Panel Consideration Meeting - Margaret Carrick

Teacher

Margaret Carrick

(

not present

)

Date

Dates

22 September 2025

Registration number

048482

Registration category

Applicant – College Lecturer

Panel

Gemma Durnan, Helen Kelly and Michele Knight

Legal assessor

Bill Criggie

Servicing officer

Stephen Wood

Presenting officer

Teacher's representative(s)

Graeme Watson, Clyde & Co (not present)

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 22 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

None.

Allegation(s)

Whilst employed by Fife College as a College Lecturer:
- (a) The Teacher on 7 January 2022, at Livingston Sheriff Court, was convicted under section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 of between 11 December 2020 and 19 April 2021 engaging in a course of conduct which caused her partner or ex-partner Person A and Person B fear or alarm in that the Teacher did state that Person B had been repeatedly contacting her by email, when she knew this to be false, state that Person B had been subject to disciplinary action at her place of work when she knew this to be false, repeatedly send text messages to Person A and Person B, repeatedly make telephone calls to them, repeatedly send them emails, repeatedly leave them voicemails, repeatedly monitor their whereabouts and attempt to contact them on an exercise tracking application, all in the knowledge that such contact was unwanted, set up an email account in the name of Person A and send an email to herself pertaining to be from Person A, and that in terms of section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 that the aforesaid offence was aggravated by involving the abuse of the Teacher’s partner or ex-partner.

And considering the above, it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and/or she is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Information Available to the Panel

Final Investigation Report dated 10 July 2025, with appendices including:

Police Scotland statement of Person A, dated 30 August 2020
Screenshots of Convictions Section of application, dated 7 September 2021
Letter from Person A to Livingston Sheriff Court, dated 26 September 2021
Notification of Investigation Information Form, dated 29 November 2021
Emails between GTC Scotland and [redacted], Human Resources (‘HR’) at Fife College, dated to 9 December 2021
Letter from Police Scotland, dated 27 January 2022
Extract Conviction with covering letter, dated 26 April 2022
Note of Call with the Teacher, dated 5 December 2023
Emails between the Investigating Officer and [redacted], HR at Fife College, dated to 20 August 2024
Teacher’s Response to Interim Report, dated 21 March 2025
Email from Teacher’s Representative to [redacted], dated 25 March 2025
Testimonial from [redacted], dated 2 April 2025
Further response from the Teacher to the Interim Report, dated 1 May 2025

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

Response from Teacher, dated 31 July 2025

Teacher’s Response

The Teacher admits the allegations as far as she acknowledges there is a criminal conviction.
The Teacher has made submissions to the effect that her fitness to teach is not currently impaired.
The Teacher has made submissions that the case be disposed of under Rule 2.3.2 (a) but also indicated that if the matter were not disposed of in that manner and the Panel were minded to dispose of the matter by way of a reprimand, she would agree to that.

Summary of Evidence and Submissions

Amongst the papers provided to the Panel was an extract conviction dated 7 January 2021, 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 she 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.

The Panel also took into account the fulsome submission made on the Teacher’s behalf.

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. The matter amounts to Relevant Conduct because the Teacher has been convicted of a criminal offence amounting to ‘stalking’ of her 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 concerning course of conduct that was abusive of her partner or ex-partner and his then partner over a 4 month 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 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 criminal conduct occurred between December 2020 and April 2021.
The matter has not already been considered.
The matter is not frivolous or vexatious.
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 based on 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, the Teacher admits the offence.

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.

Conduct at the time – what parts of COPAC breached and to what extent

The Panel noted that the criminal behaviour in this case was concerning, involving as it did ‘stalking’ behaviour which would have had a detrimental impact on the victims. The offence also involved some dishonesty. While the Panel noted that the Teacher had been Admonished by the Sheriff Court in relation to the criminal matter and that this was the lowest sanction available to the court it could not overlook the fact that there was serious criminal conduct involved. There were, in the Panel’s view, clear breaches of COPAC parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6

The Panel was however of the view that the conduct was remediable and that it had in fact been remedied by the Teacher. The offence had taken place some 4 years ago and there had been no other incidents in the intervening period. The Teacher’s submission indicated that the offence took place against a very particular set of background circumstances and within the context of a specific relationship which had now ended and that therefore a recurrence was unlikely. The Panel accepted that at face value.

The Panel also carried out an assessment of the public interest in this matter. The Panel was satisfied that there was no issue as regards the protection of members of the public in this case but did feel that the maintenance of the public’s confidence in registrants and in the integrity of the teaching profession required that it act. The conduct of the Teacher in question was serious and criminal in nature. The Panel also considered that the maintenance of the public’s confidence in GTC Scotland as a professional regulator and the need to declare and uphold proper teaching standards meant that after careful consideration in this matter there is an overriding public interest in making a finding that fitness to teach is impaired despite the fact that the conduct was remediable, had been remedied and that reoccurrence was unlikely.

For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently 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 Part B of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance. 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.

Reprimand

The Panel discussed at length the impact of a reprimand. A reprimand is recorded in the Register against a Teacher’s name for such period of time as a Panel specifies. Other than the mark on the Register, registration status remains unaffected, so it does not restrict or control the Teacher in any way with a view to ensuring ongoing fitness to teach.

The matter before the panel did not constitute an abuse of a position of trust and the Panel had already noted that the behaviour concerned was solely related to the Teacher’s private life and had not appeared to impact on her professional life. No harm has been caused to a child or learner.

The matter has been admitted by the Teacher, and she has shown some insight into the behaviour shown.

The Panel also accepted that the matter represents an isolated incident. While there was a course of conduct over a period of months the conduct did appear to arise because of a specific set of circumstances and within the context of a relationship which has now ended.

The Panel noted that there has been no repetition of the matter at issue since the incident concerned and that the criminal conduct occurred some 4 years previously.

There is evidence before the Panel attesting to the good character and history of the Teacher. Her current employers provided evidence which suggested they had no issues with her professionalism, and which suggested her students were unaware of the conviction.

The Panel was however of the view that reprimand is in the public interest. The course of conduct shown over a period of some 4 months was not appropriate for a teacher and the conviction itself is for a serious matter. A reprimand appropriately indicates to the Teacher concerned, the profession and the public the seriousness of the matter at issue, therefore maintaining public confidence in teachers and the teaching profession.

The Panel took the view that the serious nature of the conviction meant that a period of 2 years would be appropriate in this case.

For the reasons set out above the Panel decided to impose a reprimand against the Teacher’s name in the Register for a period of two years.

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.