Panel Consideration Meeting - Case Cancellation Application - Teacher D

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; and
• the ‘Rules’ (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them.

Background

The Procedural Hearing/Meeting was arranged to consider the following:

Allegations

1. During the period between 16 August and 15 September 2023, while employed by [redacted] at [redacted] as a [redacted] teacher, and during [redacted] classes with a S2 class, the Teacher did:
   
   • (a) Sing inappropriate songs to students referencing:
     
     • (i) the hairstyle of Pupil A, who had a [redacted]
     • (ii) the ethnicity of Pupil B and her brother
   • (b) Leave the classroom to get what he referred to as his “student motivator”, or words to that effect, and return with a knife which he brandished at the class

And as a result of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and/or he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching parts 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 5.1 and 5.3 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Evidence

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:

• Cancellation Application (Teacher), dated 15 May 2026, with appendices including:
  
  • Letter from [redacted], dated 7 July 2025
  • Letter from [redacted], dated 17 November 2025
  • Email from [redacted] sent on 6 May 2026
  • Statement by the Teacher
  • Letter signed by the Teacher
  • Statement of [redacted]
• Panel Consideration Papers
• TRO Decision

Preliminary Matters

The Panel carefully considered the terms of Rule 2.5.1:

At any stage of proceedings, a Panel of its own volition, on the Convener’s direction or upon the application of a party (in such form as may be specified by the Servicing Officer), may:

(a) determine any interim or preliminary matter that has arisen in the case;

(b) resolve any issues of law; or

(c) consider an application for a case to be cancelled.

Unless a party has (in the relevant application) requested that a procedural hearing be held or a Panel considers that such a hearing is necessary in the particular circumstances, the above matters will be considered by a Panel at a meeting based on the written representations made by the parties in compliance with case management directions set for this purpose.

The Panel noted that neither of the Parties requested the procedural hearing in the submissions made. Further to this, the Panel considered that a procedural hearing was not necessary. Therefore, the Panel proceeded to consider the matter on the papers.

Application

An application for cancellation of the proceedings on behalf of the Teacher dated 15 May 2026, was before the panel to be considered, along with appendices including letters from [Person A] dated 7 July and 17 November 2025, email from [Person A] dated 6 May 2026, and a statement by the Teacher, a letter signed by the Teacher, and the statement of [Person B].

It was submitted on behalf of the Teacher that the application should not be controversial, and that the application was supported by, and brought about on, the basis of sensitive information concerning [redacted]. As such, this would ordinarily be dealt with in private or anonymised in any published decision. As the allegations had not yet been tested, the damage done to the Teacher's personal and professional reputation by naming him in any reporting, making reference to allegations in those circumstances, would be disproportionate and unnecessary.

The Panel were referred to Rule 2.5.1 and Rules 1.3.7 and 1.3.8. The Panel were also referred to the Teacher's right to privacy in terms of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and were referred to the Health Matters and Medical Evidence Practice Statement.

The Teacher sought that if the application for cancellation were granted that the decision should be anonymised.

It was submitted that the [redacted] providing the relevant [redacted] had the appropriate level of expertise and specialism. On behalf of the Teacher, it was submitted that the [redacted] available was to the effect that [redacted] are such that the Teacher is unlikely to ever be able to resume teaching again.

The Teacher's representative asked the Panel to consider the public interest, including public protection and maintenance of the public's confidence in registrants of the profession and the GTC Scotland as professional regulator, and the need to declare and uphold proper teaching standards and ensure a deterrent effect upon other GTC Scotland registrants.

It was submitted that the Teacher is [redacted] to return to teaching, and this is independently verified by [redacted]. He has prepared a letter and signed same requesting his removal from the teaching register. The Panel's attention was also drawn to the fact that the present matter is the only occasion during the Teacher's 30-year career where he had been subject to disciplinary allegation or regulatory investigation. He has an unblemished professional career. Character evidence was provided by [redacted], [Person B]. It was submitted on behalf of the Teacher that, the application of the general objective of cancellation being granted, particularly having regard to the questions of proportionality, flexibility and avoidance of delay, any public interest that there may be in proceedings continuing were outweighed by the factual evidence in support of cancellation.

Public protection would be secured given the teacher would be removed from the register. The need to uphold standards and maintain confidence in the profession and GTC Scotland as a regulator had been served by the investigation over the past three years. Given [redacted], he would be unlikely to be able to participate in any future hearing, and therefore cancellation would be a proportionate disposal in the circumstances.

The applications for cancellation and anonymity were not opposed by the Presenting Officer.

Decision

The Panel noted that the application for cancellation was made on the basis of [redacted]. The Panel directed themselves to [redacted]. They noted [redacted].

The Panel noted that the allegations did not involve actual aggression but rather offensive humour, including the use of racist epithets, the use of which terms the Teacher denied. The Panel noted that the Teacher recognised how ill-judged his behaviour had been and that he would not be in a professional role or setting again; as such the risk of reoccurrence was low. The fact that the Teacher would not be returning to teaching ensured public protection. The Panel determined that the fact that the regulator had properly brought the referral and it had been appropriately considered by a Panel, then this application, carefully considered in the light of all of the evidence provided would ensure that the public interest in maintaining public trust and confidence in both the profession and the GTC Scotland as regulator. The Teacher was [redacted] and as such the Panel determined there was no merit in continuing proceedings given the level of seriousness of the allegation, the absence of ongoing public protection issues given that the Teacher was [redacted] and had applied to have his name removed from the Register. For these reasons the application for cancellation was granted.

The Panel having granted the cancellation application went on to consider the anonymity application. The decision required to be necessary and proportionate. The Panel noted the basis upon which anonymity was sought, namely the private life and [redacted] of the Teacher, and whether publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. The Panel noted the impact on the teacher's ability to participate in any future proceedings as a result of [redacted] and determined that it was proportionate. Otherwise, the Teacher would be associated with untested allegations and given his right to a private life, particularly regarding matters of [redacted], it was necessary and proportionate that his name should be anonymised, together with the name of the school, his category of registration, and the local authority.