Panel Consideration Meeting - Conduct - Linsey McPherson
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 5 December 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.
Preliminary Matters
There were no preliminary matters considered by the Panel.
Allegation(s)
- On 19 January 2006, the Student Applicant was convicted at Inverness Sheriff Court on seven counts of fraudulent scheme and three counts of embezzlement.
As a result of the above, on 19 January 2006, the Student Applicant was sentenced to a Community Service Order of 120 hours unpaid work.
- On 11 April 2018, the Student Applicant was convicted of the following offences at Tain Sheriff Court: Between 21 April 2016 and 20 May 2016 both dates inclusive at Bank of Scotland [Redacted] the Student Applicant did, while acting as a Treasurer of [Redacted] embezzle £4,000 of money.
As a result of the above, on 4 May 2018, the Student Applicant was sentenced to a Community Payback Order requiring 225 hours of unpaid work, to be completed within 12 months of sentencing.
In light of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and/or that she is unfit to teach as a result of breaching the GTC Scotland Professional Code for Registered Teachers 2003 and Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (‘COPAC’)
Information Available to the Panel
Final Report, dated 18 November 2025, with appendices including:
- PVG Statement of Scheme membership, dated 13 February 2025
- Representation Letter on behalf of Student Applicant, dated 9 April 2025
- Supporting Documentation from Student Applicant dated 9 April 2025 including:
- (a) School Experience Assessment, dated 20 January 2025
- (b) Copy of Letter Provided to Heads of Admissions, dated 27 February 2024
- (c) Reflective Statement by the Student Applicant, dated April 2025
- (d) Character Reference in Respect of the Student Applicant, dated 2 April 2025
- Standard Extract Conviction from Inverness Sheriff Court, dated 16 June 2025
- Standard Extract Conviction from Tain Sheriff Court, date 20 June 2025
In response to the notice, the Teacher provided the following additional information for consideration by the Panel:
Teacher’s Response
- Response from Teacher, dated 9 March 2026, with supporting documentation including:
- a. University of Aberdeen School Experience Assessment (Revised), dated 23 December 2025
- b. Reflective Statement from the Teacher, dated January 2026
- c. Character Reference, [Redacted], dated 12 January 2026
Summary of Evidence and Submissions
The extract of convictions dated 16 June 2025, and 18 June 2025 were produced to the Panel, which confirmed that the Teacher had been convicted of the offences as alleged in the Notice of Investigation.
No further evidence required to be led. In terms of Rule 1.7.18 of GTC Scotland’s Fitness to Teach Rules 2017, where a Teacher has been convicted of a criminal offence, providing that such conviction is neither pending appeal nor has been successfully appealed, an extract conviction, or copy of the certificate of conviction certified by a competent officer of the relevant court, will be conclusive proof of the conviction.
There were no submissions made on behalf of the Teacher, over and above her response to final investigation report.
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 first considered whether the matter amounts to relevant conduct. This is defined in Rule 1.2.1 as (i) a criminal offence, or (ii) misconduct. The Panel had regard to the fact that the Teacher had been convicted of a criminal offence.
The Teacher has given a non-exhaustive list of conduct and argues that the conduct was not relevant conduct. However, that omitted the fact that the Fitness to Teach Threshold Policy references, in terms of conduct which might impair fitness to teach on page 3 that fraud or dishonesty that is material and demonstrates an intention to deceive. The Panel considered that the conduct in question fell under Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC which are as follows:
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.
In the circumstances it is considered that the matter amounted 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.
In terms of the other factors to be considered for the purposes of Rule 2.1.1, the Panel was satisfied that whilst the events were more than five years before the date of the most recent event, it was in the public interest for it to proceed. It considered the Teacher’s position that it would not be in the public interest for it to proceed. However, the Panel considered the Indicative Outcome Guidance Practice Statement, in particular the public interest considerations. Having done so, the Panel’s view was that it was in the public interest, despite the historical nature of the allegations.
The Panel did not view that the protection of the public was material given the historical age of the offence. One occurred when the applicant was age 30, the latter offence was age 42, involving the embezzlement of funds from a nursery when the applicant was in a position of trust. The offences were serious but recognising that they took place when the individual was not a teacher, but it considered that the public interest would not be served in dismissing the matter.
That the referral had not already been received or considered by GTC Scotland; that the alleged conduct is not frivolous or vexatious. The Panel considered that the investigation was properly brought and had not been made anonymously.
The Panel considered that there was a sufficiency of evidence to prove the facts alleged. It had regard to Rule 1.7.18. The extract conviction is conclusive proof of the conviction, with the Panel noting that the Teacher did not challenge the conviction. This led the Panel to conclude that it would not be appropriate to dismiss the case on the basis of an insufficiency of evidence as provided for by Rule 2.3.2 (b). On the contrary, there was cogent and persuasive evidence in the form of the extract conviction speaking to the allegations.
The Panel considered the Panel Consideration Practice Statement. It determined that case should not be dismissed in light of the conviction. It considered whether the allegations were admitted in full. The Teacher admitted the allegations in full and there was conclusive proof of the conviction.
Fitness to Teach
The Panel carefully considered all of 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 first considered the conduct at the relevant time fell short of the expected professional standards.
The Panel considered that by the convictions for embezzlement the teacher had breached COPAC Part 1.3 due to a breach of the criminal law and the resulting conviction, which also amounted to a breach of Part 1.4 and 1.6 leading to the teacher’s conduct falling short of the expected professional standards.
The Panel considered the historical nature of the offences. It also had regard to the very serious nature of the convictions as these gave rise to the honesty, integrity of the Teacher, together with her being a role model to pupils. Had the conduct occurred when the applicant was a registered Teacher then it would have been incompatible with being a registered Teacher. However, the applicant was not a teacher at the time and thus the conduct is not so fundamentally incompatible with being a registered Teacher. Panel considered that the conduct was remediable, and the Teacher had engaged with the Fitness to Teach process by providing reflections and had initially disclosed the criminal convictions at the outset of the process.
The Panel noted a pattern of similar behaviour, albeit with a ten-year gap between the offences. It was concerned that the same type of offence had occurred over a ten-year period which was indicative of it not being an isolated event. However, it was unable to conclude that recurrence was more likely.
However, it considered that the Teacher had admitted the conduct. She had demonstrated insight into the conduct in her reflective statements and had fully engaged with the requirements of her community payback order and had [Redacted], reflecting on the conduct, accepting that it was linked to her character. The witness statements provided by the Teacher were also considered to be relevant by the Panel in demonstrating the Teacher’s insight and the remediation undertaken, noting that the Teacher currently holds a position of trust as [Redacted].
The Panel was satisfied that, in light of the reflections and remediations undertaken, the risk of recurrence was unlikely, paying regard to the fact that at the time of both offences, the applicant was not a registered Teacher.
Notwithstanding this, the Panel’s view was that the Teacher was not currently impaired. It then considered whether there was an overriding public interest in making a finding that the Teacher’s fitness to teach was impaired or that the teacher was unfit to teach and applied the public interest factors in the Indicative Outcome Guidance, and, specifically with regard to upholding and declaring proper teaching standards. It was conscious that the applicant was not a teacher at the time, however, when viewed through the lens of what the reasonable public perception would be and what action would reasonably be accepted by GTC Scotland, the Panel were led to the view that there was an overriding public interest to find that the applicant was 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 Stage 3 of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement. 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 scrutinised whether a reprimand, a conditional registration order, or a conditional registration order and a reprimand would be appropriate. The Panel was cognisant that the teacher had made further submissions in the notice of panel consideration.
The Panel noted that the second conviction constituted an abuse of a position of trust and was for personal gain. Nonetheless, it was satisfied with the level of remediation and reflections undertaken by the Teacher. It noted the harm had not been caused to a pupil or Teacher, the historical nature of the offences, and the Teacher’s personal circumstances at the time.
The Panel determined that a Reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate disposal.
In terms of the period over which the reprimand may be imposed, the Panel’s view was that a 1-year reprimand was appropriate in all the circumstances.
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.
