Full hearing - Teacher B
Definitions
Any reference in this outcome to:
- ‘GTC Scotland’ or to ‘GTCS’ 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;
- the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland Register of teachers; and
- ‘COPAC’ means GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct.
Notification of Meeting
The Panel had before it a copy of the Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 3 December 2024. The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher had been provided with notice of the meeting in accordance with Rules 1.6 and 2.3.1. Accordingly, the Panel proceeded to consider the case.
Preliminary Matters
There were no preliminary matters.
Allegation
The allegation is:
- On [redacted] at Hamilton Sheriff Court, the Teacher pled guilty at trial and was convicted of the following offence:
Between 1 May 2021 and 23 March 2022, both dates inclusive, the Teacher did form a fraudulent scheme to obtain access to and use a bank account belonging to Individual A in order to defraud them of sums of money, and in pursuance of that scheme the Teacher did:
(a) activate a Power of Attorney for said Individual A when it was not necessary or appropriate to do so.
(b) accept receipt of a bank card which allowed the Teacher to access Individual A’s bank account without their consent.
And thereafter did repeatedly utilise Individual A’s bank account without their consent in order to pay the Teacher’s rent to North Lanarkshire Council, and purchase goods and services from Amazon, Klarna, Clearpay, various Petrol Stations, Tesco, M&S, ASDA and various other retailers and all this the Teacher did in the pursuance of her fraudulent scheme, and she did thus obtain approximately [redacted] by fraud.
For that conviction, on [redacted] she was sentenced to a Community Payback Order of 150 hours Unpaid Work/Activities and to pay compensation of [redacted].
In light of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and she is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.
Information Available to the Panel
In response to the notice, the Teacher provided the following additional information for consideration by the Panel:
- Final Investigation Report, dated 29 November 2024, with appendices including:
(a) Letter from Employer to Teacher– Suspension and notice of investigation, dated 3 May 2022;
(b) Letter from Employer to Teacher – Investigation Invite, dated 20 May 2022;
(c) Email from Teacher to Employer – Resignation, dated 14 June 2022;
(d) Letter from Employer to Teacher - accepting resignation, dated 14 June 2022;
(e) Employer referral form, dated 28 June 2022;
(f) Letter from Police Scotland to GTC Scotland - Information on charge status, dated 19 July 2022;
(g) Email from Teacher’s representative to GTC Scotland – setting out the teacher’s original position on the allegations, dated 23 August 2022;
(h) Full Extract conviction report from Hamilton Sheriff Court to GTC Scotland dated 27 June 2023;
(i) Email from Teacher’s representative to GTC Scotland – setting out Teacher’s updated position, dated 6 July 2023;
(j) Email from Police Scotland to GTC Scotland, dated 26 July 2023;
(k) Email from Teacher’s representative to GTC Scotland – providing additional information on the vulnerable adult and the Compensation Order payment, dated 28 August 2023;
(l) Teacher’s response to Interim Report, dated October 2023;
(m) Bank Statement showing payment of [redacted], dated 1 January 2023-31 January 2023;
(n) Email from COPFS confirming date Teacher pled guilty, dated 15 November 2023;
(o) Letter from Disclosure Scotland – Teacher on adults list, dated 2 August 2024;
- Response from Teacher, dated 7 October 2024;
- Teacher’s reflective statement, dated 18 September 2024;
- Statements of support:
(a) Supporter 1;
(b) Supporter 2;
(c) Supporter 3;
- Notice of Investigation, dated 4 July 2022;
- Notice of Investigation Royal Mail proof of delivery, dated 5 July 2022;
- Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 10 January 2024;
- Notice of Panel Consideration, re-issue, dated 3 December 2024; and
- Email from Teacher’s representative acknowledging re-issue of Notice of Panel Consideration and advising no further comment, dated 4 December 2024.
Teacher’s Response
The Teacher accepts that her conduct at the time fell below the standards expected of a registered teacher and in particular accepts breaches of Parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of COPAC.
The Teacher submits that she has demonstrated remorse, and insight to her conduct. She further submits that she has remedied her offending and that there is no risk of recurrence.
The Teacher refers to her exemplary professional and personal record. She acknowledges that having fallen short of the required standards; a sanction is inevitable.
The Teacher submits that it would be disproportionate and unnecessary for her to be removed from the Register and submits that in the circumstances of this case a reprimand would be the most appropriate sanction. The Teacher notes that she is now fully retired from Teaching and has no intention of returning to the profession.
Summary of Evidence
At the date of the events narrated in the Allegation, the Teacher was employed as a supply teacher. The Teacher was charged in May 2022. The Teacher’s employer referred the matter to GTC Scotland on 28 June 2022. The Teacher retired during her employer’s investigation. On [redacted], the Teacher pled guilty to the offence described in the allegation and was convicted.
The fraud was perpetrated against a close family friend using a power of attorney in the Teacher’s favour. The family friend was vulnerable in that they were elderly and housebound. They are now deceased. The Teacher’s explanation for her conduct is that she considered she was borrowing the funds as a short-term measure, but she fully accepts that the borrowing was in fact a fraud and expresses considerable remorse for her actions. The Investigating Officer notes that the fraud took place over a period of months between May 2021 and March 2022.
The Teacher’s submission is directed at her current fitness to teach. She submits that aside from the conviction she has had an unblemished career. In her response, the Teacher acknowledges this was a ‘gross lack of judgement’ and an ‘egregious breach of trust’, but submits that it was an isolated incident in an otherwise law-abiding life.
The Teacher emphasises that the conduct in question took place outside of her workplace and did not involve pupils. The Teacher is now retired and states that she has no desire to return to the profession. The convictions took place more than two years ago. The Teacher submits that she has demonstrated insight, remediation and remorse.
The Teacher points to a number of factors by way of explanation for her conduct: her requirement to shield during the Covid-19 pandemic; the resulting impact on her ability to earn an income; her rent being in arrears; various debts; and the impact all of this had on her health. The Teacher submits that the circumstances which contributed to her conduct no longer exist. The pandemic has ended and she has no ongoing financial pressure.
The sums taken have been repaid. The Teacher reports that she continues to provide voluntary services to the charity for which she volunteered during her CPO. She continues her rehabilitation by continuing to give back to the community. The Teacher submits that there is no risk of recurrence and no evidence of risk factors being present. The Teacher acknowledges that even if the Panel considers that shortfalls are remediable, have been remedied and that recurrence is not likely, the Panel still requires to consider whether there is an overriding public interest in making a finding of impairment, or that she is unfit to teach.
The Teacher submits that the public interest has been met with the conviction and sentence following criminal prosecution and by the fact of GTC Scotland’s robust investigation. The Teacher also accepts that a finding is likely and submits that a reprimand would be the most appropriate outcome.
Decision
The Panel considered all of the information available to it as described above. The Panel had a range of options open to it, as set out at Rule 2.3.2 (a) to (f). The Panel had regard to the factors set out in the GTC Scotland Panel Consideration Practice Statement.
The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dispose of the case in accordance with Rule 2.3.2 (a). The Panel reached this conclusion for the following reasons, under reference to Rule 2.1.1:
- The matter amounts to Relevant Conduct on the basis that there is a criminal conviction. There is also a real prospect of a finding that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired.
The Panel considered the relevant Parts of COPAC to be:
- Part 1 – Professionalism and maintaining trust in the profession
The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct amounted to a breach of Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC. The Panel also discussed Part 2.3 of COPAC as referred to in the allegation but was not satisfied that Part 2.3 was intended to relate to conduct of this nature.
Part 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.
The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the standard required by Part 1.3. There has been a breach of the criminal law. The conduct may also call into question the Teacher’s fitness to teach.
Part 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.
The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of a teacher in terms of Part 1.4. The Panel considered that the conviction for fraud, whilst occurring in the Teacher’s personal life was also relevant to the professional standards expected of a Teacher.
Part 1.6 You should maintain an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to pupils.
The Panel was satisfised that the Teacher’s conduct fell short of what was required by Part 1.6. Insofar as the Teacher has received a conviction for fraud, she is not a role model for children.
Part 2.3 you should aim to be a positive role model to pupils and motivate and inspire them to realise their full potential.
The Panel discussed whether Part 2.3 was relevant to the Teacher’s conduct. Part 2 of COPAC is directed at a teacher’s responsibilities towards pupils. The Panel considered that taking account of the aim of Part 2, the associated commentary, and the full wording of Part 2.3, the aim of being a role model was stated in a different context to Part 1.6. It was not clear to the Panel why a breach of Part 2.3 had been alleged in addition to a breach of Part 1.6. It appeared to add nothing to the substance of the alleged breach of Part 1.6. The Investigating Officer provided no explanation as to why a breach of both Parts was alleged. In the Panel’s assessment, Part 2.3 was not relevantly engaged.
The Panel discussed the remaining factors within Rule 2.1.1 and concluded that none were applicable. The matter is not over 5 years of age. It has not already been considered. It is not frivolous or vexatious. The allegation has not been made anonymously or by a person who has failed to cooperate with the investigation.
The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dismiss the case on the basis of an insufficiency of evidence as provided for by Rule 2.3.2 (b). The Panel had regard to Rule 1.7.18 which provides that an extract conviction (that is not subject to appeal) is conclusive proof of the conviction and that any finding of fact upon which the conviction is based will be admissible as evidence of those facts. The extract conviction was available to the Panel. Accordingly, there is no evidential dispute relating to the Allegation and the Panel concluded that the Allegation was established as a matter of fact. Furthermore, the Panel did not consider the referral to be malicious.
Having decided that the Teacher’s conduct amounted to Relevant Conduct and that there was no reason to dispose of the case or dismiss it, the Panel turned its discussions to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.
Fitness to Teach
The Panel carefully considered all of the available information and had regard to Part A of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance in considering whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.
For the reasons described above, the Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the standards contained in Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC.
The Panel discussed the seriousness of those breaches. The Panel observed that the fraud did not involve pupils. Nevertheless, the Panel considered that the seriousness of the breaches was increased by the fact that the fraud was of a vulnerable person.
In particular, the Panel noted that the Teacher was in a position of trust in relation to the vulnerable person and that she abused that trust. The conduct was not an isolated incident; it took place over a period of approximately 10 months.
The Panel noted that the Teacher has no criminal history and has an otherwise unblemished teaching record. The Panel also considered the Teacher’s explanation for her conduct which was that she was in a difficult financial situation during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Panel considered that whilst this did not excuse the Teacher’s behaviour, it provided some context for her conduct. The Panel considered that the Teacher’s conduct (and resulting conviction) was a serious matter but that it was not fundamentally incompatible with being a teacher.
The Panel considered that the breaches were remediable and had been remedied. The Teacher had shown considerable remorse. She has demonstrated insight to the unacceptable nature of her conduct. She has fulfilled the terms of the CPO and has continued to provide voluntary charitable services to the community. The funds have been repaid.
The Panel observed that the Teacher has experienced serious consequences as a result of her conduct and that it has had a significant impact on her.
The Panel considered that the risk of recurrence is low. The Panel noted that the circumstances which provided the context to the Teacher’s conduct no longer exist. The Teacher has expressed remorse, regret and embarrassment about her conduct.
It has impacted her severely. She is retired from teaching and has no intention of returning to the profession.
The Panel was mindful that fitness to teach is a current assessment aimed at protection, not at punishment. In light of the foregoing reasons, the Panel concluded that the Teacher is not currently impaired.
The Panel considered whether the overriding public interest nevertheless required a finding that the Teacher is impaired. The Panel was mindful that it required to consider what the reasonable public perception would be of the seriousness of the misconduct and what the public would expect of GTC Scotland as the regulator in all the circumstances.
The Panel considered that in light of the low risk of recurrence, the public does not require protection from the Teacher. The Panel also considered that the informed member of the public would consider that the Teacher has already faced serious consequences as a result of her conduct. However, the Panel considered that the informed member of the public would be concerned that the conduct was directed against a vulnerable person whilst the Teacher was in a position of trust. After careful consideration, the Panel considered that the public interest required a finding of impairment in order to maintain the public confidence in registrants and in the integrity of the teaching profession. The Panel also considered it relevant that a finding of impairment would have a deterrent effect.
For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.
Disposal
As the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired, it moved on to consider the appropriate disposal of the case. In considering this matter, the Panel had regard to Part B of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance. In line with that guidance, the Panel considered the available options from least to most severe. The Panel noted that not all indicating factors required to be present for a disposal option to be considered appropriate.
The Panel noted that it had identified three breaches of COPAC. The conduct in question involved an abuse of a position of trust in relation to a vulnerable person. It took place over a period of approximately 10 months. The conduct was deliberate, and pre-planned to an extent. The Panel also took account of the Teacher’s explanation that her financial position had become desperate during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Teacher had demonstrated insight and shown remorse. She had remedied her conduct. The Panel was satisfied that her reflective statement was genuine. There was no risk of harm to pupils. The risk of recurrence was low. The Teacher provided a number of positive testimonials from professional colleagues attesting to her good character and professional history.
The Panel carefully considered the proportionality of the available sanctions taking account of the aggravating and mitigating factors noted above. Weighing all of these factors, the Panel
considered that a reprimand would be appropriate. A reprimand signals to the public and the profession the seriousness of the matter and would serve to maintain public confidence in teachers and the teaching profession.
The Panel considered that a reprimand should be imposed for one year. The conduct was serious, but not at the highest level of seriousness. The Panel considered that given that the conduct involved an abuse of trust of a vulnerable person and resulted in a conviction, a reprimand of 6 months would not be appropriate.
Having identified the appropriate disposal, the Panel decided to issue a consent order in accordance with Rule 2.7. The terms of the consent order are set out in the separate ‘Consent Order’ document. Should the Teacher fail to provide her consent to the order within 28 days from the date of the decision notice, the case is to be referred on for hearing proceedings.
