel noted that under rule 2.8.1(b) it was then to consider whether, on the basis of the facts found proved, whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired or he is unfit to teach. Before so doing the Panel considered whether it should proceed to deal with this stage of the hearing in the absence of the Teacher. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to do so, for the reasons previously provided. The Panel agreed that it ought to do so, on the basis that the Panel considered that it appeared to be unlikely that the Teacher would participate further should the matter be adjourned for consideration at a later date.

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on Fitness to Teach (Stage 2)

The Panel accordingly invited the Presenting Officer to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Presenting Officer moved straight to her submissions. She referred the panel to the definition of being unfit to teach in the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011, and the Indicative Outcomes Practice Statement. It was submitted that the Panel should take into account the public interest when arriving at a determination. Elements of the public interest include protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence, and the need to uphold teaching standards. The test for impairment is current, and the Panel should take an holistic approach. It was submitted that part 1.2, 1.3, and 1.6 of COPAC were infringed in this case. If the Panel agreed they should consider whether the shortfalls are remediable. In the Presenting Officer’s submission the allegations as found proved disclosed a significant blurring of professional boundaries by the Teacher. He had abused a position of trust on multiple occasions. He had initially denied the behaviour of 13 June 2019 and only altered his position once he had seen the photograph. The Teacher had said to the local authority that he thought that paragraph 1.2 of COPAC did not apply as Former Pupil A was a former pupil. He has expressed no regrets. This, it was submitted, indicates that the Teacher does not realise that his behaviour has been inappropriate. It was submitted that the Teacher had exhibited a pattern of inappropriate behaviour. The level of severity is high. It was submitted that given the seriousness of the conduct, the pattern of behaviour, and the lack of remorse, the Panel could find that the Teacher had fallen significantly short of the standards expected and was accordingly unfit to teach.

Panel Decision on Fitness 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.

Definitions of the concepts of an impaired fitness to teach, and being unfit to teach, can be found in the Rules. The phrase “impairment of fitness to teach” (and any related expression) means that the person’s conduct or professional competence falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. The phrase “unfit to teach” means, in accordance with the the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011, that the person’s conduct or professional competence falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher.

The Panel proceeded to consider whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach was impaired.

The Panel had regard to GTC Scotland’s Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement, which suggests considerations which may be relevant in relation to fitness to teach.

In the Panel’s view, the allegations as they were found proved gave rise to breaches of paragraphs 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 of the Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC). The allegations as proved disclose a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The allegations describe situations which call into question the Teacher’s fitness to teach. Pupils appear to have witnessed inappropriate behaviour by the Teacher. In the Panel's view professional boundaries do not cease on the day that a young person leaves school, contrary to what appears to be the Teacher’s understanding. The Panel agreed that the allegations as found proved disclose that the Teacher has engaged in behaviour which is inappropriate. The Teacher’s actions indicate that he may have thought that his behaviour was acceptable for a Teacher. It appeared to the Panel that the Teacher would have known that his behaviour was seen as inappropriate by others. They formed the view based on Colleague A’s description of the Teacher’s reaction when she saw him with Former Pupil A sitting on his knee, and his initial angry denial of the events of 13 June 2019. The Panel noted the Teacher’s explanation that his conduct was undertaken in jest. This was never the subject of tested evidence, and the Panel did not accept the Teacher’s explanation. In any event, in the Panel’s view, his behaviour could not be viewed as appropriate in any context even if it was part of some sort of joke. The proved behaviour is not that of a role model, in the Panel’s view. Teachers should show how to behave properly in a professional setting. The Teacher has failed to do that, in terms of the allegations as found proved against him. As well as inappropriate touching of pupils and former pupils, the allegations disclose over familiarity in the workplace which is inappropriate and should not be displayed by a teacher who is supposed to be a role model.

The Panel were of the view that the Teacher’s conduct has fallen below the standards expected of the profession. His behaviour accordingly constitutes misconduct. His fitness to teach is impaired. The Panel proceeded to consider whether as a result of the shortfalls identified, the Teacher is unfit to teach.

In the Panel’s view the behaviour found proved might in theory have been remediable in another case, but on the evidence made available to the Panel the teacher had refused to acknowledge that he had done anything significantly wrong. He has had an opportunity to reflect on his conduct and there was no indication to the Panel that he had properly managed to identify the proper professional boundaries. It appeared to the Panel, based on the evidence of Colleague B, that the Teacher had required to be spoken to as to professional boundaries at some time previously. The evidence indicated to the Panel that the Teacher’s manner was one of over familiarity, indicating that he has engaged in a pattern of behaviour. Former Pupil A appeared to describe behaviour of the type described in the allegations as commonplace. In the Panel’s view the Teacher should have been conscious of his behaviours and more careful to respect professional boundaries. The Teacher did not provide full admissions to the allegations even to the extent that they were found proved by the Panel. Such admissions as he did make were caveated and sought to minimise his behaviour. The Panel did not find his explanations satisfactory. In his responses the Teacher had shown no real insight into his behaviour. The Panel noted the Teacher’s position on his retirement but were very uneasy about there being any prospect of the behaviour being repeated should the Teacher return to work. Although the panel appreciated that a return may be unlikely in the circumstances, if he did return to work, in the Panel’s view, a recurrence appeared likely given the lack of insight.

Taking all of this into consideration the Panel considered that in the present case the failure to adhere to standards is not remediable. While a Teacher might theoretically take steps to address and improve their understanding and respect for professional boundaries, in the Panel’s view there was little prospect of this happening in this case.

In the Panel’s view, the Teacher’s actions are not remediable, have not been remedied, and there is a risk of recurrence were the Teacher to return to teaching. In consideration of all the evidence there is a pattern of behaviour and a lack of insight. In the Panel’s view the mitigations offered were just as inappropriate as the allegations found proved. In the Panel's view the Teacher’s actions fall significantly short of the expected standards. In the Panel's view the public would not expect a registered teacher to behave in the way found proved. The behaviour which has been found proved is, in the Panel’s view, fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s conduct falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and that he is therefore unfit to teach.

Disposal

As the Panel determined that the Teacher is unfit to teach, in accordance with the terms of Article 18(2)(b) of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011, it directed that the Teacher’s name be removed from the Register.

Once the Teacher’s name has been removed from the Register, his name remains so removed unless and until an application for re-registration is made by him and a Fitness to Teach Panel considers that the Teacher is fit to teach at that time and directs that the application be granted. Rule 2.10.6 outlines that a Panel may direct that the Teacher be prohibited from making such an application until the expiry of such a period, not exceeding two 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 two years from the date of its decision. The Panel considered that this was the appropriate period in the whole circumstances of the case. If the conduct issues identified were capable of being addressed, and the Teacher were minded to do so, in the Panel’s view this would take a significant period of time. Maintenance of public confidence in the Register and the profession, and public protection, favours this period. 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 may be made.

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.