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 21 July 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

The Panel ensured that it had all the relevant papers and Practice Statements before it and considered that the matter should be dealt with in line with the procedures set out in the Panel Consideration Practice Statement and the Indicative Outcomes Guidance.

The Panel further noted that it had before it correspondence from the Teacher’s Representative in which he admitted the allegations as set out below in their entirety.

Allegation(s)

1. Between August 2021 and April 2022, whilst employed by Renfrewshire Council as a teacher at [redacted], the Teacher did:
   
   • a. on dates unknown, hug Pupils A, B and C;
   • b. on or around 21 April 2022 give a card to Pupil A which was signed ‘Love [redacted] xx’;
   • c. send text messages to pupils using the Teacher’s personal mobile phone which:
     
     • i. were unrelated to school;
     • ii. sent after school hours
     • iii. offered to meet Pupil A out with school
     • d. send a Facebook friend request to Pupils A, B and C;
     • e. transport pupils in the Teacher’s vehicle to collect pizza during school time;
     • f. on or around 30 April 2022, purchase alcohol for Pupil D and her friends, then pupils at [redacted], whilst the Teacher was in ‘The Lane’ pub.

And 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 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Information available to the Panel

Final Investigation Report, dated 21 July 2025, with appendices including:

• Witness statement of [redacted]
• Witness statement of [redacted]
• Witness statement of [redacted]
• Witness statement of Pupil B
• Police Scotland statement of Pupil A
• Police Scotland statement of Pupil B
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Police Scotland statement of [redacted]
• Letter from Police Scotland, dated 30 August 2022
• Letter from Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), dated 11 October 2022
• Emails from COPFS between 9 November 2022 and 10 November 2022
• Letter from Police Scotland, dated 11 September 2023
• Letter from Renfrewshire Council to the Teacher dated 20 November 2023
• Renfrewshire Council Investigatory Report Form dated 1 November 2023:
  
  • Appendix 1
  • Appendix 2
  • Appendix 3
  • Appendix 4
  • Appendix 5
  • Appendix 6
  • Appendix 7
  • Appendix 8
  • Appendix 9
  • Appendix 10
  • Appendix 11
  • Appendix 12
  • Appendix 13
  • Appendix 14
  • Appendix 15
  • Appendix 16
  • Appendix 17
  • Appendix 18
  • Appendix 19
  • Appendices 20 – 41 [redacted].
  • Appendix 42
  • Appendix 43
• Email from [redacted] dated 7 May 2025
• Email from Teacher’s representative dated 26 June 2025

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

• Response from Teacher, dated 18 August 2025.

Teacher's response

1. In a response dated 26 June 2025 to the Interim Investigation Report the Teacher admitted the allegations in their entirety. This position was restated in his response of 18 August 2025.
2. The Teacher sought removal from the Register with consent and in the absence of any other submissions or evidence the Panel therefore inferred that in his own view he was currently unfit to teach.
3. The Teacher indicated that he would consent to Removal from the Register

Summary of evidence and submissions

The Panel had before it the Final Investigation Report and numerous witness statements taken as part of a Police Scotland investigation into the allegations. The Panel also noted that while the Teacher was charged with criminal offences no criminal proceedings had been pursued by COPFS. However, given the Teachers admissions the Panel was able to assess the Teacher’s conduct by reference to the detail contained in the allegations.

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:

• Abuse of a teacher’s position of trust
• Forming inappropriate relationships with pupils/young people
• Sexual misconduct

The Panel was confirmed in their view that the Teacher fell short of expected professional standards having also identified clear breaches of COPAC relating to parts

• 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

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

• The matter is not over 5 years of age – the conduct in question occurred between August 2021 and April 2022.
• The matter has not already been considered.
• The matter is not frivolous or vexatious.
• The allegation(s) 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 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 Part A of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance in considering whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

The Panel was of the view that the Teacher’s conduct was a clear breach of Part 1.3 of COPAC. The Teacher had put himself in a variety of positions whereby he may have been in breach of the criminal law. Indeed, he was charged with criminal offences although these were not ultimately pursued. The Panel was satisfied that his conduct had breached COPAC Part 1.3. It had involved a lengthy course of conduct over several months in which he continually breached boundaries with learners in an inappropriate manner. The Panel noted that the cumulative effect of this was significant, and the Panel was also concerned that the behaviour may well have continued had it not been stopped in April 2022.

The Panel was also of the view that the Teacher had breached COPAC Part 1.4. His personal and professional conduct had not been appropriate for a Teacher. He had continually blurred boundaries between himself and learners.

The Panel also felt that COPAC Part 1.6 had been breached as the Teacher had engaged in conduct such as buying alcohol for learners, encouraging misuse of alcohol and had demonstrated a lack of respect for learners' personal space and boundaries over a considerable period. In the view of the Panel this was not behaviour which was conducive to being a role model for learners.

Is the conduct remediable, has it been remedied by the Teacher or can he/she remedy it, what is the risk of reoccurrence?

The Panel was concerned that the Teacher had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the conduct established had been remedied by him in the period since. There was evidence before the Panel that the Teacher had failed to engage with counselling and wellbeing support which had been offered to him. The only evidence the Panel had before it of the Teacher’s view on matters was a short email dated 30 October 2023 which was superficial, lacked real insight into his behaviour and the impact it may have had and to some extent minimised the seriousness of his behaviour. That being the case the Panel concluded that the behaviour had not been remedied and that there was no evidence to show that it was remediable. The Panel reached the view that with this lack of insight and engagement there was a real risk that that conduct could recur.

The Panel also considered whether the public interest required a finding to be made that the Teacher is unfit to teach. The Panel again noted the lack of insight, lack of attempts at remediation and that the behaviour in question had occurred both inside and outside the teaching setting. The Panel considered that there was an element of public protection in finding that the Teacher was unfit to teach. This was in addition to maintaining the public’s confidence in the profession and its confidence in the GTCS as a regulator.

After careful consideration and for these reasons, the Panel concluded that the Teacher 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 the Teacher had showed limited insight into his actions and as set out previously had not taken steps to remediate his actions. The Panel agreed that a longer period of removal might provide the opportunity for the Teacher to reflect on his conduct and take steps to remedy that conduct and prevent recurrence should he choose to apply for re-registration in the future.

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.

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.