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.

Preliminary issues

Four preliminary issues arose at the hearing. Each is discussed in turn below.

(1) Remote Evidence

The first preliminary issue was that the first witness (Child A) had requested to give his evidence remotely. He had sent an email dated 23 August 2025 in which he had expressed concerns that the case would have an adverse impact on his mental health.  Further, he had moved away from Scotland, was currently unemployed, and could not afford to travel to Edinburgh for the hearing.

The Presenting Officer made a submission in support of the application.  He referred the Panel to Rules 1.3.7, 1.3.8, 1.7.6, 1.7.7, and to the June 2025 GTC Scotland Practice Statement on “Remote Hearings and Remote Witnesses”. It was submitted that allowing the witness to give his evidence remotely would allow the hearing to take place in a manner consistent with both the general objective and with ECHR Article 6. It was pointed out that Child A was a vulnerable witness.

The Teacher was represented at the hearing, and his representative did not oppose the application.  

Legal advice was provided to the Panel to the effect that they had been referred to the correct Rules and Practice Statement.

The Panel considered the factors set out in the said Practice Statement of June 2025.  They noted that suitable technology was available that would allow the Witness to participate remotely, for him to be cross-examined, and for him to view relevant documentation whilst giving evidence.  They noted that due to Child A’s personal circumstances it would be difficult for him to participate in proceedings without being able to do so remotely. The fact that he was a vulnerable witness was another factor in favour of granting the application.  

Legal Advice was given to the Panel to the effect that allowing the witness to give evidence would create no significant barriers preventing the Panel from being able to assess the credibility and reliability of Child A’s evidence.

Accordingly the Panel allowed the application for Child A to give his evidence remotely.

(2) Use of a Screen whilst giving Evidence

The second preliminary issue was that Child A had requested that the Teacher could not see him whilst he gave his evidence, and he also requested that the Teacher was not visible to him whilst he gave evidence. This request was also not opposed by the Teacher’s representative.

The Panel noted that a screen was available that would prevent Child A and the Teacher from seeing each other whilst Child A gave evidence.  It was noted that the use of a screen for such a purpose was not uncommon for vulnerable witnesses in proceedings of this nature.  The Panel granted Child A’s request, and a screen was positioned accordingly when Child A later came to give his evidence.

(3) Hearsay Application

The third preliminary issue was a hearsay application in respect of Parent A’s and Parent B’s (hereinafter referred to as Child A’s parents) GTC Scotland statements and Police Scotland statements. Although this issue was raised on the first day of the hearing it was not discussed and considered in full until the second day of the hearing (that being the day on which the said witnesses were due to give their evidence).

In moving the application the Presenting Officer made submissions referring to (a) the public interest (including that of GTC Scotland being an effective regulator of the teaching profession in Scotland); (b) the seriousness of the allegations in the case; (c) the standard of proof in the case; (d) the admissibility of evidence; and (e) the point that if the evidence was admitted, the Panel would then be able to decide what  weight should be attached to the evidence. He referred the Panel to the GTC Scotland Practice Statement of September 2019 regarding “Witness and Hearsay Evidence”. It was submitted that the evidence was all of relevance and connected to the allegations.  He referred to caselaw as follows:

• R (Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin) (cited in support of the proposition that there is no absolute right or entitlement to cross-examine a witness).  
• Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ogbonna [2010] EWCA Civ 1216 (in support of the proposition that hearsay evidence can be admitted where best efforts have been made to secure the attendance of a witness).  
• Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin) (to indicate that reasons for witnesses’ non-attendance was important but not decisive).  
• El Karout v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2019] EWHC 19 (Admin) (which was distinguished on the grounds that in El Karout the court had identified problems with the means by which evidence had been obtained and recorded from the witnesses in question, whereas no such problems arose in the present case).

The Presenting Officer explained that he had taken over the case in mid-August and it had not been deemed proportionate for GTC Scotland to compel the witnesses in question to attend.  It was submitted that the witnesses’ evidence was not the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the facts in issue, that it was not anonymous, that it was of good quality and that GTC Scotland had taken all reasonable steps to secure the attendance of the witnesses.

The application was not opposed by the Teacher’s representative.

Legal advice was tendered to the Panel to the effect that the Practice Statement and caselaw to which they had been referred was all relevant. In response to a comment from the Teacher’s representative it was explained further that whilst the opportunity for an accused person to cross-examine witnesses was an important aspect of the right to a fair hearing under ECHR Article 6, it was not an absolute right. In the current proceedings it should be considered alongside other factors. Those other factors included that the evidence in question did not appear to be controversial, and that the Teacher did not oppose the application.  

The Panel considered the application in private session. They considered the said GTC Scotland Practice Statement on “Witness and Hearsay Evidence” and went through the various factors listed on page 4 thereof. They noted the Witnesses’ explanations of why they felt unable to attend and concluded that these seemed reasonable. They noted that the evidence was not the sole evidence regarding the facts in issue and did not seem likely to be decisive. It was noted that the witness statements were not anonymous, were clear, were signed, and had been taken in controlled circumstances (by Police Scotland and GTC Scotland). The Panel reminded themselves that due to the seriousness of the allegations the evidence would need to be scrutinised carefully and rigorously.  

Taking all of this into account the Panel agreed to grant the hearsay application.

(4) Joint Statement of Facts

The fourth and final preliminary issue was the parties had very helpfully prepared and agreed a “Joint Statement of Facts for the Parties”. The Panel read and discussed this in a private session during which it was noted that the statement contained an apparent inconsistency regarding an address. Parties later clarified that this was a typographical error and that the address stated at paragraph 21 of the Joint Statement should have matched that stated at paragraph 3 thereof.  Subject to this correction the Joint Statement of Facts was admitted and thereafter taken into account by the Panel.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. On 29 December 2018, at an address in Paisley, the Teacher, whilst employed as a teacher in South Korea, did:
   
   • a) In respect of Child A, aged 13:
     
     • (i) kiss Child A,
     • (ii) have oral sex with Child A,
     • (iii) have full penetrative sex with Child A
   • b) engage in the sexual activity as described in allegation (a) above, despite being told by Child A that he was under 16 years of age
2. Between 28 and 30 December 2018, at various places, the Teacher did:
   
   1. a) exchange Snapchat and texts/WhatsApp’s, of a sexual nature, with Child A
   2. b) ask Child A to delete said messages.

And in light of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and he is unfit to teach, as a result of breaching Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher’s representative responded as follows to the allegations:-

• Allegation 1.a was admitted;
• Allegation 1.b was admitted but only under deletion of the words, “despite being told by Child A that he was under 16 years of age.”
• Allegation 2 was admitted but only under deletion of the words “Snapchat and”.
• It was not admitted that the Teacher had breached COPAC, that he was unfit to teach, or that his fitness to teach was impaired.

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

• Notice of Investigation Response Form, undated
• Police Scotland witness statements of:
  
  • Child A, dated 5 March 2021
    
  • Child A, dated 4 January 2019
  • Parent A, dated 8 January 2019
  • Parent B, dated 1 July 2019
  • Person A, dated 3 July 2019
  • Person B, dated 12 April 2019
  • Person C dated 12 January 2019
  • Police Constable A, dated 3 January 2019
  • Detective Constable A, dated 31 May 2019
  • Detective Constable B, dated 31 May 2019
  • Detective Constable C, dated 25 June 2019
  • Police Constable B, dated 12 August 2019
  • Police Constable C, dated 25 June 2019
  • Police Constable D, dated 15 July 2019
  • Police Constable E, dated 27 July 2019
  • Person D, dated 9 August 2019
  • Detective Sergeant A, dated 27 June 2019
  • Detective Constable D, dated 2 July 2019
  • Detective Constable E, dated 27 June 2019
  • Police Constable F, dated 26 July 2019
  • Person E, dated 26 June 2019
  • Detective Constable F, dated 25 January 2020
  • Police Constable G, dated 10 July 2019
  • Person F, dated 31 January 2020
  • Person G, dated 18 February 2020
  • Police Constable H, dated 11 July 2019
• GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Child A, dated 17 October 2022 (attended the hearing)
• GTC Scotland Witness Statement – Parent B, dated 30 September 2022
• GTC Scotland Witness Statement -  Parent A, dated 26 September 2022
• Cybercrime Report, dated 31 May 2019
• Emails between Investigating Officer and Paisley Sheriff Court, dated 27 April 2021
• Police Scotland letter, dated 19 July 2021
• Email from Teacher’s solicitor, dated 3 August 2021
• Email to Child A requesting photograph or video showing him at age 13, dated 7 February 2023
• Delivery Receipt to Child A, dated 7 February 2023
• Response to Interim Report, dated 15 March 2023
• Notice of Investigation, dated 29 July 2019
• Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 9 May 2023

Teacher’s hearing papers

• Notes of evidence of the Criminal Trial, as transcribed by Person H, trainee solicitor at Beltrami and Company Ltd, dated 25 August 2025
• Witness Statement of Person H, dated 8 April 2024 (attended the hearing)
• Expert Assessment and Opinion Report Prepared by Person I MSc, dated 16 February 2021 in Respect of the Application ‘Hornet’ with appendices:
• Appendix A – Hornet Terms and Conditions  
• Witness Statement of Person I, dated 26 August 2025
• Video Recorded Interview of Child A, dated 4 January 2019

Presenting Officer and Teacher’s papers

• Joint Statement of Facts, undated

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 12 August 2025
• Procedural Panel Meeting Decision Annex, dated 11 September 2024
• Procedural Hearing Decision Annex, dated 24 January 2025

Summary of evidence

Witness 1 - Child A

An anonymity application had previously been granted in respect of Child A. Child A was asked how he wished to be referred to during the hearing, and he responded by stating that his preference was to be referred to as ‘Child A’ throughout the proceedings.

Child A was examined by the Presenting Officer. He confirmed his current age (20 years old) and place of residence.  

As listed above, there were 3 witness statements from Child A. After some initial apparent confusion regarding these statements, Child A confirmed that they were all true and correct and that he wished to adopt them as his evidence.  

In response to other questions from the Presenting Officer, Child A recounted some details of the events underlying the allegations. Prior to meeting the Teacher in person on the evening of 29 December 2018 they had previously met online. Initially this was via a dating app known as Hornet which Child A had downloaded in advance of his journey to a family event in England, and had set his geographic location to Paisley.  Having set his location to Paisley, he was able to initiate contact with the Teacher before arriving there. Thereafter they exchanged telephone messages prior to meeting in person. Child A could not remember if he discussed his age in those messages or at any time prior to him getting in the Teacher’s car on 29 December 2018. However, he maintained that he did tell the Teacher his true age during the subsequent car journey to the Teacher’s house.  He stated that he was “pretty sure” of this. To the best of his recollection the Teacher had responded to the effect that the Teacher had never done this with anyone so young.  Under examination from the Presenting Officer Child A was not able to recall further details of what was discussed in the car or of the context around the discussion about age.  

Child A was asked about the WhatsApp messages he had exchanged with the Teacher after their meeting that evening. He could not now remember a lot of the content of the messages but recalled that some of them contained sexual content. He recalled that the Teacher asked him to delete all the messages, but he had not done so.  

Following examination-in-chief Child A was cross-examined at length by the Teacher’s representative. Under cross-examination Child A confirmed that he had initiated contact with the Teacher via the Hornet dating app. Child A accepted that he had lied on his profile on the dating app in stating thereon that his age was 18. After meeting online, Child A and the Teacher had gone on to exchange phone numbers and thereafter messages via telephone.  These included sending “real time” photos on Snapchat to verify each other’s identity.  

After having sexual relations with the Teacher on 29 December 2018 Child A had received a call from his father. Child A explained that he had asked the Teacher to keep quiet during that phone call because he did not want his father to know what had happened.  However, he insisted that this was not because his father did not know of his sexuality at that time.  Child A explained that his father had known of Child A’s sexuality since Child A was around 10 or 11 years old but his father had “never accepted it”. It was put to Child A that this was different to what he had told the Court during the Teacher’s criminal trial in 2021. Further details of the transcript from that criminal trial were not put to Child A at this point in the hearing.  

The Teacher’s representative asked Child A about his interview with Police Scotland on 4 January 2019. Child A could not remember exactly everything he had told the Police on that occasion but accepted that not everything he had said then was true. He accepted that the version of events he gave at that interview painted a “more sinister” picture of the Teacher.  

It was put to Child A that there were numerous discrepancies between what he had told the Police on 4 January 2019 and what he was telling the Panel now. Child A was asked how the Panel could now trust what he was saying to them and Child A said he was “not sure” about this.

Child A maintained, repeatedly, that he told the Teacher his true age during the car journey en route to the Teacher’s house. During cross-examination, Child A said that the car had stopped at traffic lights and then he had told the Teacher his true age. He explained that he did not want his encounter with the Teacher to end at that stage but notwithstanding this he told his true age because he wanted to be honest. He accepted that on 4 January 2019 he had not told the Police the truth about the discussion during the car journey and explained that this is because he was ashamed of letting out the secret of his sexual encounter with the Teacher.  

Child A was asked about messages he had later exchanged with the Teacher. He accepted the possibility that if the Teacher knew his true age then the Teacher might have asked him more forcefully to delete these messages.  

It was put to Child A that he had changed his version of events several times on significant matters. Child A accepted that not everything he had said in the past was true but notwithstanding this he insisted that everything he had said in his oral evidence to the Panel now was true.

During cross-examination there were 2 short breaks. During the second break legal advice was tendered to the effect that the Witness was vulnerable and that he might find it easier to give clear evidence if he was cross-examined using open questions which were clear and concise. After this advice was disclosed to the parties the Teacher’s representative explained that she had no further questions.

The Presenting Officer then re-examined Child A. Under re-examination Child A explained he had a “rough relationship” with his father and that he would not have told his parents of any sexual encounters when he was only 13 years old. In relation to the screenshots of phone messages contained in the papers, Child A explained that he was very inquisitive as a young child, he had been able to access the internet on an iPad since the age of 8 and many of the terms he used in the messages were things he had learnt online.

Child A was asked to clarify why he had previously said he felt ashamed during his police interview of 4 January 2019. He explained that he had wanted to keep his encounter with the Teacher secret, the Teacher had told him it could cause both of them trouble if it was discovered, and Child A felt ashamed because he hadn’t been able to uphold his side of the agreement.

Child A was then asked questions from the Panel. In response to these, Child A clarified that when the Teacher said they could both get into trouble he had thought this was in reference to Child’s A young age. He believed this discussion must have taken place after their encounter.

Child A then went on to say that he could not remember if the Teacher had asked him how old he was, or if Child A had volunteered this information. However he could remember that he told the Teacher during the car journey before the sexual encounter took place.  

Child A could not remember if he exchanged messages of a sexual nature with the Teacher on Snapchat.  

When asked how Child A had felt in the days after the encounter with the Teacher, he maintained that he was not boasting afterwards but he did feel a thrill of having done something that shouldn’t have  done. He went on to say that in more recent times, he had moved to a new area, tried to start a new life, tried to put the whole experience behind him and not give it much thought. He explained that as a result he did feel a bit stressed by the current process which brought the matter back.

Following the Panel’s questions, Child A was cross-examined again by the Teacher’s representative.

During that cross-examination, he confirmed that when he claimed the Teacher said he had never “done this” with someone so young, this was before any sexual activities took place.  He maintained that he could not remember what the Snapchat messages contained although it was possible that they were of a sexual nature. He also explained that when he told his younger cousin about the events, he had been finding it difficult to “bottle up” what had happened to him.  He couldn’t speak to Parent A and Parent B about it.

Witnesses 2 and 3 (Parent A and Parent B)

As previously indicated witnesses 2 and 3 did not attend the hearing and their statements were admitted as hearsay evidence.

Witness 4 – The Teacher

An anonymity application had also previously been granted in respect of the Teacher.

In response to questions from his representative the Teacher confirmed his name and age (currently 40 years old).

He explained that since the events of December 2018 he had received some unfair and unfavourable press attention, which had caused him severe problems with employment. As a result he could not keep up mortgage repayments and had lost his house. Ultimately, he had lost his career, his house, his car, and many other aspects of the life he had previously built for himself. For the last 2 years he had been working in a supermarket.

The Teacher confirmed that he’d met Child A online via the Hornet app through which Child A had held himself out to be 18 years old. Indeed, Hornet’s own terms and conditions prohibited any users under the age of 18. It was Child A who had initiated contact with the Teacher via the app. The Teacher had been using the app in the hope of meeting someone for a casual relationship during his Christmas holidays while he was at home in Scotland for 2 to 3 weeks from his new job abroad. The Teacher said that he was told by Child A that Child A would be travelling from his own home and was going to be passing through Paisley on the way to a family event, and as such the Teacher did not expect to ever see Child A again.  

During all of the Teacher’s interactions with Child A (both online and in person) he had not seen anything that caused him to doubt that Child A was aged 18 as claimed. He described Child A as having been tall, and physically mature. He said that Child A claimed to have had previous sexual encounters.

Regarding the specific events of 29 December 2018 the Teacher recounted that during the initial car journey he and Child A discussed a little about themselves, such as their respective families and their holiday plans. However, he was clear and adamant that there was never any discussion regarding Child A’s true age. This was not discussed in the car, on Snapchat or on any other platform.

He explained that he did not have any agreement with Child A regarding secrecy although he realised that Child A’s family did not know about the encounter and he did not want them to know. This is why he told Child A to delete the phone messages.

Regarding the telephone messages exchanged after the encounter he recalled that these communications were initiated by Child A. He did not want to keep in touch after the event but replied to the messages as a courtesy.

He had no idea that Child A was a child until he was told of the Police investigation. He described the discovery of Child A’s true age in this way as “soul crushing”.  

He had co-operated fully with both the Police and GTC Scotland. He continued to fight the case after being acquitted at trial because he wanted to clear his name and to right the wrong he had suffered.

Under cross-examination the Teacher maintained that Child A never told him his true age. He refuted any claim that Child A was not physically mature at the time they had met. He did not think to ask Child A further about his age because Child A had represented himself online as 18 years old and he did not see anything that caused him to doubt that assertion. He denied that he had a responsibility to take any further steps to verify Child A’s age prior to their sexual encounter.

Regarding the messages he exchanged with Child A after their initial encounter he explained that he was not concerned about them at the time.  He advised Child A to delete them because he recalled Child A saying he had not fully come out as being gay and that his dad would not take it well.  

Regarding the impact of events on Child A the Teacher explained that he had discussed this at subsequent counselling. He acknowledged it was possible that the events could have had a significant psychological impact on Child A and that the events had a significant psychological impact on all parties.

Under re-examination the Teacher explained that when he downloaded and used the dating app he was not doing anything in breach of professional standards. He understood that those standards applied to a teacher’s private life insofar as they required teachers to represent themselves in a professional way in their private lives.  

The Panel then asked the Teacher questions about the messages he had exchanged with Child A after their sexual encounter. He realised that the messages mentioned Child A’s school. To the best of his recollection, he thought there might have been a prior discussion when Child A mentioned being in the last year of school.  He continued to exchange sexualised messages with Child A even after Child A’s mention of school because he maintained that he had been told Child A was 18 and he had no reason to doubt it. He accepted that at least one of the messages discussed from Child A seemed a bit unusual in the context of the casual nature of the encounter.

The Teacher was asked about any professional training he had undertaken regarding safeguarding and child protection. He was able to explain that he had done some training on this but it was some time ago; he had taught the English curriculum and had done so most recently in Saudi Arabia followed by South Korea.  The Teacher had said, in the Response to Initial Investigation, that he and Child A had exchanged Hornet usernames on Snapchat, as this is common practice to avoid being catfished.  In response to Panel questioning, the Teacher said that he felt that, in going into what he considered to be a safe place, such as Hornet or a bar in his leisure time, the assumption is that the people are 18.  

The Teacher’s representative indicated that she had no further questions arising from the Panel’s questioning of the Teacher. However the Presenting Officer did wish to ask further questions. He put it to the Teacher that if Child A was at school in Scotland in December 2018 then this should have suggested to the Teacher that Child A was not yet 18. The Teacher explained that he did not take the reference to “my school” in Child A’s message to mean that Child A was definitely still at school.

Following this the Teacher’s representative asked some further questions.  He maintained that he had thought Child A was 18 years old in December 2018. He could not remember what he thought at the time Child A sent the specific message referring to “my school”. In any case he knew that the age of consent is 16 and he absolutely believed that Child A was older than this.

Witness 4 – Person H

The Teacher’s representative called Person H as a witness. Person H had provided a transcript from the Teacher’s criminal trial and also a statement regarding this. Under oath she was able to provide further details regarding how she had been able to provide a comprehensive transcript by taking contemporaneous notes during the trial, then reviewing the notes soon afterwards, and then later attending Paisley Sheriff Court to check the notes against the tape recording of the trial. She confirmed that the transcript was a true and accurate record.

Under cross-examination she clarified that the transcript related only to Child A’s cross-examination during the trial (not to his examination in chief or to any other parts of the trial).  

The Panel considered Person H’s evidence in private session. During that session they discussed questions that they intended to ask Person H and legal advice was tendered by the Legal Assessor to the effect that the proposed questions all seemed fair and relevant.  

Parties then reconvened and Person H was asked questions from the Panel.  In response to these she clarified that at the trial Child A had given evidence in person, and she had attended in person. It was a long time ago and she could not remember everything clearly. However, to the best of her recollection she thought Child A had presented as quite evasive at trial and she could not remember him appearing distressed at the time.

Documentary and other Evidence

The Panel had before it a number of items of documentary evidence, and also one item of video evidence, all as listed previously above. Particular mention should be made of the following points regarding these items:-

• The Cybercrime Report of Police Scotland dated 31 May 2019 contained screenshots of a number of SMS and WhatsApp messages exchanged between Child A and the Teacher on 29 December 2018 and 30 December 2018. Both Child A and the Teacher were referred to these during questioning before the Panel and parties referred to the messages in their submissions.
• The expert report of Person I dated 16 January 2021 analysed and explained the workings of the Hornet dating app (which Child A had used to initiate contact with the Teacher). Amongst other things the report confirms (1) that Hornet’s terms and conditions require users to be aged 18 or over and (2) that users are asked to state their age when entering their profile on the app.
• There is an email from a Clerk at Paisley Sheriff Court which indicates that the charges against the Teacher were found not proven in his criminal trial.
• Although there was no statement from the Teacher, the papers contained his response (dated 15 March 2023) to GTC Scotland’s  interim investigation report.
• An excerpt of the video of Child A’s police interview on 4 January 2019 was played during the Teacher’s representative’s submissions and this was referred to by her in her submissions.

Procedural Matter – Application for Allegations to be Amended

At this stage it should be noted that a further important procedural issue arose both during and after the giving of evidence stage in the proceedings. This issue was the question of whether the allegations against the Teacher should be amended in line with Rule 2.8.4.

The first time this issue was raised was by the Panel of their own volition. This was on Day 2 of the Hearing. By this time, Child A had already given his evidence, and a decision had been made to admit the hearsay evidence of his parents.

The Panel raised the issue and considered it in private session. The Legal Assessor gave legal advice to the Panel that any amendments to the Allegations could only be made in line with Rule 2.8.4. It was also noted by the Panel that submissions from both parties were required before considering any change to the allegations. The Panel considered that parties might have chosen to conduct the previous parts of their case differently if the allegations had been different from the outset. The Panel decided that it would not be just for them to amend the allegations of their own volition at this stage in the proceedings.  

At a later stage in proceedings, the Presenting Officer made a formal application for the allegations against the Teacher to be amended. This application was made on Day 3 and after the hearing of all the witness evidence. He applied for Allegation 1 (b) to be amended so that it would read as follows:-

“1.…….[T]he Teacher…..did:

b. engage in the sexual activity as described in allegation (a) above, despite:

(i) being told by Child A that he was under 16 years of age; and/or

(ii) being reasonably aware that Child A was under 16 years of age.”

In support of the proposed amendment the Presenting Officer argued that witness evidence had already been tendered which was of direct relevance to the question of how a reasonable person would have perceived Child A’s age at the time of the events in question.  He further added that the amendment would not change the nature of the allegations and that, in all the circumstances, it would not cause any injustice.

The Teacher’s representative indicated that she had been taken by surprise by the proposed amendment and so requested time to provide a considered response to the application. This request was granted, and Day 3 of the proceedings was ended early, with the Teacher’s representative permitted until the next day to provide a response.

The next day the Teacher’s representative indicated that the application to amend the allegation was opposed. She submitted, firstly, that the alleged allegation was not borne out of the evidence heard during the hearing alone. Indeed, some of the evidence relating to the application had been available since 2024. Secondly, she argued that it would change the nature, essence and character of the allegation.  In this respect an analogy was drawn with Section 96(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (which prohibits the amending of an indictment against an accused in criminal proceedings where any such amendment would “change.. the character of the offence charged”). Thirdly, she argued that fair notice had not been provided. In this respect it was emphasised that the motion had been made after the conclusion of all the evidence in the hearing. If it had been made at an earlier stage (or if the allegations had been different at the outset) the Teacher would have conducted his case differently during the evidential stage in proceedings. For example it is likely that he would have objected to the hearsay evidence of Parent B, which touched on this point. He might also have sought to lead evidence of his own (including expert medical evidence) on the issue. If the amendment was permitted now the Teacher would be precluded from doing all of this.  

The Teacher’s representative also referred to caselaw from the criminal courts which was said to support her argument that an amendment at this stage would not be fair or just.  Specifically, she referred to the cases of Stirone v United States 361 U.S. 212 (1960), Boyle (Daniel), Petitioner (No.2) 1993 S.L.T 1085 (1992), Lauchlan & O'Neill v HM Advocate (2015) JC 75 and Nelson v HMA (HCJ, 1994). All of this caselaw indicated that to allow an amendment at this late stage in the proceedings would render the hearing unfair.

The Presenting Officer was granted permission to amplify his submission in support of the application. He submitted that the legislation and caselaw referred to were not applicable to the current proceedings. He argued that had the Teacher’s representative objected to the evidence on which the application relied, then this could have resolved any claimed unfairness.  

The Presenting Officer also referred to caselaw in support of the application to amend. He also quoted caselaw which was said to support the proposition that an allegation could be amended after the conclusion of evidence. This included the cases of Gangar v GMC [2003] UKPC 28 and The Professional Standards Authority v The Health and Care Professions and Anr [2017] EWCA Civ 319 (esp at paragraphs 49 et seq).

The Teacher’s representative was permitted to respond to these further submissions from the Presenting Officer. She reiterated her previous submissions, emphasised that there had not been fair notice of the proposed amendment, and said that essentially it would amount to the goalposts being moved after the evidence had all been delivered.

The Panel considered the issue in private session. They did so in light of the detailed submissions they had now heard on the issue.

Legal advice was provided to the Panel that fair notice is one of the most fundamental aspects of the right to a fair hearing (as protected under ECHR Article 6). This was particularly so in a case considering grave and serious allegations, as in the present proceedings. At the same time, however, ECHR Article 6 is not absolute right and sometimes had to be balanced against other factors such as the public interest. Given the importance of the Article 6 right, it could only be in exceptional cases where it could be fair to amend the allegations after all evidence in the case had been heard. For example, it would not breach the right to a fair hearing if the amendment did not cause any prejudice to either party.  

In relation to the caselaw referred to by the Teacher’s representative, the Legal Assessor advised the Panel that this could be distinguished from the present case. In Gangar the party affected by the amendment was said to be not deprived of an opportunity to present his case.  In the Professional Standards Authority case the facts were different. It was difficult to say what Lindblom LJ had in mind when he had referred, in paragraph 56 of that decision, to “cases where a late amendment of the allegations faced by a registrant will be justified..”.  However the lateness of the proposed amendment in the present case clearly had the potential to prejudice the Teacher in a case which involved very serious allegations against him.

After consideration of the submissions and legal advice the Panel concluded that, in all the circumstances, the proposed amendment could not be made without injustice. Accordingly the Panel refused the application to amend the allegations.

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on the Facts Alleged

The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to Rule 1.7.15 and the GTC Practice Statement of June 2017 on “Fact Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases”. He submitted that the witness evidence of Child A and the hearsay evidence of Parent A and Parent B was all credible and reliable.

It was submitted that any inconsistencies in Child A’s evidence could be attributed to Child A’s emotional state at the times he gave evidence. This included during his initial Police interview dated 4 January 2019 and during the Teacher’s trial in April 2021 (at both of which times Child A was still a child). The inconsistencies related to the evidence he had given on those occasions. Notwithstanding these, in the present proceedings, he had given clear and consistent evidence regarding the events of 29 December 2018.  Crucially, he had given clear and consistent evidence regarding his claim that he had told the Teacher his true age during the car journey to the Teacher’s house on 29 December 2018.

By contrast it was argued that the Teacher’s evidence should not be believed. On the one hand, in his oral evidence the Teacher had said that age was never discussed with Child A prior to their sexual encounter. Yet in his written response to the GTC Interim Investigation Report (pages 150 – 155 of the hearing papers) he had stated that Child A “told me he was 18”.  Separately it was also argued that the Teacher’s claim that he did not take Child A’s reference  to “my school” in a WhatsApp message to mean that Child A was not currently in school was also not credible.

Regarding the only other area of dispute in the allegations the Presenting Officer accepted that there was no evidence of messages of a sexual nature being sent on Snapchat.  He invited the Panel to find Allegation 2 proved under deletion of any reference to Snapchat.

Teacher’s Submissions on the Facts Alleged

The Teacher’s representative made a comprehensive submission on this matter. She pointed out that Child A had been found to have been ‘dishonest’ in numerous matters already. She explained in detail that Child A had given several different, inconsistent versions of the events of 29 December 2018. She invited the Panel to conclude that they simply could not believe the version of events that Child A had provided in his evidence now.

She also submitted that Child A’s evidence was simply implausible in several respects.  For example it was implausible that the Teacher would have sought to commence an illicit relationship on an online dating app. If the Teacher had been told Child A’s true age during their encounter it was not plausible that he would have continued communications via text or WhatsApp thereafter. It was also not plausible that the Teacher would not have been more forceful in his requests that Child A then delete those messages.  

Regarding the messages themselves she also submitted that these did not shed light on the Teacher’s state of knowledge regarding Child A’s true age at the time of their sexual encounter.

In contrast to Child A it was submitted that the Teacher was a credible witness who had given his evidence clearly and consistently. He had already been acquitted of the criminal charges against him and his principal motive in fighting the current proceedings was simply to clear his name.

Regarding Snapchat messages it was reiterated that there was no evidence of any messages on Snapchat and so no evidence to support any reference to Snapchat in Allegation 2. This reference to Snapchat should be deleted from Allegation 2.

Legal Advice re Credibility and Reliability

The Legal Assessor gave the Panel some general Legal Advice regarding their assessments of these matters. He explained that the Burden of Proof is on the Presenting Officer and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Corroboration of evidence was not required.  In the context of the present case, that meant that the absence of third party witnesses to any facts alleged, did not preclude the Panel from finding that those facts occurred. In addition to assessing the credibility and reliability of witness evidence, the Panel was required to consider the credibility and reliability of all evidence. They were required to assess all the evidence holistically when so doing. The Panel’s attention was drawn to the list of factors listed on page 3 of the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Fact-Finding in Conduct Cases. It was also explained that this list was not exhaustive. Whilst consistency is one factor of relevance to a witness’ credibility it is not the sole factor to be considered and is not solely determinative of the matter. The Legal Assessor also clarified that whilst minor inconsistencies in a witness’ evidence  are not always important to the overall assessment of credibility, it was a matter for the Panel as to how much weight to give to such inconsistencies, considering the individual circumstances of the case.

Panel Consideration and Findings on Facts

The principal dispute regarding the facts was whether or not Child A had told the Teacher his true age prior to them having sexual relations on 29 December 2018. The only direct evidence on this issue was the competing witness evidence of Child A and the Teacher regarding what had / had not been discussed during the car journey to the Teacher’s house on that occasion. The Panel was left with the difficult task of determining which witness’ account should be preferred over the other.

The Panel considered the GTC Scotland Practice Statement regarding Fact-Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases. In respect of Child A it was noted that he had appeared nervous when giving his evidence before the Panel. It was understandable that he would also have been nervous when giving evidence to the Police in 2019 and before a jury in 2021. These would have been stressful events for any child, in the context of events (being those of 29 December 2018) which were also likely to have been traumatic for any child.  Child A had indicated that he had felt ashamed of what had happened afterwards. All these factors could go some way to explaining the inconsistent (and at times false) accounts he had provided on previous occasions. Notwithstanding these previous inconsistencies Child A had, since his Police statement of 5 March 2021 given a consistent account of how he had disclosed his true age to the Teacher during the car journey to the Teacher’s house on 29 December 2018.  

At the same time, the Panel felt that there were some aspects of Child A’s account of those events which seemed slightly implausible. If he had suddenly revealed that he was 13 years of age during that car journey then it seemed improbable that there would not have  been further discussion of the issue at the very least (as opposed to the claim that the Teacher gave the apparently anodyne response claimed by Child A). Thereafter if the Teacher had known Child A’s true age (and thus that he was about to commit an extremely serious criminal offence) it seemed unlikely that he would  have taken Child A back to his own house, or that he would have communicated somewhat openly regarding their sexual encounter using his own phone.  

Furthermore, several years had passed since the events in question and there were factors suggesting that Child A’s recollection of those events was not entirely detailed or clear. There were several points which he admitted he could not remember and his recollection in general did not seem detailed. During examination in chief he had been slightly confused regarding whether he had proactively told the Teacher his true age or whether the Teacher had asked this first. Furthermore, he described his recollection of this key incident as being “pretty sure” which suggested something less than complete certainty. Some of the inconsistencies in his account might also have been attributable to him not having a clear recollection of the events in question.

In relation to the Teacher, the Panel found that he gave his evidence in a manner that was clear, direct, and consistent. He had been able to give a relatively detailed account of discussions that took place during the car journey in question. His account of this fitted with the rest of the evidence. He had been clear that he was absolutely certain that age had not been discussed during the car journey (or at any other time before or during his encounter with Child A). Furthermore, the Panel could find nothing to suggest that the Teacher’s evidence was inherently implausible in any way.  

Regarding the Teacher’s claim that Child A “told me he was 18”, this was not wholly inconsistent with his further claim that age was not discussed with Child A. It was accepted that Child A had stated in his Hornet profile that he was 18 years old.  

The Panel did not believe the Teacher’s claim that, when Child A referred to “my school” in a WhatsApp message, the Teacher did not interpret this to mean that Child A was still at school.  The clear and obvious implication of the words in the message were that Child A was still in school. However, the Panel accepted that this message was sent after the sexual encounter so did not shed any light on the state of the Teacher’s knowledge at the time of that specific event.  

Drawing all of this together the Panel concluded that whilst Child A might have done his best to tell them the truth of the events of 29 December 2018, his recollection of those events did not seem very reliable. By contrast the Teacher appeared to have a clearer recollection. Furthermore, his evidence in general had also been given directly and was consistent in almost every detail. For all of these reasons the Panel accepted the credibility and reliability of the Teacher’s evidence regarding the core issue in the case. Therefore they concluded that, on the balance of probabilities Child A had not told the Teacher Child A’s true age prior to their sexual encounter on 29 December 2018.

Regarding the only other factual issue to be resolved, the Panel agreed with parties that there was no evidence of sexualised messages being sent on Snapchat and therefore this part of allegation 2(a) was found not to be proved.

The Panel considered the hearsay statements of Parent A and Parent B, and the evidence provided by Person H. They found the evidence credible and reliable, however noted that the evidence of these witnesses had no real bearing on the facts in dispute.  

In conclusions, the Panel’s findings on the facts were as follows:

• Allegation 1.a parts (i), (ii), and (iii) were all proved by admission;
• Allegation 1.b was not proved;
• Allegation 2.a was proved by admission but under deletion of the words “Snapchat and”;
• Allegation 2.b was proved by admission.

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. A summary of these is set out below, followed by the Panel’s findings on the issue.

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on Fitness to Teach

The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that “unfit to teach” was defined as being where a Teacher’s conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. By reference to the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Indicative Outcomes Guidance (“the IOG”) he submitted that in a situation where a teacher’s conduct fell short (but not significantly short) of the standards expected then such a Teacher’s ability to teach was impaired. In the present case he submitted that the Teacher is unfit to teach, failing which the Panel should find that his fitness to teach is impaired.

He took the Panel through the individual sections of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (“COPAC”) referred to in the allegations. It was submitted that although the Teacher had not been specifically told Child A’s true age in advance it was nonetheless established that the Teacher had allowed himself to get into a situation whereby he had sexual relations with a 13 year-old. Thereafter he had sent sexualised messages to Child A and continued to do so even when Child A had indicated that he was at school. It was submitted that this was a clear breach of COPAC parts 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.  By failing to be a positive role model to pupils he had also breached parts 1.6 and 2.3.  

It was further submitted that the conduct in question was of the most serious nature. Whilst no specific “aggravating factors” were present, there was little or no evidence of any remorse by the Teacher, of insight into the harm he might have caused, or of steps taken to prevent him from making a similar mistake in the future. The importance of the public having trust and confidence, in both teaching professionals and in GTC Scotland as the regulator of the teaching profession in Scotland, was emphasised. Given the gravity of the alleged misconduct it was argued that public trust and confidence in these matters would be greatly undermined if the Teacher was allowed to remain on the Register (in support of this point the Panel were referred to to the case of Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons v Samuel [2014] UKPC 1 -  in particular paragraph 9 thereof). The fact that the alleged misconduct breached a number of separate parts of COPAC supported a finding that the misconduct fell significantly short of the professional standards expected of a teacher.

Teacher’s Submissions on Fitness to Teach

By way of response the Teacher’s representative argued that what had happened was not the fault of the Teacher.  Furthermore, it had happened during his holidays, in a different country to that in which he had been employed as a teacher at the time. As such it did not breach professional boundaries. It had been a genuine mistake, brought about by the deceit of Child A. As such there was no risk of recurrence.  

The Teacher’s PVG status had been reinstated by Disclosure Scotland. During a trial before the High Court a jury had acquitted him of the charges against him. All of this was said to demonstrate that there would be no risk to the public by allowing the Teacher to remain on the Register. In this respect it was emphasised that removal from the Register should not be used a punitive measure. It was emphasised that the Teacher had co-operated fully with the GTC Scotland investigation and also the previous Police Scotland investigation. He had been honest and transparent and had not sought to minimise the seriousness of what had occurred.  It was pointed out that his case before the Panel had focused on dispelling the allegations against him. Matters such as remorse or insight were not of such direct relevance to this factual dispute. Therefore any absence of evidence of these matters should not be taken as an indication that they did not exist.

Findings on fitness to teach

The Panel considered the allegations proved against the individual sections of COPAC which they were alleged to breach. The Panel also took into account that COPAC applies to all GTC Scotland registered teachers in “whatever educational. Setting the registered teacher may work”.  

Regarding parts 1.2 and 1.3 of COPAC the Panel also considered the “Commentary” to these parts. This stipulates that teachers “should avoid sexual contact with or remarks towards a learner of school age, regardless of the apparent consent of the individual concerned”. Interpreting COPAC through the lens of this guidance, the Panel considered it clear that the facts established under Allegations 1(a), and 2(a) amounted to clear breaches of COPAC part 1.2.

Whilst the Teacher’s acquittal of criminal charges indicated that he had not breached the criminal law, in terms of COPAC part 1.3 he had allowed himself to get into a situation where he “could” have breached the criminal law. Whilst the Panel found on the balance if probablitites that Child A had not told the Teacher his true age, it also did not seem that the Teacher had taken steps to proactively check this before entering into sexual relations with Child A.  The Panel noted that the Teacher had referred to avoiding being catfished, and using Snapchat to verify the other person’s identity, and therefore the Panel felt that the Teacher should have taken more precautions to ensure he did not get into a situation where he could be in breach of the criminal law. As such the Panel felt that the Teacher’s conduct also fell short of COPAC part 1.3.

In respect of allegation 2(a), the Panel found that the Teacher had sent messages of a sexual nature to Child A and had continued to do so after Child A had referred to ‘my school’ which the Panel found to be clear evidence that Child A was still in school. This was a clear failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a learner of school age.  

In respect of allegation 2(b), it might well have been the case that the Teacher had asked Child A to delete the messages out of concern for Child A’s own protection. However, in terms of COPAC, the Teacher should also have had better awareness of how this behaviour might have been perceived in terms of potential criminal wrongdoing.

For these reasons it was concluded that the facts set out in Allegations 1(a), 2(a), and 2(b) were breaches of COPAC parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, and 2.3. Therefore, it was established that the Teacher’s behaviour amounted to misconduct.

The Panel went on to consider whether the said misconduct rendered the Teacher unfit to teach or, alternatively, if it amounted to an impairment of his ability to teach. This was considered in line with the guidance contained at pages 3 - 4 of the IOG. In this respect the Panel were of the firm view that the behaviour in question was of the highest seriousness.  They balanced this against the facts that there were no apparent aggravating factors, there was no known previous misconduct or pattern of misconduct by the Teacher, and the events in question seemed unlikely to recur. Also, the Teacher had co-operated fully with the investigation and had admitted the allegations proved at an early stage in proceedings.  Against the Teacher, however, it was noted that there was little or no evidence of remorse or reflection on his part. For example his written response to the GTC Scotland investigation appeared to place the blame for the situation on Child A. It was noted that the Teacher did not intend to cause harm to Child A but at the same time it was noted that he continued to send messages of a sexual nature to Child A at a time when he must have known that Child A was of school age.

The Panel considered the important issue of the public interest in child protection and in public trust and confidence in teachers and the GTC Scotland. It was noted that these were issues that would not have been under consideration by the jury at the Teacher’s  criminal trial. The Panel was of the view that members of the public would expect any teacher to have exercised extreme caution before entering into sexual relations with a young adult who claimed to be 18 years of age. The public would also not wish any teacher to be sending sexualised messages to a child of school-age, regardless of whether or not the child was a pupil of the teacher involved. It was felt that public confidence in GTC Scotland could well be undermined if GTC Scotland appeared to overlook or condone such behaviour. Furthermore, whilst there was no desire to punish the Teacher it was felt important that the Panel’s decision should, so far as possible, reinforce the messages that (i) sending sexualised messages to a learner of school age is never appropriate or acceptable behaviour for a teacher and (ii) the standards set out in COPAC apply outside of the classroom setting as well.

It was noted that a number of sections of COPAC had been breached. The misconduct in question was of a serious nature. Whilst the Teacher did not deliberately set out to cause harm, he had fallen into a grave error of judgement which had a significant adverse impact on the life of a child. Furthermore, sending messages of a sexualised content to a learner of school age was a clear transgression of professional standards.

The Panel also noted that the whilst the actions of the Teacher could be remediable, insufficient evidence was presented by the Teacher to suggest that the shortfalls identified had been remedied.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s conduct fell 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.

Having so directed, the Panel invited parties to make submissions on the remaining issue of the period for which the Teacher should be prohibited from making an application for re-registration.

The Presenting Officer submitted that given the seriousness of the conduct in question, and also the Teacher’s apparent lack of insight into his responsibility for this, the maximum prohibition of 2 years would be appropriate.  

In response, the Teacher’s representative submitted that a 2 year prohibition would be disproportionate. She invited the Panel to impose the minimum period of prohibition. She argued that the Teacher had already been barred from teaching during the six years under which the case had been under investigation. Furthermore, the reality was that there would be significant practical barriers to the Teacher re-entering the teaching profession at any time soon.

Following submissions legal advice was given to the Panel, drawing their attention to the relevant section of the IOG and emphasising the final paragraph thereof, which was to the effect that this was guidance only and not binding. There were no comments from the parties on this legal advice.

The Panel considered these submissions and this advice carefully. They were mindful of the seriousness of the misconduct underlying this case. They noted that if the Teacher was to seek to re-enter the profession in the future it is likely that further training on matters such as safeguarding and child protection would be required to be undertaken by them and this would necessarily take a considerable time. Against this they noted that prior to the events of 29 December 2018 the Teacher had an unblemished professional record and the incident in question appeared to have been a “one off”.

Having considered all of these matters, and in accordance with Rule 2.10.6, the Panel decided that the Teacher be prohibited from reapplying for registration for a period of 18 months.

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.