Full Hearing - Conduct - Teacher B

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

The Panel commenced dealing with preliminary matters,
‍

1. Application for a remote hearing made on behalf of both parties but presented by the Presenting Officer.

By default, GTC Scotland conducts all its fitness to teach hearings in person in its dedicated Hearings Suite at its office in Edinburgh. However, in line with Rule 1.7.6, a Fitness to Teach Panel may order that all or any part of a hearing may be conducted by the use of electronic communications provided the method adopted allows the parties, the Panel and any witnesses to attend remotely, and, where the hearing is in public, allows the public to view proceedings.  

Electronic communications are commonly used for witnesses to give evidence by participating from a remote location. In addition, an entire hearing may be conducted via electronic communication. Such a hearing is described as a ‘remote hearing.’  

The Presenting Officer confirmed that the original Full Hearing (conduct) had been due to proceed on 21 April 2026 in Person But that terms had been agreed between parties, with respect to remote proceedings, in terms of Rule 1.7.6 and 1.7.7, and that a remote full hearing would be the most expeditious means of determining the issues before the Panel.

In support of the application, it was submitted that the Teacher was represented and that while this was a full conduct hearing set down for five days, the issues before the Panel were not particularly complex simply involving factual disputes, with only two “in person” witnesses together with the Teacher. There were no issues arising in respect of vulnerability of witnesses and it was submitted that reliability and credibility could be assessed remotely.

The Panel’s attention was drawn to the ‘Remote Hearings and Remote Witnesses Practice Statement’ regarding remote hearings.

The Panel considered the terms of that Practice Statement and noted that it required to balance all factors detailed, together with the interests of the parties and the interests of fairness and justice. The Panel noted that in addition to applying Rule 1.7.6 it should consider the general objective of the Rules to deal with cases fairly and justly.

The Panel noted there was no opposition to the Application for a remote full hearing and in fact both parties joined with the Presenting Officer’s application for the matter to proceed by way of remote hearing.

The Panel noted that, by default GTC Scotland conducts all of its Fitness to Teach Hearings in person in the dedicated hearings office in Edinburgh. However in line with Rule 1.7.6 a Fitness to Teach Panel may order that one, or any part of a hearing may be conducted by the use of electronic communications, provided the method allowed the parties, the Panel and any witnesses to attend remotely, and where the Hearing is in public, allows the public to view proceedings.

The Panel noted that it was anticipated that the witnesses to be heard from would take no longer than 1 to 2 hours at most, in providing their evidence, and that all participants in the hearing had access to a suitable electronic device. It was noted that all participants had an appropriate location from where they could participate alone and undisturbed. The Panel considered it relevant that proceeding by way of a remote hearing would avoid delays while still allowing proper consideration of the issues arising in the case. The Panel appreciated that it should balance all of the relevant factors outlined above, in the interests of the parties and the public interest in deciding whether to grant the application.

The Panel carefully considered the application submissions made in response to it, noting the parties agreed. The Panel noted that there was no opposition to the application. Having regard to the rules and to the ‘Remote Hearings and Remote Witnesses Practice Statement as well as the advice, as required, of the Legal Assessor and Servicing Officer, the Panel decided that on balance in considering these factors, and in the interests of the various parties, weighed in favour of granting the application made.

Accordingly, the Panel granted the application for the Hearing to take place remotely.
‍

Application for Privacy and Anonymity made by the Teacher

An application for Privacy and Anonymity was made with witness submissions being received on behalf of the Teacher by way of her representative. The Panel were referred to Rule 1.2.1, Rule 1.7.3(a), and Rule 1.7.30(d), and noted that they required to ensure that they took cognisance of the GTC Scotland Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statements.

The Panel noted that Rule 1.7.3 states that a panel may, at any stage, make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings. The Panel noted that they are required to consider Article 6 and Article 8 of the ECHR. The Panel carefully noted that the default position was that Fitness to Teach Hearings should take place in Public and that Article 10 provided that the default position was that the Hearing should be in public to ensure transparent and open regulation, maintaining confidence in GTC Scotland as a regulator. The Panel considered the question of proportionality and the interests of the Teacher and of her family and young child. They also noted the interests of Pupil A who was a young person at the time of the allegations. The Panel carefully considered that it was in the public interest that the Teacher would be able to give evidence of the best quality and be entirely candid and that anonymity and privacy would likely have a positive impact on the quality of evidence provided. They considered the needs of a child and a potential vulnerable witness namely Pupil A. Upon carefully balancing the interests of the Teacher and the public, alongside the particular circumstances of the case and the totality of evidence, the public interest would be best served by hearing the evidence in private. This also served to protect a vulnerable child and the Teacher’s right to a private life, as well as reduce the potential for jigsaw identification, and protecting Pupil A’s right to a family life. On balance, it was decided that, in both the Teacher’s and public interest, the Anonymity and Privacy Applications should be granted. The Panel decided that the name of the school, the name of the Teacher and the Teacher’s registration number would be redacted with only the Local Authority details being available in the public decision.
‍

Hearsay applications made by the Presenting Officer and by the Teacher

Applications to admit the following evidence to be admitted as hearsay were made by the Presenting Officer:

1 Police Scotland statement of Pupil A, dated 17 June 2022

2 Supplementary Police Scotland statement of Pupil A, dated 21 June 2022

3 Police Scotland statement of Person A, dated 20 June 2022

4 GTC Scotland statement of Person A dated 30 August 2023

These applications were opposed by the Teacher.

Applications to admit the following evidence to be admitted as hearsay were made, on behalf of the Teacher by her representative:

1 Statement of Pupil A, dated 4 April 2025

2 Statement of Person B, dated 15 July 2024.

These applications were opposed by the Presenting Officer.

The Presenting Officer sought that the GTC Scotland Witness Statement dated 30th August 2023, and the Police Statement dated 20th June 2022 of Person A should be admitted as Hearsay evidence. He drew the Panel’s attention to the Practice Statement re the Admissibility of Evidence and Hearsay Evidence and the relevant legal framework. He submitted that it was in the public interest for these statements to be admitted as hearsay, given the seriousness of the matter to be determined by the Panel.

The Presenting Officer advised the Panel that Person A was [redacted] and was unable to attend. He drew the Panel’s attention to the cases of Bonhoeffer v GMC 2011 EWHC 1585 and Thorney Croft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565. He advised that this witness was not a direct witness and that it was in the interests of fairness and in the public interest for the statements to be admitted.

The Panel noted that both statements had been taken in a formal setting by a trained professional and their accuracy verified by the witness. The Panel noted that there was no absolute right to cross-examination and that while there were good reasons advanced for non-attendance there was no extraneous supporting evidence in vouching of the position.

The Panel considered that Person A’s evidence was not the sole and decisive evidence and that it would be more likely to be unfair to admit it as hearsay if it were the sole and decisive evidence.

They carefully considered the Teacher’s right to a fair hearing and the public interest with respect to child protection where stakes were particularly high. This was a serious matter, and it was important to consider the seriousness with respect to the public interest and also with respect to being fair to the Teacher.

They noted that the determination of the weight to be given to hearsay evidence was an issue for another stage, namely at the fact-finding stage. They noted that Person A was a member of staff and a registrant and that there were other pieces of direct evidence in support of her evidence. They decided that it was a matter of fairness in the round to allow Person A’s evidence to be admitted in the form of the Police Statement and GTC Scotland Statement as hearsay evidence.

The Panel then heard a further hearsay application made by the Presenting Officer in respect of statements given to the police by Pupil A. They heard that this was the sole and decisive evidence, and they noted that the nature and quality of the evidence was in the form of police statements. The Panel were aware that there was a further retracted account given to the Teacher’s former solicitor and that this could be an issue in determining reliability and credibility given that there were prior inconsistent statements.

The Panel noted once again that there was no absolute right to cross-examination and were aware of the limitations of the weight of hearsay evidence which could be determined at a different stage. The Panel were aware there was no prohibition against admitting hearsay evidence but that they would have to give heightened scrutiny to this where it was the sole and decisive evidence. They determined that the public interest in child protection and the seriousness of the matter required them to have a full picture of the evidence and to admit these two police statements of Pupil A as hearsay evidence. They decided that the later determination as to the weight of the evidence was a protective factor in respect of securing fairness in the proceedings, as such, both statements were admitted.

There was then a hearsay application made by the Teacher’s representative with respect to Pupil A’s retraction statement to the Teacher’s former solicitor and the statement of Person B (Teacher’s brother). The Teacher’s representative directed the Panel once again to the Hearsay and Witness Practice Statement and asked them to consider the careful balance of fairness as a whole. It was the Teacher’s Representative’s position that the Panel were required to consider what protectors are required for a fair hearing. It was the Teachers Representatives position that Person B’s statement was supported by other sources of evidence. The reason for Person B’s non-attendance was due to his business commitments.

The Panel determined that it was in the interests of fairness to admit the retraction statement of Pupil A, given that Police Scotland statements had been allowed as hearsay evidence. It was only fair to admit the statement whereby Pupil A retracted his previous statements as hearsay evidence in order to have the full picture in context and to be able to make the credibility and reliability assessment in respect of this evidence at a later stage.

With respect to Person B’s evidence, the Panel noted that the reason for non-attendance was unsatisfactory and that there appeared to have been little effort to secure attendance at a hearing to give evidence remotely. The Panel wished to test the evidence of Person B but on balance determined that it would be unfair to exclude hearsay evidence and determining the reliability, credibility and weight given to the evidence would be a matter for a later stage.

Late Papers

On day 2 of the Hearing the following papers were sought to be received although late on behalf of the Teacher:

1 ATOL Certificate with Flight Details, dated 26 November 2018

2 Email from Person Bto Teacher, dated 22 April 2026

3 Important Information about Your Holiday Document, undated

4 Jet 2 Holiday Terms and Condition, undated

There was no objection to the late lodging of these papers from the Presenting Officer.

The Panel determined that it was in the interests of fairness for the Late Papers to be received late and admitted to the Hearing Papers.

On day 3 of the Hearing the Teacher sought that the following be received although late on behalf of the Teacher:

1 Stage 2 Statement – Teacher, dated 23 April 2026

There was no objection to this being lodged late and the Panel decided that it was in the interests of fairness and completeness for this to be lodged as a late paper and admitted to the hearing papers.
‍

Allegation(s)

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1 Between August 2017 and November 2018, whilst employed by Glasgow City Council as a teacher at [redacted], the Teacher did:

(a) travel on public transport alone with Pupil A;

(b) drive Pupil A alone in her car;

(c) invite Pupil A to her home;

(d) cuddle Pupil A on her couch; and

(e) engage in sexual acts with Pupil A, who was then under the age of 18, including:

(i) rubbing her bottom against his penis;

(ii) performing oral sex on him;

(iii) allowing him to insert his fingers into her vagina.

2 Between 28 November 2018 and June 2019, whilst employed by Glasgow City Council as a teacher at [redacted], the Teacher did form and maintain a sexual relationship with Pupil A, then aged 17 years of age.

3 Between June 2019 and a date currently unknown in 2022, the Teacher did maintain a sexual relationship with Pupil A, then aged between 17 and 20 years of age and, in July 2021 gave birth to his child.

And in light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and she is unfit to teach having breached Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.6 and 2.3 of the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC).
‍

Teacher’s admissions

1 The Teacher admitted allegations 1(a) and 1(b).

2 The Teacher admitted allegation 3 with the following amendment:

‘Between December 2019 and a date unknown in 2022 the Teacher did maintain a sexual relationship with Pupil A, then aged between 18 and 20 years of age and, in July 2021 gave birth to his child.
‍

Hearing Papers

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

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1 Notice of Full Hearing, dated 23 October 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt

2 Virtual Hearing Application Decision Annex, dated 28 May 2025

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

1 Notice of Presenting Officers Case Form, dated 20 May 2024

2 Teacher’s response to Notification of Investigation x 2, dated 30 June 2021

3 Police Statement – Pupil A, dated 17 June 2022

4 Supplementary Police Statement – Pupil A, dated 21 June 2022

5 Police Statement – Person C, dated 20 June 2022

6 Police Statement – Person A, dated 20 June 2022

7 GTC Scotland statement – Person C, dated 18 July 2023

8 GTC Scotland statement and appendix – Person A, dated 30 August 2023

9 Response from Teacher, dated 14 November 2023 with attachments:

• Email from Pupil A to Teacher’s Representative, dated 19 September 2023

• Text Messages

• Bank of Scotland bank statement, dated 25 to 31 July 2017

• Description of video clip

10 Emails between Investigating Officer and Teacher’s Representative, dated 20 November 2023

11 Emails between Investigating Officer and Teacher's Representative, dated 2 November 2023
‍

Teacher’s hearing papers

1 Notice of Teacher’s Case Form, dated 15 July 2024

2 Statement of Teacher, dated 15 July 2024

3 Statement of Person B, dated 15 July 2024

4 Statement of Pupil A, dated 4 April 2025

5 Email from Pupil A, dated 19 September 2023
‍

Witness Evidence

The Panel heard from the Teacher and from Person C at Stage 1 of the Hearing. Both witnesses gave oral evidence to the Panel. The Panel, as previously set out in this decision, admitted the Hearsay Evidence of Pupil A, being the initial report to the school as taken by Person A, his initial statements accusing the Teacher to the police, and his statement to the Teacher’s former solicitor retracting the allegations previously made to them. They also admitted the GTC Scotland and police statements of Person A and the statement of Person B.

The Panel also heard from the Teacher at stage 2 of the Hearing.

Summary of Evidence – Stage 1

Witness Person C

Person C confirmed her police statement and adopted it as her evidence. She confirmed her GTC Scotland statement signed 18 July 2023 as being true and accurate. She confirmed that Pupil A finished sixth year but was still enrolled until June 2019. He would have not been attending school but was on exam leave from April 2019 and was still attending school for exams prior to being removed from the school roll at the end of June 2019. She advised that Person A’s office was next door to her own and that she was in Person A’s room when Person A took the call from Pupil A. The call was not on speaker phone.

It was her evidence that it was not standard practice to drive pupils’ home in a teacher’s own vehicle. There would require to be consent forms from the parents and it was not normal practice that met the professional standard incumbent upon Teachers to give pupils lifts in a Teacher’s private vehicle. The witness was not aware of the Teacher having had permission granted to drive the pupil home alone.

On cross-examination this witness could not comment on Pupil A’s character as she had no relationship with him. She did confirm that there were no notable events and nothing significant that she was aware of in his time at the school. He had not come to the attention of pastoral care.

Person C gave evidence that Person A told her what Pupil A had disclosed and she had no reason to doubt it. She stated that she did not know whether Pupil A was speaking the truth or not. There were no panel questions.
‍

The Teacher

The Teacher adopted her statement, signed 15 July 2024 as her evidence in chief which appears at page 117 of the bundle and read it into evidence excluding paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 upon which she was no longer relying.

It was the Teacher’s evidence that she had had sexual relations with Pupil A in December 2019 for the first time in her home.

She gave evidence that on Boxing Day 2018, she was not in the company of Pupil A but was at her mum’s house with her brother, prior to their departure in the early hours of the following day to go on holiday together to Tenerife.

She advised at the time that the child was born, she and Pupil A were no longer in a relationship. She gave evidence that she had travelled with Pupil A and two other advanced higher female pupils on the train back from seeing a performance in Edinburgh. They had left home from the station, her car was parked there, and she had given all three of them a lift home letting the others out before dropping Pupil A off. It was the Teacher’s evidence that she had permission from the Head of Drama to do that. She would sometimes give pupils a lift home from Eastwood Park Theatre if it were late at night, and the Teacher’s evidence was that her manager knew she was giving lifts home after the rehearsals. She gave evidence that it was her understanding that consent forms had to go to parents for pupils in fifth year and below for trips and for where teachers oversaw travel arrangements but were not required in respect of lifts.

The Teacher gave evidence that she believed the allegations she denied, had been made maliciously by Pupil A when he found out that she was going on a date. She gave evidence that while Pupil A was on the phone to the school making the report spoken to in evidence by Person A and Person C, he was messaging her. The Teacher had screenshotted those messages and these were included in the evidence bundle. The messages that she referred to had been exchanged in 2022 by which time their child was born. She confirmed the messages at pages 82, 83, 84 and 85 of the evidence bundle. The Teacher gave evidence that she believed these showed malicious intent behind the allegations made.

She was no longer in contact with Pupil A although he had emailed her regarding other matters recently seeking legal advice from her; she had not replied.

The Teacher accepted in cross-examination that she had been alone on public transport and in a car with Pupil A as set out in the allegations,  She confirmed under cross-examination that the sexual relationship did not commence until 26 December 2019 and that by that stage Pupil A was not a pupil and she was not actively employed as teacher and teaching. She gave evidence that there was a more friendly atmosphere in the department in which she worked and that a lot of the older pupils helped with the younger pupils and Pupil A was one of the older pupils who assisted regularly.

She gave evidence that there had been contact through the school drama department Instagram account, which was a group account that was open to all drama teachers and pupils. Contact had been limited through the Instagram account because all of the teachers and students could see the messages, but she had liked a message whereby Pupil A had wished her a safe flight.

She gave evidence that she had felt very uncomfortable and had asked him to leave the Uber when they had had an Uber journey together, but that she had not reported it and her reason for not doing so was that it had already happened and therefore it was not necessary to do so. She told the Panel that she had an open and transparent relationship with her head of department but despite this did not report to him that Pupil A had followed her, looked through her phone, and had been in an Uber with her, notwithstanding the distress she said these incidents caused her at the time.

The Teacher was asked why Pupil A would not give false evidence to the effect that the relationship had been sexual from the outset if he was trying to ruin her career, but she said that certain events Pupil A recalled were truthful, but that they took place at a later date. She stated that Pupil A would come to her classroom without being invited and she often felt uncomfortable with him. It was the Teacher’s evidence that Pupil A’s recollection as to the details of sexual conduct was accurate, but it had happened at a different time from when he said. She stated that Pupil A was lying about when these sexual events took place, they did happen, but they did not happen in 2018. The Teacher stated that the events happened from 26 December 2019 onwards.

She confirmed that she left for Tenerife in the early hours of 27 December 2019 and was able to produce evidence that vouched for her trip.

It was her evidence that she and Pupil A did not have each other’s phone numbers but had simply messaged via the Teacher’s Instagram account via direct message. They had not followed each other. The Teacher’s evidence was that this was not an attempt to conceal their relationship. The Teacher advised that she no longer considered it appropriate for them to have had a relationship but at the time they commenced the relationship it was her view that she had left the profession and he was not a pupil and therefore it was not inappropriate. The Teacher confirmed that she was aware of COPAC and was unclear as to whether she was still registered. She was also generally unaware of her responsibility regarding her registration.

During panel questioning, the Teacher gave evidence to the effect that she had continued to undertake supply teaching after she had left the school in question and while she was in a relationship with Pupil A. She confirmed that there had been a period where they had not had a sexual relationship but had moved on to friendly messaging. She believed that other teachers gave lifts to pupils after late night rehearsals or school trips and that this was commonplace. It was her evidence that she had always been honest and transparent with her head of department, and she did not find that inconsistent with her failure to report the concerning Uber trip. At that stage she was simply not wanting to make a big deal out of things. The Teacher stated that there had been a lot of messages once Pupil A had direct messaged her on Instagram, when she was travelling in the USA, giving her information regarding baseball, etc., and communication had escalated from friendliness from there. She stated that there had been almost daily messages but no sexual contact whatsoever until 26 December 2019.

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on the Facts Alleged

The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to find allegations 1(a) and (1b) proved by way of admission. With respect to the partial admission of allegation 3, subject to the start date of 2019, the Presenting Officer submitted that on the evidence, the Panel could find allegation 3 proven as set out in that it was more likely than not that the sexual relationship continued from the period that Pupil A was in school until 2022. The Presenting Officer submitted that if the allegation were not found proven as set out, the Panel could itself make an amendment to the allegation, in terms of Rule 2.8.4, if they found proven that the sexual relationship commenced after Pupil A had left school.

Turning to the evidence, the Presenting Officer submitted that Person C and Person A were reliable and credible, but it was acknowledged that neither were witnesses to direct facts.

With respect to Pupil A, it was submitted that, while it was unfortunate that Pupil A had not attended the Hearing in order that his evidence might be tested, there was a clear motive for Pupil A in the Teacher having a favourable outcome, given the teacher was the mother of his child.

The Presenting Officer drew particular attention Pupil A’s evidence, namely the several reports made to both Person A and Police Scotland, these statements being consistent with one another. The nature of these statements included specific and detailed information and were not exaggerated and therefore could be determined to be an accurate reflection of the relationship between the pupil and the Teacher.

The Panel were invited to accept the evidence of Pupil A as reliable and credible.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Teacher was lacking credibility. It was submitted that it was inherently improbable that, in the absence of a romantic relationship before the Teacher’s return from America, a sexual relationship would then commence immediately upon her return.

Further, it was submitted on behalf of the Presenting Officer, that the Teacher’s evidence in respect of the Uber journey was lacking in credibility, particularly given her own evidence that she had an open and transparent relationship with her department head, yet she chose not to report the behaviour of Pupil A, which she found disturbing.

Similarly, it was submitted that the Teacher gave evidence lacking in credibility with respect to the Instagram communication. Further, it was submitted that the Teacher, on occasion, when questioned, could be evasive rather than being straightforwardly candid.

The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to find allegations 1(c) and (e) proved on the balance of probabilities on the basis that there was clear evidence which, it was submitted, was reliable and credible in the form of the Pupil A’s Police Scotland statements.

In respect of allegation 2, it was submitted that there was sufficient evidence to establish that this was more likely to have happened than not, given Pupil A’s Police Scotland statement. Pupil A had a clear, detailed recollection of what had occurred on 26 December 2018.

The Panel was invited to prefer Pupil A’s evidence over the Teacher’s in respect of allegation 3 and the allegation should be found proven, as set out.
‍

Teacher’s Submissions on the Facts Alleged

The Teacher admitted allegation 1(a) and 1(b), and allegation 3 was admitted on the basis that the sexual relationship with Pupil A was maintained from 26 December 2019, by which time pupil A was 18 years of age. The Teacher denied that she maintained a sexual relationship with pupil A from June 2019. The Teacher gave evidence in terms of a signed written statement dated 15 July 2024, which was read into evidence and additionally gave oral evidence. The Teacher answered questions under cross examination and further answered Panel questioning. It was submitted on her behalf that she gave her evidence in a clear and forthright manner and that she was both reliable and credible. It was submitted that her evidence bore greater weight given that it had been tested by cross examination, and that her evidence should be preferred over that of Pupil A where his evidence contradicted hers.

It was further submitted that, as Pupil A had retracted the evidence which he gave to Police Scotland, that the Panel had no means of assessing his credibility or reliability. This was of particular importance where his evidence was contradicted by the Teacher’s direct evidence which had been tested by cross examination. Pupil A’s evidence was also contradicted by the independent evidence of the holiday booking confirmation and the supportive evidence of Person B.

The Panel were asked to refer themselves to the GTC Scotland Witness and Hearsay evidence Practise Statement and the Fact Finding in Fitness to Teach Cases Practice Statement.

It was submitted on behalf of the Teacher that if the Panel decided not to attach weight to Pupil’s A’s statement of retraction dated 4 April 2025, it must adopt the same approach to the evidence given by Pupil A and his two prior statements to Police Scotland.

It was submitted on behalf of the Teacher that the evidence of Person A was, at its highest, only evidence of what Pupil A had told her and added nothing to the evidence of Pupil A. The same submission was made in respect of the evidence of Person C, which was evidence of what she was told by Person A. It was submitted that this evidence carried little weight.

In conclusion, it was submitted on behalf of the Teacher, that her evidence should be preferred where it contradicted the evidence of Pupil A, given that her evidence was supported by independent evidence in the form of the booking confirmation and the evidence of Person Band the limited weight which could be attached to the evidence of Pupil A, Person A and Person C. On this basis it was submitted that the Presenting Officer had failed to discharge the onus upon them to prove the disputed allegations on the balance of probabilities.

Panel Consideration and Findings on Facts  
‍

Credibility and Reliability

Person B

The Panel noted that this witness’s reasons for non-attendance were slight, given this was a remote hearing, and the witness could always have given evidence remotely even had these proceedings taken place as an in person hearing as originally planned. The Panel determined that they required to treat this evidence with caution given that the witness was the Teacher’s brother and they had not heard from him in person nor did they find his reason for non-attendance compelling. They noted the vagueness with respect to exact dates, travel arrangements and timing but on the balance of probabilities they were prepared to accept this evidence which was supportive of the Teacher's position and supported by the travel document evidence admitted  as late papers, that the family had holidayed together departing in the early hours of 27 December 2018. They accepted as reliable and credible his evidence that the Teacher was with him, and their mother, without Pupil A on Boxing Day 2018.

Person A

The Panel had some concerns with respect to the lack of vouching regarding the witness’s non-attendance but noted that this was a Depute Head Teacher giving evidence to the Regulator. They found her evidence to be credible and reliable; her police statement had been given 6 days after the phone call from Pupil A and was consistent. The Panel found there to be an absence of motivation other than to tell the truth for Person A and that this witness had no significant relationship with either the Teacher or Pupil A. There was an absence of bias, and her evidence was assessed as being wholly reliable, credible, and properly limited to a factual record of a disclosure made by Pupil A to this witness. Person A confirmed she had told Person C of the disclosure and that Person C had been present when she herself took the call from Pupil A.

Person C

The Panel assessed this witness as being entirely reliable and credible. She was professional in the way she gave her evidence in a straightforward and relevant way without embellishment. She simply spoke to what she had heard had been disclosed to Person A, her recollection was good and consistent with her police statement and supported the evidence of Person A and other evidence in the case. This witness was without bias or any motivation to favour either party and adjust her evidence accordingly. They assessed her to be reliable and credible, and the Panel accepted her evidence as given in its entirety.

Pupil A

Pupil A's reasons for non-attendance were that he did not wish to support the process he initiated. The Panel noted they were unable to assess this witness’s demeanour or have his evidence tested by cross-examination.

The Panel found his evidence to be credible and reliable in part. Pupil A's evidence in his initial disclosure to Person A and in his first two police statements was consistent in parts with the Teacher’s own account, particularly with respect to their time together in the classroom, lifts, and the fact that they had a sexual relationship. The significant difference in the evidence of Pupil A and the Teacher was the date of commencement of their sexual relationship.

Pupil A gave evidence in the form of his first two police statements of a developing intimate relationship while he was a pupil culminating in a full sexual relationship beginning on 26 December 2018, while he was still a pupil. There were two different statements to the police which were consistent with each other but entirely inconsistent with his subsequent retraction statement given to the Teacher’s former solicitor.

The Panel assessed that this witness was not well placed to be objective, he was a young person at the time of the events, and these were allegations of grooming. Pupil A had greater knowledge of the circumstances given that the relationship happened to him.

They noted his inconsistency in position having retracted his police statement in full; this could only adversely affect his reliability and credibility.

The Panel did not assess Pupil A’s account as being wholly fabricated as all the sexual events he recounted did happen, according to the Teacher’s own account, albeit in a different time period. The Panel noted that this witness could be motivated to change the dates to get the Teacher into trouble, or conversely to protect the Teacher as the mother of his child.

The Panel decided the timeline was crucial and the Panel noted the very specific details given with respect to Pupil A’s initial account, that the sexual activity happened in 2018, this would have been a significant event in this witness’s life. They noted that Pupil A pinpointed this in reference to a Chelsea v Watford game, but they also heard evidence from the Teacher that Pupil A had an encyclopaedic knowledge of Chelsea fixtures and would be able to support a fabricated allegation using his knowledge of these fixtures.

The Panel determined on the evidence, that Pupil A had motivation both to give a true and a false account of events which both he and the Teacher agreed had happened, and there was clear demonstrated animosity between parties when Pupil A made the initial disclosures to the School and police.

The Panel noted that Pupil A had phoned the School at a time when there were difficulties in his relationship and that at the time he was making that initial report to the School he was texting and phoning the Teacher advising he would finish her career as a teacher – clear animus and motivation was present. It was possible that he was telling the truth, but the Panel found he was undoubtedly motivated by a desire to harm the Teacher at the time of the initial disclosures.

The Panel found his evidence to be reliable, credible and inherently probable as to what had happened as to the sexual activities but could not find proven on the balance of probabilities that it was more likely to have happened when Pupil A initially said it did, rather than at another time as was supported by the evidence of the Teacher, Person Band the travel documents admitted as late papers.

The Teacher

The Panel noted that the Teacher had co-operated fully with GTC Scotland throughout and that in her demeanour before the Panel she seemed to be truthful and speaking from the heart. The Panel had no reason to doubt parts of her testimony and her testimony was supported by the statement of Person Band indeed the events she narrated were largely consistent with Pupil A’s account, except for the fundamental issue around timing as to when these sexual activities occurred.

The Panel found her evidence with respect to the violent nature and toxicity of the relationship between Pupil A and herself to be believable, reliable, and credible.

The Panel did not accept that she was without motivation to be less than truthful in that she was facing allegations of conduct contrary to professional standards and had motivation to lie. The Panel noted she was in a position to have the best knowledge of what had happened along with Pupil A.

The Teacher’s evidence was inconsistent with that of Person C who provided evidence to the effect that it was very unusual to give lifts. The Panel noted that there was no evidence to support the Teacher’s position that she had permission from her head of department in this regard.

The Teacher’s evidence was inconsistent with respect to the use of the public drama studies Instagram account. The Panel noted their concerns with her lack of specification and supportive accounts from colleagues as to practice and procedure of the operation of the relevant school Instagram account.

The Panel had concerns with respect to the Teacher’s evidence as to neither she nor Pupil A following each other on Instagram as being other than an attempt to conceal their relationship but noted her frank admissions as to the daily communication she had by direct message and Instagram phone calls after she and Pupil A had left the school while travelling.

The Panel noted that despite the Teacher confirming she could have accessed these message and call logs she had not done so and as such there was no external evidence as to the timing or nature of these before the Panel.

The Panel noted that despite the Teacher’s own evidence that she had an open and candid relationship with her head of department she chose not to report to him what she said about Pupil A following her and travelling in an Uber with her to her home address.

The Panel did not accept her evidence in respect of allegation 1(c) as she was clear that she had ordered and paid for the Uber to drive her and Pupil A to her home. They preferred the Teacher’s evidence as to the date of the commencement of sexual relations as it was supported by Person B’s evidence which they found inherently probable and the travel documentation submitted as late papers.

Findings of fact

The Panel considered 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 in terms of rule 1.7.15 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.

Allegation 1(a)

Proven by admission.

Allegation 1(b)

Proven by admission.

Allegation 1(c)

Proven on the balance of probabilities. The Panel preferred the evidence of Pupil A over the Teacher as her evidence was inconsistent regarding this allegation. She ordered and paid for the taxi to go to her home address, and the Panel noted the allegation was that she invited “to” her home not “into” her home.

Allegation 1(d) and 1(e)

Not proven on the balance of probabilities. The Panel determined that both parties accepted these activities occurred but preferred the evidence of the Teacher as regards timing, for the reasons as detailed in the credibility assessment above.

Allegation 2

Not proven on the balance of probabilities.

Allegation 3

The Panel found there to be insufficient evidence to prove that a sexual relationship occurred on the balance of probabilities during that time period. The Panel were of the view that the Presenting Officer had failed to discharge their onus in proving that the time period alleged was more likely to have happened than not.

The Panel noted the Presenting Officer’s submission that the Panel could seek to amend the allegation in terms of Rule 2.8.4 to read “between December 2019 and a date unknown”. The Panel heard representations from both parties, neither of whom objected to the amendment. The Panel thereafter amended the allegation to read:

Between December 2019 and a date currently unknown in 2022, the Teacher did maintain a sexual relationship with Pupil A, then aged between 18 and 20 years of age and, in July 2021 gave birth to his child.

The Teacher confirmed she admitted allegation 3 as amended
‍

Summary of Evidence - Stage 2

Given that the Panel found that [some] 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

The Teacher gave evidence at Stage 2 in relation to her fitness to teach. She read her supplementary statement, which had been admitted as a late paper, into evidence. She stated that she had been open and honest, and that she had reflected carefully on her actions.

It was her position that there had only been two occasions when she travelled alone on public transport with Pupil A. She accepted that the onus was on her to distance herself from an inappropriate situation, but she had been reluctant to do so at the time. It was a lapse of judgement and had not been intentional.

In relation to allegation 1(b), she had only driven Pupil A two or three times in the car. There was no intention of any sexual relationship, but she accepted that it was her duty to maintain professional boundaries, and in this she failed. This was not something she would do again.

The Teacher gave evidence that the sexual relationship had not commenced until after the pupil had left school, and that while he was a pupil, their relationship had been professional at all times, albeit relaxed. She now recognised that she should have maintained clearer boundaries.

In relation to allegation 3, she accepted that the expectations of the profession, particularly in relation to maintaining public trust, did not end when Pupil A ceased to be a pupil. She expressed her regret at undermining public trust and confidence in the profession. At the time, she genuinely believed there was no reason she should not be in a relationship with the pupil, but she accepted this was not correct and confirmed that she would never do this again. She had learned a valuable lesson.

It was her position that she had treated Pupil A the same as all other students, whilst he was at school. She said that this had all happened six years ago, and that she was a different person now. She was a single parent with a child with complex needs and at the time she was extremely vulnerable. She now had the benefit of therapy and medication and was embarking on a new career.

She understood how her past may be perceived, and GTC Scotland’s role in maintaining public trust, but asked that her past not define her future.

On cross-examination, she confirmed that she would be better at maintaining boundaries and would ensure to report any behaviour, such as a pupil following her, to her department head.

She gave evidence in response to Panel questioning that she had continued with supply teaching while in a relationship with Pupil A. She stated that she would have continued with supply teaching had COVID not occurred. She wanted to continue, in order to have financial security, but when undertaking her recent studies, she realised that she could not do both at the same time. She was unsure whether she was currently registered with GTC Scotland.

She confirmed that she had undertaken lengthy therapy sessions and now worked with a charity with young people who had complex needs and she also assisted with a homeless project. She was aware of COPAC, and she provided evidence that it was her view that the impact upon a pupil entering a sexual relationship with a former teacher could initially be a confidence boost, at least as far as her experience of Pupil A was concerned. However, she appreciated that his future relationships and trust could be negatively impacted, and that young people should be protected.

It was the Teacher’s evidence that she had not abused her position and had not intentionally breached professional standards. However, she recognised that she should have maintained professional boundaries and offered assurances that this would not happen again in the future, given her current insight and reflection.
‍

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on Fitness to Teach

The Presenting Officer referred the panel to the Public Services Reform (GTC) Order 2011 and the GTC Scotland Indicative Outcomes Guidance. It was his submission that the Teacher’s conduct fell significantly below the standard which was expected. It was in the public interest for confidence to be upheld, and for the standards of the profession, the profession itself, and the regulator to be maintained, and for there to be an element of deterrence.

The Presenting Officer referred the panel to the leading case of Roylance v GMC 2000 1 AC 311 and submitted that the Teacher had breached multiple Rules and further breached COPAC, by failing to be mindful of professional boundaries beyond the pupils’ leaving date. He submitted that the Panel was required to consider whether these breaches were capable of remediation and whether or not they had been remedied at the current date.

He referred the panel to the Fitness to Teach Indicative Outcomes and the three-stage process required to be undergone. The Presenting Officer invited the panel to find that the allegations proven amounted to serious misconduct and breaches of the Rules and COPAC, and to find that as there was limited evidence of any developed insight or remediation such that the teacher’s fitness to teach was currently impaired.
‍

Teacher’s Submissions on the Fitness to Teach

The Teacher’s representative referred the panel to the Fitness to Teach and Conduct Cases guidance and to the Practice Statement published in October 2025, as well as the three-step process.

He submitted that the allegations were serious, but not so serious that the conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher. It was submitted on behalf of the teacher that the level of seriousness had not been increased by any aggravating factors. There was no history of concerns, although the conduct was not an isolated incident.

It was further submitted that the Teacher had shown genuine reflection and remorse. She acknowledged that she should have behaved differently and would do so in the future. She had demonstrated sufficient insight to remediate the conduct and to mitigate the risk of repetition.

It was accepted that there was no independent verification of the steps taken by the teacher; however, she had given evidence in a heartfelt and credible manner as to her current circumstances, which made the risk of recurrence unlikely.

The Teacher had engaged openly and consistently throughout the process, and the conduct was now some 6 years old. She had taken protective steps in the form of therapy and medication, and was now pursuing an alternative career, with a continued commitment to accountability. Her circumstances were different from those at the time of the conduct.

While the seriousness of the allegations found proven was acknowledged, it was submitted that impairment did not follow automatically. It was argued that the statutory test for impairment was not met, given the level of insight, the change in circumstances, and the lack of risk of repetition.

It was submitted on behalf of the Teacher that, if the panel disagreed and their finding took them to step 3, there was no overriding public interest in making a finding that the Teacher’s fitness to teach was impaired.
‍

Findings on fitness to teach

The Panel referred to the Fitness to Teach in Conduct Cases Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement published in October 2025.

The Panel noted in determining Fitness to Teach it should adopt a three-stage process.

Stage 1 requires the Panel to decide whether the facts proved mean that the Teacher’s conduct at the time fell short of the expected professional standards. It is accepted by the Teacher that her actions fell short of the expected professional standards therefore the Panel is required to move to move onto Stage 2 and to determine whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

Stage 2 requires the Panel to decide whether the shortfalls are (a) remediable; (b) if they have been remedied; and (c) whether is a likelihood of recurrence. The Fitness to Teach in Conduct Cases Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement sets out the factors which the Panel should take into account as part of its assessment.

The Panel found that misconduct was established and referred themselves to page 9 of the indicative outcomes, they found that there had been breaches of Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 2.3 and of the commentary of COPAC.

Part 1.2. The Teacher had committed significant breach of appropriate professional boundaries, and this applied in relation to allegations 1a), 1(b) and 1(c), with particular reference to the commentary where it was made clear that the duty to maintain boundaries extended to after a pupil had left school. On the facts found proven, Pupil A had left school 6 months prior to the commencement of a sexual relationship. The Panel noted that the commentary also included provision that a teacher should not be alone or message pupils or former pupils on social media and that the Teacher had failed to avoid unprofessional conduct. The onus was on the Teacher to distance herself and to be mindful of the professional obligations beyond the time when the pupil had exited education.

Part 1.3. The Panel found the breach of Rule 1.3 which is conduct which calls into question the Teacher’s Fitness to Teach. She had been alone with Pupil A outside of school in an Uber and had failed to avoid that or to report it. This called into question her fitness to teach particularly in the context that she has then established a relationship with that pupil six months after he had left school. The Panel noted that in response to Panel questioning she was able to confirm that she had continued supply teaching after leaving the previous post during which she had met Pupil A. She demonstrated limited insight into the impact upon a pupil who had recently left school and then commencing a sexual relationship with a Teacher. In the words of the Teacher, she believed this to have initially been a confidence booster for the pupil in question.

Part 1.6. The Teacher had failed to maintain awareness of being a role model to pupils. She had continued teaching as a supply teacher in the school while in a relationship with her former pupil, Pupil A. While allegations 1(a),1(b),and 1(c) could be errors in judgement or inexperience, Allegation 3 was a clear breach of Rule 1.6.  the Teacher's conduct meant that it would be unclear who the Teacher was to Pupil A as she had failed to set and maintain boundaries. She could not be said to be a positive role model who motivated and inspired pupils. Pupils of school age spend a significant proportion of their time at school, and the Teacher had failed entirely in her pivotal role regarding child protection. The Panel found that the conduct fell short of expected professional standards at the time.

Part 2.3. the Teacher had failed to be mindful that professional boundaries can extend beyond a learner’s educational establishment leaving date, and by commencing a relationship with Pupil A six months after he left school, she had failed to exercise care and proper professional judgment. That lack of care and judgment extended further when she undertook and intended to continue supply teaching while in a relationship with Pupil A.

Turning to consider the evidence alongside the Indicative Outcomes' Guidance, the Panel noted that the age of the behaviour was now 6 years ago. They assessed the risk of harm and found that safeguarding children is a primary responsibility of a teacher. Her failure to do this called her fitness to teach into question. There were substantial and significant degrees of harm and risk of harm given the 10-year age gap. This was at the higher end of seriousness wherein the teacher had formed a sexual relationship with a former pupil.

The Panel found it mitigating that she had engaged with the process, but the seriousness was not adequately mitigated as Pupil A had left school such a short period of time prior to the commencement of the sexual relationship. Pupil A was a vulnerable individual as a young person and former pupil. The Panel found it established that while there was not a series of pupils involved it was a pattern of behaviour in failing to maintain boundaries while in a pupil teacher relationship which then progressed 2 months later into personal messaging and 6 months later into sexual activity. This was an escalation of failures to maintain boundaries and fulfil professional responsibility both while in the teacher pupil relationship and after the pupil had exited education. The Panel found the Teacher failed to demonstrate sufficient insight to remediate her conduct and to minimise risk of repetition. While she demonstrated some genuine remorse and regret her level of insight into the consequences of her behaviour was superficial, it was self-focused and there was no learning demonstrated from the therapy which she had undertaken or any vouching of the therapy or its focus.

The Panel determined that the Teacher failed to see the wider context and saw herself as a victim and while she was remorseful, had no awareness of the impact of her behaviour on Pupil A, the reputations of the profession or public confidence. The Teacher’s lack of understanding of these other points of view other than her own, suggested that developed insight was absent. The Panel found the Teacher minimised her wrongdoing and the fact she went straight back into supply teaching while in a relationship with a former pupil showed no awareness of her wrongdoing. She had not demonstrated any learning or resilience to protect against future risk, her response to Panel questioning with respect to the potential impact on a pupil and Pupil A in particular as a sexual activity with their former teacher would be a confidence boost was highly indicative of a complete lack of insight.

The Panel noted that there were no references or testimonials and therefore could give less weight to her evidence of remediation and lack of risk of repetition in the absence of independent verification.

Taking all of the above-mentioned factors into account, the risk of reoccurrence could not be said to be absent. The Panel also noted that whilst the Teacher was at the very early stage of her career, she was not particularly young.

The Panel noted the Teacher’s health conditions and previous personal difficulties and [redacted] but also there was limited independent evidence or vouching of these and no clear link between these circumstances and the behaviour found proven.

The Panel determined that the risk of repetition remains high in the absence of insight and learning. The Panel noted that the Teacher was now pursuing an alternative career subject to professional regulation but remained concerned that the Teacher had been unaware of current registration status.

The Panel were prepared to accept that she was now a more mature individual but were concerned about the lack of genuine reflection and insight into impact and her current lack of awareness of professional regulation.

The Panel found that the Teacher failed to maintain appropriate boundaries and that her lack of developed insight presented a current risk to herself and others, the behaviour had not been remedied and there was a likelihood of reoccurrence. On this basis, the Panel found her fitness to teach impaired at the current date.

On considering how far short she fell of the professional standards, the Panel determined that there was a significant falling short given the seriousness of the circumstances, lack of insight and lack of evidence of remediation. They also noted the lack of references and there being no evidence of training in relation to boundaries or resilience. The Panel were of the view that the public interest was engaged. They noted the importance of maintaining confidence in the profession and the regulator. The Panel were of the view that a reasonably informed member of the public would expect the regulator to consider the conduct displayed fell significantly short of what was expected by a teacher. The Panel had a duty to declare the full standards and ensure a deterrent effect. The Panel therefore found the teacher unfit to teach.

Disposal – Stage 3

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.
‍

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on Disposal

The Presenting Officer referred the panel to the Indicative Outcomes Guidance in determining the time period for prohibition and application for re-registration. It was the Panel's task to uphold the public interest, consider the interests of the Teacher and look at the evidence of remediation and risk of repetition, and to make a fair and proportionate decision, taking into account the relevant factors considered at stage two of the process.

In the Presenting Officer’s submission, a 2-year prohibition period was the appropriate disposal. This was a serious matter involving abuse of trust and was not an isolated incident with limited insight and a clear risk of repetition. Given the lack of current evidence of remediation, a 2-year prohibition period would be an adequate amount of time and opportunity to show that remediation had been achieved.
‍

Teacher’s Submissions on Disposal

On behalf of the Teacher, it was submitted that the panel should refer themselves to the Indicative Outcomes Guidance, have proportionate regard to the mitigating as well as the aggravating factors set out at Stage 2. The Teacher’s Representative drew the Panels attention again, to evidence of remediation and submitted that the Teacher's current personal circumstances, insight and remediation meant there was minimal risk of repetition, which in the Teacher’s submission justified a fair and proportionate prohibition against re-registration of less than 2 years.
‍

Findings on Disposal

The Panel heard submissions with respect to the length of period of prohibition for re-registration and the Panel took into account the indicative outcomes guidance at page 20 and considered the evidence and remediation and risk of repetition and what would be fair and proportionate in all the circumstances. They determined that this matter was serious and involved abuse of trust that there was limited insight, a risk of repetition and current lack of evidence of remediation. The Teacher would need an adequate amount of time and opportunity to show remediation had been achieved and therefore determined that a 2-year prohibition period was the appropriate disposal.

Once the Teacher’s name has been removed from the Register, her name remains so removed unless and until an application for re-registration is made by her and a Fitness to Teach Panel considers that the Teacher is fit to teach at that time and directs that the application be granted. Rule 2.10.6 outlines that a Panel may direct that the Teacher be prohibited from making such an application until the expiry of such a period, not exceeding 2 years, as it may determine.

In this case, the Panel directed that the Teacher should be prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of 2 years. This period will begin 28 days after the date of service of the Decision Notice or on conclusion of any appeal raised as outlined below. The Panel considered that a shorter time period was inappropriate as set out above. For clarity, the Teacher will not be automatically reinstated to the Register at the end of this period. The time period sets out how long the Teacher has to wait until an application for re-registration, which may or may not be granted, can be made. To be granted, a Fitness to Teach Panel would require to determine that any applicant is fit to teach at that time.
‍

Appeal

The Teacher has the right to appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of service of the Decision Notice. The Teacher’s name will remain on the Register until the appeal period has expired and any appeal lodged within that period has been determined.

‍