Panel Consideration – Conduct – Che Yeung

Definitions

Any reference in this outcome 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;
• the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland Register of teachers; and
• ‘COPAC ’means the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Notification of meeting

The panel had before it a copy of the Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 24 November 2023. The panel had sight of an email from the Teacher’s representative to GTC Scotland dated 27 November 2023 confirming the Notice had been received. 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.

Allegations‍‍

1. On 10 August 2022, whilst attending an induction day for employment by Glasgow City Council as a probationary teacher, the Teacher did consume alcohol, and was under the influence of alcohol, to the extent that he was found to be unresponsive and required medical attention.
2. ‍On 10 August 2022, whilst attending an induction day for employment by Glasgow City Council as a probationary teacher, the Teacher did have in his possession a water bottle, the contents of which contained alcohol.
3. On 11 August 2022, the Teacher gave a false account of the circumstances leading to his behaviour on 10 August 2022 to employees of Glasgow City Council.
4. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 3 above were dishonest or, in the alternative, lacking in integrity. 

And in light of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and he is unfit to teach, as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC).

Information available to the panel

Final Investigation Report, dated 14 November 2023 with appendices including:

• Referral email from [redacted], Glasgow City Council, dated 12 August 2022
• Email to Teacher from [redacted], Glasgow City Council, dated 12 August 2022
• GTC Scotland witness statement [redacted], dated 2 August 2023
• Statement of [redacted], dated 15 August 2022
• Statement of [redacted], dated 15 August 2022
• Statement of [redacted], dated 24 August 2022
• Statement of [redacted], dated 16 August 2022
• Statement of [redacted], dated 16 August 2022
• Statement of [redacted], dated 15 August 2022
• Email to [redacted], GTC Scotland from [redacted], Glasgow City Council, dated 15 August 2022
• GTC Scotland witness statement [redacted], dated 11 August 2023
• Teacher’s response to interim report, dated 13 November 2023
• Teacher’s reflective note, dated 20 September 2023
• Letter from [redacted], [redacted], dated 2 November 2023
• Notice of investigation, dated 29 August 2022
• Notice of panel consideration, dated 24 November 2023
• Notice of panel consideration cover email and delivery receipt, dated 24 November 2024.

Teacher’s response

The Teacher responded to the Notification of Investigation in September 2022 simply to confirm his representative. He did not address the allegations.

The Investigating Officer contacted the Teacher’s representative in August 2023 to confirm whether the Teacher wished to make any comment regarding the allegations and was advised that he did not.

Teacher’s response to Interim Report

The Teacher responded to the Interim Report through his representative in the following terms:

Letter of Response dated 13 November 2023

The Teacher’s representative stated that the Teacher accepted his failings and that his fitness to teach was currently impaired. The Teacher’s representative further advised that the Teacher would agree to a consent order for removal from the register as he is currently not working as a teacher and has no current intention to return to the profession. The Teacher’s representative confirmed that the Teacher was aware that if his name was removed from the register, he would require to go through the process of making a re-application in due course.

The Teacher’s representative provided information regarding the Teacher’s career background and confirmed that he is currently working outside of teaching.

The Teacher’s representative also advised that the Teacher had a conviction under section 5(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, namely being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. The Teacher’s representative explained that this offence occurred at a time when [redacted].The Teacher had had a lot to drink at home and had then been stopped by police when driving back to work.

The Teacher’s representative advised that [redacted]. It was explained that the Teacher also [redacted] and that the induction day in question was the first time he had been at a large gathering for sometime.

The Teacher’s representative stated that the Teacher had committed a lot of time and financial resource into qualifying as a teacher and felt under pressure to secure a permanent teaching role, [redacted]. it was further stated that [redacted]. 

The Teacher’s representative set out the Teacher’s position in relation to each allegation in turn.

Allegation 1

The Teacher admitted this allegation, accepting that he drank too much alcohol and was drunk. The Teacher’s capacity was such that he does not have a clear recollection of what occurred and that he had consumed a large amount of alcohol at lunchtime, including shots. He accepts that the amount consumed resulted in him being found unresponsive at the table. The Teacher accepts his actions were wrong and unprofessional and considers that he started drinking at lunchtime due to a cumulation of pressures. He felt the induction day was a repeat of content he had already been told and was concerned that it was a waste of time, which fed into his worries.

Allegation 2

The Teacher admitted this allegation. He does not specifically recall whether he was in possession of a water bottle full of alcohol or not but does recall later finding a bottle in his bag that contained alcohol, which he had not had with him that morning. He accepts that it is highly likely, on the balance of probabilities, that he had the bottle with him that contained alcohol.

Allegation 3

The Teacher admitted this allegation in that he accepts that the account which he gave to the [redacted] on 11 August was false. He states that he does not recall what he said on 10 August but accepts that several witnesses report him saying that he had been drinking all day. He states that,whether he said this or not, it is not true as he only started drinking at lunchtime. He notes, however, that he told the [redacted] that he had only had a couple of drinks and accepts that this is false. Whilst he cannot remember how many drinks he had; it was certainly more than two.

Allegation 4

The Teacher admitted this allegation.

In respect of Fitness to Teach the Teacher’s representative stated that the Teacher accepted that his conduct was unacceptable and that he does not have a clear recollection of what occurred. It was submitted that the Teacher was particularly ashamed about lying to the [redacted].

The Teacher’s representative explained that the Teacher had taken steps to engage with [redacted] and provided a letter from the [redacted].

The Teacher’s representative stated that the Teacher accepted his fitness to teach was impaired and that he accepts the appropriate outcome to be one of a consent order for removal, which he would agree to. It was submitted that whilst the conduct was serious, it did not prevent it from being remediated and that the impact of the GTC Scotland investigation, and losing his offer of employment,means that there is no realistic prospect of re occurrence. He stated that,despite that, the Teacher accepted that there is an ‘overriding public interest in making a finding that fitness to teach is impaired’.

The Teacher’s representative stated that the Teacher accepted that neither a reprimand, nor a conditional registration order would be appropriate as neither would satisfy the public interest.

Teacher’s Reflective Note

The Teacher provided a reflective note dated 20 September 2022 stating that he was remorseful for his actions and choices on the day in question and that he believes his behaviour stemmed from being isolated for the previous two years.

He stated that public confidence would be reduced in the teaching profession if his conduct was known by the public and that he knows teachers are held to a higher standard. He advised that he has re-read COPAC.

Letter from [redacted], [redacted], dated 2 November 2023

[Redacted]

The Teacher did not provide a further response to the Final Report.

Summary of evidence and submissions

The allegations arise from the Teacher appearing to be drunk at an induction day prior to the Teacher starting his probationary year with Glasgow City Council (‘the Local Authority’).

The Local Authority withdrew the offer to the Teacher to commence his probationary year following the incident and referred the matter to GTC Scotland.

Witness statements were obtained from [redacted], the Quality Improvement Officer for the Local Authority with lead responsibility for probationers across the city, and [redacted], an Education Officer with the Local Authority.

[redacted] speaks to being approached by a probationer during the induction course who expressed concerns about the Teacher. [redacted] states that she went over to the Teacher and saw that he was unconscious with his head flat on a table. She tried to shake him and talk to him, but the Teacher was unresponsive. A Duty Manager and first aider were contacted to assist.

[redacted] states that after a period of time the Teacher started to respond and stated that he was drunk and had been drinking since the morning. The Teacher was said to require assistance walking.

[redacted] states that a colleague checked the Teacher’s bag and found a clear water bottle that was roughly 1/5 of a liquid that smelled like gin. The Teacher had to be assisted into his wife’s car when she came to collect him.

[redacted] states that the Teacher attended a meeting on 11 August 2022 where he expressed regret and initially stated that he had met friends at lunchtime for a drink and denied he had started drinking in the morning. The Teacher denied [redacted].

[redacted] states she emailed the Teacher on 12 August summarising their meeting and withdrawing the offer of employment. She states that additional statements were taken from others at the induction day.

[redacted] states that she attended the induction day on 10 August 2022. She states that [redacted] was told at about 12:45 pm that the Teacher had passed out at a table and that [redacted]was trying to rouse him. She also states that the Teacher said that he was drunk and had been drinking since that morning. [redacted] confirms that she checked the Teacher’s bag and found a water bottle containing what smelt like gin.

Witness statements have also been obtained from a number of other individuals who attended the induction day, all of whom speak to the Teacher appearing to be drunk, disorientated and unresponsive.

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:

• The matter amounts to Relevant Conduct and there is on the face of it, a real prospect of a finding that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired. The panel considered the following factors relevant in that the conduct alleged relates to:
  • Abuse of a teacher’s position of trust.
  • Substance abuse or mis-use.
  • Other serious activities which cause harm and affect public confidence.

The panel considered the relevant Parts of COPAC to be:

• Part 1 – Professionalism and maintaining trust in the profession, in particular 1.3,1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.
• Part2 – Professional responsibilities towards Pupils, in particular 2.3.

 The panel considered the following additional factors to be relevant in their decision:

• The matter did not occur more than 5 years ago.
• The matter has not already been considered.
• The matter is not frivolous or vexatious.
• The allegation(s) have 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 Teacher has admitted the allegations, and the panel noted the terms of Rule 1.7.21. Furthermore, the panel did not consider the referral to be malicious and was satisfied there was a sufficiency of evidence in relation to the allegations.

As the Teacher admitted the allegations in full, the panel went on to consider current 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.

The panel determined that the Teacher has breached parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 2.3 of COPAC. The Teacher’s behaviour involves multiple breaches of COPAC, and his conduct fell well below that to be expected of a teacher. The Teacher breached the trust put in him by fellow members of the profession and the public. The panel concluded that the Teacher has failed to demonstrate professionalism, honesty,and integrity. He has acted dishonestly or lacked integrity. The Teacher provided false information to a colleague and has failed to act as a role model. The panel was satisfied that the allegations would amount to misconduct.

The panel next considered the level of seriousness of the Teacher’s conduct. The panel concluded that the Teacher’s conduct was serious, involving dishonesty and a lack of integrity and is therefore at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness. However, whilst the panel considered that the Teacher’s conduct was at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness, it considered that it was remediable,albeit with difficulty. The panel noted that the Teacher himself states that [redacted],including being convicted for being in charge of a motor vehicle while over the prescribed alcohol limit. The panel concluded that this was indicative of [redacted]. The Teacher’s dishonesty/lack of integrity appeared to be linked to [redacted].

The Teacher has engaged with GTC Scotland through his Representative. He has provided a response to the allegations. He admitted or ‘accepted’ the allegations and ‘accepts that the appropriate outcome in this case is a consent order for removal.’.

The panel considered the medical evidence lodged by the Teacher with reference to Health Matters and Medical Evidence Practice Statement; however, it was of limited assistance to the panel given the little detail provided.  

The panel also considered the need to declare and uphold proper teaching standards and the deterrent effect any determination may have upon other teachers acting in a similar manner and maintain the confidence of the public in the profession and GTC Scotland as a regulator.

The panel therefore went on to consider the extent to which the Teacher had fallen below the standards expected. Whilst the Teacher’s conduct was serious, as reflected by the panel’s prior conclusions, it is remediable. He has accepted the allegations and there is the letter from [redacted].

In all the circumstances, the panel did not consider that the Teacher had fallen significantly short of the standards expected meaning he was unfit to teach.

However, the panel did conclude that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired for the reasons set out above.

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 are required to be present for a disposal option to be considered appropriate.

The panel had regard to the factors set out in the GTC Scotland Panel Consideration Practice Statement. It noted that the Teacher had indicated he would agree to consent to removal.

The panel also took into account and adopted its conclusions set out above in respect of the seriousness of the Teacher’s conduct. It considered and had proportionate regard to the public interest, the Teacher’s interests and the particular circumstances of the case including the aggravating factors.