Panel Consideration Meeting - Conduct - Teacher A

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 7 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 for the Panel to consider.

Allegation(s)

On 3 February 2025 the Teacher was convicted of the following offence at Airdrie Sheriff Court;  

On 1 October 2020 at [redacted], the Teacher did assault Pupil A born [redacted], then aged 11 years, c/o Police Service of Scotland, and did place his arms around his neck and compress same, causing him to fall to the ground, and stand on his hand, to his injury.  

For the above offences the Teacher received an absolute discharge. In light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and he is unfit to teach, as a result of breaching Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC 2012).

Information Available to the Panel

1. Final Investigation Report, dated 6 November 2025, with appendices including:
   
   • Extract of Conviction, dated 14 March 2025
   • Notice of Investigation Response, dated 26 November 2020
2. Notice of Investigation, dated 21 October 2020 with delivery receipt
3. Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 7 November 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt

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

1. Response to Final Report, undated

Teacher’s Response

The Teacher submitted an investigation response form. He completed the response section under part admitted allegation. His explanation was that he had maintained a plea of not guilty during his trial but changed his plea to guilty reluctantly on legal advice. He argued that anyone in his position would have done the same and highlights that he received an absolute discharge by way of disposal.

His position was that this was an episode of playfighting with Pupil A that he had engaged in with Pupil A on prior occasions without incident. He expressed his regret and remorse for the incident explaining that he would not knowingly cause harm or distress to a pupil, recognising that his behaviour fell far short of what is expected from a teacher and the situation would have been avoided if he had adhered to professional boundaries. He provided assurances that the behaviour would not be repeated and expressed that he has insight into professional boundaries.

The Teacher did not provide a formal position on fitness to teach or on the appropriate outcome.

Summary of Evidence and Submissions

The extract of conviction dated 3 February 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 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 his response to final investigation report.

Decision

The Panel noted that the appropriate notice was served to the Teacher in line with Rule 1.6.1 and that papers were served on the Teacher with 28 days' notice in line with Rule 2.3.1.

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). It 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 Panel considered the Panel Consideration Practice Statement. It determined that case should not be dismissed in light of the conviction. It was provided with legal advice by the Legal Assessor on the status of an absolute discharge in Scots law.  

It considered whether the allegation was admitted in full. The Teacher had partially admitted the allegation. However, there was conclusive proof of the conviction, and its view was that by pleading guilty the Teacher had admitted the allegation.

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 was convicted of a criminal offence.

The Panel considered that the allegations, if established, would represent a breach of COPAC 2012 in terms of which the following sections were engaged:

• 1.2 you must maintain appropriate professional boundaries, avoid improper contact or relationships with pupils and respect your unique position of trust as a teacher.
• 1.3 you should avoid situations both within and out with 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.
• 2.3 you should aim to be a positive role model to learners and motivate and inspire them to realise their full potential.

The Panel was satisfied that the alleged conduct amounts to Relevant Conduct, and there was 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 the events were not more than five years or more before the date of the most recent event and it was in the public interest for it to proceed; that the referral had not already been received or considered by GTC Scotland; that the alleged conduct is not frivolous or vexatious. Panel considered that the investigation was properly brought and had not been made anonymously, therefore was not considered to be malicious.

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, albeit he sought to explain the circumstances surrounding it in mitigation. 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.

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 considered COPAC and considered that by placing his arms around the pupil’s neck and assaulting him the Teacher had breached 1.2 by failing to maintain a professional boundary or avoiding improper contact with pupil.  Further, 1.3 was breached due to a breach of the criminal law and the resulting conviction, which also amounted to a breach of 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3, leading to the Teacher’s conduct falling short of the expected professional standards.

The Panel then considered whether the conduct was remediable, together with the risk of reoccurrence and the public interest.

The incident itself was 1 October 2020, with the conviction being 3 February 2025. The Panel noted that there was no information available concerning whether there were any further incidents.

The Panel was given legal advice that the test is whether the Teacher is currently impaired, together with the absolute discharge imposed by way of disposal in the criminal case. Panel required to consider whether there is information over repetition or other incidents and to base its decision on the available evidence.

The Panel considered the recent conviction as evidence of current impairment. However, it considered that the conduct was remediable. The Teacher’s position that he had not intended to cause harm and his position that the conduct will never re-occur, together with his acceptance that the incident fell short of the standards expected and he was sorry for the distress caused.

The Panel was cognisant that the type of behaviour demonstrated had occurred before. However, apart from the Teacher’s response to the investigation there was limited evidence showing insight or remediation shown by the Teacher. For example, he had not demonstrated evidence of courses on maintaining professional boundaries, which led Panel to conclude that it had not been remedied.                            

The Panel then considered the likelihood of re-occurrence. There was limited evidence to form a view that the behaviour would not reoccur, apart from the Teacher’s position in his response to the investigation. His current circumstances were not known to the Panel. It was not satisfied that it should accept as offsetting the risk of harm the Teacher’s position on re-occurrence. Standing this, it was not satisfied that there was a sufficiency of evidence to form a view on reoccurrence.

The Panel considered whether the Teacher’s conduct fell short to amount to an impairment to his fitness to teach or significantly short of the standards expected.

It considered Article 18 (3) of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011 provides that an individual is “unfit to teach” for the purposes of this Order if the GTCS considers that the individual’s conduct or professional competence falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and “fitness to teach” is to be construed accordingly.

The Panel paid regard to the fact that the conviction was for assault to a pupil by placing his arms around his neck and compressing same causing the pupil to fall to the ground and stood on his hand, causing injury. It arose out of an incident of alleged playfighting which had crossed a professional boundary into criminality leading to injury to the child. However, it balanced the conviction against the absolute discharge imposed, reaching the view that the conduct fell short of the standards expected, but not significantly short to justify removal from the register.

In reaching its decision, the Panel also considered the public interest. The public interest and reasonable public perception would be engaged given the conduct and the action which would reasonably be expected from the professional regulator. The Panel concluded that the public interest would be met with the sanctions available to the Panel given the established impairment 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 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 been provided with an opportunity to make further submissions in the notice of panel consideration but had not done so. It paid regard to the Panel Consideration Guidance concerning the dangers in seeking additional information from the Teacher about insight or lack of remediation when a position had already been provided in his response to the final investigation report.

There was no evidence of the Teacher’s good character, nor evidence of a lack of repetition or sufficient insight demonstrated by the Teacher to justify a reprimand. It then considered a conditional registration order and whether that would be appropriate. Its view was that a conditional registration order, together with a reprimand for a period of two years would be an appropriate sanction.

The terms of the conditional registration order imposed upon the Teacher are as follows:

• For a period of two years, 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 GTC Scotland within 7 days of commencement of any disciplinary or fitness to practice proceedings against you by your employer or any other professional regulatory body for a period of two years.
• In the event that you are the subject of enquiry or investigation in relation to alleged criminal conduct, you must inform GTC Scotland of such enquiry or investigation within 7 days of the date upon which the relevant authorities first contacted you for a period of two years of the date of this order taking effect.
• If you are employed as a teacher or in a role for which GTC Scotland registration is required, towards the end of each academic year and immediately before the end of the period of these conditions, you must obtain a report from your head teacher or education manager confirming that there have been no issues concerning your fitness to teach during that year. Such report must be forwarded by you to GTC Scotland at regulation@gtcs.org.uk within one month of the end of each academic session for a period of two years of the date of this order taking effect.
• In order to improve your knowledge on maintaining professional boundaries and avoiding improper contact and relationships with pupils, together with behaviour management you are required to have identified and booked onto a training course in relation to maintaining professional boundaries and avoiding improper contact and relationships with pupils, together with behaviour management professional boundaries that is approved by GTC Scotland and have booked it within three months of the date of this order taking effect.
• It will be your responsibility to identify the training course and seek approval of it from GTC Scotland in advance of undertaking it.
• On completion of the training course, you must provide to GTC Scotland written evidence of your successful completion of it, together with a reflective statement on how you intend to action the embed this learning in your professional practice.
• Once a term you must provide GTC Scotland with written reports from your line manager confirming that you have kept your knowledge and skills up to date in maintaining professional boundaries and avoiding improper contact and relationships with pupils, together with behaviour management and have successfully completed any appropriate courses accordingly, specifying that you have met the aforementioned requirements.
• You must work with your line manager to formulate a Professional Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies identified in the following areas of your teaching practice: (i) maintaining professional boundaries; (ii) avoiding improper contact and relationships with pupils; and (iii) behaviour management.
• If your line manager is not the headteacher, then you must meet with the Head Teacher on a termly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the objectives set out in your Professional Development Plan.
• You must provide a copy of the Professional Development Plan formulated to GTC Scotland within three months of the effective date of this Order.
• You must maintain a reflective practice journal focusing on behaviour management and maintaining positive relationships with pupils and provide a copy of that journal once a term to GTC Scotland. The first journal must be received within three months of this order taking effect.

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 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.