Panel Consideration Meeting - Conduct - Lucy Gavin

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 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

The Panel noted that the facts underlying the allegations had been established. This had been done, firstly, as a result of the Teacher’s admissions contained in her response of 17 December 2025. Secondly, the facts had been established as a result of the two convictions against the Teacher (as recited in the allegations) and by operation of Rule 1.7.18 in relation to these convictions.  

Allegations

1. On 5 June 2025, at Glasgow Sheriff Court, the Teacher was convicted of the following offence:
   
   Between 1st June 2021 and 15th February 2022 both dates inclusive [redacted] and elsewhere you [the Teacher] did engage in a course of conduct which caused [redacted] c/o the Police Service of Scotland fear and alarm in that you did repeatedly create social media accounts and contact [redacted] using them, repeatedly attend [redacted] place of work, repeatedly telephone [redacted], repeatedly send text messages, repeatedly attend at locations where you knew [redacted] would be and attempt to engage with [redacted], take [redacted] photograph, attempt to access [redacted] social media accounts and change the passwords and threaten [redacted]; Contrary to Section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.
   
   And the Teacher was fined £300.
   ‍
2. On 11 March 2024, at Glasgow Sheriff Court, the Teacher was convicted of the following offence:
   
   On 29th December 2023 at [redacted] you [the Teacher] did assault [redacted], [redacted], Care of Police Service of Scotland and did repeatedly push [redacted] on the body and it will be proved in terms of Section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 that the aforesaid offence was aggravated by involving abuse of [redacted].
   
   And the Teacher was admonished and received a Non-Harassment Order for a period of 6 months.

Information Available to the Panel

• Final Investigation Report, dated 19 December 2025, with appendices including:
• Referral Email Student Admin and RI, dated from 22 July 2025
• PVG Check, dated 10 July 2025
• Teacher’s Response to Notice of Investigation, dated 8 August 2025
• Extract Convictions, Glasgow Sheriff Court, dated 19 November 2025
• Teacher’s Response to Interim Report, dated 17 December 2025

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

• Investigation response form, dated 28 January 2026

Teacher’s Response

The Teacher responded to the allegations by way of the following written responses:

• (a) Response dated 8 August 2025 to the Notice of Investigation;
• (b) Response dated 17 December 2025 to the Interim Report; and
• (c) Response dated 28 January 2026 to the Notice of the Panel Consideration.

By way of a brief summary, in these written responses the Teacher admitted the facts underlying the allegations.  However, and notwithstanding this, the Teacher maintained that her current fitness to teach is not impaired.  

The Teacher did not comment specifically on an appropriate outcome in her written responses.

A more detailed summary of the Teacher’s responses are set out below.

Summary of Evidence and Submissions

The main evidence regarding the Teacher’s alleged misconduct comprises the facts recited contained in the allegations.  The extract of conviction dated 19 November 2025 was 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 was 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.

Against that evidence the Teacher admitted the conduct and provided written evidence on behalf of herself.  The Teacher’s written evidence was contained in the three written responses listed above.  In summary the key points of her evidence were as follows:

• (a) she understands the seriousness of the conduct
• (b) she regrets deeply the actions which gave rise to the conduct.  She feels guilty, remorseful and embarrassed by her behaviour.  She realises that she made significant mistakes
• (c) she has taken steps to ensure that such actions will not recur
• (d) she understands the responsibility of all teachers to uphold the highest professional and ethical standards
• (e) she is committed to upholding these standards in the future
• (f) since the “wake up call” brought about her said actions she has taken time to reflect and to take steps to prevent such actions recurring
• (g) [redacted]
• (h) [redacted]
  
• (i) [redacted]
• (j) [redacted]
• (k) [redacted]
• (l) she is committed to learning from her past mistakes and to making positive changes so that similar mistakes do not recur in the future
• (m) she has remained committed to her professional development at all relevant times, as demonstrated by the fact that she has successfully completed her PGDE placements and been working with children in a nursery environment
• (n) she has done her best to ensure that her criminal convictions did not affect her professional standards and relationships
• (o) she cares passionately about primary teaching, and helping to create a safe, positive, and nurturing environment in which young children can learn and thrive and
• (p) she would welcome further support and guidance to help her to continue to attain these goals.

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.  More details regarding the Panel’s consideration of these matters is set out as follows.

The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dispose of the case in accordance with Rule 2.3.2 (a). In reaching its decision, the Panel 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 was convicted of a criminal offence.

The Panel also considered the relevant Parts of COPAC 2012 to be:

• Part 1 – Professionalism and maintaining trust in the profession – and in particular Parts 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6 thereof.

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

• The matter relates to conduct that took place within the last 5 years;
• The matter has not already been considered;
• The matter is not frivolous or vexatious; and
• The allegation(s) have not been made anonymously or by a person who has failed to cooperate with the investigation.

The Panel also 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 mentioned the allegation(s) were established both as a result of criminal convictions against the Teacher’s and also by the Teacher’s admissions regarding the underlying facts. Furthermore, the Panel did not consider the referral to be malicious.  

The Panel also did not consider it appropriate to refer the case for a full hearing (in line with Rule 2.3.2(f)). The factual basis underlying the allegations had already been established. Accordingly there was no need for a full-hearing in order to resolve outstanding issues of fact.  With reference to Page 4 of the GTC’s “Panel Consideration” Practice Statement, this was not a case where there were “exceptional circumstances” that would justify referring the case for a full hearing even though the Teacher had admitted the allegations in full.

In order to determine which of the remaining options under Rule 2.3.2 was most appropriate (ie. Rule 2.3.2(c), (d), or (e)) it was necessary for the Panel to first turn their minds to the overarching question of whether the Teacher was currently fit 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 found that the Teacher’s conduct at the time it was committed was a breach of COPAC 2012 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6. As such the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the expected professional standards at that time.

The Panel went on to consider if the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

The Panel found that the behaviour in question was remediable. The Panel considered if in this case the behaviour had been remedied and whether or not there was a likelihood of recurrence.

The Panel noted that during the period covered by the first allegation (June 2021 until February 2022) there had clearly been a pattern of adverse behaviour.  It was possible that the fact of the second conviction (which may have related to behaviour in December 2023) indicated that such a pattern had continued over a longer period.

At the same time, however, all of the behaviour in question had taken place between around 2 and over 4 years ago. There had been no repeat incidents since December 2023 and since the two convictions in general. Therefore any pattern of adverse behaviour appeared to have come to an end more than 2 years ago. There was no evidence to suggest that any previous pattern of misconduct was continuing now.  

The fact that the conduct in question had led to two criminal convictions demonstrated that it was serious. At the same time, however, the Panel did take into account the facts that the relatively low sentences imposed in each case suggested that the offending behaviour was towards the less serious end of the spectrum of criminality.  

The Teacher’s evidence (as summarised above) was suggestive of a reasonable degree of insight on her part. She had admitted the allegations at an early stage. She clearly regretted her actions and appeared to have taken some steps to try to ensure that such behaviour would not be repeated.

At the same time, however, the Panel also noted the absence of any supporting evidence from the Teacher or third parties verifying matters such as the steps taken by the Teacher and the coping strategies she has developed. In the absence of such supporting evidence the Panel felt unable to conclude with sufficient certainty that the behaviour had been fully remedied or that there was no reasonable possibility of recurrence. As a result the Panel did not feel able to conclude that the Teacher’s ability to teach was no longer impaired. Therefore the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s current fitness to teach is impaired.

The Panel were provided with advice from the Legal Assessor that the Panel, with reference to Rule 2.3.2(c), could request further evidence from the Teacher in order to ascertain if the “evidential gap” referred to above could be filled. The Panel considered this option in some detail. The Panel paid regard to the Panel Consideration Practice Statement on page 5 which advised the Panel to be “mindful of the potential danger in seeking additional information from the Teacher about insight or remediation when a position has already been provided that demonstrates limited insight into the conduct or a lack of willingness to remedy the conduct”. Panel members were wary that the Panel might not be regarded as wholly impartial if it were to advise the Teacher on what evidence she should provide. It was difficult for the Panel to be able to envisage what specific evidence (if any) might reasonably be available that would affect their view on the Teacher’s current fitness to teach. The Panel was also mindful of the fact that the Teacher had been given more than one opportunity to provide further evidence at previous stages in the investigation.  There was a risk that asking the Teacher to provide more evidence would simply cause unnecessary delay (which would be in nobody’s interests). In all of the circumstances the Panel concluded that it would not be appropriate to delay proceedings further by giving the Teacher additional time to provide further evidence.

In addition to the Panel’s finding that the Teacher’s fitness to teach was impaired, the Panel also concluded that it would not be appropriate to dispose of the case in terms of Rule 2.3.2(d).

The Panel turned to assessing the extent to which the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired.  In so doing the Panel had regard to the guidance and examples listed in IOG Practice Statement. It was noted that the two relatively lenient sentences imposed on the Teacher by the Sheriff Court indicated that the offences she had committed lay towards the less severe end of the spectrum of criminality. The offences took place outside of the school environment and there was no suggestion that any learners had been harmed by the Teacher’s offending conduct.  Whilst the examples provided on IOG Practice Statement are only examples, it was clear that the offences committed by the Teacher were substantially less serious than all of these.  Furthermore the Panel reminded itself that a period of more than 2 years had passed since the most recent known instance of offending behaviour by the Teacher.

In these circumstances the Panel concluded that the Teacher does not currently fall significantly short of the professional standards expected of a Teacher.  

The Panel also considered the public interest test set out at “Step 3” on page 12 of the IOG Practice Statement. For the reasons discussed above (including the lenient criminal sentences imposed and the length of time since any offending) the Panel concluded that there was no overriding public interest in making a finding that the Teacher is currently unfit to teach.

In summary, therefore, the Panel concluded as follows:

• that the Teacher is not currently unfit to teach; but
• that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

Disposal

The Panel went on to consider what would be an appropriate, fair and proportionate 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 considered if a Reprimand would be an appropriate form of disposal.  It was noted that some of the factors listed in the IOG did apply to the current case.  There was no suggestion whatsoever that the Teacher had abused a position of trust or displayed any behaviour that was harmful to pupils.  The conduct in question took place wholly out with the school environment.  She had admitted the facts alleged at any early stage.  She had demonstrated some insight and remorse.  Her evidence suggested that she had taken steps to address the issue.  At the same time, her behaviour during 2021 to 2023 had been sufficiently serious to merit intervention by the criminal law.  A reprimand would reflect the seriousness of this matter.

Accordingly, the Panel concluded that a Reprimand would be one possible appropriate form of disposal in the case.  However, in order to decide what was the most appropriate form of disposal it was necessary for the Panel to go on to consider other options.

The Panel next turned their minds to the option of disposal by way of a Conditional Registration Order.  It was noted that the Teacher’s behaviour underlying the allegations appeared to result from [redacted] during the times in question.  It had resulted in two criminal convictions.  It was noted that if the Teacher was able to demonstrate that she had undertaken training to help her cope with any such situations arising in the future, then this could provide reassurance that such historic difficulties had been remedied.  In the Teacher’s response she had mentioned having taken steps to try to develop such coping mechanisms.  However, in the absence of supporting evidence of those steps the Panel was not sufficiently reassured that the training undertaken by the Teacher thus far would be sufficient to prevent recurrence.  The Teacher had also mentioned in her responses that she would be open to undertaking any further counselling or professional development to assist her to cope better with any similar stressful situations that might arise in the future.  

In all of these circumstances the Panel was of the view that a Conditional Registration Order would be a useful mechanism for giving the Teacher an opportunity to undertake further such professional development.  If she did so this would then enable her to demonstrate she had taken sufficient steps to prevent past misconduct from recurring in the future.  Accordingly, the Panel decided that it would be appropriate to impose a Conditional Registration Order in this case.  

In contrast it was noted that a Reprimand might not provide the Teacher with the same degree of incentive to undertake training in order to prevent any future recurrences of the previous offending conduct.  Accordingly, a Conditional Registration was felt to be a more appropriate form of disposal than a Reprimand by itself.  

The Panel also considered whether it would be appropriate to impose both a Conditional Registration Order and a Reprimand. However, in all the circumstances, it was felt that a Conditional Registration Order by itself would sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the matter to both the public and the profession.  In reaching this conclusion the Panel took into account that more than 2 years had passed since the offending in question, and that since then the Teacher had already been subject to a Temporary Registration Order. The Panel reminded itself that the purpose of the regulatory process was not to punish the Teacher for past conduct.  Overall, it was felt that imposing a Conditional Registration Order for 6 months would reflect the minimum intervention necessary to achieve the desired result.  It was observed that a period of 6 months should allow the Teacher adequate time to complete the training requirements proposed by a CRO.

For all of these reasons the Panel decided to impose a Conditional Registration Order on the Teacher’s Registration for a period of 6 months to enable the Teacher to complete necessary training and to submit a written reflection to GTC Scotland. This time period commences from the date the Teacher signs the Conditional Registration Order.

The terms of the Conditional Registration Order imposed upon the Teacher are agreed by the Panel as follows:

• You must inform GTC Scotland within 7 days if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment as a teacher or for which GTC Scotland registration is required. You must also provide GTC Scotland with contact details for any new employer within that same timescale.
• You must inform the following parties that your GTC Scotland registration is subject to these conditions and provide them with a copy of the Decision Notice that resulted in this Order being imposed upon you:
  
  • (a) Any organisation or person employing you as a teacher or in a post for which GTC Scotland registration is required (whether on a permanent, temporary or supply basis).
  • (b) Any prospective employer covered by (a) above at the time of making your application for employment.
• In the event that you are the subject of enquiry or investigation in relation to alleged criminal conduct by you, you must inform GTC Scotland of such enquiry or investigation within 7 days of the date upon which the relevant authorities first contacted you.
• In order to improve your coping strategies, you are required to engage in professional development, including a relevant training course that is approved by GTC Scotland, and identify and complete this course within 6 months of the date of this order.
• It will be your responsibility to identify the training course and seek approval of it from GTC Scotland in advance of undertaking it.
• On successful completion of the training course, you must provide to GTC Scotland written evidence of your successful completion of it and a reflection on how this will assist you in adhering to the COPAC Standards 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6, within 14 days of completion of the course.

Having identified the appropriate disposal, the Panel decided to issue a consent order in accordance with Rules 2.3.2(e) and 2.7. Should the Teacher fail to provide her consent to the Order within 28 days from the date of the decision note, she will be asked to confirm the reasons for this. Depending on those reasons, the case may thereafter be referred back to the Panel for further consideration or be referred on for hearing proceedings.