Full Hearing - Conduct - Teacher C
Definitions
Any reference in this decision to:
- “GTC Scotland” means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
- the “Panel” means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case;
- the “Rules” (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them; and
- the “Register” means the GTC Scotland register of teachers.
Procedural Matter(s)
The Panel noted that on 31 March 2025 the following applications had been granted in relation to this hearing:
- for this hearing be held virtually under Rule 1.7.6 of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules.
- for Person B’s Police Scotland Witness Statement be admitted under Rule 1.7.17 of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules; and
- that this hearing be held in private and that the Teacher’s name be anonymised in future written decisions under rule 1.7.3 (a) and (b) of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules.
Allegation(s)
The following allegation(s) were considered at the hearing:
Whilst employed by [redacted] as a Principal Teacher of Chemistry at [redacted], the Teacher did:
- Between in or around December 2021 and in or around February 2022, in order to induce Person A into a sexual relationship with him, the Teacher did:
- (a) provide a false name;
- (b) provide a false age; and
- (c) provide a false job title.
- The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1 were dishonest or, in the alternative, lacking integrity.
- In April 2022, the Teacher did:
- (a) pin Person A against a wall;
- (b) grab Person A's testicles; and
- (c) push Person A onto the ground, causing Person A to hit his head.
- Between in or around April 2022 and in or around May 2022, the Teacher did pin Person A against a wall.
- Between, in or around June 2022 and in or around July 2022, the Teacher did:
- (a) act aggressively by shouting and throwing a fan at Person A;
- (b) push Person A away whilst holding a mobile phone, causing injury to Person A's lip and tooth.
- On 17 September 2022, the Teacher did:
- (a) strike Person A with a phone charger, causing injury to Person A's right eye;
- (b) push Person A on to a bed, causing injury to Person A's left eye; and
- (c) grab Person A's arms and push Person A onto the carpet, causing injuries to his elbow, cheek and knees.
In light of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and that he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) 2012.
Hearing papers
In accordance with rule 1.7.17, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:
Presenting Officer’s hearing papers
- Presenting Officer Case Form, dated 6 November 2024
- Scottish Court and Tribunal Service Email, dated 7 March 2023
- Police Scotland Response Letter Containing Summary of Evidence, dated 7 September 2023 with appendices:
- Police Scotland Witness Statement – Person A, dated 6 October 2022 (not in attendance)
- Police Scotland Witness Statement – Person B, dated 24 September 2022 (not in attendance)
- Police Scotland Witness Statement – [redacted], dated 9 October 2022 (not in attendance)
- Police Scotland Witness Statement – [redacted], dated 9 October 2022 (not in attendance)
- Police Scotland Witness Statement – [redacted], dated 25 October 2022 (not in attendance)
- Police Scotland Witness Statement –[redacted], dated 12 October 2022 (not in attendance)
- Police Scotland Images x 3 taken by Person A
- GTCS Witness Statement of Person A, dated 24 October 2023 (attended)
- GTCS Second Witness Statement of Person A, dated 6 December 2023
- GTCS Witness Statement of [redacted], dated 23 November 2023
- Video, dated June 2022 – July 2022
- Injury Image 1, dated 23 September 2022
- Injury Image 2, dated 23 September 2022
- Injury Image 3, dated 23 September 2022
- Injury Image 4, dated 23 September 2022
- Injury Image 5, dated 23 September 2022
- Image of Snapchat Date Stamp, dated 6 August 2022
Teacher’s hearing papers
- Teacher Case Form, dated 27 November 2024
- Teacher's Response to Notice of Investigation, dated 8 March 2023
- Teacher’s Response to Interim Report, dated 20 March 2024
- Teacher’s statement, dated 2 December 2024
- Supplementary Witness Statement – [redacted], dated 11 March 2023
- Witness Statement – [redacted], dated 5 March 2024 (not in attendance)
- Witness Statement – [redacted], dated 11 March 2024 (not in attendance)
- Witness Statement – [redacted], dated 12 March 2024 (not in attendance)
- Witness Statement – [redacted], dated 16 March 2024 (not in attendance)
- Witness Statement – [redacted], undated (not in attendance)
- Witness Statement – [redacted], undated (not in attendance)
- Witness Statement – [redacted], undated (not in attendance)
- Witness Statement – [redacted], undated (not in attendance)
- Witness Statement – [redacted], undated (not in attendance)
- [redacted] Website Screenshot
- [redacted] Website Screenshot
- Video of Person A
- Tinder screenshot 1
- Tinder screenshot 2
- Tinder screenshot 3
- Images of injuries to Teacher’s eye and tooth
- Images of injuries to Teacher’s legs
- Images of bruising to Teacher’s hand(s) and torso
- Letter from [redacted], undated
- Article 1 “The pros and cons of using your real name on dating apps”
- Article 2 “The ultimate guide to online dating”
- Article 3 “Five dating app dilemmas answered by experts”
- Teacher’s response to Final Report, dated 23 May 2024
Servicing Officer’s hearing papers
- Notice of Full Hearing with cover email and delivery receipt, dated 17 December 2025
- Procedural Decision (Remote Hearing, Hearsay, Privacy and Anonymity), dated 26 March 2025
Preliminary issues
The hearing commenced whereupon the Presenting Officer indicated that Person A had emailed the Servicing Officer shortly before the hearing began to advise that he would like to be excused from the proceedings. As he was sole witness for GTC Scotland, the Presenting Officer raised that he may make a potential hearsay application and made submissions for a short adjournment to allow time to contact Person A.
The Teacher’s Representative did not oppose this short adjournment. He indicated to the Panel that he anticipated being instructed to oppose any hearsay application as there would be no opportunity to challenge Person A’s evidence in cross examination.
The Panel convened in private session to consider the Presenting Officer’s application for an adjournment. It considered GTC Scotland’s Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence Practice Statement, Part D.
Private session
The Panel noted Person A’s reasons for non attendance which was that upon receiving the evidence for the hearing, he felt too anxious to continue. The Panel’s view was that the Presenting Officer should be afforded a short window of time to contact the witness. The Panel did not consider it was unfair to the Teacher and considered this to be in the interests of both the public and Teacher. It also paid regard to the general objective set out in Part 1 of GTC Scotland’s Rules which was to deal with cases fairly and justly and in ways which are proportionate, informal and flexible, encourages participation, and avoids delay.
The Panel’s view was that the flexible and proportionate position was to allow the Presenting Officer time to contact the witness and take instructions internally. The Panel resolved to allow 45 minutes for this. No legal advice was tendered to the Panel in private session.
Public session
In the public session, the Panel conveyed its decision to allow time to prepare for both parties and allowed 45 minutes as a realistic timescale. The Presenting Officer submitted that if Person A’s attendance could not be secured then instructions would be taken from GTC Scotland on how it may wish to proceed if the witness would not attend.
Presenting Officer’s submissions
The hearing reconvened whereupon the Presenting Officer submitted that the intended preliminary issue of treating Person A as a vulnerable witness, together with the application to admit late evidence had been superseded by events. Person A was contacted by the Presenting Officer but had reiterated that he was unable to attend the hearing. The implications of this had been explained to Person A who was advised that as he was the sole witness to fact, his non attendance could have an impact on the Presenting Officer being able to prove the case, or the weight to be attached to any hearsay evidence.
The position was that Person A would not attend the hearing due to the recent impact that the forthcoming hearing has had on his mental health, even if the Panel were to grant special measures, including a vulnerable witness order, to assist him in giving evidence. It was explained to the Panel that it was upon receiving his witness bundle that Person A informed the Servicing Officer on the morning of the hearing that he would not be attending. The Presenting Officer submitted that, given this, there was no longer any realistic prospect of proving the allegations as no oral evidence was to be offered from Person A.
The Presenting Officer had taken instructions on whether to seek for Person A’s evidence to be admitted as hearsay. No application was moved and the Presenting Officer’s instructions were to move the Panel to grant a case cancellation under Rule 2.10.9 of the 2017 Rules and in terms of the Practice Statement on Case Cancellation.
The Presenting Officer did not move a hearsay application given the prospects of it succeeding and considering the issue of fairness to the Teacher. Person A was the only witness to fact. The Presenting Officer’s position was that it would not be fair to make a hearsay application. Instead he resolved to proceed by way of a case cancellation application. That application was formally moved to the Panel.
Teacher Representative’s submissions
The Teacher’s Representative took no issue with the Presenting Officer’s analysis of the Rules or evidential picture provided to the Panel. The Teacher was supportive of the case cancellation application, and the Panel was reminded of the general objectives at rules 1.3.7 and 1.3.9 where cases must be dealt with fairly and justly.
The Teacher’s Representative submitted that there was no evidence before the Panel to allow the allegations to be proved. He remined the Panel that the only other evidence was Person B’s statement which had been admitted as hearsay at a prior consideration. He reminded the Panel that the statement was admitted when Person A was intended to be giving evidence. Secondly, that the content of the statement added little, if anything, to the allegations. Further, it was submitted that this hearsay statement contained only what Person B was told by Person A and details of an overheard an argument between the Teacher and Person A. That analysis was submitted to be consistent with the Sheriff’s analysis at the criminal trial.
The Teacher Representative’s submission was that it was accurate to say that there was no evidence to allow the allegations to be established. The Teacher’s Representative referenced R v Galbraith, 1981 1 WLR, 1039. The Legal Assessor cautioned the Panel that the authority had not been produced. Advice was tendered that case law should be produced to the Panel if the Teacher sought to refer to it as a matter of fairness to the Panel and the Presenting Officer. Advice was given that the views of the Presenting Officer should be sought. The Presenting Officer confirmed that he was content for the Teacher’s Representative to make the submission. The Panel determined it should hear the submission and would then consider it in private session.
The Teacher’s Representative directed the Panel to page 1,042 of the judgement in ‘Galbraith’ regarding the matters a decision maker should consider when considering a submission of no case to answer. It was submitted that if there was no evidence to stop the case then the Panel would have a duty to do so. The proposition sought to be drawn from ‘Galbraith’ was that the submission can be:
- upheld when there is no evidence of a crime having been committed; and
- if there is some evidence to support an allegation, but no conviction can be founded upon it.
The Teacher’s Representative relied upon ‘R v Shippey, 1988 5 WLUK 247 QBD’ and the comments of Justice Turner that taking prosecution case at its highest, “it could not take the plums out and leave the duff behind”.
The Teacher’s circumstances were then addressed. It was submitted to the Panel that the investigation had been ongoing since 20 September 2022. The Teacher’s response to the notice of investigation was March 2023. The case had been referred to a hearing in November 2024 and was fixed in December 2025. Therefore the Teacher had been labouring under the weight of it for considerable time and had been acquitted on the criminal standard of proof for some of the allegations before the Panel.
The Teacher’s Representative submitted that the process had a profound impact on the Teacher, and it was sufficiently serious for a prior Panel to order that this decision be anonymised. The Panel was invited to consider that there appeared to be no prospect of Person A giving evidence. It would cause delay which would prejudice the Teacher and other professional witnesses who have made themselves available to the Panel. Both were submitted to be factors for the Panel to regard.
Private session
In private session, the Panel was given advice by the Legal Assessor and directed to Rule 2.5.1 of the 2017 Rules, together with the practice statement for case cancellations. The Panel had regard to the case law relied upon by the Teacher's Representative, copies for which were provided.
The legal advice to the Panel was that the submission made to the Panel by the Teacher’s Representative from ‘R v Galbraith’ was an accurate proposition of its ratio. The Teacher’s Representative’s submission arose in the context of how the Panel should view Person B’s hearsay statement which was before it in evidence. ‘R v Galbraith’ arose in the context of a no case to answer submission in a criminal case, which differed from the regulatory task before the Panel.
The Panel was advised that GTC Scotland does not recognise a no case to answer submission, with regard to paragraph 3.3 of the Case Cancellation Practice Statement. The Panel was advised to view matters through the lens of the case cancellation application and whether the general objectives in rules 1.3.7 and 1.3.8 were met in dealing with cases fairly, justly and avoiding delay as well as in the public interest.
The Panel’s attention was drawn to paragraph 5.3 of the practice statement and rule 2.10.9. That it must be satisfied that that the application is in accordance with the general objective and it is in the public interest to grant the application.
Decision
The Panel considered the case law, together with the written submissions by the Teacher’s Representative and Presenting Officer.
It also reflected on Rule 2.10.9 and the general objectives of whether it was in the public interest to cancel the case in light of Rule 1.3.7 as well as the view that in the circumstances it would be fair and just to accede to the case cancellation given Person A’s position and his unwillingness to participate. Further, it noted there had been an unavoidable material change of position by the Presenting Officer. The Panel noted the full transparency by parties and their submissions. Not granting the application would be unfair on the Teacher as he would not be able to properly answer the case, which would not be proportionate.
The Panel was conscious that the allegations did not relate to the Teacher’s employment and the process was not intended to be punitive. It also acknowledged that compelling the witness to attend would extend the length of time for the process, none of which would be fair upon the Teacher.
The Panel considered the hearsay evidence of Person B and what weight could be attached to it as they had not observed the alleged incident, only the aftermath, hearing an argument and what they were told happened by Person A. The Panel was also conscious that Person B would not be available to answer questions on this evidence.
The Panel considered that a reasonably informed member of the public would be reassured that the Panel had fully considered the application in the round, weighing up parties’ interests. The public would not expect the Panel to continue with a hearing where the primary witness was not giving evidence. Person A was fully aware of the hearing and was aware of vulnerable witness application having been made on their behalf. The Panel concluded that public confidence in GTC Scotland as a regulator would be maintained in the circumstances.
The Panel was content to grant the case cancellation. GTC Scotland sought it and the Teacher supported.
The Panel’s view was that the Teacher’s name, local authority, school and registration number should be anonymised.
Standing the foregoing, the case cancellation application was granted which was communicated to parties in the public session. The Panel advised the Teacher that the case against him was at an end and that there would be no further action taken by GTC Scotland in relation to these allegations.
