Full hearing - Conduct - Billy Dewar-Riddick

Definitions

• “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; and
• the “Register” means the GTC Scotland register of teachers.

Preliminary issues

Amendment Application:

1. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to amend allegation 4(a)(i-iv) so that allegation 4(a)(ii) would be split into two parts namely 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii). As a result, allegation 4(a)(iii) would then become allegation 4(a)(iv) and allegation 4(a)(iv) would become allegation 4(a)(v). The Teacher had no objection as the amendment did not change the substance of the allegations. The Panel decided to amend the allegations as it was a typographical error and the Teacher had responded to the allegations in the amended terms. The Panel took into account Rule 2.8.4 and allowed the amendment.
2. After hearing the evidence at the fact-finding stage, the Panel, in terms of Rule 2.8.4, proposed two amendments to the allegations namely that:
   • allegation 1(b) should read as follows: ‘State to colleague 3 that his wedding ring was a ‘slut magnet’, or words to that effect.’
   • allegation 4(a)(iv) should read as follows: ‘In respect of Colleague 4, who he knew to be bisexual, state that he must ‘like it up the arse’, or words to that effect; and’.
   
   The effect of the amendment to allegation 1(b) was to reduce the allegation to the Teacher having said those words to Colleague 3 only as opposed to ‘colleagues’ plural. The effect of the amendment to allegation 4(a)(iv) was to reduce the allegation to the Teacher having said the alleged words to Colleague 4 only rather than to Colleague 4 and Colleague 5.
   
   The Panel gave parties the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments. The parties did not object to the proposed amendments and so the Panel, having regard to Rule 2.8.4 and the interests of justice and fairness, allowed the amendments as they did not prejudice the Teacher, the Teacher had no objection and there was no opposition from the Presenting Officer.

Late Papers

The Teacher’s representative invited the Panel to admit late papers namely an email between the Teacher and Colleague 2, text messages between the Teacher and Colleague 1, a letter from the Teacher’s legal representative confirming the outcome of criminal proceedings and a Professional Learning Needs document related to Stage 2. The Presenting Officer did not object. The Panel considered Rule 1.7.17 and admitted the late papers on the basis that it was fair and relevant to do so.

Hearsay Application

On the first day of the hearing the Presenting Officer made a hearsay application in respect of Colleague 6 for the following evidence to be admitted as hearsay: GTC Scotland Statement of Colleague 6 dated 30 September 2020and record of interview of Colleague 6, dated 22 May 2019. The Presenting Officer provided the Panel with a letter from Colleague 6 from her doctor regarding the impact attending the Hearing would have on her. The Panel were referred to Rules 1.3.7 and 1.3.8 and the GTC Scotland Fact Finding Practice Statement. It was submitted that the Panel could admit hearsay evidence subject to the requirements of fairness and relevancy. The Panel were also referred to the Witness and Hearsay Evidence Practice Statement, and the factors to consider which are detailed on p.8 of the Practice Statement. The Presenting Officer submitted that Colleague 6 has provided good and cogent reasons for their non-attendance, specifically, a doctor’s note which details her anxiety in participating in proceedings. They also submitted that there is oral evidence available from other witnesses who speak to what Colleague 6 speaks to.

The hearsay application was opposed by the Teacher’s representative. She submitted that the Panel should take into account that Colleague 6 was the only witness to speak to allegations 4(d)(i)1 and 4(d)(i)2 and that the Panel would not be able to test the reliability of the hearsay evidence. Reference was made to Article 6 and the entitlement to a fair trial. It was submitted that no explanation had been given as to why Colleague 6 could not give evidence remotely. The Teacher disputes Colleague 6’s evidence and these issues cannot be resolved if the Teacher cannot cross-examine the witness. It was submitted that the hearsay evidence should not be admitted as it would not be fair to the Teacher.

The Panel refused the hearsay application in relation to Colleague 6. The Panel weighed up the factors outlined in the Witness and Hearsay Evidence Practice Statement, namely, that there was no absolute right to cross examine witnesses but that where the allegations are of a serious nature then there is heightened scrutiny. The Panel noted that the evidence Colleague 6 speaks to would be sole and decisive for allegation 4(d)(i)2. The Panel noted the serious nature of this allegation and that the contents of the witness statement were in dispute and denied by the Teacher. The ability to cross examine was therefore important. There was a good reason for non-attendance namely anxiety on the part of Colleague 6. The public interest was considered but balancing all the factors, the Panel decided it was not fair to allow the hearsay evidence.

Vulnerable Witness Application

The Presenting Officer made a vulnerable witness application in respect of Witness 6/Colleague 2. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to admit a late paper in relation to this vulnerable witness application, namely a letter regarding Witness 6’s health. The panel did not object. There was no opposition from the Teacher and the Panel agreed to the vulnerable witness application by reference to Rules 1.7.29 and 1.7.30 that Witness 6 was a vulnerable witness and that a supporter during the hearing would be appropriate.

Allegation(s)

The following allegation(s) were considered at the hearing:

1. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] the Teacher did:
   a. state to Colleague 1 in respect of Colleague 2, that she needed three seats ‘one for her arse, one for her handbag and one for her ego’, or words to that effect; and /
   b. state to colleagues, including but not limited to Colleague 3, that his wedding ring was a ‘slut magnet’, or words to that effect.
2. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted], the Teacher did act in an offensive manner towards Colleague 8, in that he did:
   a. advise her that he had contacted staff at [redacted] Academy to ask about her time as a pupil there, and that she had been described as a ‘right idiot’; and
   b. send a message to her on Facebook stating ‘Typical Dumfries Place. Fucking Shit Hole!! Haha x.’
3. In or around February 2018, whilst employed at [redacted], the Teacher did shout at Colleague 9, ‘fuck off’, or words to that effect.
4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:
   a. make comments of an abusive or upsetting nature in that he did:
   i. in respect of Colleague 10, shout ‘get me a drink fat [Colleague 10]’, or words to that effect;
   ii. in respect of Colleague 8, state to her ‘You got me sacked!’, or words to that effect; in respect of Colleague 2, after the Teacher had caused Colleague 8 to become upset shout ‘who the fuck are you’ and ‘slag’ ‘whore’ ‘slut’ ‘tramp’ ‘woman’ and ‘cunt’, or words to that effect;
   iii. in respect of Colleague 4, who he knew to be bisexual, and Colleague 5, state that they must both ‘like it up the arse’, or words to that effect; and
   iv. in respect of Colleague 5, ask her what it felt like to have anal sex, or words to that effect.
   b. act in a physically aggressive manner and attempt to attack Colleague 2 and Colleague 3, in that he did:
   i. throw a chair towards them;
   ii. attempt to overturn a table in their direction; and
   iii. throw a glass bottle towards them.
   c. upon later returning to the bar after having been escorted from the premises:
   i. place a bottle in front of Colleague 2 with considerable force; and
   ii. shout in Colleague 2’s face ‘There’s a bottle for you [Colleague 2], you slag’, or words to that effect.
   d. make unwanted physical contact with female colleagues in that he did:
   i. in respect of Colleague 6:
   1. repeatedly place his arm around her shoulders despite her having told him to ‘get off’, or words to that effect, and her having physically removed his arm from her shoulder; and
   2. grab her buttocks.
   ii. in respect of Colleague 12, grab her lower back and/or buttocks on at least one occasion; and
   iii. in respect of Colleague 5, repeatedly put his arm around her despite her shrugging him off.
   e. send a text message to Colleague 1 stating, ‘your friend is a cunt’, or words to that effect.
   f. using an unknown method, make himself a friend of Colleague 5 on her Snapchat social media profile without her permission.
   g. in respect of Colleague 4 and Colleague 11, did:
   i. require to be physically restrained by them due to his actions at allegation 4(b) and 4(c); and
   ii. shout at them ‘who the fuck are you?’ or words to that effect.
5. On 29 March 2018, following his actions at allegation 4, whilst at the Station House pub in Annan with Colleague 7, did state in an aggressive tone:
   a. ‘how fucking dare you speak to my friends about this’, or words to that effect; and
   b. after Colleague 7 advised him that if he continued to speak to her in the manner described in allegation 5(a) she would leave, state, ‘you wouldn’t fucking dare leave me’, or words to that effect.
6. On or around 31 March 2018, did message Colleague 7 stating that he would come to her home and batter on her door until she answered him, or words to that effect, after she failed to respond to repeated messages from him.
7. In or around April 2018, did repeatedly send messages of an aggressive nature to Colleague 7 in relation to her giving him a lift to work.
8. The Teacher’s actions at allegations 1(b), 4(a)(v), and 4(d) were sexual and/or sexually motivated.
9. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 4(a)(iv) were of a homophobic nature insofar as they related to Colleague 4.

And in light of the above, it is alleged that the Teacher is unfit to teach as a result of breaching parts 1.3, 1.4. 1.6 and 4.2 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) 2012, or in the alternative, his fitness to teach is impaired.

Confidentiality Key

• Colleague 1 – [redacted]
• Colleague 2 – [redacted]
• Colleague 3 – [redacted]
• Colleague 4 – [redacted]
• Colleague 5 – [redacted]
• Colleague 6 – [redacted]
• Colleague 7 – [redacted]
• Colleague 8 - [redacted]
• Colleague 9 – [redacted]
• Colleague 10 -[redacted]
• Colleague 11 – [redacted]
• Colleague 12 – [redacted]
• Colleague 13 – [redacted]
• Person A – [redacted]
• Person B – [redacted]
• Person C – [redacted]
• Person D – [redacted]
• Person E - [redacted]
• Person F - [redacted]
• Person G - [redacted]

Teacher’s admissions

The Teacher admitted allegations 4(a)(ii), 4(e) and 6. All other allegations were denied.

Hearing papers

In accordance with Rule 1.7.17, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

1. Presenting Officer’s Case Form
2. Employer referral form, dated 5 December 2019
3. Employer Final Disciplinary Investigation Report, dated 15 November 2019, with appendices:
   • Statement of Colleague 1, dated 21 May 2019 – present at the hearing
   • Statement of Colleague 9, dated 22 February 2019, signed 21 May 2019
   • Statement of Colleague 8 including message screenshots, dated 21 February 2019, signed 22 May 2019
   • Statement of Colleague 2, dated 20 February 2019, signed 22 May 2019 – gave oral evidence at the hearing
   • Statement of Colleague 3, dated 21 February 2019, signed 22 May 2019 – gave oral evidence at the hearing
   • Statement of Colleague 4, signed 22 May 2019 – present at the hearing
   • Statement of Colleague 5, signed 22 May 2019 –present at the hearing
   • Statement of Colleague 12, signed 22 May 2019
   • Statement of Colleague 7, signed 7 May 2019, including screenshots of messages – gave oral evidence at the hearing
   • Record of interview of Colleague 9, dated 21 May 2019
   • Record of interview of Colleague 6, dated 21 May 2019 – Rejected as hearsay
   • Record of interview of Colleague 8, dated 22 May 2019
   • Record of interview of Colleague 3, dated 22 May 2019
   • Record of interview of Colleague 4, dated 22 May 2019
   • Record of interview of Colleague 5, dated 22 May 2019
   • Record of interview of Colleague 12, dated 22 May 2019
   • Record of interview of Colleague 2, dated 22 May 2019
   • Record of investigatory interview of the Teacher, dated 12 June 2019
   • Record of interview of Colleague 7, dated 26 June 2019
   • Letter of Specialist Psychological Therapist regarding Teacher’s medical condition, dated 29 May 2019
   • Occupational Health Clinical Notes and assessments
   • Text messages between the Teacher and Colleague 7 to demonstrate normal communication
   • Dumfries and Galloway Disciplinary Policy, Procedure and Guidance 2015
   • Dumfries and Galloway Council Fair Treatment at Work Policy February 2017
4. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [redacted] (Colleague 2)
5. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [redacted] Colleague 3)
6. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [redacted] (Colleague 1)
7. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [redacted] (Colleague 6) - Rejected as hearsay
8. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [redacted] (Colleague 5)
9. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [redacted] (Colleague 4)
10. GTC Scotland Witness Statement of [redacted] (Colleague 7)
11. Teacher’s response to the Notice of Investigation, dated 12 February 2020, with appendices:
    • Letter from [redacted], dated 3 January 2019
    • Letter from [redacted], dated 29 May 2019
12. Teacher's response to the Interim Report, dated 25 February 2022, with appendices:
    • Testimonials
    • Professional learning certificates
    • Reflective note
    • Letter from [redacted], dated 8 February 2022

Teacher’s hearing papers

1. Teacher’s Case Form
2. Witness statement of the Teacher (with exhibits) – gave oral evidence at the hearing
3. Witness statement of Person A – gave oral evidence at the hearing
4. Witness statement of Person B – gave oral evidence at the hearing
5. Witness statement of Person C
6. Witness statement of Person D – gave oral evidence at the hearing
7. Witness statement of Person E – gave oral evidence at the hearing
8. Witness statement of Person F – gave oral evidence at the hearing
9. Testimonial of Person G
10. Reflective note from the Teacher

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

1. Notice of Full Hearing, dated 21 August 2024 with cover email and delivery receipt
2. Procedural Panel Meeting Annex which considered a Privacy Application and a Vulnerable Witness Application, dated 24 January 2024
3. Procedural Panel meeting Annex which considered a Hearsay Application and an Application regarding redactions to be made to the hearing bundle, dated 20 February 2024

Late Papers

1. Email between the Teacher and Colleague 2, dated 23 April 2018
2. Text messages between the Teacher and Colleague 1, undated
3. Letter from the Teacher’s legal representative confirming the outcome of criminal proceedings, dated 4 February 2019
4. Professional Learning Needs document related to Stage 2, undated
5. Medical Evidence for Colleague 6 Hearsay Application, dated 2 October 2024
6. Medical Evidence for Witness 6 Vulnerable Witness Application – Letter 1, dated 7 July 2023
7. Medical Evidence for Witness 6 Vulnerable Witness Application – Letter 2, dated 14 July 2023

Summary of evidence

Witness 1/Colleague 5:

Witness 1 adopted her statement to GTC Scotland as her evidence in chief and then gave further evidence to the Panel orally.

The Witness explained that she had been at the Anglers Pub on the evening of the 29 March 2018. The Witness said that she observed the Teacher touch Colleague 12 and Colleague 6 on the bottom but when pressed said that she could not recall exactly but that she thought he might have touched them in that area but not with his full hand. In cross examination, the Witness accepted that the touching may have been unintentional.

The Witness then described the Teacher putting his arm around her shoulders. The Witness said that she did not feel that his actions were intrusive but that it was tactile and friendly. The Witness explained that she moved away from him rather than say anything to indicate that she did not want him to put his arm around her shoulder. In cross examination, the Witness confirmed that the Teacher’s arm was intentionally placed on her and that she did not recall any photos being taken that night, so it was not possible that the Teacher was putting his arm round her for a photo.

The Witness explained that she was talking with the Teacher and Colleague 4 when the Teacher turned to her and asked if she liked anal sex. The Witness could not remember the terminology used but that was the gist of his question. The Witness responded by asking him not to ask that sort of question. The Teacher did not reply. In questions from the Panel, the Witness said that she recalled the comment because it had made her uncomfortable and it was not anything she had ever been asked especially in a work setting.

Whilst still in the pub, the Witness stated that she saw the Teacher put his phone on her phone. The Witness stated that a few weeks later she discovered that she was a friend of his on Snapchat but did not know how that had happened but suspected that he must have added himself to her contacts during that interaction in the pub. During cross examination the Witness accepted she could not know how it had happened. The Witness stated that she does not know the three ways you can add people on Snapchat and has never used a snap code.

The Witness was present when the Teacher had an altercation with Colleague 2. The Witness said that she could not recall whether it was a table or a chair being thrown as it was so long ago. The Witness could not recall if the furniture was pushed or thrown, but it was aimed at Colleague 2 due to the direction the Teacher was facing and the way the furniture travelled. The Witness recalled a bottle being slammed in front of Colleague 2 and Colleague 3 but could not recall whether it was before or after she saw the furniture being moved.

In cross examination, it was put to the Witness that she would have discussed the evening amongst her colleagues. The Witness accepted that there would have been some discussion at the time but was clear that she did not discuss her evidence with colleagues when writing her first statement in 2019. The Witness stated that she had had fleeting conversations with the Teacher.

Witness 3/Colleague 3:

Witness 3 adopted her GTC Scotland statement as her evidence in chief and then gave further evidence to the Panel orally.

The Witness explained that she remembered the Teacher’s ‘slut magnet’ comment because she was at the sink in the staffroom and was not engaging with the Teacher but he held out his hand, showed her his wedding ring and made the comment.

Witness 3 stated that she was also present at the Anglers pub on the night in question. She remembered that the Teacher had his arm around Colleague 6’s shoulder and that his hand was dangling near her breast but not touching. She also recalled the Teacher shouting over to Colleague 10 and saying ‘get me a drink fat [colleague 10]’ but that Colleague 10 did not react.

Witness 3 stated that she was with Colleague 8 in the Anglers pub and they were upset. She stated that Colleague 8 told her that the Teacher had said to her ‘you got me sacked’ and that she was upset by the comment. Witness 3 explained that the Teacher came over to the table and Colleague 13 said calmly to the Teacher that it was time he left as he was upsetting Colleague 8. She stated that the Teacher did not leave so Colleague 2 told the Teacher in a firmer tone than Colleague 13 that it was time he left. Witness 3 stated that she did not hear any comment from Colleague 2 regarding the Teacher’s wife. She stated that the Teacher reacted by swearing at Colleague 2. Witness 3 could not recall the exact words used but said that they included the word ‘woman’ and random swear words. He also said, ‘who do you think you are? ’Witness 3 was concerned that the situation was going to escalate so sat on Colleague 2’s knees and covered her eyes and mouth to prevent her interacting with the Teacher. She recalled the Teacher pushing a stool and table. She recalled the Teacher with a bottle of beer in his hand and throwing it overarm like a ball towards her and Colleague 2. She stated that the bottle fell near the table leg and soaked Witness 3.

Witness 3 recalled Colleague 4 trying to calm the Teacher down and that the Teacher left the area. The Teacher then returned and slammed a bottle down in front of Colleague 2 and said here’s a drink for you ‘slut’ or ‘slag’. She could not now recall which but was clear that he used one of those derogatory terms.

Witness 3 explained that after the evening Colleague 2 asked her to come to the police station to give an account of the evening. In cross examination she said that she had been in two minds as to whether to do that as maybe it had been a bad day for the Teacher. She thought about it during the weekend and came to the view that it was necessary to report the matter. Witness 3 also typed up a statement in February 2019 but could not recall under what circumstances she had made the statement. She did recall that she was interviewed by her employer about the incident in May 2019.

Witness 5/Colleague 1:

Witness 5 adopted her GTC Scotland statement as her evidence in chief and then gave further evidence to the Panel orally.

She explained that she had been a friend of the Teacher out of school and that he had worked with her at [redacted] Primary School. The Witness confirmed that paragraph 9 of her statement was in relation to the staffroom at [redacted] Primary School. The Witness acknowledged in cross examination that the Teacher had told her he was not welcomed in the staff room at [redacted] Primary School and that the staff had allocated seats in the staff room. She stated that the Teacher said that one of the teachers had ‘three seats, one for her arse, one for her handbag and one for her ego’. Witness 5 stated that she guessed the Teacher was referring to Colleague 2 and asked him to stop as Colleague 2 was a friend of hers and had been for 20 years. The witness stated that she felt the comment was inappropriate.

In a separate incident in the staffroom at [redacted] Primary School, Witness 5 stated that she recalled the Teacher telling the headteacher to ‘fuck off’. She recalled that the Teacher left the room and the headteacher later came back into the room and told them that the Teacher had apologised for his comment.

Witness 5 stated that she was not at the Anglers pub but recalled getting a message from the Teacher later that evening saying ‘your friend is a cunt’ referring to Colleague 2. She stated that she deleted the messages and switched her phone off.

Witness 5 did not recall giving a statement to the local authority in 2019 but re-read the statement that she had signed and confirmed that it would have been accurate when she wrote it.

With reference to the late papers submitted by the Teacher’s representative on day 1 of the hearing, specifically additional messages between the Teacher and the Witness, Witness 5 denied that part of the conversation she had with the Teacher in those messages involved the Teacher telling her [redacted] on the night the allegations took place which had been triggered by Colleague 2.

Witness 6/Colleague 2:

Witness 6 adopted her GTC Scotland statement as her evidence in chief and then gave further evidence to the Panel orally.

Witness 6 told the Panel that she had met the Teacher in 2017 when he worked at [redacted] Primary School. She said that Colleague 8 had been made to feel uncomfortable by the Teacher when he was working at [redacted] Primary School. She stated that she overheard the Teacher telling Colleague 8 that a teacher at [redacted] had described Colleague 8 as ‘a right idiot’. Witness 6 elaborated and said that she remembered that the Teacher had said it was [redacted] (an English Teacher at [redacted] who described Colleague 8 in that manner. Witness 6 described Colleague 8 as looking like a rabbit in the headlights and being stunned, scared and intimidated when the Teacher told her about the comment.

Witness 6 described events on the night of 29 March 2018 at the Anglers pub. She remembered that Colleague 8 was upset but did not see the events that led up to her becoming upset. She stated that Colleague 8 told her that the Teacher had said to her that she had got him the sack. She stated that Colleague 8 was upset about this and continued to be upset.

Witness 6 said that she heard the Teacher shout at Colleague 10, ‘Fat [Colleague 10] get me a drink’. Witness 6 stated that she didn’t know how Colleague 10 didn’t hear it because the Teacher was ‘really shouting loudly’ but thought that Colleague 10 couldn’t have because she would have said something to the Teacher if she had.

Witness 6 explained she thought the Teacher was drunk as he was shouting, being leary, behaving erratically and making inappropriate comments. She did not know how much the Teacher had to drink.

Witness 6 stated that the Teacher touched Colleague 12’s bottom in a sexual manner. She said that the Teacher didn’t just brush it by mistake, it was a lingering touch. She stated that she did not think it was accidental. Witness 6also said that the Teacher was putting his hand around Colleague 6’s neck and brushing his hand against her breast. Witness 6 stated that she did not think the Teacher had his arm around Colleague 6 because they were posing for a photo because it was continuous contact. Witness 6 stated that Colleague 12 looked uncomfortable.

Witness 6 said that she asked the Teacher to leave after Colleague 13 had asked him to leave. She stated that this was just before the Teacher lost his temper. At that point she noticed that the Teacher’s eyes and face almost glazed over and his body language went very aggressive. Witness 6 confirmed the insults shouted at her as stated in her statement. She stated that the Teacher tipped over a table with such force that it moved towards her and Colleague 3. Witness 6 confirmed that the Teacher had thrown a bottle towards her and Colleague 3. She thought he was about 6-8 feet away. She stated that Colleague 3 covered her eyes and mouth so she couldn’t say how he threw the bottle and didn’t see him do it, but she was aware of the Teacher throwing a bottle as she heard the bottle hit the table leg, felt drink being spilled on her and heard someone shouting something along the lines of ‘he’s just thrown a bottle at them’.

Witness 6 stated that she can’t say for definite what kind of drink it was as she had her eyes covered when the Teacher threw it but that she saw the bottle afterwards which was brown and she thought was beer or lager.

Witness 6 said that the Teacher left and returned around 10 minutes later. She stated that when the Teacher came back, he slammed a bottle down in front of her and said, ‘here's a drink you slag’. In cross examination, Witness 6 went further and said that the bottle was slammed with such force she didn’t know how it didn’t shatter. Witness 6 stated that it was this incident in particular that made her feel emotional. She stated that she discussed it at home with her husband and decided that she would contact the police the next day.

Witness 6 explained that she had received an email from the Teacher offering to apologise for his conduct. When she read it, she did not believe it to be sincere and did not want to meet him. She confirmed that she did not respond to the email.

Witness 6 confirmed it was her statement that she had given to the Educational Institute for Scotland in the bundle and that it was accurate but she could not recall who had drafted it. She stated she stood by her statements and its contents. She could not recall why she had signed it in May 2013 when it had been taken in February 2019. Witness 6 also confirmed that the disciplinary interview she gave to the local authority was accurate and it was her signature on it.

Witness 6 was asked in cross examination if Colleague 8 was a sensitive individual and could have misinterpreted the Teacher’s comments in the wrong way. Witness 6 said that was not the case.

Witness 6 confirmed during cross examination that she went to the police about the allegations in the Anglers pub and confirmed that she had a brief discussion with Colleague 8 prior to doing so. She confirmed that she was aware that the Teacher had made an admission to the police in relation to causing fear and alarm on the night of the allegations and that he had later been admonished.

Witness 6 confirmed that she wanted the Teacher to receive a greater punishment. Witness 6 was challenged in cross examination as to whether she had coordinated the statements from other colleagues. Witness 6 accepted she may have spoken generally to colleagues but that they provided their statements independently. In cross examination Witness 6 accepted that the Teacher had not touched colleague 6’s breast when he had her arm round, but instead that his arm was dangling near Colleague 6’s breast.

Witness 4/Colleague 4:

Witness 4 adopted his GTC Scotland statement as his evidence in chief and then gave further evidence to the Panel orally.

He told the Panel that, when in the Anglers Pub on 29 March 2018, the Teacher had made a comment to him that ‘he liked it up the arse’. He was upset by the comment but did not believe it to be homophobic as he had a friend in common with the Teacher who is gay. He stated that later that evening he heard the Teacher being asked to leave in a calm manner by a colleague, the exact identity of whom he could not remember. He remembered the Teacher starting to shout at Colleague 2, using words such as ‘tramp’, ‘slut’, and other derogatory terms like that. He could not recall how exactly the words were used but he remembered having to hold the Teacher back. He knew that the Teacher was friends with Colleague 7 and so went to fetch her. He told the Panel he was upset by the incident and got an early train home at around 9. He remembered being quite shocked by the event and later having to get medication for anxiety.

Witness 4 reported the matter to the police at around the time of the incident. He also provided a statement for the EIS in February 2019 and attended an interview with his employer in May 2019. He said that the contemporaneous accounts would be more accurate than his memory today.

In cross examination he denied that Colleague 2 had influenced him to make a statement and said that she had not asked him as it was the EIS who asked for the original statement.

Witness 7/Colleague 6:

Witness 7 adopted her GTC Scotland statement as her evidence in chief and then gave further evidence to the Panel orally.

She told the Panel that she had known the Teacher for 12 years and had met him through a community choir. Witness 7 said that she worked with the Teacher at [redacted] Primary School when he was on a temporary contract. She said that conversation in the staffroom was quite informal but that the Teacher had told [redacted] (Colleague 11) to ‘fuck off’. She stated that the Teacher said this statement loudly, [redacted] left the room and Witness 7 told the Teacher to go and apologise. In cross examination Witness 7 was challenged about her recollection. Witness 7 confirmed that: the comment was made; there were quite a number of witnesses; and that it was still talked about in the staffroom as it was so shocking an incident. She confirmed that the comment was made shortly before the Teacher left [redacted] Primary School in February 2018.

On 29 March 2018, Witness 7 said that the Teacher had been working at [redacted] but had failed to get a permanent position that day. He went to [redacted] Primary School to see Witness 7. She remembered he was angry and upset about not getting the job. They went to the Anglers Pub together but she could not remember at what time. Witness 7 confirmed that the Teacher was drinking beer but did not know how much he had to drink. Witness 7 stated that she did not know all the staff at [redacted] Primary School. She stated that she witnessed the Teacher shouting in the pub, and tried to get him to come with her to the back of the pub. She stated that she tried to calm the Teacher down and then told him to meet her at the front so they could get the train home. She recalled the Teacher going back towards Colleague 2 although she did not see what happened as she was going to collect her belongings in another part of the pub.

Witness 7 stated that she left the pub with the Teacher, and went to a quiet pub called the Shed. She stated that after a few minutes the Teacher wanted to get the train home. They went to the Station House pub and the Teacher went off to get some food. When he returned Witness 7 said there was a message from someone at the Anglers pub that lit up on her phone. The Teacher saw the message and became aggressive and said how dare she speak to anyone about what happened.

In cross examination Witness 7 denied that the Teacher had told her he [redacted] at the Anglers pub as an explanation for his behaviour. She said if he had told her that she would have [redacted]. She said that she had observed [redacted] in the past but that they were years before. [redacted]. She confirmed that she had not observed the Teacher in a classroom setting but that he was really good with the children in the choir.

Witness 7 said that she knew the Teacher had tried to apologise to Colleague 2 by email but said she did not believe it was genuine as he had texted her asking for a lift if he apologised to ‘that ghastly woman’.

In cross examination she said that when the Teacher sent her a text saying that he would batter down her door, she was concerned and viewed the comment as aggressive given the events at the Anglers Pub. She accepted however that they had previously made light-hearted comments to each other of that nature and therefore, he might not have viewed the comment in the same way as she did.

Witness 7 confirmed that she had given a statement to the local authority employer in 2019 and that she stood by that statement. She also confirmed that her memory would have been better in 2019 than now.

Teacher:

The Teacher read his statement dated 29 August 2023 into the record.

The Teacher explained that in 2018 he had worked one day per week at [redacted] Primary School and [redacted] Primary school as a music teacher. He explained that he currently works on a temporary contract at [redacted] High School as a music teacher across all years. [redacted].

The Teacher explained that at the time of the incident in 2018 [redacted].

In relation to allegation 1, the Teacher denied saying his ring was a ‘slut magnet’. He explained he would not have said that as his ring is meaningful and precious to him. He denied the comment in respect of Colleague 2 needing 3 seats. In relation to allegation 2, the Teacher accepted that he called Dumfries a ‘shithole’ in a text but explained it was part of the banter between him and Colleague 8 because he came from Dumfries and she came from Annan. On reflection he felt the banter was foolish, he had wanted to make friends but it’s not something he would do now. He denied saying that Colleague 8 had been described as a ‘right idiot’.

Regarding allegation 3, the Teacher denied telling the headteacher to ‘fuck off’. He said he was deeply concerned about job security and would never say such a thing. Later in cross examination he told the Panel he may have said it but it would have been under his breath not shouting.

In relation to allegation 4, the Teacher said [redacted] and so could not remember all of what happened with Colleague 2. He remembered before the incident that he spoke to Colleague 8. He said that he was socially awkward and thought he was being funny when he said that Colleague 8 had got him the sack. He did not realise that the comment had upset her. Later on, he remembered being told to leave by Colleague 2 and his stomach dropping. [Redacted] when Colleague 6 told him about the incident when they were at the back of the pub. He accepted he may have said the things attributed to him but he did not recall.

The Teacher denied shouting at Colleague 10 in the Anglers Pub and calling her fat [Colleague 10]. He denied using the words ‘like it up the arse’ or discussing anal sex in relation to Colleague 4 and Colleague 5. He said he would not use such language. He said that he knew Colleague 4 via his best man who had been in a relationship with Colleague 4. He explained that he had had sexual conversations with Colleague 4 in the past and so if anything was said it would have been Colleague 4 who raised it.

When asked about [redacted] towards Colleague 2, he said that he would not be able to [redacted], he accepted he may have [redacted]. He denied throwing a bottle, he said it would not have been possible [redacted]. He denied putting his arm around Colleague 6 or touching her bottom. In relation to Colleague 12 he said that he did not know her and that he would not touch an unknown person’s buttocks. He denied making friends with Colleague 5 on Snapchat. He did not know how to befriend Colleague 5 on Snapchat without her consent. He accepted that he sent a text to Colleague 1 later that evening saying ‘your friend is a cunt’ in respect of Colleague 2.

The Teacher said that he recalled [redacted] with Colleague 7 after the Anglers pub incident when in the back area. He said that he went back into the pub and bought a drink for colleague 2 to apologise. He said that he gave her the drink and apologised. He denied slamming the bottle or calling her a slag. He explained that [redacted]. He denied seeing anything on Colleague 7’s phone in the Station House pub. He denied speaking to her in an aggressive fashion, as alleged.

The Teacher did not remember going to the Shed with Colleague 7 after the incident in the Anglers Pub. He did however remember going to the Station House pub. He denied being aggressive toward Colleague 7. He denied seeing any text message on her phone. He explained that he did send her a message saying he would batter her door down but it was in the context of banter. He wanted to be her friend and wanted her to respond. He denied sending Colleague 7 repeated aggressive messages.

The Teacher explained that he wanted to apologise to Colleague 2 and so he sent her an email after the incident in the Anglers Pub. He said that he apologised to a few other colleagues who contacted him after the event.

In relation to the police charge following the incident he pleaded guilty to one criminal charge as he acknowledged that he had been rude and that something had happened during the incident in the Anglers Pub. He could not remember the details due to [redacted] but nonetheless he was content to plead guilty to a breach of the peace. He received an absolute discharge from the Sheriff.

In cross examination the Teacher explained that [redacted]. He believed that she must be mistaken if she denies being told.

Findings of Fact

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact on the allegations.

The Panel had in mind that the burden of proof rested on the Presenting Officer and that the standard of proof required is that which is used in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.

Presenting Officer’s Submissions on the Facts (Stage 1)

GTC Scotland’s Presenting Officer lodged written submissions with the Panel. In summary t GTC Scotland Presenting Officer submitted that in terms of Rule 1.7.15 of the Rules where the facts alleged by the Presenting Officer are in dispute, the burden of proof in relation to the findings in fact rests with the Presenting Officer.

The Presenting Officer submitted that where facts are disputed, in terms of the same Rule (Rule 1.7.15), the Panel will only find such facts proved where it is satisfied that they have been established on the balance of probabilities. In simple terms, this means a fact will be proved if it is judged more likely to have happened than not.

The Panel was recommended to take into account the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Fact-Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases. This Practice Statement, while not binding, is in place to ensure consistent decision making in Fitness to Teach cases.

Credibility and Reliability of Witness Evidence

The Presenting Officer submitted that GTC Scotland witnesses were all credible and reliable. Each one gave a clear and credible account of their experiences with the Teacher in relation to the allegations before the Panel.

It was submitted much was made about the fact that formal statements about these events were not made until sometime after the events in the Anglers Pub on 29 March 2018. The Panel were aware of the need for criminal proceedings to be preserved and not interfered with. On that basis it is entirely logical and sensible that no action was taken by the witnesses, or the local authority until those proceedings had concluded. There is no reason to doubt the credibility of those statements.

It was submitted that there was some suggestion that witnesses may have discussed events. Where that was put to witnesses, they were clear that their recollections of events were their own. There is no reason to conclude that if such discussions took place, they had any material bearing on either the local authority statements or those given to GTC Scotland. In any event a number of witnesses had made themselves available for cross examination.

It was submitted that corroboration is not necessary but where it exists it adds weight to evidence where it is materially consistent.

The Panel was invited to treat the evidence of the Teacher with the utmost of caution. The Presenting Officer submitted the Teachers answers in many respects before the Panel were wholly unsatisfactory. At times during questioning, he became belligerent. For example, when he was asked about whether witnesses would have any reason to lie. His memory of events, in particular at the Anglers pub, is selective. He stated that either these events did not happen, a number of witnesses were all mistaken, or it was due to [redacted]. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to find the allegations proved with the exception of allegation 4f.

Medical Evidence

The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel should have regard to the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Health Matters and Medical Evidence which was put before them when considering the evidence given by the Teacher.

The Allegations

The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to find the allegations proved by reference to the witnesses who spoke to each allegation. The Panel were invited to prefer the evidence of the GTC Scotland witnesses to that of the Teacher. In doing so it was submitted that there was sufficient evidence from GTC Scotland witnesses to allow the Panel to uphold each allegation.

The Teacher’s Submissions on the Facts (Stage 1)

The Teacher’s representative lodged written submissions with the Panel.

The Teacher admitted allegations 4a ii., 4e. and 6. He denied the remaining allegations.

Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses

In summary, the Teacher’s representative submitted that a number of the GTC Scotland witnesses were not objective as they had formed a negative view of the Teacher namely that he was loud and opinionated. GTC Scotland witnesses did not like the Teacher and, therefore, it was submitted, could not be relied upon.

GTC Scotland witnesses did not complain about the Teacher’s conduct until February 2019 when the events took place in March 2018 and some events were before March 2018. It was submitted that this delay in reporting events would have a significant effect on memories and allow for discussion of the evidence thereby tainting the evidence.

It was submitted that Witness 2 (Colleague 2) was not happy with the absolute discharge given to the Teacher by the Sheriff in the criminal proceedings and so orchestrated the complaints.

In relation to Witness 1 (Colleague 5) it was submitted that she had very little recall of events and her evidence should not be accepted.

In relation to Witness 5/Colleague 1 it was submitted that she gave contradictory evidence because she engaged with the Teacher in criticising Colleague 2 and yet in her statement was said to be offended by his language in relation to Colleague 2. This significant change of position affected her credibility.

It was submitted that Colleague 2 was not credible as she was prone to exaggeration for example likening the Teacher’s conduct to rape and murder. It was submitted that Colleague 2 had lost all objectivity which affects the Panel’s ability to rely on her evidence.

By contrast it was submitted that the Teacher was credible. He had admitted 3 allegations at the outset thereby supporting his credibility in relation to the other allegations which he denies. It was submitted he has remained consistent throughout his accounts.

It was submitted that the Panel should treat, with caution, hearsay evidence that has not been tested and give relevant or little weight to such evidence. It was submitted that these are serious allegations and there should be cogent, reliable evidence to prove them.

The Allegations

In relation to the specific allegations where matters were in dispute, the Panel was asked to prefer the Teacher’s evidence to that of GTC Scotland witnesses. The Panel should accept the Teacher’s evidence and find the allegations not proven.

Legal Advice to Panel

The Panel were cognisant of the legal advice provided by the Legal Assessor.

The legal advice was that there was very little deviation between submissions. The burden of proof lay with the Presenting Officer and by extension GTC Scotland. The legal test to be applied was whether the allegations were proved was on the balance of probabilities e.g. whether it was more likely than not that each allegation happened.

The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to have regard to the Fact Finding and Fitness to Teach Practice Statement.

The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel should weigh up the credibility and reliability of witnesses including hearsay and the relevant weight to place on hearsay given the inability of the Teacher to cross examine.

The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel in relation to sexual motivation and referred to leading cases and in particular Basson v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) and GMC v Dr Raied Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin).

Panel’s Findings on Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses

The Panel considered the witness evidence and the documentary evidence when coming to a view about the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

The Panel considered that Witness 1 gave her evidence in a straightforward manner. She said when she could not recall matters, but when she could recall she was clear and did not embellish. The Panel found her both credible and reliable.

The Panel found Witness 3 to be a measured and credible witness. She had good recall of certain events for example the allegation that the Teacher threw a bottle. She was willing, however, to say when she did not remember and also willing to say she was mistaken when using the word ‘throw’ in her statement. On recollection, she clearly recalled the action was a push. She was not partisan and added that she did not think the Teacher had intended to hurt anyone when pushing the furniture.

The Panel considered that Witness 5 gave her evidence in a straightforward way. The Panel accepted that any discrepancies were due to the passage of time. For example, she told the Panel that she had switched her phone off when she got back home and so did not recall receiving messages from the Teacher on 29 March 2018. However, in her local authority statement taken in 2019 she said that she had received messages on the night in question. Nothing much turned on the discrepancy and the Panel accepted that with the passage of time her memory would be affected. The Panel noted that Witness 5 had been a friend of the Teacher and could see no motive for her to make up stories about the Teacher. The Panel found her to be credible.

The Panel considered that Witness 6 had been very upset by the events at the Anglers Pub. The Panel noticed that Witness 6 was quite defensive and evasive when asked in cross examination whether she disliked the Teacher. She did not give a straight answer when it was clear to the Panel that Witness 6 still felt extremely hostile to the Teacher.

The Panel considered that Witness 6 had a tendency to embellish events for example she said in her statement she had seen a bottle thrown but accepted in oral evidence that she could not have seen it as her eyes were covered. She told the Panel that the Teacher had used the words ‘right idiot’ and added that the Teacher said it was a ‘Mr Wallace’ who had called Colleague 8 a ‘right idiot’. Colleague 8 in her statement at the time said that the Teacher had not named the teacher or the words used. The Panel however accepted that Witness 6’s evidence in relation to other events at the Anglers Pub where she gave her account in a straightforward manner was credible.

The Panel considered that Witness 4 was straightforward in answering questions and was fair to the Teacher in saying that he did not think the comment was homophobic. He had no interest in the outcome of the hearing although he was still clearly affected by the incident. The Panel found Witness 4 both credible and reliable.

The Panel considered that Witness 7 was a straightforward witness who had supported the Teacher as a friend prior to the incident in the Anglers pub. She was clearly hurt by the Teacher, who in her view, turned on her at the Station House pub. Despite that she did not embellish and reflected fairly on the messages and content. She was both credible and reliable.

The Panel considered that the Teacher was not always a credible or reliable witness. He denied certain allegations by saying he would never have said it, for example ‘fuck off’ to [redacted], but then said he may have said it but under his breath. His evidence about [redacted]. He described [redacted] and how he could not remember what had happened at the Anglers Pub but then said with some authority that he could not [redacted]. The Panel noted that he was willing to accept the less blameworthy conduct which was alleged to have happened [redacted] (the swearing), but denied completely the more blameworthy conduct (the throwing of a glass bottle at Colleague 2). He was also contradictory in that he said he would not make the comment about Colleague 2 taking up three seats and yet accepted he had called her a ‘cunt’ in a text message. The Panel did not find the Teacher credible in many respects.

Findings in Fact

Allegations

1. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, did:

a. State to Colleague 1 in respect of Colleague 2, that she needed three seats ‘one for her arse, one for her handbag and one for her ego’ or words to that effect.

The Panel decided that Colleague 1 was a credible witness. She was consistent in all her witness statements (local authority and GTC Scotland) that the comment ‘one for her arse, one for her handbag and one for her ego’ was made. Colleague 1 was clear that the comment related to Colleague 2. The Panel thought it was unlikely that Colleague 1 would make up such a specific comment about Colleague 2. The Panel did not accept the Teacher’s denial that the comment was made.

The Panel decided it was more likely than not that the comment was made and therefore found allegation 1a. proven on the balance of probabilities.

1. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, did:

b. state to Colleague 3, whilst in the staffroom that his wedding ring was a ‘slut magnet’, or words to that effect.

The Panel accepted Colleague 3’s evidence that the comment was made. Colleague 3 had no reason to make up such a comment and had given the same account in all three of her statements (EIS, local authority and GTC Scotland). The Teacher denied making any such comment but could not give any explanation as to why Colleague 3 would be mistaken or why she would make up such a comment. The Panel preferred Colleague 3’s evidence.

The Panel found allegation 1b. proven on the balance of probabilities.

2. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, did act in an offensive manner towards Colleague 8, in that he did:

a. advise her that he had contacted staff at [redacted] Academy to ask about her time as a pupil there, and that she had been described as a ‘right idiot’.

Colleague 8 made a statement in 2019 about the above incident. In that statement she said that she was not told what was said by staff at [redacted] Academy nor was she told who had said it. In her oral evidence to the Panel, Colleague 2 said that the Teacher had said it was a Mr Wallace who had made the comment and that Mr Wallace had said Colleague 8 was a ‘right idiot’. Colleague 2 had never mentioned Mr Wallace before as being the teacher in question. The Panel did not accept Colleague 2’s evidence. As explained above the Panel found that Colleague 2 was no longer objective due to her animus toward the Teacher and was prone to embellish her evidence. The Panel did not accept Colleague 2’s evidence in this respect.

The Panel found that allegation 2a. not proven on the balance of probabilities.

2. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, did act in an offensive manner towards Colleague 8, in that he did:

b. send a message to her on Facebook stating ‘Typical Dumfries Place. Fucking Shit Hole!! Haha x’.

The Teacher admitted sending the message to Colleague 8. The Teacher explained that he came from Dumfries and Colleague 8 came from [redacted] and so the message was in the context of ‘banter’ about the two places they came from. The Panel did not think that the message, taken in context, was offensive given that Colleague 8 did not come from Dumfries and that they engaged in ‘banter’ over text messages.

The Panel found that allegation 2b. not proven on the balance of probabilities.

3. In or around February 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, did shout at Colleague 9, ‘fuck off’, or words to that effect.

Both Colleague 7 and Colleague 1 gave oral evidence about this allegation. Both witnesses were in the staffroom when it occurred and were clear that the headteacher had heard the comment, that the Teacher had apologised for the comment and that the headteacher had accepted that apology. The Teacher denied making the comment but then said he may have said it under his breath but denied shouting it. The headteacher in her hearsay statement confirmed that the Teacher had told her to ‘fuck off’. The Panel accepted the witness evidence of Colleague 7, 1 and the hearsay evidence of the headteacher.

The Panel found allegation 3 proven on the balance of probabilities.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

a. make comments of an abusive or upsetting nature in that he did:

i. in respect of Colleague 10, shout ‘get me a drink fat [Colleague 10]’, or words to that effect;

Both Colleague 2 and Colleague 3 spoke to the comment made by the Teacher. Both of the witnesses were near to the Teacher and had good recall of the comment being said. The Teacher denied it. The Panel were cautious about the evidence of Colleague 2 but in respect of this allegation she had been consistent in her witness statements as had Colleague 3. The Panel has found Colleague 3 to be a compelling witness. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague 2 and 3. The Panel considered that the comment was objectively both abusive and upsetting in nature.

The Panel found allegation 4 a. i. proven on the balance of probabilities.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

a. make comments of an abusive or upsetting nature in that he did:

ii. in respect of Colleague 8, state to her ‘You got me sacked!’, or words to that effect;

The Teacher accepted he made the comment but said he did not think he had upset Colleague 8. The Panel found that the comment had the potential to upset someone if it was untrue, as in this case. Further Colleague 8 was in fact upset by the comment.

The Panel found allegation 4a.ii. proven on the balance of probabilities.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

a. make comments of an abusive or upsetting nature in that he did:

iv. in respect of Colleague 4, who he knew to be bisexual, and Colleague 5, state that he must they must both ‘like it up the arse’, or words to that effect.

The Teacher denied the allegation. Colleague 4 gave clear evidence that the alleged statement was made by the Teacher and the effect on him when the statement was made. Colleague 5 did not remember the Teacher saying to her the words ‘like it up the arse’. Instead, she remembered that he asked her what it felt like to have anal sex. The Panel thought that the two comments were similar but found that the Teacher did not use the phrase ‘like it up the arse’ to Colleague 5. Colleague 4 was a credible witness and was clearly still affected by the incident. The Teacher by contrast denied that he had made any such comment and then introduced the notion in oral evidence that Colleague 4 may have made the comment.

The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague 4 and found allegation 4a. iv. as amended above proven on the balance of probabilities.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

a. make comments of an abusive or upsetting nature in that he did:

v. in respect of Colleague 5, ask her what it felt like to have anal sex, or words to that effect.

The Teacher denied the allegation. Colleague 5 gave clear evidence that the Teacher asked her what it felt like to have anal sex. She was shocked that such a comment should be made especially given they were professional colleagues on a work night out. The Panel found Colleague 5 to be a credible witness.

The Panel found allegation 4a. v. proven on the balance of probabilities.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

c. upon later returning to the bar after having been escorted from the premises:

i. place a bottle in front of Colleague 2 with considerable force; and

ii. shout in Colleague 2’s face ‘there’s a bottle for you [Colleague 2], you slag’, or words to that effect.

The Teacher accepted that he placed a bottle in front of Colleague 2. He denied doing it with force and said that he had offered an apology. He denied saying ‘there’s a bottle for [Colleague 2], you slag’. Colleague 2 said that the bottle was placed with sufficient force that it could have shattered. Colleague 3 also said it was placed with considerable force so that the liquid spilled over. Both Colleague 2 and 3 said that the Teacher had used a derogatory term namely ‘slag’ or ‘slut’ referring to Colleague 2 when placing the bottle on the table. Colleague 5, in her statement to the EIS, said that she had seen the bottle being slammed down and heard a derogatory comment made by the Teacher to Colleague 2.

The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague 2, Colleague 3 and Colleague 5 to that of the Teacher and found allegations 4c. i. and ii. proven on the balance of probabilities.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

d. make unwanted physical contact with female colleagues in that he did:

i. in respect of Colleague 6:

1. repeatedly place his arm around her shoulders despite her having told him to ‘get off’, or words to that effect, and her having physically removed his arm from her shoulder; and

2. grab her buttocks.

The Panel did not think there was sufficient evidence related to allegation 4(d)(i)(1) and (2). There was no direct evidence that there was unwanted physical contact with Colleague 6 in respect of the arm round her shoulders. The Panel did not think there was sufficient evidence of the grabbing of the buttocks.

The Panel found allegations 4d.i 1. and 2. not proven on the balance of probabilities.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

d. make unwanted physical contact with female colleagues in that he did:

ii. in respect of Colleague 12, grab her lower back and/or buttocks on at least one occasion; and

The Teacher denied grabbing Colleague 12. He said he did not know her and would not have grabbed her. Colleague 12, in her hearsay evidence, said that the Teacher had grabbed her lower back. She did not mention her buttocks. Colleague 2 and Colleague 5 corroborated Colleague 12’s account.

The Panel found allegation 4d. ii. proven on the balance of probabilities in respect of grabbing her lower back but not in respect of the buttocks.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

d. make unwanted physical contact with female colleagues in that he did

iii. in respect of Colleague 5, repeatedly put his arm around her despite her shrugging him off.

Colleague 5 gave evidence that she repeatedly shrugged the Teacher off who had his arm around her. She gave a shrugging motion in evidence before the Panel. She had been consistent in her prior statements as to the Teacher putting his arm around her. The Panel found her a credible witness and preferred her evidence to the Teacher.

The Panel found allegation 4d.iii. proven on the balance of probabilities.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

e. send a text message to Colleague 1 stating, ‘your friend is a cunt’, or words to that effect.

The Teacher admitted the allegation.

f. using an unknown method, make himself a friend of Colleague 5 on her Snapchat social media profile without her permission.

The Panel found there was insufficient evidence and found allegation 4(f) not proven.

Allegations 4a.iii 4b. and 4g.

The Teacher’s position in relation to allegations 4(a)(iii), 4(b) and 4(g) was that he [redacted] at the time and so did not recall what had happened. The Panel decided to take those allegations together given the Teacher’s position that any wrongdoing had been as a result of [redacted].

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

a. make comments of an abusive or upsetting nature in that he did:

iii: in respect of Colleague 2, after the Teacher had caused Colleague 8 to become upset shout ‘who the fuck are you’ and ‘slag’ ‘whore’ ‘slut’ ‘tramp’ ‘woman’ and ‘cunt’, or words to that effect;

The Teacher admitted that he may have made the alleged comments but [redacted] and so does not recall what happened. The Teacher gave evidence [redacted]. He referred the Panel [redacted] in the bundle. [redacted].

The Panel had no [redacted] evidence before it to confirm that the Teacher had [redacted]. The Panel did not accept that the Teacher had told Colleague 7 on the evening of the 29 March 2018 that [redacted]. Nor did he explain his behaviour in such terms to Colleague 2 in his email apology or to Colleague 1 in text messages after the event. The Panel also noted that despite now saying [redacted] he was prepared to plead guilty to a criminal charge when, if [redacted], he would not have been responsible. The description of [redacted] did not conform to the aggressive behaviour exhibited in the Anglers Pub which occurred when Colleague 2 asked the Teacher to leave the pub. The statements made were not random, they related to the disagreement between the Teacher and Colleague 2 and continued after he returned from the back of the pub ([redacted]). The Panel found that it was more likely than not that the behaviour exhibited by the Teacher did not arise as a result [redacted] and that he deliberately shouted and swore at Colleague 2 because he was angry at being asked to leave the pub.

The Panel found allegation 4a iii. proven on the balance of probabilities.

4.On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

b. act in a physically aggressive manner and attempt to attack Colleague 2 and Colleague 3, in that he did:

i. throw a chair towards them;

ii. attempt to overturn a table in their direction; and

iii. throw a glass bottle towards them.

The Panel found there was insufficient evidence that the Teacher attempted to attack Colleague 2 and 3 by throwing a chair or attempting to overturn a table in their direction. The witnesses who saw the alleged incident said the Teacher did not throw furniture and instead pushed it. Colleague 3 stated in her evidence to the Panel that she didn’t think the Teacher was trying to throw the furniture at them.

The Panel found allegations 4b. i. and ii. not proven on the balance of probabilities.

The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 3 in respect of the Teacher throwing a bottle at Colleague 2 and 3. Colleague 3 had good recall of the Teacher deliberately throwing a bottle toward her and Colleague 2. The Teacher said [redacted] so could not have thrown the bottle. The Panel did not find the Teacher’s evidence credible in relation to [redacted] and preferred the evidence of Colleague 3.

The Panel found allegation 4b.iii. proven on the balance of probabilities.

4.On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

g.: in respect of Colleague 4 and Colleague 11, did:

i. require to be physically restrained by them due to his actions at allegation 4(b) and 4(c); and

ii. shout at them ‘who the fuck are you?’ or words to that effect.

The Teacher accepted he may have shouted and been restrained [redacted]. Colleague 4 remembered having to restrain the Teacher as he was concerned he may have been accused of assault. He was still traumatised by the events and recalled [redacted] at the time. Colleague 11 in her hearsay evidence confirmed the allegations. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague 4 and Colleague 11 to that of the Teacher.

The Panel found allegation 4g. i. and ii. proven on the balance of probabilities.

5. On 29 March 2018, following his actions at allegation 4, whilst at the Station House pub in Annan with Colleague 7, did state in an aggressive tone:

a. ‘how fucking dare you speak to my friends about this’, or words to that effect; and

b. after Colleague 7 advised him that if he continued to speak to her in the manner described in allegation 5a. she would leave, state, ‘you wouldn’t fucking dare leave me’, or words to that effect.

Colleague 7 said that she had been the Teacher’s friend and had supported him in the past. She was trying to help him on 29 March 2018 by taking him to the back of the pub and then getting him to leave early. She was ending her night out early to accompany him to the station. Colleague 7 was clearly upset by the comments made to her by the Teacher. The Panel did not think that Colleague 7 would have any motive to make up the comments. Further, the tone and nature of the comments explained why Colleague 7 then refused to answer the Teacher’s phone messages after that date. The Teacher denied being aggressive and denied making the comments. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague 7.

The Panel found allegations 5a. and b. proven on the balance of probabilities.

6. On or around 31 March 2018, did message Colleague 7 stating that he would come to her home and batter on her door until she answered him, or words to that effect, after she failed to respond to repeated messages from him.

There was no dispute that the message was sent to Colleague 7 by the Teacher. The Panel however accepted the Teacher’s evidence that it was not a serious threat and that it was part of the type of language they used in communicating with each other before the incident in the Anglers pub.

The Panel found allegation 6 proven on the balance of probabilities.

7. In or around April 2018, did repeatedly send messages of an aggressive nature to Colleague 7 in relation to her giving him a lift to work.

The Panel were not provided with the alleged messages. The Panel found Allegation 7 not proven on the balance of probabilities as there was insufficient evidence to come to a view as to the nature of the messages.

8. The Teacher’s actions at allegations 1(b), 4(a)(v), and 4(d) were sexual and/or sexually motivated.

The Panel reminded themselves of the test regarding sexual motivation as set out in Bassan v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) that for conduct to be sexually motivated it needed to be carried out either in the pursuit of sexual gratification or a sexual relationship. The Panel also had regard to Haris v GMC 2021 EWCA Civ 763 which considered touching in a medical context. In that case touching could be considered sexual if the area touched was sexual in nature and an inference could be drawn, in the absence of an explanation for the touching, that it was sexual.

In relation to allegation 1(b) Colleague 3 said in her GTC Scotland statement that she was not offended by the statement and thought it was part of the Teacher’s personality. The Panel considered the submissions made about sexual motivation and did not find that the comment was made for the sexual gratification of the Teacher or to pursue a sexual relationship.

In relation to allegations 4(a)(v) Colleague 5 stated that she did not think the Teacher had wanted an answer and that he just wanted to make her feel uncomfortable. The Panel did not think there was a sexual motivation.

Allegations 4(d)(i)1 and 2 are not proven. Allegation 4(d)(ii) in respect of Colleague 12 the Panel found there was no evidence of sexual motivation. Allegation 4(d)(iii) there was no evidence from Colleague 5 that the Teacher putting his arm round her shoulder was sexually motivated.

The Panel found allegation 8 not proven on the balance of probabilities.

9. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 4(a)(iv) were of a homophobic nature insofar as they related to Colleague 4.

Colleague 4 was clear in his evidence that he did not think that the Teacher was being homophobic in respect of the comment made in allegation 4(a)(iv). The Panel noted that the Teacher made a similar comment to Colleague 5. The Panel did not think that the comments made about anal sex related to a specific sexual orientation.

The Panel found allegation 9 not proven on the balance of probabilities.

Allegations found proved

1. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, The Teacher did:

a. state to Colleague 1 in respect of Colleague 2, that she needed three seats ‘one for her arse, one for her handbag and one for her ego’, or words to that effect; and

b. state to Colleague 3 that his wedding ring was a ‘slut magnet’, or words to that effect.

3. In or around February 2018, whilst employed at [redacted], the Teacher did shout at Colleague

9, ‘fuck off’, or words to that effect.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

a. make comments of an abusive or upsetting nature in that he did;

i. in respect of Colleague 10, shout ‘get me a drink fat [Colleague 10]’, or words to that effect;

ii. in respect of Colleague 8, state to her ‘You got me sacked!’, or words to that effect;

iii. in respect of Colleague 2, after the Teacher had caused Colleague 8 to become upset shout ‘who the fuck are you’ and ‘slag’ ‘whore’ ‘slut’ ‘tramp’ ‘woman’ and ‘cunt’, or words to that effect;

iv. in respect of Colleague 4, who he knew to be bisexual, state that he must ‘like it up the arse’, or words to that effect; and

v. in respect of Colleague 5, ask her what it felt like to have anal sex, or words to that effect.

b. act in a physically aggressive manner and attempt to attack Colleague 2 and Colleague 3, in that he did:

iii. throw a glass bottle towards them.

c. upon later returning to the bar after having been escorted from the premises:

i. place a bottle in front of Colleague 2 with considerable force; and

ii. shout in Colleague 2’s face ‘There’s a bottle for you [Colleague 2], you slag’, or words to that effect.

d. make unwanted physical contact with female colleagues in that he did;

ii. in respect of Colleague 12, grab her lower back on at least one occasion; and

iii. in respect of Colleague 5, repeatedly put his arm around her despite her shrugging him off.

e. send a text message to Colleague 1 stating, ‘your friend is a cunt’, or words to that effect.

g. In respect of Colleague 4 and Colleague 11, did:

i. require to be physically restrained by them due to his actions at allegation 4(b) and 4(c); and

ii. shout at them ‘who the fuck are you?’ or words to that effect.

5. On 29 March 2018, following his actions at allegation 4, whilst at the Station House pub in Annan with Colleague 7, did state in an aggressive tone;

a. ‘how fucking dare you speak to my friends about this’, or words to that effect; and

b. after Colleague 7 advised him that if he continued to speak to her in the manner described in allegation 5(a) she would leave, state, ‘you wouldn’t fucking dare leave me’, or words to that effect.

6. On or around 31 March 2018, did message Colleague 7 stating that he would come to her home and batter on her door until she answered him, or words to that effect, after she failed to respond to repeated messages from him.

Allegations found not proven

2. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, did act in an offensive manner towards Colleague 8, in that he did:

a. advise her that he had contacted staff at [redacted] to ask about her time as a pupil there, and that she had been described as a ‘right idiot’;

b. send a message to her on Facebook stating ‘Typical Dumfries Place. Fucking Shit Hole!! Haha x’.

4b. Act in a physically aggressive manner and attempt to attack Colleague 2 and Colleague 3, in that he did:

i. throw a chair towards them;

ii. attempt to overturn a table in their direction; and

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

d. make unwanted physical contact with female colleagues in that he did:

i. in respect of Colleague 6:

1. repeatedly place his arm around her shoulders despite her having told him to ‘get off’, or words to that effect, and her having physically removed his arm from her shoulder; and

2. grab her buttocks.

4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:

f. using an unknown method, make himself a friend of Colleague 5 on her Snapchat social media profile without her permission.

7. In or around April 2018, did repeatedly send messages of an aggressive nature to Colleague 7 in relation to her giving him a lift to work.

8. The Teacher’s actions at allegations 1(b), 4(a)(v), and 4(d) were sexual and/or sexually motivated.

9. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 4(a)(iv) were of a homophobic nature insofar as they related to Colleague 4.

At the end of Stage 1 Findings in Fact the Panel read out the allegations that were found proven.

The Teacher’s representative made an application for the Panel to give limited reasons for their findings, in particular regarding whether the Panel accepted the Teacher’s explanation that [redacted], to assist the Teacher at Stage 2.

The Presenting Officer did not object to the application.

The Servicing Officer advised the Panel to have regard to the Decision Making and Writing Practice Statement which states amongst other things, that ‘in terms of announcing findings in fact, the Panel should simply announce whether each allegation has been found proved. However, there may, on occasion, be a requirement for the Panel to announce, for the sake of clarity, the context in which it has found particular allegation proved e.g. not finding a sexual motivation to conduct’.

The Panel considered the application and decided that it was fair in the circumstances of this case to give limited reasons relating to the Panel’s findings on whether the conduct alleged was related to [redacted]. The Panel gave the following reasons: ‘the Panel preferred the witness evidence of the GTC Scotland witnesses over that of the Teacher’s. The Panel considered the [redacted], the witness evidence of the GTC Scotland witnesses and the Teacher’s own evidence and did not accept that the Teacher’s conduct on the night in question was caused by [redacted].

Findings on Fitness to Teach

Given that the Panel found that some of the allegations were proved, the Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

Summary of Evidence at Stage 2:

The Teacher gave evidence and explained that he deeply regretted the behaviour found by the Panel and the upset caused to the people affected. He accepted that the public would be shocked by the conduct and that it was not the type of conduct expected of a teacher and a role model. He explained that there had been stressors in his life at the time of the conduct in 2018 but that he was managing those stressors now. He had decided [redacted]. He has worked at [redacted] High School for 18 months where he feels supported by staff. He has undertaken [redacted]. He explained he felt like a different person to how he felt in 2018. He explained that he is actively involved in his church where he acts as the PVG coordinator. He has the support of his church community. In cross examination he denied that he had a disrespectful attitude toward women and said that it was the women in his life that were the greatest influences and support. He explained that he had thought that he had [redacted] and was not lying about that but accepts having heard all the evidence that he probably lost his temper which he deeply regrets.

Person E read her statement into the record. She explained that she knew about the Panel findings but it did not change her view of the Teacher. She gave evidence about working with the Teacher at NW Community Campus and how she had no concerns about the Teacher as a female colleague. She explained that she worked with 12 female colleagues who would be quick to raise any concerns but they had not. Her view was that the Teacher was good with the pupils and they, in turn, liked him.

Person A read her statement into the record. She [redacted], Dumfries where the Teacher is part of the church and its congregation. She was aware of the Panel’s findings but that did not change her positive opinion of the Teacher. She explained that the Teacher had contributed hugely to the church. She had observed him at holiday clubs with the children and the children loved him.

Person B read his statement into the record. He confirmed that he was aware of the Panel’s findings but it did not change his opinion of the Teacher. He explained he was a semi-retired teacher and [redacted], Dumfries. He explained that the Teacher was the PVG coordinator for the church and that he has to keep records of PVG status and understands his duties of confidentiality. He explained that as the Teacher has grown older, he has become more impressive and more trusted. He said that he was ‘pretty sure’ that everyone in the congregation would agree.

Person D read his statement into the record. He confirmed that he was aware of the Panel’s findings but that did not change his view of the Teacher. He explained that he had worked with the Teacher at [redacted] for a whole year. He explained that the Teacher was a valued supply teacher and he was sad to see him go to [redacted]. He also knew the Teacher through [redacted] and was impressed by the Teacher in his role as PVG coordinator.

Person F read her statement into the record. She confirmed that she was aware of the Panel’s findings but that did not change her view of the Teacher. She explained that she was [redacted] at [redacted] High School and so had come to know the Teacher when he came as a supply teacher. She confirmed that she had seen no behaviours from the Teacher similar to those in the allegations. She said that she was impressed by the Teacher as he had worked on the school show and has offered help in learning support. She had witnessed him teaching and working with pupils. She explained that she would be more than happy to be a formal mentor for the Teacher if necessary.

Presenting Officer’s Submissions

The Presenting Officer submitted that the starting point for consideration is the Public Services Reform (GTC Scotland) Order 2011 which states that an individual is unfit to teach if GTC Scotland considers the Teacher’s conduct falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. The Panel were invited to consider the guidance in the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Indicative Outcomes Guidance at Part A which sets out relevant factors to consider when assessing impairment. The Panel were reminded that the test for impairment is at the date of hearing. It was submitted first that the Panel should consider whether the facts found proved mean that the Teacher’s conduct fell short of the expected standards with reference to GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC). Further, whether it amounts to misconduct.

If the Panel find that the conduct constitutes misconduct, the Panel should then consider whether the shortfalls identified are remediable, whether they have been remedied and the likelihood of reoccurrence.

The Presenting Officer submitted that the facts found demonstrate that the Teacher’s conduct fell below the standards expected of a teacher and that the conduct amounts to misconduct. In particular the behaviour breaches Parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 4.2 of COPAC. If the Panel accepts that the behaviour amounts to misconduct then it was submitted that the Panel should consider the seriousness of the behaviour. It was submitted that the Teacher engaged in a pattern of derogatory comments in particular towards women. The Teacher was aggressive, was prosecuted and pled guilty to a criminal offence. It was submitted that the behaviour is indicative of an attitudinal problem which is not easily remediable.

It was submitted that whilst there was no previous history of misconduct, the Teacher’s behaviour was not isolated and could be said to constitute a pattern of behaviour. The Teacher had admitted some of the behaviour and has engaged with the process but it was submitted that the Teacher had shown little genuine remorse and had attempted to deflect responsibility by claiming some of the behaviour was due to [redacted]. It was submitted that there was little evidence of remediation.

It was submitted that a finding of no current impairment would damage the reputation of GTC Scotland as an effective regulator. It was submitted that taking all of the behaviour as a whole the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired. It was submitted that the Panel would be entitled to find that the behaviour as a whole fell significantly below the standards expected and that he was unfit to teach.

The Teacher’s Submissions

The Teacher’s representative submitted that the Teacher was not currently impaired. She submitted that the purpose of the hearing is not to punish the Teacher for past wrongdoings but to assess his fitness to teach as at today’s date. The Panel were referred to the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) and the test therein, namely whether the conduct is remedial, the conduct has been remediated, and whether there is a risk of repetition. Saha v GMC (2009) EWHC 1907, it was submitted, supports the premise that the Panel should take into account what happened in the period between an incident of past misconduct and the date of assessment of fitness to teach at the hearing. It was submitted that the Panel should have regard to the factors set out in the GTC Scotland Indicative Outcomes Guidance.

It was submitted that the case has narrowed considerably given the findings in fact. It was submitted that the Panel should consider whether each allegation found proved amounts to misconduct independently of each other. It was submitted that the conduct in allegations 1(a), 1(b), 3,4(e), 5 and 6 relate to private communications and have no direct link to the Teacher’s role as teacher. Reference was made to Gleeson v Social Work England (2024) EWHC 3 (Admin) which cautioned Panels from crossing the dividing line between conduct which most people would not approve and conduct which was so disgraceful as to affect the public’s confidence in the individual practitioner and profession.

It was submitted that the comments made to colleagues do not amount to misconduct.

It was submitted that if the Panel did find misconduct, then it was submitted that the shortfalls are remediable; they have been remedied and they are very unlikely to reoccur. It was submitted that the conduct in question is not fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher. It occurred at a time when the Teacher was under significant stress due to his family life and health concerns. There has been no harm to children. There is no history of misconduct and the conduct was isolated to a specific period of time. Witnesses attested to his conduct since and his valuable input to school life.

It was submitted that the Teacher has remediated the conduct by taking action to address the stress factors in his life. He has engaged with the investigations and has worked with the restrictions on his teaching career. He has taken action in relation to his health and underwent psychological counselling. He now has insight into his behaviour. It was submitted given the strategies and insight in place there is no longer a risk of reoccurrence or at most an extremely low risk. The testimonials on his behalf, along with those witnesses who gave oral evidence, show the Teacher as being open and honest with colleagues and people who know him well. They described a conscientious teacher who takes his job seriously and fosters positive relationships with pupils. Further, it was submitted that the Teacher has good support networks in place.

In terms of public interest, it was submitted that there were no public protection concerns. A fully informed member of the public would be aware that the events in question relate to a period in 2018. They would be aware of the personal circumstances of the Teacher at the time. They would be aware of the positive comments. It was submitted that there was no public interest in a finding that the Teacher was currently impaired.

Panel Decision on Fitness to Teach

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and submissions made by the parties in relation to the Teacher’s fitness to teach. The Panel addressed the relevant considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in GTC Scotland’s Indicative Outcomes Guidance.

(a) Did the Teacher’s conduct or competence at the time of the incident(s) fall short of the expected professional standards? i.e. has the Teacher been guilty of misconduct or lack of competence?

The Panel considered whether the facts found proved fell short of the expected professional standards. The Panel had regard to COPAC and decided that the conduct found proved breached the following standards:

1.3 you should avoid situations both within and out with the professional context which could be in breach of the criminal law or which may call into question your fitness to teach.

The Panel noted that there was a criminal case following the events in the Anglers pub and the Teacher pled guilty to some of the events that night. The Panel accepted that the events at the Anglers pub was outside of school hours but the Teacher was with colleagues from 3 different schools and the language used was derogatory towards colleagues, females in particular. The Teacher engaged in abusive language towards colleagues and threw a bottle towards Colleague 2. The Panel found that the conduct fell below the standard as set out in 1.3.

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 in the teaching profession.

The Panel found that the teacher’s personal and professional conduct in the staffrooms when referring to his wedding ring, swearing at the headteacher and in his conduct with his colleagues in the Anglers pub fell below the standard as set out in 1.4.

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

The Panel found that derogatory remarks were made to females in a public setting amongst a group of teachers. There was no evidence that pupils were aware of the behaviour but in general terms the Panel found that the behaviour exhibited in a public place did not provide a good role model to pupils. The Teacher himself acknowledged that he had not acted as a role model to pupils. The Panel found that the behaviour fell below the standard set out in 1.6.

4.2 You must treat all colleagues, parents and carers fairly and with respect without discrimination.

The Panel found that the Teacher did not treat his colleagues with respect by using derogatory and abusive language in the pub. He was also disrespectful in the school setting to his headteacher and his colleague in the staffroom. His conduct fell below the standard set out in 4.2.

Given the breaches of COPAC at the time of the allegations that were found proven, the Panel found that the behaviour constituted misconduct.

Given that the Panel had established misconduct it then went on to consider whether the shortfalls identified are remediable; whether they have been remedied; and whether there is a likelihood of reoccurrence.

The Panel considered the factors set out in the Practice Statement on Indicative Outcomes Guidance when considering the question of remediation. The Panel found that the misconduct was serious but that it happened primarily outside the school and in a short window of time. The Panel found the misconduct serious but not at the upper end of seriousness.

The Panel noted that the Teacher has engaged with GTC Scotland process and that there is no history of misconduct either before or after and that the allegations had taken place within a very limited time frame and there did not appear to be any pattern of behaviour which made the conduct likely to re-occur. The Panel found that the Teacher had taken steps to mitigate the risk of repetition of his behaviour by engaging with professional help, managing his stress, [redacted] and seeking support from colleagues within the church and school.

The Panel accepted the evidence of remediation from the Teacher and witnesses. In particular, the Panel found it helpful to hear from the Teacher’s [redacted] who confirmed the Teacher behaves appropriately with other staff. She and other witnesses spoke to the fact that the Teacher is a valued and highly thought of member of staff who volunteers for additional duties with and out with the school day and interacts well with pupils.

The Panel noted that the Teacher is in a long-term post at [redacted], has support from family and friends and that his current circumstances would, therefore, not increase the risk of reoccurrence.

The Panel considered the GTC Scotland submission that the Teacher’s conduct was attitudinal and incompatible with teaching. The Panel did not accept those submissions. The Panel thought the conduct was remediable, has been remedied and is unlikely to happen again. The Panel then considered whether there is, nevertheless, an overriding public interest in making a finding that fitness to teach is impaired or that the Teacher is unfit to teach in the circumstances.

The Panel considered whether a finding of impairment was needed in the public interest. The Panel considered the following factors:

• public protection - the Panel did not think that pupils were at risk from the Teacher given the evidence of witnesses to his conduct in the classroom and in extracurricular events with young people. Given the evidence of the Teacher’s interaction with colleagues in the intervening 6 years, the Panel do not think that the Teacher poses a risk to members of the wider public;
• maintenance of the public’s confidence in registrants and in the integrity of the teaching profession - the Teacher has engaged in GTC Scotland’s process since 2019 and he has been subject to a Temporary Restriction Order that has meant he has been able to work only for his current employer and has not been able to apply for a permanent post. There has been rigorous investigation by both the local authority and GTC Scotland. The Panel decided that a member of the public, knowing all the facts, would consider that there had been sufficient action taken by the regulator to maintain public confidence in registrants and in the integrity of the teaching profession;
• declare and uphold proper teaching standards - the Panel has marked the behaviour as misconduct. The public would be concerned by the behaviour demonstrated by the Teacher if it had gone unrecognised. The Panel decided that the public would take into account the Teacher’s remediation and GTC Scotland’s process which would satisfy the need to declare and uphold proper teaching standards; and
• deterrence - the Panel considered that there was no need in the interests of deterrence to make a finding of impairment or fitness to teach, as the process that the Teacher has undergone and the finding of misconduct is a sufficient deterrence.

The Panel decided that the public interest did not require a finding of impairment.

The Panel decided that the behaviour found has been remedied, there is good evidence of positive behaviour by the Teacher within and out with school. There is no public interest requirement in a finding of impairment. The Panel found that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is not impaired.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Teacher’s conduct, as at today’s date, does not fall short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and that his fitness to teach is, therefore, not impaired.