Panel Consideration Meeting - Conduct - Jakub Nipps

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 10 June 2025. 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.

Allegation

1. On 6 January 2025, at Greenock Sheriff Court, the Teacher was convicted of the following offence:
   
   Between 1 March 2020 and 7 April 2024 both dates inclusive, at [redacted] and elsewhere [Teacher] did engage in a course of behaviour which was abusive of his partner or ex-partner [redacted], care of Police Service of Scotland, in that he did 1) on various occasions, shout, swear, act in an aggressive manner, send abusive and offensive messages to [redacted] your ex-partner, make derogatory comments towards her, threaten to end your life, make demands of her, wish her ill harm, threaten to kill her and her dog and 3) did on the 16th June 2020 place your arms around her, lift her off her feet, put her in another room, and push her on the body, 5) on 31st January 2021 engage in a struggle over WIFI router, push her onto the bed and strike her with your knee onto her body 6) suggest to said [redacted] that she should report you to the police, to obtain monies from the Government, repeatedly attempt thereafter to call her, attend at her property uninvited, refuse to leave when requested to do so, thereafter send her a picture of her door and advise by message that you were at her property; Contrary to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, Section 1.
   
   And on 20 February 2025 the Teacher was made the subject of a Community Payback Order with a supervision requirement of 2 years and a requirement to undertake 175 hours of unpaid work to be completed within 12 months; and a Non Harassment Order for a period of 12 months.
   
   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 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Information Available to the Panel

1. Final Investigation Report, dated 6 June 2025, with appendices including:
2. Statement of Scheme Membership, dated 10 January 2025
3. Letter from Disclosure Scotland, dated 11 February 2025
4. Notice of Investigation response form Part A, dated 4 February 2025
5. Extract Conviction, dated 6 March 2025
6. Response from City of Edinburgh Council, dated 31 March 2025
7. Email communication with Teacher, dated 31 March 2025
8. Response to Interim Report, dated 25 May 2025 with appendices
   
   • Appendix A - Written Representation
   • Appendix B - Probationer Profile Report
   • Appendix C - Greenfaulds High School Placement Report
   • Appendix D - Cumbernauld Academy Placement Report
   • Appendix E - Character Reference from [redacted]
   • Appendix F - Caledonian Men’s Programme Participation Agreement
   • Appendix G - Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Attendance Summary
   • Appendix H - Early Character References

The Teacher provided an acknowledgement of receipt to the notice.

Teacher’s Response

1. The Teacher has provided a position of regret and remorse for his actions.
2. The Teacher’s position in relation to his current fitness to teach is that he regrets his actions and that he is capable of change.
3. The Teacher has not provided any comment regarding an appropriate outcome.

Evidence

Amongst the papers provided to the Panel was an extract conviction dated 6 March 2025, which contained details of the offences outlined above, as well as the sentence imposed by the Sheriff Court.

The Panel recognised in terms of Rule 1.7.18 that the extract conviction is conclusive proof of the conduct alleged. Furthermore, the Teacher has not denied that he is the person convicted or provided evidence in rebuttal of the extract conviction. The Panel was therefore able to assess the Teacher’s conduct by reference to the detail contained in the allegations.

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. The matter amounts to Relevant Conduct because the Teacher has been convicted of a criminal offence amounting to domestic abuse of his partner or ex-partner. Furthermore, the Panel was satisfied that there was on the face of it, a real prospect of a finding that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired.

The Panel reached that conclusion because teachers are expected to avoid situations that might constitute a breach of criminal law and maintain instead, personal standards of honesty and integrity, thereby ensuring they act as role models. However, the Teacher was convicted of engaging in a course of conduct that was abusive of his partner or ex-partner over a 4 year period, thereby demonstrating a concerning pattern of abusive behaviour.

The Panel was reinforced in the view that the Teacher fell short of expected professional standards having also identified a number of breaches of COPAC relating to parts

• 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
• 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
• 1.6 – you should maintain an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to learners

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

• The matter is not over 5 years of age since the date of the most recent matter, as the allegation spans a period from 1 March 2020 to 7 April 2024.
• The matter has not already been considered.
• The matter is not frivolous or vexatious, the Teacher having been convicted of criminal offences.
• The allegations 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). As previously stated, the Panel had been provided with a copy of an extract conviction as conclusive proof of the Teacher’s conviction. Additionally, in his response, the Teacher admits the offence.

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 impaired.

In line with the Indicative Outcomes Guidance, the Panel recognised that the fitness to teach tests must be applied to the Teacher’s circumstances currently, meaning as at the date of the meeting. For that reason, the Panel was required to have careful regard to what has happened since the date of the allegations in considering whether the Teacher’s conduct is remediable, whether it has been remedied and the likelihood of repetition.

In carrying out that exercise, the Panel carefully considered the Teacher’s response and the evidence he provided in support of his representations, which is to be found within Appendices A to H of the bundle of documents.

Having carefully considered this information, the Panel was satisfied that the Teacher had expressed genuine remorse for his actions but was concerned that the focus of his reflection was about the pressures he faced at the time, as opposed to focussing on the impact of his offending on this partner or ex-partner or how he would react differently if faced with similar circumstances in the future. He also provided limited information about where he is now as a Teacher in the light of his conviction and with reference to COPAC.

The Panel considered that the documentary evidence provided by the Teacher was of limited assistance in understanding the extent to which he had taken steps towards remediation. The evidence relating to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (“CBT”) did not explain what the Teacher had learned from CBT or how he might use it to manage stressful or challenging situations moving forward.

Whilst there is evidence that the Teacher had signed a contract to participate in the Caledonian Programme, there was no information about the extent to which he has engaged with the programme.

The Panel also noted that the Teacher was sentenced only recently, on 20 February 2025, and it follows that any offence focussed work will have only just begun.

Furthemore, the character references provided by the Teacher, one of which was from [redacted], did not focus on the issues giving rise to his conviction for domestic abuse.

For all these reasons, whilst the Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s conduct is remediable, the Panel could not be satisfied that his conduct has been remedied or exclude the possibility that he could behave in a similar way in the future. Instead, the Panel considered that the Teacher had expressed remorse and had taken some steps towards remediation.

The Panel therefore concluded that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired, both on public protection and public interest grounds.

In reaching that conclusion, the Panel reminded itself that consideration of the public interest involves consideration of (i) the maintenance of the public’s confidence in registrants and in the integrity of the teaching profession (ii) the maintenance of the public’s confidence in GTC Scotland as a professional regulator (iii) the need to declare and uphold proper teaching standards and (iv) the deterrent effect that the determination may have upon other GTC Scotland registrants.

However, having carefully considered all the evidence in the round, the Panel was not satisfied that the Teacher is currently unfit to teach such that his name should be removed from the register. The Panel reached that conclusion for several reasons.

The Panel noted that the Teacher has no other convictions or regulatory concerns against his name and is still very young. Those factors mean there is greater scope for rehabilitation than might have otherwise been the case.

The Teacher’s conviction, though serious, did not relate to the teaching setting or involve pupils and there was no evidence placed before the Panel to suggest that the Teacher’s partner or ex-partner had been caused physical injury by his actions.

Furthermore, by means of a court order, the Teacher is required to engage in appropriate, offence focussed work designed to address the root causes of his offending behaviour and presents as willing to do so.

For all these reasons and after much discussion, the Panel concluded on balance that whilst the Teacher is currently impaired, he is not unfit to teach.

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 considering what disposal might be appropriate, the Panel noted that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive, though it may have that effect. The purpose of any sanction is to protect the public and the wider public interest in a way that is proportionate. For that reason the Panel had to consider the available sanctions in ascending order of severity starting with the least restrictive sanction first.

The Panel first considered whether a Reprimand was appropriate with reference to the factors listed in the IOG whilst noting that that not all factors required to be present for a disposal option to be considered appropriate.

The Panel was not satisfied that the Teacher’s conviction constituted an abuse of a position of trust or had the potential to cause pupils harm. The conviction relates exclusively to abuse in a domestic context.

The Panel noted that the Teacher had made timely admissions, has reflected on the matter, has expressed remorse and has taken some steps towards remediation, albeit his remediation is incomplete.

Whilst the Teacher has no previous convictions or other regulatory concerns against his name, the Panel noted that the conduct giving rise to the conviction was wide-ranging and spanned a period of 4 years, which meant it was not an ‘isolated incident’. There was however no evidence of repetition and the Panel was seized of positive character references about the Teacher, albeit for reasons previously stated, limited weight could be attached to these references.

Having regard to all of these factors, the Panel was satisfied that a reprimand was both an appropriate and proportionate way of marking the Teacher’s conduct. In reaching that conclusion the Panel considered that a properly informed member of the public, who was aware of all of the circumstances, including what has happened since the date of the allegations, the Teacher’s reflection and the fact he is currently engaging in appropriate offence focussed work, would recognise and understand why such a disposal was appropriate and proportionate.

In recognition however that the Teacher’s conduct was serious, the Panel decided to impose a reprimand for a period of 2 years. In accordance with Rule 2.7, the Panel confirmed their decision to issue a consent order offering the Teacher the opportunity to consent to the reprimand.

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 issuing the decision notice, the case is to be referred on for hearing proceedings.