Full Hearing - Conduct - Teacher J

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.

Special measures

The Panel were made aware that, in accordance with Rule 2.4.5 of GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017, parties had previously agreed that Pupil A and Pupil E would be treated as vulnerable witnesses and that the following special measures would be put in place:

• vulnerable witnesses (Pupils A and E) would provide their evidence in the hearing suite in the presence of the Panel
• vulnerable witnesses (Pupils A and E) would be permitted to have a supporter present
• vulnerable witnesses (Pupils A and E) would not be in the same room as the Teacher
• The Teacher would view the witness’ evidence of Pupils A and E remotely, from a different room, while supervised.

These measures were agreed by parties to clarify and complement a previous panel decision on the issue of special measures and to ensure a balance was struck that supported the witnesses giving their evidence and in fairness to the Teacher.

Preliminary issues

A preliminary matter arose in relation to the terms of the allegations against the Teacher in the notification of the full conduct hearing. These did not state, as is commonplace, that the allegations were alleged to consequence breaches of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) or that, as a consequence, it was alleged that the Teacher was unfit to teach. This appeared to be an administrative error. The Presenting Officer presented a further version of the allegations without opposition to include the matters stated. The Teacher’s representative did not oppose these as the Teacher previously had, when initial notice of the full allegations was issued.  The Panel received these revised allegations. The proceedings thereafter related to the corrected version of the allegations provided, as stated below.

Allegations

The following allegations were considered at the hearing:

1. Between 2015 and 2016, whilst employed as a [redacted] Teacher by [redacted] Council at the [redacted], in respect of Pupil A, then aged 14 years of age, the Teacher did:
   (a) touch Pupil A’s hand while teaching her
   (b) brush past her shoulder when she was standing in the school corridor on numerous occasions
   (c) deliberately pull Pupil A’s chair away from underneath her, causing her to fall.
2. In or around June 2019, whilst employed as a [redacted] Teacher by [redacted] Council at the [redacted], in respect of Pupil E, then aged 14, the Teacher did lean across Pupil E and place their hand in between her thighs on her crotch.
3. And the Teacher’s actions at allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 2 above were sexually motivated.

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

Teacher’s admissions

The allegations were denied by the Teacher.

Hearing papers

The following materials were provided to the panel in the case bundle.  The Panel did not, however, admit all of these into evidence, in the circumstances which are described below:

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

• GTCS Witness Statement of [redacted] (Pupil A), dated 14 April 2023
• GTCS Witness Statement of [redacted] (Pupil E), dated 24 April 2023
• GTCS Witness Statement of [Witness 1], dated 25 April 2023
• GTCS Witness Statement of [Witness 2], dated 14 June 2023
• GTCS Witness Statement of [Witness 3], dated 30 June 2023
• Emails provided by [Witness 3] from June 2019
• Police Scotland Witness Statements:
  
  • [Witness 1], dated [redacted]
  • [Witness 2], dated [redacted] and dated [redacted]
  • [Witness 3], dated [redacted]
  • [redacted] (Pupil A), dated [redacted]
  • [redacted] (Pupil E) dated [redacted].  

Teacher’s hearing papers

• Teacher’s response to Notice of Investigation, dated 15 October 2019
• Teacher’s response to Interim Report, dated October 2023
• The Teacher’s Representative provided response to the final report, dated 13 February 2024
• Statement of the Teacher, dated 28 August 2024
• Statement of [Witness 2], dated 24 July 2024
• Statement of [Witness 1], dated 23 July 2024
• Photos – [redacted]

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

• Notice of Full Hearing (final revised allegations)
• Notice of Full Hearing – cover email and delivery receipt, dated 24 June 2025
• Procedural Meeting decisions:
  
  • Anonymity, Privacy, Vulnerable Witness, dated 24 September 2024

Summary of evidence

Day 1

Pupil A was the first witness. She was called on 19 November 2025. She read her witness statement into evidence. She was then asked supplementary questions. She identified a photograph of the science classroom at the [redacted].  The witness stated that the Teacher had not been happy with her for talking in her class. The Teacher walked over and pulled her chair. The chairs were tall and she tipped forward. He moved her chair to the back of the class. She carried her things there and got on with her work.  She felt humiliated and confused. She thought what had happened was wrong. She spoke to her parents and her father contacted the school. She said that in classes the Teacher would invade her personal space, coming closer than other teachers. She said that this mainly involved females. She explained that the Teacher would touch her hand and move it away by clasping it with his thumb and forefinger or brush it away. She thought that the Teacher would walk closer to her when passing in the corridor. She could not recall any times or incidents when that happened. She had also mentioned this to her parents. At the time she thought it was maybe not worth mentioning. Looking back she thought that it was an odd way for a Teacher to behave, to invade personal space. The Teacher had been given a particular nickname by the pupils which this witness was aware of.  She did not think this had any impact on her evidence.    

In cross examination it was pointed out to Pupil A that she had used the phrase “from what I can remember” in her witness statement. The witness explained that she gave the (GTC Scotland) statement in 2023, and she was describing events in 2016. She was asked about her recollection of the incident.  She stated she would probably have had a better recollection in [redacted] when she gave a police statement. She agreed that the Teacher had pulled the chair away from her, backwards from underneath her. She had fallen forwards and was able to steady herself by putting her hands on the table.  She put her arms out to stop herself hitting the table.  She agreed that the only time that the Teacher had ever touched her hand was when he was moving it to see a textbook. On being asked about the Teacher “brushing” past her in the corridor, she could not remember the Teacher making actual contact with her in such circumstances. The witness confirmed that they had not mentioned the Teacher brushing past her or touching her hand in her [redacted] Police Statement. She was not clear as to whether the chair incident took place in second year or third year. The witness was taken to her police statement where it stated that after the Teacher pulled the chair she had stumbled back but managed to catch hold of the table to stop herself falling back. It was put to the witness that this was inconsistent with her evidence before the Panel, wherein she had said she had fallen forwards. The witness said that she put her hands out and could have gone either way. She denied that she was lying to the Panel or had lied to the police. She did not agree that the Teacher did not pull her chair from under her deliberately. She did not know if he had intended for her to fall.  

In questions from the Panel, Pupil A stated that she could not say what the Teacher’s motivation was for moving her hand, although it was maybe done to see her textbook. The witness confirmed to the Panel that when her chair was pulled by the Teacher, she landed feet first on the ground.

Day 2

The next witness was Pupil E. She was called on 20 November 2025. Pupil E attempted to read her GTC Scotland statement into evidence, and after a short break, the Presenting Officer completed this exercise. She was then asked supplementary questions and assisted the Panel with confirming the general layout of the classroom, seating arrangements and the position of the Teacher. The witness was referred to photographs showing the type of classroom furniture. The witness visually demonstrated to the Panel the Teacher’s alleged contact with her, which was with the back of the hand, in the area of her lower abdomen as she was seated. It was stated that the witness was seated behind the Teacher at the time as he stood at the class bench, focussed on a microscope in front of him. On continuing her examination in chief, the Presenting Officer referred to the witness’s police statement, which was in the form of a video recorded interview transcript. An objection was raised by the Teacher’s Representative in respect of how this document was referred to and being introduced. In order to resolve the issue, the witness left the hearing to allow for parties to discuss the objection.

Upon the conclusion of these discussions and the issue being resolved, Pupil E indicated to the Servicing Officer that she was no longer able to continue with her evidence or participate further in the proceedings. Reasonable attempts to reassure and re-engage the witness were unsuccessful.  The witness did not complete her evidence or return to proceedings.

In those circumstances, the Teacher’s representative made an application for the Panel to rule that Pupil A’s evidence, heard so far, was inadmissible. The Presenting Officer opposed that application. She also invited the Panel, were they to uphold the Teacher’s application, to admit Pupil E’s witness statement as hearsay evidence. That consequential application was opposed by the Teacher.

The Panel was given legal advice as to the rule on admissibility in these proceedings. This is rule 1.7.17 of the Rules:

“Subject to the requirements of relevance and fairness, a panel may admit oral, documentary or other evidence, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in civil or criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom”.

The Panel decided to grant the application made on behalf of the Teacher for the evidence heard from Pupil E to be ruled inadmissible. The Panel decided to refuse the Presenting Officer’s application to have the witness statement of Pupil E admitted as hearsay evidence. The reasons for these decisions were essentially the same.  

The Panel had regard to the general objective, to Rule 1.7.17 of the 2017 Fitness to Teach Rules, the legal advice and the terms of the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Witness and Hearsay Evidence.

The Panel decided that the balance of fairness favoured not admitting the evidence. Pupil E had not completed her examination in chief, and her evidence had not been subject to cross examination. Whilst it was acknowledged that there was no absolute right to cross examine witnesses in these proceedings, the Teacher had no way of testing the evidence provided.  This would equally apply to the witness’s hearsay statement. In both respects the Panel decided that the evidence was (or would be) the sole or decisive evidence in support of the second allegation made against the Teacher. The Panel gave consideration to whether the evidence was either demonstrably reliable or capable of being tested. Although evidence could be led in respect of Pupil E’s demeanour after the incident, any such evidence was not direct evidence of the event in question. There was discussion of whether there was another way of challenging this evidence. One possible way might have been through identifying inconsistencies between the account given today and the transcript of the police interview, although no submissions had been made about the extent to which that would be possible. In the Panel’s view, the allegations were of the most serious kind and, therefore, any consideration of admitting hearsay evidence required heightened scrutiny and carefully balancing public interest with the rights of the Teacher to challenge the case against them. In the circumstances, the Teacher would be unable to do so were either the partial evidence in chief, or the hearsay statement, be deemed admissible. The Panel therefore determined that fairness required that they grant the Teacher’s application and refuse the Presenting Officer’s application.

In light of these developments, Parties went on to consider their positions.  

Day 3

When proceedings resumed on 21 November 2025 the Presenting Officer made an application to cancel the case in terms of Rule 2.10.9 of the Fitness to Teach Rules. She referred to the Case Cancellation Practice Statement. The basis of the application was that there was now insufficient evidence to proceed with the case, and the possibility of findings in fact was so low that it would not be fair or proportionate to continue. Reference was also made to the Fact Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases practice statement. In relation to allegation 1, Pupil A had explained that the Teacher touched her hand only to move it out of the way to see a textbook or to take a pen from her hand. While he walked past her in the corridor, he did not make contact with her shoulder.  Regarding the incident of allegedly pulling away Pupil A’s chair, her evidence had been inconsistent, and issues of weight arose. It was not considered proportionate or fair to proceed with the hearing on this basis alone.  Without Pupil E’s account, there was insufficient evidence to prove allegation 2. It would require proceeding on hearsay evidence of other witnesses who may speak to what Pupil E had told them. It was considered that the possibility of a finding in fact based on that evidence alone (if indeed it had been introduced without successful objection) would be so low it would not be fair or proportionate to continue. There was no evidence before the Panel to support allegation 3. Continuing with the hearing would not meet the general objective and it would not be in the public interest to proceed. Rather, cancellation would maintain confidence in the integrity of the process.

The Teacher’s Representative supported the application and adhered to the submissions made by the Presenting Officer in that respect.

In legal advice, which the Panel accepted, the Panel were referred to rule 2.10.9 which is as follows:

“A Panel may at any time following the referral of a case to it for a hearing decide to cancel a case (and dispose of it on that basis). Before making any such decision, a Panel must have heard from the parties on the matter and be satisfied that it is in accordance with the general objective and in the public interest to do so”.

The general objective referred to in this rule is contained in Rule 1.3.7, which is as follows:

“These Rules have the general objective of enabling GTC Scotland, Conveners and Panels, with the assistance of the parties, to deal with cases fairly and justly”.

The question for the Panel is whether it is fair and just, and in the public interest, to cancel the case. These are matters for the Panel to decide. The Panel may note that no party argues that it is unfair or unjust for the case to be cancelled, nor that it is not in the public interest to cancel the case. The Panel were advised to make the decision against the background of what had transpired in the previous day of the proceedings, whereby evidence from a witness giving potentially relevant evidence had been deemed inadmissible, and in the whole circumstances of the case.

The Panel decided to grant the case cancellation application. They had heard the position of the parties, which satisfied the procedural requirement of the relevant rule. They had regard to the fact that both parties supported the application, which was significant, in the Panel’s view. In the Panel’s view the case had been referred for full panel proceedings on the basis of an expectation that the indicated evidence would be presented. This was no longer the position. The Panel noted that the basis of GTC Scotland’s application was that they did not consider that they would likely prove their case on the balance of probabilities. While a concluded view on the evidence was not the Panel’s function at this point, they considered that this was likely a correct assessment.  Importantly, there was plainly no evidence that the Teacher’s conduct had been sexually motivated. The Panel determined that it would be fair and just to cancel the case in the situation where GTC Scotland were advising the Panel that they do not consider that they can prove the allegations. In the Panel’s view the public interest does not likely require pursuit of a case where GTC Scotland have adopted that position. In the Panel’s view it would be a highly unusual situation for the public interest to require a regulatory panel to insist that proceedings continue where there is an agreed position between the parties that there is insufficient evidence of misconduct and that the case should be cancelled. In the Panel’s view this was not such a situation. In the Panel’s opinion it would not be fair, just, or in the public interest to proceed with the hearing in these circumstances. In the Panel’s opinion it would be fair, just, and in the public interest to cancel the case. They accordingly determined that they should do so.

The Panel accordingly made no findings in fact as to the allegations and made no findings on the Teacher’s fitness to teach.  They advised the Teacher that the case against him was at an end and that there would be no further action in relation to the allegations as they are before this Panel.  

As a consequence of this decision, the TRO presently in place was lifted.

The Panel also acknowledged that anonymity in relation to the Teacher’s name, registration number, school and local authority had previously been granted by a separate Panel.

Disposal

In the circumstances, the case was cancelled.