Panel Consideration Meeting - Conduct - Teacher G

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 2012.

Notification of Meeting

The Panel had before it a copy of the Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 25 March 2025 sent by email to the Teacher’s representative. The Panel also had the delivery notification from the Teacher’s representative and an email reply. 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. From July 2022, whilst employed as a teacher by Stirling Council at [redacted] the Teacher did form and maintain a sexual relationship with Pupil A, then aged 17 years of age and a recent former pupil.  

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 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Information Available to the Panel

1. Final Investigation Report, dated 7 February 2025 with appendices including:
   
   • Police Statement from Person A, dated 1 August 2022
   • Police Statement from Person A, dated 3 August 2022
   • Police Statement from Person B, dated 15 August 2022
   • Police Statement from Person C, dated 17 August 2023
   • Police Statement from Person D, dated 17 August 2022  
   • Police Statement from Person E, dated 18 August 2022
   • Police Statement from Pupil A dated 3 August 2022
   • Police Statement from Pupil A dated 9 August 2022
   • Copy handwritten letters from Pupil A
   • Email from Stirling Council, dated 1 September 2022
   • Email from Stirling Council, dated 21 September 2022, with appendix thereto:
   • Suspension Letter from Stirling Council to Teacher, dated 9 August 2022
   • NOI Response from Teacher, dated 20 September 2022
   • Response from Police Scotland, dated 28 October 2022
   • Response from Police Scotland, dated 28 July 2023
   • Response from Police Scotland, dated 9 October 2023
   • Response from Police Scotland, dated 25 October 2023
   • Confirmation from COPFS of End of Criminal Proceedings, dated 19 January 2024
   • Response to interim investigation report dated 20 January 2025
2. Email from the Teacher’s Representative, dated 10 April 2025 Confirming No Further Response
3. Notice of Investigation, dated 7 September 2022
4. Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 25 March 2025

In response to the notice, the Teacher’s Representative confirmed there was no additional information to be provided for consideration by the Panel.

Teacher’s Response

The Teacher admits the allegations in full but submitted that a finding of impairment would not be in the public interest, nor would it be proportionate.

Summary of Evidence and Submissions

In the Teacher’s response to GTC Scotland’s interim report, the Teacher accepts that after Pupil A left [redacted], he entered into a sexual relationship with Pupil A. The Teacher also accepts that in July 2022 he continued to be employed by Stirling Council. The Teacher therefore accepts the allegation in full.

The Teacher submits however that whilst the allegation is admitted, the Teacher denies having committed any abuse of his position of trust, whilst employed as a teacher. The Teacher refutes any suggestion that he presents any further, or ongoing risk.

The Teacher submits that he has acted with honesty and integrity, as demonstrated by his acceptance of the allegation considered, in full. Further, that the Teacher has fully complied with the GTCS investigation process.

The Teacher submits that the GTC ‘Indicative Outcomes Guidance’ Practice Statement outlines that, in accordance with The Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011, an individual is unfit to teach if GTC Scotland considers that his/her conduct or professional competence falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. The Teacher’s representative submitted on behalf of the Teacher, that although the Teacher erred in his judgement in entering into a relationship with a former pupil, his conduct does not constitute a significant shortfall. The Teacher submits that the relationship between Pupil A and the Teacher is an ongoing and consensual one which occurred after Pupil A left formal education. In the circumstances, the Teacher submits that a finding of impairment would not be in the public interest, nor would it be proportionate.

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
  • Forming inappropriate relationships with pupils/young people

Whilst the Teacher was of the view that the sexual relationship occurred after Pupil A left school, the Panel were mindful that COPAC covers the pupil/teacher relationship during and after the pupil has left school. The Panel considered the relevant Parts of COPAC to be:

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 outwith the professional context which could be in breach of the criminal law, or may call into question your fitness to teach; and

1.6 You should maintain an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to pupils.

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

• The matter relates to events in July 2022 and is therefore not over 5 years of age.
• The matter has not already been considered by GTCS.
• The matter is not frivolous or vexatious.
• The allegation has 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) given that the allegation has been admitted by the Teacher. Furthermore, the Panel did not consider the referral to be malicious.  

The Panel having decided not to dismiss the case and in circumstances where the Teacher has admitted the allegation(s) in full, had to determine (a) whether a current impairment exists and (b) what disposal it may be appropriate to issue.

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 Practice Statement in considering whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

The Panel noted that the allegation is accepted by the Teacher. The Panel therefore found proved that the Teacher from July 2022, whilst employed as a teacher by Stirling Council at [redacted] the Teacher did form and maintain a sexual relationship with Pupil A, then aged 17 years of age and a recent former pupil.  

The Panel, having found the allegation proved, reminded itself that Stage 1 of Part A of Indicative Outcomes Guidance is to determine whether the Teacher’s conduct amounts to misconduct and Stage 2 of Part A IOG is to determine the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

The Panel considered first whether the facts found proved mean that the Teacher’s conduct at that time fell short of the expected professional standards. The Panel decided that the conduct of the Teacher amounted to a breach of several parts of COPAC. The Panel decided that the Teacher had failed to maintain appropriate boundaries in failing to avoid sexual contact with Pupil A. Part 1 of COPAC specifically states that professional boundaries expected of a teacher exist beyond the school leaving age. The Panel decided that forming a relationship with a pupil so soon after the pupil leaving school shows a lack of judgment and a breach of professional boundaries that calls in to question the Teachers fitness to teach in terms of 1.3 of COPAC. The Panel decided that the Teacher, in forming a relationship with a pupil albeit one who had left school, is not acting as a role model and is a breach of 1.6 of COPAC. The Panel viewed the conduct as falling far short of the standards expected of a teacher and that the conduct amounted to misconduct.

The Panel reminded itself that it should apply the fitness to teach test to the Teacher currently, that is, as at the time of the panel meeting. The Panel considered whether the shortfalls identified are remediable; whether they have been remedied; and whether there is a likelihood of recurrence.

The Panel found that the Teacher, whilst accepting that he had formed a sexual relationship with Pupil A, did not have any insight into the seriousness of his conduct nor the abuse of the position of trust he held with regards to Pupil A.  Further, Pupil A was considered a vulnerable pupil by the school. The Teacher was aware of the pupil’s vulnerability and in the Panel’s view that is an aggravating factor in relation to the Teacher’s conduct. Given the lack of insight by the Teacher and his attempt to exculpate himself by saying the relationship was consensual and therefore not an abuse of trust, the Panel did not think that the conduct had been remedied nor that it was likely to be remedied.

The Panel noted that the Teacher, whilst on the one hand submitting that his fitness to teach is not impaired, nonetheless has removed himself from teaching. The Panel decided that given there is no evidence of remediation and very little evidence of insight that there was still a risk of recurrence of the behaviour should the Teacher be in a teaching post in the future.

The Panel, in considering the public interest, decided that a member of the public, knowing all the facts, would expect the regulator to take some action to protect pupils and uphold standards in the profession.

The Panel decided, given the above findings, that the Teacher has fallen significantly short of the standards expected.

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 did not  refer the case for a full hearing, therefore a consent order will be issued to the Teacher.

The Panel decided that the Teacher should be prohibited from applying to be restored to the Register for a period of 2 years. The Panel decided that 2 years was the appropriate period due to the fact that the Teacher is likely to need that period of time to demonstrate to any future Panel that he has insight into his conduct and that he has remediated said conduct.