Panel Consideration Meeting - Conduct - David Buchanan-Smith

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.

Notification of meeting

The Panel had before it a copy of the Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 15 January 2026. 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

None.

Allegation(s)

1. On 18 July 2025, whilst registered with GTC Scotland as a Provisionally Registered Teacher, the Teacher was convicted of a criminal offence at Glasgow Sheriff Court, specifically:
   
   On various occasions between 03 July 2024 and 23 September 2024 at Bellahouston Park, Glasgow; Braehead Shopping Centre, King’s Inch Road, Glasgow; and elsewhere you David Buchanan Smith did commit an offence of public decency in that you did expose your penis, and did masturbate.
   
   By Order of the Court, the Teacher was sentenced to a Community Payback Order: Supervision Period: 12 months, imposition date: 19/09/2025 [Conviction – Public Decency Offences]
   ‍
2. The Teacher’s conduct at allegations 1 were sexually motivated.

And in light 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 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6 of the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.  

Information Available to the Panel

1. Final Investigation Report, dated 22 December 2025, with appendices:
   
   • Extract Conviction - Buchanan-Smith-D
2. Response from Teacher, dated 23 February 2026
3. Notice of Investigation, dated 20 May 2025
4. Notice of Investigation Royal Mail Delivery Receipt, dated 21 May 2025
5. Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 15 January 2026
6. Notice of Panel Consideration Cover Email and Delivery Receipt, dated 15 January 2026

In response to the notice, the Teacher provided the following additional information for consideration by the Panel.

Teacher’s Response

The Panel had before it a brief response from the Teacher, dated 23 February 2026. In that response, the Teacher advised that he was not currently teaching and was not actively looking to teach at present. He expressed a wish to be able to teach again at ‘some point in the future.’

The Panel also noted that the Teacher regretted his actions and advised that he is currently undergoing counselling and engaging with Social Work to better manage his mental health and behaviours. There was no further detail provided to the Panel on the nature of this counselling or social work involvement.

Summary of Evidence and Submissions

The Panel had before it the Final Investigation Report, the extract conviction in relation to the Teacher and the Teacher's response. The Panel also had regard in making its decision to the GTC Scotland Panel Consideration Practice Statement and the Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement.

Decision

The Panel considered all 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:

• Sexual misconduct or indecency

The Panel considered the relevant Parts of COPAC to be:

Part 1.1: ‘you should have a knowledge of and maintain the key principles within the Professional Standards, Codes, Professional Advisory Statements and Guidance issued by GTC Scotland, as these may be reviewed and reissued from time to time.’

The Panel was satisfied that the criminal behaviour exhibited demonstrated that the Teacher had failed to maintain the professional standards appropriate to the profession and that Part 1.1 was engaged.

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 considered that this Part of COPAC was engaged as the Teacher had been convicted of a criminal offence.

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 again clear that the criminal behaviour displayed in this matter did not uphold the appropriate standards of personal conduct and integrity required of a teacher and accordingly Part 1.4 of COPAC was engaged.

Part 1.6: ‘you should maintain an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to pupils.’

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

• The matter is not over 5 years of age. The criminal behaviour which resulted in the conviction took place between July and September 2024.
• The matter has not already been considered.
• The matter is not frivolous or vexatious. The allegations relate to serious offences of a sexual nature and clearly cannot be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.
• The allegations have not been made anonymously or by a person who has failed to cooperate with the investigation. The matter was referred to GTC Scotland by the Teacher’s employer.

The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dismiss the case based on an insufficiency of evidence as provided for by Rule 2.3.2 (b).

The allegations have been admitted by the Teacher.

Furthermore, the Panel did not consider the referral to be malicious.

Fitness to Teach

The Panel carefully considered all the available information and had regard to Stage 2 of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement (‘IOG’ Practice Statement) in considering whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

The Panel noted that the test of whether an individual is unfit to teach is if a panel considers that their conduct falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. Alternatively, an individual’s fitness to teach could be said to be impaired where a panel considers that the individual’s conduct falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher.

The Panel moved on to consider the facts of this case and all the relevant information in order to reach a decision on the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

The Panel noted that the Teacher had been convicted of offences involving public indecency and that these offences had been committed over a period of some three months in a variety of locations. There appeared to the Panel at least a disregard on the part of the Teacher as to whether his behaviour would impact on members of the public or not. While the Panel acknowledged that the Teacher had been sentenced by the Sheriff Court to a Community Payback Order with a period of supervision for 12 months and that he had not been placed on the Sex Offender’s Register, it remained of the view that the offences were serious and it accepted that they were sexually motivated as set out in the second allegation. The Panel was satisfied that this amounted to serious breach of COPAC as set out above and that the Teacher’s behaviour at the time fell short of the professional standards expected of a teacher.

The Panel also considered whether the shortfalls identified in this case are:

• (a) remediable
• (b) (if they are remediable) whether they have been remedied
• (c) whether there is a likelihood of recurrence

The Panel noted that the Teacher had provided a brief 5-point response via email to the final investigation report. There was no other evidence submitted by the Teacher as to remediation. The Panel noted that in this response the Teacher expressed regret for his behaviour and indicated that he was engaging with Counselling and Social Workers to manage his behaviour. The Panel also noted that he was not teaching and was not looking to teach at present.

The Panel was concerned that there was insufficient evidence before it as to the underlying causes of the Teacher’s behaviour. He outlined in his response that he was undergoing counselling and made passing reference to his mental state at the time of the offences, but it was not clear to the Panel from the evidence before it that his behaviour was remediable.

The Panel had the same view when considering whether the Teacher had shown any insight into his behaviour. Again, it was clear that he recognised there were underlying causes of his behaviour which required to be dealt with and he was taking steps to address these, but there was a lack of evidence before the Panel as to what progress he was making or had made.

In short, the Panel was of the view that that there was no evidence before it to indicate that the Teacher’s behaviour was remediable or had been remedied. That being the case the Panel could not be satisfied that there would not be a recurrence of this behaviour. That was reinforced by the fact that these offences were conducted over an extended period and could not therefore be dismissed as an isolated or one-off incident.

The Public Interest

In reaching its decision in this matter the Panel also considered objectively the public interest, focusing on what the reasonable public perception would be of the seriousness of the identified conduct and, accordingly, what action would be reasonably expected from GTC Scotland in the circumstances.

The Panel was unanimously of the view that the public would be concerned regarding the nature of the conviction in this case and that it would be viewed as conduct which was fundamentally incompatible with being a teacher. The Panel also considered that the public interest required it to take into account, protection of the public in a case such as this and that having failed to evidence that he had remedied his behaviour the Teacher did pose an ongoing risk.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s conduct had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and he is currently unfit to teach.

Disposal

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 could only direct that the Teacher be removed from the Register.

The Panel had regard to the Teacher’s position and decided to issue a consent order in accordance with Rule 2.7 offering the Teacher the opportunity to consent to removal from the Register. Should such consent be provided and the Teacher’s name is 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, the Panel directed that the Teacher should be prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of 2 years from the signing of the consent order. The Panel considered that a shorter period was inappropriate as it was not clear from the evidence what steps were being taken by the Teacher to address his offending behaviour and mitigate any future risk. In addition, the Panel noted that the offences had taken place relatively recently and that the Teacher was still subject to a supervision order imposed by the Sheriff Court. In those circumstances the Panel was of the view that 2 years was an appropriate period of removal.

For clarity, this is not a period of removal, meaning that the Teacher will not be automatically reinstated to the Register at the end of this period. It sets out how long the Teacher must wait until an application for re-registration can be made, which may or may not be granted. To be granted, a Fitness to Teach Panel would require to determine that the Applicant is fit to teach at that time.

The terms of the consent order are set out in the separate “Consent Order” document. Should the Teacher fail to provide his consent to the order within 28 days from the date of the decision notice, the case is to be referred on for hearing proceedings.