Panel Consideration Meeting - Nicola Sangster

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 June 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

No preliminary matters were raised.

Allegation(s)

1. On 12 December 2023, whilst employed by Aberdeenshire Council as a Primary Teacher at Anna Ritchie School, the Teacher did
   
   (a) grab Pupil A by the back of his waistband and backpack while he was lying on the floor
   (b) shout near the face of Pupil A ‘you are not the boss of here, you’re not the boss of the school, and you’re not the boss of my class’ or words to that effect;  
   (c) shout at Pupil A ‘Do not hit your mum, do not hit your mother’ or words to that effect
   (d) kick Pupil A on the bottom

In light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and she is unfit to teach as a result of breaching parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.6 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC)

Information Available to the Panel

1. Final Investigation Report, dated 28 May 2025, with appendices including:
   
   • Minutes of Child’s Plan meeting for Pupil A, dated 2 November 2023
   • Child’s Plan for Pupil A, dated 2 November 2023
   • Child’s Plan for Pupil A, dated 24 November 2023
   • Minutes of Child’s Plan meeting for Pupil A, dated 24 November 2023
   • Police Interview with Individual A, dated 14 December 2023
   • Police Interview with Head Teacher, dated 13 December 2023
   • Referral from Individual A, dated 18 December 2023
   • Employer Response to NOI, dated 5 February 2024
   • Letter from Police Scotland, undated
   • Teacher’s response to NOI, dated 9 February 2024
   • Testimonial for Teacher – [redacted], dated 13 February 2024
   • Testimonial for Teacher – [redacted], dated 13 February 2024
   • Testimonial for Teacher – [redacted], dated 13 February 2024
   • Testimonial for Teacher – [redacted], dated 13 February 2024
   • Testimonial for Teacher – [redacted], dated 16 February 2024
   • Police Interview of the Teacher, dated 15 December 2023
   • Witness Statement of Individual A, dated 14 March 2024
   • Photos of injuries to Teacher, dated 21 April 2024
   • Police response letter to GTC Scotland, dated 22 April 2024
   • Chronology of incidents involving Pupil A at school, dated October 23 – 4 July 2024    
   • Local Authority Investigation Report, dated 24 March 2024 with appendices:
     
     • Appendix 1 – Statement from Teacher, dated 1 February 2024
     • Appendix 2 & 3 – Statement from Individual A, dated 1 February 2024
     • Appendix 4 – Statement from Head Teacher dated 21 February 2024
     • Appendix 5 – Statement from [redacted], Class Teacher, dated 21 February 2024
     • Appendix 6 – Statement from [redacted], Admin Assistant, dated 21 February 2024
     • Appendix 7 – Statement from [redacted], Administrator, dated 21 February 2024
     • Appendix 8 – Statement from [redacted], Hearing Support, dated 21 February 2024
     • Appendix 9 – Statement from [redacted], PSA, dated 21 February 2024
     • Appendix 10, Statement from [redacted], PSA, dated 21 February 2024
     • Appendix 11 – Police letter, dated 30 January 2024
     • Appendix 12 – Background information on Teacher, dated 30 January 2024
     • Appendix 13 – Phone screenshots from Individual A, dated 1 February 2024
   • Witness statement of [redacted], dated 7 June 2024
   • Chronology of incidents involving Pupil A, dated October 2023 – November 2023
   • Disciplinary outcome, dated 8 May 2024
   • Accident Reports for Pupil A, various dates
   • Teacher’s response to interim report, dated 5 March 2015
   • Bundle for Teacher’s response to interim report – testimonials, various dates
   • Notice of Investigation, dated 29 January 2024
   • Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 5 June 2025

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

1. Response from Teacher, dated 17 June 2025  
2. Teacher’s reflective statement, undated

Teacher’s Response

1. The Teacher accepted the allegations against her.
2. The Teacher’s representative submitted that her Fitness to Teach is not currently impaired.
3. The Teacher submitted that if the Panel found that her fitness to teach was impaired then the appropriate sanction should be a reprimand.

Summary of Evidence and Submissions

The Teacher submitted that she had given a consistent account of events and that she deeply regretted her actions. It was submitted that the Panel should take into account the circumstances of the events in which the Teacher underwent a sustained attack from Pupil A. The events have had a [redacted] and she is unlikely to return to teaching at present. The Teacher explained that she had reflected on her behaviour.

The panel were asked to consider if the Teacher’s admitted conduct meant that her fitness to teach was impaired. GTC Scotland did not comment on any proposed sanction as that was a matter for the Panel.

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 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
  • behaviour of a violent, aggressive or threatening nature

The Panel considered the relevant parts of COPAC to be:

• Part 1 – Professionalism and maintaining trust in the profession in particular 1.2, 1.3, 1.6
• Part 2 – Professional responsibilities towards Pupils in particular 2.3

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

• The matter is not over 5 years of age.
• 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 on the basis of 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 of 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 considered Part A of the Indicative Outcomes Guidance: The Panel recognised that the Teacher was working in a complex needs school where the environment is likely to be different to a mainstream school. [redacted] and Pupil A did not have the support needs in place that had been authorised. The Panel found however that the Teacher should not have shouted at Pupil A and should not have kicked and pulled Pupil A in the way she did. The Panel accepted however that the events were not premeditated, the situation was heightened and dysregulated and in fact took place when the parent was present. The Panel accepted that the Teacher was remorseful and has demonstrated a huge amount of reflection. The Panel found however that the Teacher was in breach of part 1.2 of COPAC in that she did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries, part 1.3 of COPAC in that the Teacher did not avoid situations which could amount to criminal conduct and parts 1.6 and 2.3 of COPAC in that the Teacher did not maintain awareness of being a role model. The Panel found that the conduct was serious but the Teacher has admitted the allegations and has shown reflection. The Panel noted that there has been no previous history of such behaviour in a long career as a teacher and there were testimonials to that effect.  The Teacher has not been able to work since the allegations [redacted] and so has not been able to evidence her practice as a teacher in recent times. The Teacher has outlined what she would have done in the work place if the matter was to occur again and the Panel found that the conduct was therefore unlikely to recur given her level of insight and the fact it was an isolated incident. The Panel found that the conduct was remediable and that the Teacher had made efforts to remediate her conduct. The Panel were not able to find that the conduct had been remedied given that the Teacher was [redacted] and had not been able to evidence current practice. Further the Teacher had not evidenced any recent professional learning around ASN teaching when young people are heightened or in crisis.

• The Panel also considered the public interest and decided that the public would expect the Panel to take some action to uphold standards in the profession and confidence in the regulator.

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.

The Panel had in mind that the primary purpose of a sanction is to be protective not punitive. In making its decision the Panel considered and had proportionate regard to the public interest; the interests of the Teacher, including any mitigating factors; and the particular circumstances of the case, including any aggravating factors.

The Panel took into consideration the factors it considered for impairment. In particular the Panel found that whilst the conduct is serious there were mitigating factors surrounding the conduct namely [redacted], Pupil A had been allocated to her care despite the authorised supports not being put in place and the situation became chaotic and dysregulated. Police Scotland also confirmed that the Teacher had been subjected to a sustained attack by Pupil A prior to the conduct. The Panel also took into consideration the fact that the Teacher admitted her conduct at an early stage and was very remorseful for her actions.

The Panel found that the incident was an isolated one and that the Teacher has made efforts to remediate her conduct. The Panel found that that the Teacher’s actions were not deliberate and arose out of a chaotic situation. The Teacher had a previous unblemished record and was highly regarded.

The Panel decided that a Reprimand would address appropriately and sufficiently any public protection concern which in the Panel’s view are very low risk given the remorse shown by the Teacher. Further, a Reprimand considers the public interest by indicating to the public and the profession the seriousness of the matter in issue, therefore maintaining public confidence in teachers and the teaching profession. Furthermore, the Reprimand is the least restrictive means of achieving the level of public protection required and is proportionate to the facts found proved that have led to the fitness to teach impairment finding.

The Panel decided that an appropriate and proportionate time period for the Reprimand would be one year. The Panel noted that one year is applied to the majority of cases and felt that it was sufficient to allow the Teacher to address any further issues relating to her fitness to teach.

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.