Full Hearing - Conduct - Teacher H

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 Rules2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them; and
• the “Register” means the GTC Scotland register of teachers.

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

Upon arrival of the Teacher and Presenting Officer at Clerwood House in advance of formal convening of the hearing, they signalled through the Servicing Officer that they wished to request the opportunity of a pre-hearing meeting in order to preface certain preliminary issues, being (for the Teacher) the prospect that he might prefer not to give evidence, and also might prefer to proceed, at least in part, virtually, and (for the Presenting Officer) that he would wish to tender a late production, being an unredacted version of the production already appearing in the main bundle i.e. screenshot of the Teacher’s registration record as at 16 September 2021. Being mindful that the Teacher did not have the facility of legally qualified representation, nor of any other representation, and in accordance with Rules 1.3.7 to 1.3.9 (general objective), and particularly with Rule 1.3.8(b) (informality), the Panel acceded to parties’ said request, whereupon the Servicing Officer arranged such a meeting involving parties, the Servicing Officer, and the Legal Assessor, and during which parties outlined their said preliminary issues.  The Legal Assessor provided guidance on the overall structure of the hearing, and on the potential implication for the Teacher choosing not to give evidence in respect of which guidance neither party indicated any objection, nor made any substantive comment.

The hearing then formally convened in front of the Panel.

Presenting Officer’s Late Paper Production

The Presenting Officer formally applied to tender an unredacted version of the paper already appearing in the bundle i.e. screenshot of the Teacher’s registration record as at 16 September 2021, which he explained included the Teacher’s mobile phone number, thus was relevant for cross-referral with other papers already lodged, and particularly with screenshots of messages between Pupil E and the Teacher, and will show the same phone number.

The Teacher opposed this on grounds of (a) lateness, and (b) potential breach of his data protection rights.

The Legal Assessor provided legal advice to the following effect. Although the unredacted version of the document was late, nonetheless it appeared to represent no more than the Presenting Officer had made out, i.e. an unredacted version of an already lodged document, which contained information already in the Teacher’s knowledge, and was directly relevant to the Panel’s consideration of the case against the Teacher, including allegations that he had made contact with Pupil E by text messaging. Accordingly, it would be in the Panel’s power to grant the Presenting Officer’s application in accordance with Rule 1.7.17 (evidence), and no material prejudice appeared likely. Any concern on the Teacher’s part in respect of his data protection rights could be addressed by the Panel directing parties and witnesses to avoid reciting the phone number in full during leading and giving oral testimony. Moreover, use of the unredacted version of the document better accorded with the best evidence rule. Neither party indicated any objection to this advice, nor made any substantive comment on it.

Accordingly, the Panel granted the Presenting Officer’s application and thus allowed the document to be admitted.

Teacher’s Application for Virtual Hearing

At the beginning of Day 1 (26 May), the Teacher indicated his intention to defer this application until he had decided whether or not he would wish to give evidence which would depend on his assessment of other evidence. The Presenting Officer did not oppose the application.

Before adjourning for lunch on Day 2 (27 May), the Teacher formally applied for days 3 and 4 of the hearing to be heard virtually, which the Panel granted.

Allegation(s)

The following allegation(s) were considered at the hearing:

1. While you were employed by [Redacted] Council as a teacher at [Redacted]: 
   
   • (a) On or around 6 July 2014 you did send one or more text messages by electronic means to Pupil E:
     
     • (i) asking that Pupil E meet you at [Redacted] whilst she was 17 years old
     • (ii) including words to the effect of “it's a good job you didn’t come as we may have did something we enjoyed (or regretted)” 
   • (b) On or around 14 July 2014 you did exchange one or more of the text messages in schedule 1 with Pupil E
   • (c) Between around 16 July 2014 and 18 July 2014 you did exchange one or more of the text messages in schedule 2 with Pupil E
   • (d) Between around 20 July 2014 and 22 July 2014 you did exchange one or more of the text messages in schedule 3 with Pupil E
   • (e) Between around 22 July 2014 and 24 July 2014 you did exchange one or more of the text messages in schedule 4 with Pupil E
   • (f) On or around 17 July 2014, gave Pupil E and Pupil F a gift of tickets to the 2014 Commonwealth Games
   • (g) In the period between June 2016 to August 2016, you did exchange one or more of the text messages and/or images in schedule 5 with Pupil A
   • (h) On or around 16 June 2016, you attempted to kiss Pupil A on the cheek
   • (i) On or around 15 September 2015, you cuddled Pupil A‍
2. The content of one or more of the communications in Allegation 1(g), above, was explicitly sexual in nature. 

Schedule 1

1. You: “I'll be off to bed soon. Busy day tomorrow following the Commonwealth Baton around [Redacted] then over to [Redacted]. What are you up to tomorrow? X”
2. Pupil E: “Ohh I'm meant to be going to see our DofE leader carrying the baton tomorrow but I've got a driving lesson, working and Pupil G's home tomorrow x”
3. You: “Half the roads will be shut, might not be much of a lesson. Where's Pupil G been? I am very ignorant and don't know much about what he's been doing these days. Has he been working away or just on holiday? x"
4. Pupil E: “Oh that's good. Hopefully he'll just take me home again then. He's just been on holiday x” 
5. You: “I'm sure he'll bring you something nice back. Hopefully not an STI like some guys bring back from their holidays! Sorry, just kidding, out of order, won't say anything like that ever again, please forgive my childish humour. x"
6. Pupil E: “I hope not haha! he'll be nowhere near me so I'll not be catching it anyway, he can keep it to himself if that's the case x”
7. You: “Or else he can give it to some other girl. Sorry, I'll stop that now. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Really hope you have a good sleep tonight. Probably talk again tomorrow, mind you if Pupil G's back I might get dumped. x"

Schedule 2

1. “Can you send me your address and Pupil F's address? I'm going to bring your [Redacted] over [Redacted] and also give your "present" to Pupil F to give to you on Sunday.
   Those really high zip slides that go over big gorges look really scary, glad I'm not doing that. x"
2. “Is it your turn to disappear off the face of the Earth? x"
3. “Are you still alive? Hope so as I've bought your present. x"
4. “Missing my insomniac friend. x"
5. “Please send me a text, let me know you're still alive. Doesn't matter when you send it. x"
6. “Are you going to be in today? Was maybe going to head over your way after lunch. x"
7. “Have you been working tonight? Is your hair now looking beautiful? X”
8. “I know where you live! X”
9. “That wasn't meant as a threat btw. X”
10. “I hope your phone hasn't been working rather than you've been ignoring me. X" 

Schedule 3 

1. Pupil E: “Yeah that was most definitely the issue! And I don't have many shifts of my own but covering for [Miss 2] since she has left now x”
2. You: “Now you're 18 you'll be able to meet me in pubs in [Redacted] when I'm out with my football team. Unless I'm barred after last time. x"
3. Pupil E “I don't think your football team would like to associate with me on a night out but yeah you are probably barred x”
4. You: “It's not the football team you'd be associating with, it's me. And I'd rather be with you than my football team anyway. However as I'll be barred we'll have to hang around [Redacted] with the 14 year olds. x"
5. You: “As you must be about sleeping I guess it's time for me to go to bed as well. Know that I love you dearly and hope you have a terrific day tomorrow. xx" 
6. You: “Hey [Pupil E], hope you had a great [Redacted]. Didn't want to text you yesterday as knew you'd be busy. x"
7. You: “Hope I've not done anything to upset you like last week when you didn't text me. x” 
8. You: “Hi [Pupil E], did you get a new phone for [Redacted] and you've lost my number? x"

Schedule 4 

1. You: “You should make the celebrations last at least a week. I'm demanding a picture of you and Pupil F doing the "Mobot" at Hampden on Sunday. x"
2. Pupil E: “Yeah well I have been so far. What's the "Mobot". I've not heard about it yet? x”
3. You: “Mo Farah's celebration - it's far from impressive but he's the main attraction on Sunday. Should be good to see him run. Not sure what else is on Sunday. Hope you enjoy it, atmosphere should be good. x"
4. Pupil E: “Ohh I see! Yeah I'm sure it'll be good just glad I finally got someone to work for me x” 
5. You: “And you're glad you're not doing a bungee jump. Were you ever worried? Did you think I could be that cruel? x"
6. Pupil E: “Yes I've very glad I was getting worried! And yeah probably haha x”
7. You: “Suppose I could be that cruel, not to you though now I'm being nice at all times. I'm going to the swimming with [Pupil L] on Thursday, looking forward to it, hopefully Michael Jamieson will win a gold for Scotland, that would make for a great night X”
8. Pupil E: “Oh that sounds good" [Redacted]? x"
9. You: [Redacted]. x"

Schedule 5

1. words to the effect that Pupil A “looked beautiful at prom”.
2. asking that Pupil A send you a photograph of you both at a school prom
3. in response to a message from Pupil A with a photograph of her abs, words to the effect of “hurry up and get home cause I want to see more of you”.
4. words to the effect of asking Pupil A: 
   
   • (a) which teachers were “fit” and/or
   • (b) which teachers she would “hammer”
5. informing Pupil A which teachers you 
   
   • (a) found attractive and/or 
   • (b) would “bone”. 
6. in reference to another teacher, words to the effect that you would “rub her c*** and eat her out”
7. in reference to another teacher, words to the effect that you would “lick her out till her heart was content”
8. words to the effect that Pupil A “looked hot”
9. words to the effect that you had the afternoon off and wanted to take Pupil A “a drive” 
10. words to the effect that you hoped Pupil A was wearing a skirt for easy access, followed by a smiling emoji pictogram
11. words to the effect of “did you mean to bend over the table in B17”
12. When Pupil A replied to your message in (11) above, and asked you if you had looked at her in a ‘weird way’, you responded ‘yes’.
13. words to the effect that you had a “free house, [Mrs 1] has taken the kids to [Miss 3]’s house”
14. words to the effect that [Mrs 1] had just dropped the kids off followed by the words “wink wink” or a winking emoji pictogram.
15. asking Pupil A to send you photograph(s) of herself whilst Pupil A was at a party
16. In response to a message from Pupil A that she was in bed, asking Pupil A to send you a photograph of herself in a onesie
17. asking Pupil A to send you photograph(s) of herself showing more flesh
18. one or more photographs of yourself: 
    
    • (a) in shorts exposing your legs
    • (b) exposing your genitals 
19. in response to a photo message from Pupil A of herself in a nightie lying on the floor, words to the effect of “is that a bit of cleavage”
20. A photograph of Pupil A in the bath
21. A photograph of Pupil A wearing a leotard 

Teacher’s Admissions

At the outset of the hearing, the Teacher indicated that he did not admit any of the allegations. However, on day 3 of the hearing (28 May) during the Presenting Officer’s submissions on findings of fact, he changed his position on this in order to admit allegations 1(b) to (f).

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

Confidentiality Key

1. Initial Referral letter dated 17 September 2016
2. Letter from [Redacted] Council dated 25 November 2016
3. Letter to [Teacher H] dated 24 August 201
4. HR Guide: Guidance for Employees who are subject to a Disciplinary Investigation v1.0
5. Letter to [Teacher H] dated 27 September 2016
6. Letter to [Teacher H] dated 24 October 2016
7. Disciplinary Investigation Report dated 7 October 2016
8. Record of Disciplinary Hearing dated 8 November 2016
9. Letter to [Teacher H] dated 11 November 2016
10. Letter from [Redacted] Council dated 19 September 2017
11. Investigation Report dated 10 August 2017
12. Record of Disciplinary Hearing dated 8 September 2017
13. Letter to [Teacher H] dated 12 September 2017
14. Letter from [Redacted] Council dated 16 November 2017
15. [Redacted] Council Code of Discipline & Disciplinary Procedure for Teaching Staff
16. [Redacted] Council Employee Code of Conduct v2.0
17. Letter from Disclosure Scotland dated 7 December 2016
18. Letter from Disclosure Scotland dated 24 March 2017
19. Letter from Police Scotland dated 26 June 2017
20. Email correspondence with COPFS
21. Letter to Police Scotland dated 12 February 2019
22. Letter to Police Scotland dated 25 April 2019
23. Letter from Police Scotland dated 24 April 2019
24. Letter from Police Scotland dated 29 April 2019
25. Transcript of recorded telephone call
26. Statement – Witness 1 (in attendance as witness)
27. Statement – Witness 2 Pupil E (in attendance as witness)
28. Statement – Witness 3 Pupil F (in attendance as witness)
29. Screenshot of Messages between Pupil E and [Teacher H]
30. Audio recording (sent with Interim Report)
31. Teacher’s Response to Interim Report
32. Supplementary Statement of Witness 1 dated 11 March 2022
33. Copy of diary page dated 16 September 2016
34. Screenshot of [Teacher H] registration record dated 16 September 2021
35. Police Statement of Pupil A
36. Police Statement of Pupil B
37. Police Statement of Pupil D
38. Police Statement of Pupil E
39. Police Statement of Pupil F
40. Police Statement of Witness 1
41. Police Statement 2 of Witness 1
42. Police Statement of AA
43. Police Statement of BB
44. Police Statement of CC
45. Police Statement of DD
46. Police Statement of EE
47. Police Statement 2 of EE
48. Police Statement of FF
49. Police Statement of GG
50. Police Statement of HH
51. Police Statement 2 of HH
52. Police Statement of II
53. Police Statement of JJ

Teacher’s hearing papers

The Teacher was relying on the below documents which form part of the Joint Case Papers itemised above:

• [Redacted] Council’s Investigative Report 2016.
• Statements made by Pupil E.
• Statement made by Pupil F.

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1. Main File dated 3 March 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt.
2. Procedural Hearing/Meeting decisions:
3. Privacy & Anonymity, Vulnerable Witness and Hearsay, dated 11 November 2024
4. Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 15 March 2024
5. Teacher’s Case Form, dated 11 June 2024
6. Case Management Timetable
7. 2024-02-29- [Teacher H] -Initial-CMD (1)
8. 2024-05-14- [Teacher H] -CMD-(2)
9. 2024-05-20- [Teacher H] File Note
10. 2024-05-21- [Teacher H] -CMD (3)
11. 2024-06-06- [Teacher H] -CMD (4)
12. 2024-06-10- [Teacher H] -File Note
13. 2024-06-12- [Teacher H] -CMD (5)
14. 2024-06-19- [Teacher H] -CMD (6)
15. 2024-06-21- [Teacher H] -CMD (7)
16. 2024-07-16- [Teacher H] -CMD (8)
17. 2024-07-22-[Teacher H]-Response-sought-from-Teacher-re-availaibility-for-procedural-hearing
18. 2024-08-26- [Teacher H] GTCS-to Teacher-requesting-availability-for-procedural-hearing
19. 2024-09-17-Teacher Response - re availability for procedural hearing
20. 2024-10-24- [Teacher H] File Note
21. 2024-11-13- [Teacher H] -CMD (9)
22. 2025-03-03- [Teacher H] NOFH
23. 2025-03-17- [Teacher H] File Note
24. 2025-03-18- [Teacher H] -CMD (10)
25. 2025-03-18-WeTransfer-Case-Papers-to-Parties-confirmation
26. 2025-03-20- [Teacher H] -Case-papers-download-confirmation-Teacher
27. 2025-04-16- [Teacher H] Case-Papers-resent-to-Teacher
28. 2025-04-18- [Teacher H] -WeTransfer-confirmation-of-case papers-downloaded-by -teacher
29. 2025-05-08- [Teacher H] -CMD (11)
30. 2025-05-12- [Teacher H]- Teacher-reponse-to-CMD-11 (8-5-25)
31. 2025-05-13- [Teacher H] -CMD (12)
32. 2025-05-14- [Teacher H] – Postponement-Application
33. 2025-05- [Teacher H] - Postponement-Application-Decision

Summary of Evidence

The Presenting Officer produced three witnesses in person, being Witness 1, Witness 2 (Pupil E) and Witness 3 (Pupil F). He also relied on the hearsay evidence of Pupils A, B, C, and D, which took the form of the minutes of their interviews by Witness 1 during his conduct of the Teacher’s employer’s investigation into the allegations relating to Pupil A (allegations 1(g) to (i) and 2), i.e. as appears in the main bundle - disciplinary investigation report, dated 7 October 2016.

Ultimately, the Teacher chose not to give evidence, nor to lead any other evidence of his own.

Witness 1 (day 1)

Witness 1 was the Head Teacher of the school, [Redacted], where the Teacher was employed by [Redacted] Council at the material time when the allegations relating to Pupil A emerged (allegations 1(g) to (i) and 2) around mid-2016.

He spoke of how, having previously held a less senior management position at another school in the same Education Authority area, he had only very recently been appointed as Head Teacher of [Redacted] when those allegations emerged during the first few days of the first term of the academic year beginning in 2016. He was only involved in investigating said allegations relating to Pupil A and had no involvement in investigating those relating to Pupils E and F (allegations 1(a) to (f)). The allegations, in essence, related to inappropriate contact between the Teacher and Pupil A, including by means of their exchanging text messages, some which had contained, or consisted of, images. Crucially, however, by the time the allegations were reported to the school, none of those text messages or images still existed in their original formats on any of the devices that had been used for sending and receiving them, having been deleted therefrom, and indeed none of them were ever recovered. Accordingly, the investigation entailed a significant extent of interviewing witnesses who might have had knowledge of those texts and images, whether through having seen them before deletion, or having had them described to them. The alleged text messages and images were allegedly exchanged over a period of time when the Teacher was also a [Redacted] at the school, and shortly after Pupil A had ceased to be a pupil there.

Witness 1 read out aloud into the record, and adopted, his GTC Scotland witness statements, dated 3 May 2017 and 11 March 2022. In so doing, he also spoke to his said disciplinary investigation report, dated 7 October 2016 and to the minutes of the various interviews and re-interviews he had carried out during that investigation by him, including, as said, of Pupils A, B, C and D, and of the Teacher himself. He also spoke to how he had conducted that investigation, of the guidance he had received in so doing from [Redacted] Council, and of the safeguards that were put in place and observed in order to maintain separation of his investigatory function from the disciplinary function otherwise discharged by the responsible manager, Person A, who was responsible for the Teacher’s disciplinary process following her receipt of Witness 1’s said report.

Witness 1 confirmed that the table of interviews appearing on p2. of his disciplinary report was accurate. In particular, he confirmed as accurate the minutes of the following interviews:

• Pupil A, p.57 forwards, Pupil A’s signature appearing on p.60
• Pupil A, p.89 forwards, Pupil A’s signature appearing on p.95
• Teacher, p.64 forwards, Teacher’s signature appearing on p.68
• Teacher, p.100 forwards, Teacher’s signature appearing on p.104
• Pupil B, p.54 forwards, Pupil B’s signature appearing on p.56
• Pupil B, p.69 forwards, Pupil B’s signature appearing on p.73
• Pupil C, p.61 forwards, Pupil C’s signature appearing on p.63
• Pupil C, p.74 forwards, Pupil C’s signature appearing on p.80
• Pupil D, p.96 forwards, Pupil D’s signature appearing on p.99

Witness 1 also had played for him the audio recording lodged as a production, being a recording of a telephone conversation between Pupils A and C shortly before the allegations were reported to the school. He said he recognised the recording, and when he had originally heard it had found it shocking as it suggested there had been even more to the situation than had been made out by the allegations as originally reported to the school.

Witness 1 spoke to his assessment of the pupils’ presentation and demeanour during interview, and also to that of the Teacher. While he had been alive to the prospect of collusion and had also taken the view that the pupils’ accounts contained certain inconsistencies, or features which ultimately pointed towards dead ends, e.g. regarding the Teacher’s presence at the school talent show, nonetheless overall he had found the pupils to be credible and reliable, particularly in their ability to recall detail. By contrast, he had found the Teacher to be vague and unhelpful, e.g. he had not appeared to make serious efforts to recover the text messages or images. He had also admitted to texting Pupil A, albeit had claimed none of the content of their exchange was sexualised, and he had also admitted to having taken measures to conceal their exchange from his wife [Redacted] yet had told Witness 1 that his having done so was a moral matter (because he was doing it behind his wife’s back), rather than a professional one.

In anticipation of the Teacher’s potential argument that Witness 1 had somehow allowed his investigation to become compromised by discussing it at an interim stage with Person A, thus subverting said safeguards that were put in place in order to maintain separation of those individuals’ respective investigatory and disciplinary functions, the Presenting Officer asked Witness 1 about Person A’s role, whereupon he confirmed she had played no role in the investigation, and he had not discussed it with her. He explained that his diary entries for 16 September 2016 show that to be accurate.

The Teacher cross-examined Witness 1. On occasion, his line of questioning began to stray towards giving evidence, or towards becoming argumentative, thus prompting intervention by the Convenor, or objection by the Presenting Officer. However, the Panel remained mindful that the Teacher did not have the facility of legally qualified representation, nor of any other representation, and of Rules 1.3.7 to 1.3.9 (general objective). Accordingly, the Panel extended the Teacher reasonable latitude for questioning.

Witness 1 confirmed that none of the other guidance teachers who were interviewed had spoken to any concern regarding the Teacher. He also confirmed that the guidance he had received from [Redacted] Council for the purpose of his investigation related to the format of presenting the interviews, which diverged from that with which he had hitherto become accustomed while employed by [Redacted] In essence, [Redacted] Council had provided him with a bank of potential questions to put to witnesses, yet where he had ultimately selected which questions actually to put to them, and the final version of his report was accurate in terms of what witnesses had told him. Any amendments had been made by Witness 1 himself, and witnesses had been given an opportunity to review them, and to re-sign the amended versions of the minutes of their interviews.

Regarding a meeting between the Teacher and Witness 1 before formal interview, Witness 1 denied having attempted to unsettle the Teacher, and he also denied having advised him to confess. He said he had merely told the Teacher that what he had uncovered so far had appeared to him to be serious.

Regarding Pupil D being interviewed in front of her mother and Pupil A, Witness 1 explained the circumstances, where Pupil D’s mother was known to Pupil A’s family, this was, in effect, a brief re-interview of Pupil D to clarify a certain point, which made best use of Pupil D’s availability at that time, and she did not vary her account in any event.

The Panel also put questions to Witness 1. He confirmed that at the material time the school had had no formal policy on teaching staff making contact with pupils such as by means of text messaging. However, the matter had been regulated by Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC), while he would also have been surprised if teachers had been able to access pupils’ telephone numbers.

Legal Advice (Day 2)

Being mindful that the Teacher did not have the facility of legally qualified representation, nor of any other representation, and in accordance with Rules 1.3.7 to 1.3.9 (general objective), and on notice that the Teacher might prefer not to give evidence, yet aware that, during his cross-examination of Witness 1, the Teacher had already attempted to introduce evidence of his own, the Panel had the Legal Assessor give certain legal advice on the nature of evidence, and on the nature of submissions. The Teacher was offered the opportunity of this advice also being provided to him in hard written copy. However, he declined that opportunity.

Witness 2 (Pupil E) (Day 2)

Pupil E read out aloud into the record, and adopted, her GTC Scotland witness statement, dated 20 April 2020 except to the extent that she confirmed she is now employed as a [Redacted]. She also confirmed the accuracy of her police statement.

She explained that the Teacher had not been her guidance teacher but had been Pupil F’s guidance teacher. Pupil F had been actively receiving pastoral support because of [Redacted]. Accordingly, Pupil E had assumed he had obtained her mobile phone number from Pupil F. Referring to the text messages she had received from the Teacher, she considered them to be inappropriate, and they had made her feel uncomfortable. They had included those in respect of which screenshots appear in the bundle which she had recovered from an old iPad linked to an old iPhone of hers. She confirmed the phone number appearing on the screenshots was the Teacher’s number.

She spoke of how he came to her home with a gift of tickets for the Commonwealth Games. She had known he was coming there, so had left before his arrival as she had not wanted to have to face him.

The Teacher cross-examined Pupil E. He challenged her on the accuracy of the allegation that he had invited her to [Redacted] (allegation 1(a)(i)), including by reference to what he put to her as having been her prior and divergent testimony at court (when he had been prosecuted in respect of a matter relating to her, yet where he had been acquitted). However, she maintained that she had given the same testimony on this point at court. Likewise, he also challenged her over what he put to her as a divergent account in her said police statement.

The Panel also put questions to Pupil E. She said she assumed that when the Teacher had originally begun texting her, he had sent her texts in which he had either introduced himself by name, or on which he had signed off by name, thus that was how she had later come to recognise his number.

The Teacher re-examined Pupil E. She confirmed she had ceased to be a pupil by 17 July 2014.

Witness 3 (Pupil F) (Day 2)

Pupil F read out aloud into the record, and adopted, her GTC Scotland witness statement, dated 1 May 2020 except to the extent that she confirmed she is now employed in [Redacted].

She said she had not given the Teacher her mobile phone number and had assumed he had obtained it from another pupil. She said she had seen the text message that the Teacher was alleged to have sent Pupil E such as forms the basis of allegation 1(a)(ii), and also those in respect of which screenshots appear in the bundle. She considered the text messages to be inappropriate, and also his coming to Pupil E’s home to be inappropriate.

The Teacher cross-examined Pupil F. She confirmed he had not sent her any text messages otherwise than in the nature of “chit chat”. She could not remember ever providing him with directions to her home.

The Panel had no questions for Pupil F.

Parties Submissions on the Facts Alleged

Parties then made submissions on the evidence, and on what findings of fact they proposed the Panel should draw on that basis.

The Presenting Officer submitted that all the witnesses led by GTC Scotland were credible and reliable and presented to assist the panel. Referring to Witness 1, the Presenting Officer submitted that he was an impressive witness who had conducted a detailed investigation into the Teacher’s conduct at the time and was able to speak to the manner in which witnesses gave their evidence to him, and that those accounts had been confirmed, signed and dated by the witnesses.  The Presenting Officer submitted that the witness was clear when he couldn’t recall specific details and correctly assessed any conflict in the evidence and recorded his professional judgement regarding it. The Presenting Officer submitted that during cross examination, there was some kind of suggestion by the Teacher as to the manner of the investigation, however, the witness did his best to answer any question or criticism put to him.

The Presenting Officer submitted that Witness Pupil E was entirely credible and reliable, who correctly stated when there was something she couldn’t remember but who had taken steps to clarify dates and times of events and provided detailed evidence on the allegations as well as producing documentary evidence to GTC Scotland.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the same was true for Pupil F, and that they too were entirely credible and reliable. It was submitted that the witness was able to confirm dates when she could and when she couldn’t remember something, she said so.  

The Presenting Officer referred to the documentary hearsay evidence in respect of Pupil A, specifically the audio recording and interview with Witness 1. The Presenting Officer highlighted that in the audio recording, Pupil A defended the Teacher in certain respects and in relation to his presence at an event and of saying certain things. The Presenting Officer submitted that this lent to her credibility insofar as the other conduct that is alleged in the case. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel of Pupil A’s demeanour in the audio call which he described as possibly embarrassed, worried or nervy and may go some way to explaining why the witness played down the extent of sexually explicit evidence that other pupils referred to. It was submitted that the Panel could, and should, attach significant weight to this evidence against the backdrop of the other evidence heard and seen.

The Presenting Officer referred to the specific allegations. In relation to allegation 1(a)(i)(ii), it was submitted that the Panel heard direct evidence from Pupil E that was specific and detailed, and the content and tone of the messaging described, was consistent with the type of informal comments made by the Teacher and that were supported by screenshots. The Presenting Officer highlighted that the Teacher had chosen to exercise his right not to give evidence on this particular point but that the allegation was also supported by Pupil F who gave evidence that she recalls being aware of the text messages sent by the Teacher although couldn’t recall if she had seen the message or had just been told about it.

The Presenting Officer referred to allegations 1(b) to (e) and submitted that there was clear evidence that the Teacher engaged in these text message discussions. The Presenting Officer referred to a sequence of numbers visible on the screenshots within the evidence that matched the personal number of the Teacher as held on GTC Scotland records. It was submitted that the evidence of Pupils E and F, supported by the screenshots of the messages and in the absence of any other explanation from the Teacher, provided clear evidence that it was him who sent the messages in schedules 1 to 4 to Pupil E and that allegations 1(b) to (e) are proven. In dealing with allegation 1(f) and the gifting of Commonwealth Games tickets, the Presenting Officer submitted that, although the Teacher had chosen not to give evidence, in his cross examination  of Pupils E and F, there seemed to be some acceptance that he did give the tickets to the pupils but under different circumstances and submitted that there was sufficient evidence to prove this allegation.

At this point, the Teacher asked if he could now ‘accept’, and no longer ‘contest’, allegations 1(b) to (f). The Teacher confirmed that, although he didn’t recognise all of the texts or the language used, he accepted that the evidence was there, and the messages were sent from his phone. In clarification, the Teacher confirmed he was referring to allegations 1(b) to (f) and included the messages outlined in schedules 1 to 4 and confirmed to the Legal Assessor that those messages were sent by him.  

Referring to allegation 1(g) and the messages exchanged with Pupil A, the Presenting Officer submitted that although the allegations were denied, there seemed to be some acceptance from the investigation notes that the Teacher did admit that he had been messaging Pupil A over the summer of 2016 and that he changed the name of Pupil A in his phone to another name and deleted text messages as they were sent and received. The Presenting Officer pointed the Panel to evidence of the Teacher admitting these events in his interview with Witness 1. The Presenting Officer pointed the Panel to evidence, in his submission, that supported the allegation that the Teacher engaged in the messaging with Pupil A as outlined in schedule 5.

The Presenting Officer submitted that if the Panel find that the messages were sent by the Teacher, the nature of the messages are explicitly sexual in nature, and it therefore follows that allegation 2 must be found proved.                  

Accordingly, the Presenting Officer submitted that the evidence overall proved the facts of the allegations made against the Teacher.

The Teacher submitted that he felt certain facts had not been included in the evidence despite them being relevant, such as him appealing against his dismissal resulting from the 2016 allegations and being reinstated and also being found not guilty in court regarding related matters.

The Teacher submitted that he disagreed that Witness 1 was an impressive witness, and although he came across very well, the Teacher questioned his motive for engaging him in an ‘off the record’ chat as a ‘supportive chat’ prior to an employment disciplinary interview regarding these matters. The Teacher submitted that the local investigatory process had been tainted by irregularity, including what he claimed was Witness 1’s discussion of it with the responsible manager in advance of the finalised version of his report being submitted to her for her consideration and how the minutes of the appeal meeting had allegedly been altered.

The Teacher submitted that the documentary hearsay evidence of Pupil A was not credible or reliable. The Teacher pointed the Panel to the account provided by Pupil A in her interview with Witness 1 and submitted that it didn’t make sense when considering the accounts of Pupils B, C and D. The Teacher referred the Panel to comments made by Pupil A to Witness 1 in her interview regarding her being able to retrieve text messages from her phone. The Teacher submitted that Pupil A had initially lied and changed her account in a subsequent interview as to why she couldn’t retrieve said messages. The Teacher submitted that Pupil A was not telling the truth from her initial interview and the accounts from Pupils B, C and D are all based on what Pupil A told them.

The Teacher referred the Panel to an alleged incident involving Pupil A who had previously fallen out with a close circle of friends for reasons of lying. The Teacher submitted that when in a new friendship group consisting of Pupils B and C, and having been caught in a lie again about him, Pupil A refuses to back down from telling lies about him, for fear of losing her new friendship group. The Teacher invited the Panel to consider the audio again in which, the Teacher submits, hears Pupil C having doubts about what she is being told by Pupil A, and when Pupil C raises the implications of making such an allegation, the following long silence is actually of Pupil A deciding to continue the lie against the Teacher rather than hold her hands up and risk losing her friends. The Teacher pointed the Panel towards evidence where Pupil B states in her interview with Witness 1 that, whilst she believes she is telling the truth about the Teacher, she had lied before.

The Teacher submitted that in the ‘conclusion’ of Witness 1’s report, there were a number of inaccuracies. The Teacher referred to the date range of his alleged texting with Pupil A being inaccurate, as was mention of Pupils B, C and D stating they had seen texts and images between Pupil A and the Teacher. The Teacher submitted that no other witness had stated that they had seen any images.

The Teacher referred the Panel to various parts of the local disciplinary investigation and submitted that there are numerous examples of conflict between pupil witnesses and up to six different accounts provided by Pupil A as to how he had obtained her phone number. The Teacher submitted again that all the allegations had all come from things that Pupil A had said to others and that a fair investigation should have been casting major doubt on Pupil A’s credibility and the allegations she was making.

The Teacher referred again to the local disciplinary investigation and specifically the allegations of him using disgusting sexual language when talking about members of staff. The Teacher submits that, again, these allegations emanated from Pupil A. The Teacher submitted that in the evidence, no teacher had ever heard the Teacher use such language. The Teacher pointed the Panel to evidence where Pupil A denied that the sexually explicit language alleged was used and who suggested that the language had possibly been changed due to the different age groups involved. The Teacher stated that whilst he recalled a conversation with Pupil A about what staff, male and female, he was friendly with, he submitted that Pupil A had clearly embellished the text messages in an attempt to shock her friends and then subsequently tried to backtrack from this in her interview.

The Teacher submitted that the allegations concerning Pupil A always started with ‘[Pupil A] said’, ‘[Pupil A] told me’.  Referring to alleged intimate photographs exchanged between Pupil A and the Teacher, the Teacher submitted that the photographs did not exist, were never taken or sent. The Teacher again questioned Pupil A’s credibility and pointed the Panel to evidence of Pupil A changing her account regarding the description of the alleged pictures exchange. The Teacher referred to other allegations, initially part of the local investigation, that were not taken forward and submitted that they were ‘made up’ and then backtracked by Pupil A. The Teacher provided examples of an allegations of him kissing Pupil A during a meeting in [Redacted] which was subsequently denied by Pupil A, and alleged comments made by him in relation to Pupil A at a talent show which he never attended. The Teacher submitted that there was a clear pattern with these allegations, and it was of someone telling someone something, who then tells someone else, like a game of ‘Chinese whispers’, until the allegation is challenged and then everyone tries to work out who said it in the first place.

The Teacher submitted that although the disciplinary investigation process is a separate one to the GTC Scotland investigation, GTC Scotland is using the evidence brought to them by [Redacted] Council.

The Teacher referred to the evidence of Pupils E and F. The Teacher submitted that he does not now dispute the screenshots produced, and although he didn’t recognise all of them and thinks some messages may have been deleted, he admitted that he was texting Pupils E and F in July 2014. The Teacher submitted that the pupils in their police statements in 2017 stated that the chat with the Teacher was ‘general chat’ and nothing they would say as ‘inappropriate’, but now in her evidence to GTC Scotland, Pupil E was using words like ‘inappropriate’.

The Teacher submitted that in the course of the 2017 police investigation, his phone and other electronic devices had been forensically examined, and no relevant messages or images had been found.

The Teacher submitted that he has shown that there are significant weaknesses and issues in the evidence provided to GTC Scotland by [Redacted] Council. The Teacher submitted that whilst certain allegations were found not to be true by [Redacted] Council, they were put to one side and the next one investigated regardless of any doubts.

The Teacher submitted that whilst witnesses Pupil B and C may have been trying to do the right thing, they were being given misinformation by Pupil A, and to an extent, Pupil D.  

Findings of fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact on the allegations.

The Panel had in mind that the burden of proof rested on the Presenting Officer and that the standard of proof required is that used in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.

As said, whereas at the outset of the hearing, the Teacher indicated that he did not admit any of the allegations, on day 3 of the hearing (28 May) during the Presenting Officer’s submissions on findings of fact, he changed his position on this in order to admit allegations 1(b) to (f).

In considering the evidence and allegations, the Panel determined to propose amendment to the allegations in accordance with Rule 2.4.8, and particularly to the following effect in allegation 2, by deletion of the word ‘explicitly” where it appears at the end of the first line of that allegation after the word “was” and before the word “sexual” at the beginning of the second line, such that the allegation would, instead, read:

2. The content of one or more of the communications in Allegation 1(g), above, was sexual in nature.

The Panel made this proposal known to parties on the morning of day 4 (29 May). Being mindful that the Teacher did not have the facility of legally qualified representation, nor of any other representation, and in accordance with Rules 1.3.7 to 1.3.9 (general objective), the Panel had the Legal Assessor give certain legal advice. The Teacher opposed the proposed amendment on grounds of fairness, whereupon the Panel retired into private session to consider it further and determined to amend in any event.

The Panel discussed the witness evidence it had heard.

The Panel found Witness 1 to be an impressive witness, and both credible and reliable. He gave his testimony in a straightforward way, had a sound recollection of events, and made concessions and qualifications where appropriate.

The Panel found Pupil E to be a credible and reliable witness. She gave her testimony in a straightforward way, had a sound recollection of events, and made concessions where appropriate, including in respect of points that she could not remember, or about which she was unsure, or where she had to rely on inference from overall context.

The Panel found Pupil F to be a credible and reliable witness. She gave her testimony in a straightforward way, had a sound recollection of events, and made concessions where appropriate.

The Panel discussed the other evidence it had before it, including that emanating from the bundle of papers such as had been spoken to, or adopted, by witnesses, and insofar as the Panel considered it appropriate to do so, and particularly given that, as said, on day 3 of the hearing (28 May) during the Presenting Officer’s submissions on findings of fact, the Teacher changed his position on in order to admit allegations 1(b) to (f), which therefore rendered the evidence moot in respect thereof. In the Panel’s assessment, that other evidence such as bore on the allegation not admitted was supportive of the witnesses’ oral evidence, and of the case made out against the Teacher.

In consideration of all the evidence the Panel had before it and the oral testimony it had heard, the Panel found the following facts to be PROVEN on the balance of probabilities:

1. While you were employed by [Redacted] Council as a teacher at [Redacted]: 

(a) On or around 6 July 2014 you did send one or more text messages by electronic means to Pupil E:

(i) asking that Pupil E meet you at [Redacted] whilst she was 17 years old

(ii) including words to the effect of “it's a good job you didn’t come as we may have did something we enjoyed (or regretted)” 

(g) In the period between June 2016 to August 2016, you did exchange one or more of the text messages and/or images in schedule 5 with Pupil A:

Schedule 5

1 words to the effect that Pupil A “looked beautiful at prom”.

2 asking that Pupil A send you a photograph of you both at a school prom

10 words to the effect that you hoped Pupil A was wearing a skirt for easy access, followed by a smiling emoji pictogram

11 words to the effect of “did you mean to bend over the table in B17”

12 When Pupil A replied to your message in (11) above, and asked you if you had looked at her in a ‘weird way’, you responded ‘yes’.

13 words to the effect that you had a “free house, [Mrs 1] has taken the kids to [Miss 3]’s house”

14 words to the effect that [Mrs 1] had just dropped the kids off followed by the words “wink wink” or a winking emoji pictogram.

2 The content of one or more of the communications in Allegation 1(g), above, was sexual in nature. 

Further, in line with Rule 1.7.21, the Panel found the following allegations proven by admission:

1(b) On or around 14 July 2014 you did exchange one or more of the text messages in schedule 1 with Pupil E.

Schedule 1

1 You: “I'll be off to bed soon. Busy day tomorrow following the Commonwealth Baton around [Redacted] then over to [Redacted]. What are you up to tomorrow? X”

2 Pupil E: “Ohh I'm meant to be going to see our DofE leader carrying the baton tomorrow but I've got a driving lesson, working and Pupil G's home tomorrow x”

3 You: “Half the roads will be shut, might not be much of a lesson. Where's Pupil G been? I am very ignorant and don't know much about what he's been doing these days. Has he been working away or just on holiday? x"

4 Pupil E: “Oh that's good. Hopefully he'll just take me home again then. He's just been on holiday x” 

5 You: “I'm sure he'll bring you something nice back. Hopefully not an STI like some guys bring back from their holidays! Sorry, just kidding, out of order, won't say anything like that ever again, please forgive my childish humour. x"

6 Pupil E: “I hope not haha! he'll be nowhere near me so I'll not be catching it anyway, he can keep it to himself if that's the case x”

7 You: “Or else he can give it to some other girl. Sorry, I'll stop that now. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Really hope you have a good sleep tonight. Probably talk again tomorrow, mind you if Pupil G's back I might get dumped. x"

1(c) Between around 16 July 2014 and 18 July 2014 you did exchange one or more of the text messages in schedule 2 with Pupil E.

Schedule 2

1. “Can you send me your address and Pupil F's address? I'm going to bring [Redacted] over [Redacted]. and also give your "present" to Pupil F to give to you on Sunday.

Those really high zip slides that go over big gorges look really scary, glad I'm not doing that. x"

2. “Is it your turn to disappear off the face of the Earth? x"

3. “Are you still alive? Hope so as I've bought your present. x"

4. “Missing my insomniac friend. x"

5. “Please send me a text, let me know you're still alive. Doesn't matter when you send it. x"

6. “Are you going to be in today? Was maybe going to head over your way after lunch. x"

7. “Have you been working tonight? Is your hair now looking beautiful? X”

8. “I know where you live! X”

9. “That wasn't meant as a threat btw. X”

10. “I hope your phone hasn't been working rather than you've been ignoring me. X" 

1. (d) Between around 20 July 2014 and 22 July 2014 you did exchange one or more of the text messages in schedule 3 with Pupil E.

Schedule 3 

1. Pupil E: “Yeah that was most definitely the issue! And I don't have many shifts of my own but covering for [Miss 2] since she has left now x”

2. You: “Now you're 18 you'll be able to meet me in pubs in [Redacted] when I'm out with my football team. Unless I'm barred after last time. x"

3. Pupil E “I don't think your football team would like to associate with me on a night out but yeah you are probably barred x”

4. You: “It's not the football team you'd be associating with, it's me. And I'd rather be with you than my football team anyway. However as I'll be barred we'll have to hang around the [Redacted] with the 14 year olds. x"

5. You: “As you must be about sleeping I guess it's time for me to go to bed as well. Know

that I love you dearly and hope you have a terrific day tomorrow. xx" 

6. You: “Hey [Pupil E], hope you had [Redacted]. Didn't want to text you yesterday as knew you'd be busy. x"

7. You: “Hope I've not done anything to upset you like last week when you didn't text me. x” 

8. You: “Hi [Pupil E], did you get a new phone for your [Redacted] and you've lost my number? x"

1. (e) Between around 22 July 2014 and 24 July 2014 you did exchange one or more of the text messages in schedule 4 with Pupil E.

Schedule 4 

1. You: “You should make the celebrations last at least a week. I'm demanding a picture of you and Pupil F doing the "Mobot" at Hampden on Sunday. x"

2. Pupil E: “Yeah well I have been so far. What's the "Mobot". I've not heard about it yet? x”

3. You: “Mo Farah's celebration - it's far from impressive but he's the main attraction on Sunday. Should be good to see him run. Not sure what else is on Sunday. Hope you enjoy it, atmosphere should be good. x"

4. Pupil E: “Ohh I see! Yeah I'm sure it'll be good just glad I finally got someone to work for me x” 

5. You: “And you're glad you're not doing a bungee jump. Were you ever worried? Did you think I could be that cruel? x"

6. Pupil E: “Yes I've very glad I was getting worried! And yeah probably haha x”

7. You: “Suppose I could be that cruel, not to you though now I'm being nice at all times. I'm going to the swimming with [Pupil L] on Thursday, looking forward to it, hopefully Michael Jamieson will win a gold for Scotland, that would make for a great night X”

8. Pupil E: “Oh that sounds good" Is [Pupil K] not competing, maybe she could win us some medals? x"

9. You: “[Redacted]. x"

1. (f) On or around 17 July 2014, gave Pupil E and Pupil F a gift of tickets to the 2014 Commonwealth Games

The Panel was of the view that there was insufficient quality evidence in relation to the following allegations and were therefore, NOT PROVEN:

1. (g) In the period between June 2016 to August 2016, you did exchange one or more of the text messages and/or images in schedule 5 with Pupil A:

Schedule 5

3. in response to a message from Pupil A with a photograph of her abs, words to the effect of “hurry up and get home cause I want to see more of you”.

4. words to the effect of asking Pupil A: 

(a) which teachers were “fit” and/or

(b) which teachers she would “hammer”

5. informing Pupil A which teachers you 

(a) found attractive and/or 

(b) would “bone”. 

6. in reference to another teacher, words to the effect that you would “rub her c*** and eat her out”

7. in reference to another teacher, words to the effect that you would “lick her out till her heart was content”

8. words to the effect that Pupil A “looked hot”

9. words to the effect that you had the afternoon off and wanted to take Pupil A “a drive” 

15. asking Pupil A to send you photograph(s) of herself whilst Pupil A was at a party

16. In response to a message from Pupil A that she was in bed, asking Pupil A to send you a photograph of herself in a onesie

17. asking Pupil A to send you photograph(s) of herself showing more flesh

18. one or more photographs of yourself: 

(a) in shorts exposing your legs

(b) exposing your genitals 

19. in response to a photo message from Pupil A of herself in a nightie lying on the floor,

words to the effect of “is that a bit of cleavage”

20. A photograph of Pupil A in the bath

21. A photograph of Pupil A wearing a leotard 

1. (h) On or around 16 June 2016, you attempted to kiss Pupil A on the cheek

1. (i) On or around 15 September 2015, you cuddled Pupil A

Fitness to Teach

Given that the Panel found that allegations 1(a)(i), (ii) and (g) (relating to schedule 5 - 1,2,10,11,12,13,14) were proved and that allegations 1(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) had now been admitted, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

The Presenting Officer referred to COPAC and to the commentary section which outlined that teachers should avoid sexual contact or remarks towards a pupil of school age regardless of their apparent consent or of the individual concerned. Also, that teachers have to be mindful that professional boundaries can be perceived to extend beyond pupils’ education establishment leaving date and as such, teachers should exercise great care and professional judgement. The Presenting Officer further highlighted that teachers should not attempt to establish inappropriate relationships with pupils which might include communication of a personal nature, engaging in an inappropriate way via the internet or by other means such as email or text message of an inappropriate nature.

The Presenting Officer’s submitted that the Teacher’s behaviour engages the following parts of COPAC:

1.2 You must maintain appropriate professional boundaries, avoid improper contact or relationships with learners and respect your unique position of trust as a teacher.

1.3 You should avoid situations both within and outwith the professional context which could be in breach of the criminal law or may call into question your fitness to teach.

1.4 You must uphold standards of personal and professional conduct, honesty and integrity so that the public have confidence in you as a teacher and teaching as a profession.

1.6 You should maintain an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to learners.

The Presenting Officer submitted that if the Panel was to agree that the Teacher’s behaviour amounted to misconduct then it is required to assess the issue of remediation and the likelihood of reoccurrence. The Panel was referred to the Indicative Outcomes practice statement which sets out factors that should be considered. The Presenting Officer submitted that the proven allegations were very serious in nature and amounted to a significant blurring of boundaries as well as there being no excuse or reason for any sexual messaging. The Presenting Officer submitted that there appeared to be a number of messages, some of which ended with an ‘x’, and on one particular occasion a series of relentless messaging when no response was received from Pupil E. The Panel was directed to the time and day of certain messages, which was often late at night. In addition to the messaging, the Panel was directed to the Teacher turning up at a pupil’s house uninvited to give her a gift, as well as inviting a pupil who he knew to be 17 to a pub.

The Presenting Officer further submitted that the seriousness had been increased by additional aggravating factors such as the Teacher’s initial denials of certain allegations which, although admitted later, and during proceedings, resulted in Pupils E and F having to attend the hearing and give evidence. The Panel was pointed to conduct that related to different pupils, at different time periods and messaging over a prolonged period of time and was submitted that the conduct of the Teacher amounted to a pattern of behaviour and therefore a risk of reoccurrence. It was submitted that the Teacher had showed a real lack of insight, despite his very late admissions, and the Panel had no evidence whatsoever of any remediation undertaken by him.  

The Presenting Officer concluded that in his submission, the Teacher had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher in terms of Art.18(3) of the Public Services Reform (GTC Scotland) Order 2011 and was thus unfit to teach.

The Teacher expressed his disbelief at the findings of fact. The Teacher submitted that whilst he had no intention of returning to teaching and had moved on in his life, he did not consider himself unfit to teach. In his submission, the Teacher wanted to stress that, in relation to the late admissions, he had done so as a result of informal legal advice given to him prior to proceedings, and not for any malicious or calculated reason. The Teacher submitted that whilst he had no intention to return to teaching, being deemed unfit to teach would have other consequences that would prevent him from doing anything that required disclosure. The Teacher stated that whilst GTC Scotland proceedings have been ongoing, he has missed out on [Redacted]. The Teacher submitted that finding him unfit to teach could lead to listing by Disclosure Scotland.

The Teacher submitted that, whilst he didn’t accept the allegations that have been proved against him, he does accept that some of his conduct wasn’t what it should have been. The Teacher submitted that he understood that, on appearance, his fitness to teach may be impaired, but would never admit that he is a danger to the public or the teaching profession. He submitted that whilst he accepted that he had done some “stupid” things, anyone that knew him would know he’s not that kind of person and that, [Redacted], he never had a parental complaint and felt he was well respected. The Teacher submitted that on the issue of gifting, he had purchased a number of Commonwealth Games tickets, some of which were purchased in error and he could not give them away to friends and so decided to gift them to Pupils E and F which coincided with [Redacted]. The Teacher submitted that he was generous and provided examples of other gestures including [Redacted].

The Teacher submitted that, even though he still disputed the allegations found against him, he did not wish to downplay the seriousness of those allegations but highlighted that the more serious allegations against him were shown not to have happened (not proved). The Teacher submitted that these more serious allegations had put a different picture on things and couldn’t understand that if those allegations were accepted as not true (not proved), then how were the others accepted as true.

The Teacher’s submission referred to disputed evidential issues but ultimately appealed to the Panel to find some means to avoid finding him unfit to teach.                      

Findings – Fitness to Teach  

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and the submissions made by the parties in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.  The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the GTC Scotland Indicative Outcomes Guidance.

The Panel considered the Teacher’s conduct to be very serious. Over the course of two separate periods of time in 2014 and in 2016, he abused his position of trust as a teacher, [Redacted], in order to make contact with older teenage females who were or had recently been pupils at the school where he taught. They had been known to him as pupils when he was a teacher. He was not meant to have access to or to have utilised their phone numbers for any kind of personal use but went on to do so, engaging in personal communication.  

The Panel considered that the older teenage females on the receiving end of his contact in 2014, Pupils E and F, now viewed his contact to be inappropriate. Although they were no longer pupils at the material time, nonetheless they were still young women, and had originally known him as a teacher, and as an individual in a position of authority over them. His messages were, on occasion insistent, or even impatient, and had a sinister or even predatory overtone. Some were sent late at night.

From the public’s perspective, the Panel considered that the public would be concerned at the Teacher’s conduct, including conceivably for the safety of pupils.

The Panel said Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC were relevantly engaged, and the Teacher had placed himself in breach thereof. In essence, the Teacher had committed an egregious act of contravening appropriate professional boundaries, he had done so deliberately, and repeatedly, and he had brought the profession into disrepute in the eyes of the public, and in the eyes of pupils alike. The repetitive nature of his conduct indicated a pattern and, aggravated by his said lack of insight, it also suggested a risk of recurrence. The Panel noted his late admission in respect of allegations 1(b) to (f), which he made only after Pupils E and F had already had to attend the hearing to give evidence. While the Panel noted he said he had taken advice from a criminal defence solicitor, who had told him, in effect, to admit nothing, nonetheless the Panel was concerned that his attitude and approach were not consistent with remediation, nor with genuine contrition. Throughout these proceedings at large, including this hearing, the Teacher repeatedly conducted his defence of the case against him in ways suggestive of lack of ownership on his part for his wrongdoing.

The Panel concluded that the Teacher had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher, and that he is therefore unfit to teach.

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

Once the Teacher’s name has been removed from the Register, his name remains so removed unless and until an application for re-registration is made by him and a Fitness to Teach Panel considers that the Teacher is fit to teach at that time and directs that the application be granted.  Rule 2.10.6 outlines that a Panel may direct that the Teacher be prohibited from making such an application until the expiry of such a period, not exceeding 2 years, as it may determine.  In this case, having heard from the parties, the Panel directed that the Teacher should be prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of 2 years from the date of its decision. The Panel considered that a shorter time period was inappropriate having regard to the seriousness of the Teacher’s conduct, and his lack of insight. For clarity, this is not a period of removal, meaning that the Teacher will be automatically reinstated to the Register at the end of this period.  It sets out how long the Teacher has to wait until an application for re-registration can be made, which may or may not be granted.  

Right of 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.