Full hearing - Conduct - Teacher A

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

• “GTC Scotland” or “GTCS” 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 GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them; and#
• the “Register” means the GTCS register of teachers.

Preliminary issues

There were two preliminary issues:

• Teacher’s application in respect of late papers
• Teacher’s application to the effect that certain parts of the Teacher’s case should be heard in private

Application in respect of late papers

Under reference to the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 the Teacher’s solicitor made an application to the effect that there should be admitted into process for reference thereto during proceedings for the Panel’s consideration the following two sets of late papers as made available to the panel as separate bundles:

• Teacher’s reflective statement dated 25 February 2025, which his solicitor submitted would be of assistance to the Panel during stage 2 on fitness to teach.
• Unprotected screenshots of photographs from Whatsapp, being the same as those already produced by the Presenting Officer in the evidential bundles except showing the faces of the individuals appearing in the imagery, which his solicitor submitted would be necessary for questioning witnesses regarding the chronology of events forming the basis of allegations.

The Presenting Officer made no opposition to the application.

Application for privacy

The Teacher’s solicitor made an application to the effect that parts of the Teacher’s case should be heard in private [Redacted]. Reference was made to rule 1.3.7 (the general objective), to the GTCS Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement and to the European Convention on Human Rights at Arts.6 and 8.

The Presenting Officer likewise made no opposition to the application.

The Panel retired into brief private session to consider the foregoing applications, after which it reconvened for the hearing. The Legal Assessor confirmed that no legal advice had been given during private session.

The Panel granted both applications in their entirety.

Allegation(s)

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

1. Between September 2020 and May 2022 as a teacher at [Redacted], and in the course of his employment, the Teacher did:
   (b) In or around April 2022 give Pupil B mountain bike equipment as a birthday present;
   (c) In June 2021 invite Pupil B to go camping;
   (d) On 21 May 2022 whilst on a school trip:
   (i) put his arm around Pupil A;
   (ii) rub Pupil A’s back;
   (iii) put his hand on Pupil A’s leg;
   (iv) rub Pupil A’s leg;
   (v) take photographs of Pupil A
   (vi) the actions at allegation 1(d)(i), (ii), (iii)and (iv) caused Pupil A distress;.
   
   (e) On various dates unknown between September 2020 and May 2022, allow Pupil A, Pupil B and other pupils to enter his home address;
   (f) On an unknown date between September 2020 and May 2022, suggest to Pupil B that they meet and go mountain biking together when Pupil B had left school;
   (g) On an unknown date between September 2020 and May 2022, book a skiing holiday in France at the same time as Pupil A, Pupil B and their family and suggest that he take Pupil A and Pupil B skiing by himself.‍

Teacher’s admissions

1. Between September 2020 and May 2022 as a teacher at [REDACTED], and in the course of his employment, the Teacher did:_
   
   (b) In or around April 2022 give Pupil B mountain bike equipment as a birthday present;
   
   Admitted
   ‍
   (c) In June 2021 invite Pupil B to go camping;
   
   Admitted in part
   
   ‍(d) On 21 May 2022 whilst on a school trip:
   (i) put his arm around Pupil A; Admitted
   (ii) rub Pupil A’s back; Admitted
   (iii) put his hand on Pupil A’sleg; Admitted
   (iv) rub Pupil A’s leg; Denied
   (v) take photographs of Pupil A; Admitted
   (vi) the actions at allegation 1(d)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) caused Pupil A distress; Denied
   
   (e) On various dates unknown between September 2020 and May 2022, allow Pupil A, Pupil B and other pupils to enter his home address;
   
   Admitted
   
   (f) On an unknown date between September 2020 and May 2022, suggest to Pupil B that they meet and go mountain biking together when Pupil B had left school;
   
   Admitted
   
   (g) On an unknown date between September 2020 and May 2022, book a skiing holiday in France at the same time as Pupil A, Pupil B and their family and suggest that he take Pupil A and Pupil B skiing by himself;
   
   Admitted

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:

Servicing Officer’s hearing papers

• Notice of Full Hearing, dated 19 December 2024
• Notice of Hearing Teacher Response Form, dated 19 December 2024
• Anonymity, Privacy and Admissibility - Procedural Panel Meeting Decision, dated 11 September 2024

Presenting Officer’s hearing papers

• Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 16 May 2924
• Witness statement of [REDACTED], Deputy Head Teacher, [REDACTED], dated 26 May 2023
• Witness statement of [REDACTED], former gap year student, dated 11 May 2023
• Witness statement of [REDACTED], former gap year student, undated
• Investigation report from [REDACTED], and interview transcripts with [REDACTED]and [REDACTED]
• [REDACTED] Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy, July 2021
• Response to Notification of Investigation dated 11 July 2022
• Reflective statement from the Teacher dated 11 July 2022
• [REDACTED] Report in respect of the Teacher dated 18 February 2023
• Response to interim report by the Teacher and enclosures:
• Screenshot messages
• Reflective statement
• Testimonials:
• [REDACTED], dated 8 August 2023
• [REDACTED], dated 16 August 2022
• [REDACTED], dated 23 August 2022
• [REDACTED], dated 12 August 2022
• [REDACTED], dated 22 August 2022
• [REDACTED], dated 9 August 2022

Teacher’s hearing papers

• Teacher’s Case Form, dated 4 June 2024
• Witness statement of [REDACTED] with appendices for stage 1, dated 4 June 2024:
  • Appendix 1  
  • Appendix 2
  • Appendix 3
  • Appendix 10
  • Appendix 11
  • Appendix 12
• Witness statement for [REDACTED]with appendices for stage 2, dated 4 June 2024:
  • Appendix 1
  • Appendix 2
  • Appendix 3
  • Appendix 4
• Statement of [REDACTED], dated 31 May 2024
• Testimonial of [REDACTED], dated 9 August 2022
• Reflective Statement September 2024 (Additional remediation document), dated 17 December 2024

The following witnesses appeared in front of the hearing to give oral testimony:

Day 1, 24 February 2025

• [REDACTED]— stage 1 only
• [REDACTED]— stage 1 only
• [REDACTED]— stage 1 only

Day 2, 25 February 2025

• [REDACTED]— stages 1 and 2
• [REDACTED] (remote witness) — stage 2 only

Summary of evidence

The Teacher having admitted all the allegations except 1(d)(iv) and (vi), stage 1 focused principally on those allegations, yet where consideration thereof also entailed collateral consideration of allegations 1(d)(i), (ii) and (iii), where allegation 1(d)(vi) refers back to those:

1. …as a teacher at [REDACTED], and in the course of his employment, the Teacher did:
   (d) On 21 May 2022 whilst on a school trip:
   (iv) rub Pupil A’s leg;
   (vi) the actions at allegation 1(d)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) caused Pupil A distress

It was not a matter of contention that on 21 May 2022 the Teacher had been engaging in employment by the school as a teacher of computing science and of outdoor education. All the allegations 1(d)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) related to an onsite outdoor camping trip that the school had appointed the Teacher to arrange and run for a group of about a dozen or so pupils that evening in a field on school grounds near the main school building, and within its sight and walking distance. He was the sole Teacher in charge of this “campout”, albeit assisted principally by a gap year student, [REDACTED] (witness), and in circumstances where the event was also visited by another gap year student, [REDACTED] (witness), and by other members of staff, at various times over the course of the evening.

The campout included a storytelling visit by [REDACTED], during which she read to the pupils as they sat around a campfire, and the Teacher and [REDACTED] were also present for that. The conduct forming the basis of allegations 1(d)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) occurred, or was alleged to have occurred, during this storytelling visit, or thereabouts.

The Panel heard that, before the campout, the Teacher had been working in his role as teacher since about 7.00 a.m., whereas [REDACTED] did not arrive at the campout until about 9.05 or 9.15 p.m., i.e. in the order of 14 hours later. Earlier that day, the Teacher had encountered wayward and off task behaviour on the pupils’ part, including their climbing over the school vehicle (which it appeared was to be used for transporting equipment to the campout site), and their failure to follow his directions, e.g. to tidy up. At some point, apparently in order to serve as a form of admonition to the pupils, the Teacher or [REDACTED] had decided to throw marshmallows on the campfire, where inferably those would go to waste and no longer be available for the pupils’ consumption. The Teacher said this had produced an upsetting effect, particularly on Pupil A.

The first witness, [REDACTED], had been a gap year student on placement at the school on 21 May 2022. She adopted her written witness statement of 11 May 2023, and read it out aloud into the record. She spoke of her storytelling visit to the campout. She could not speak to being a direct eyewitness to any of the allegations as she said she had been focused on reading the story, and not on observing the conduct of the group sitting around the campfire at that time. However, she did see the Teacher sitting very close to Pupil A and whispering to him, which, although not necessarily inappropriate, she did consider unusual because another staff member was talking to a pupil while she was reading to them. She could not hear the whispers. Her only information regarding the allegations came from [REDACTED], and from her knowledge that the Teacher had been made the subject of the allegations. [REDACTED] did not impart that information to [REDACTED] on the evening on 21 May 2022, and [REDACTED] could not remember precisely when [REDACTED] had done so. [REDACTED] was interviewed by deputy headteacher [REDACTED], several days later.

Although the Panel put no questions to [REDACTED], they found her to be a credible and reliable witness, whose version of events was consistent with other evidence. Although she did observe interaction between the Teacher and Pupil A, she did not see what witness, [REDACTED], describes and which is the basis of the disputed allegations.

The second witness, [REDACTED], had also been a gap year student on placement at the school on 21 May 2022.

[REDACTED] adopted her undated written witness statement and read it out aloud into the record. She gave direct eyewitness testimony of all allegations 1(d)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi), claiming to have been positioned only a short distance away from the Teacher, although she varied in her specification of this from one metre to two or three metres. She said the Teacher rubbed Pupil A’s leg for about one minute, then rubbed his back, then helped him put on a hoodie. She said Pupil A became “visibly” upset, moved to sit beside her, and was “grumpy”. She did not challenge the Teacher. She was not sure whom else she told, although thought she might have told a member of staff called [REDACTED] (non-witness).  Several days later, [REDACTED] was interviewed by [REDACTED], deputy head teacher.

Particularly in cross-examination, some of [REDACTED] answers were non-specific, or she claimed not to remember, e.g. she said she could not remember marshmallows being thrown on the fire, nor whether she herself had put her arm around Pupil A, and, upon being asked when specifically Pupil A became upset, she simply referred back to whatever she had already put in her written statement. She remembered telling [REDACTED] about some of what she claimed to have seen, although could not remember whether she told her about allegation 1(d)(iv), i.e. that she had seen the Teacher rub Pupil A’s leg. She said she officially told the school about six days afterwards and had not done so sooner as she was not sure of the protocol.

The Panel put a number of questions to [REDACTED], including by asking her to demonstrate what she saw in terms of allegation 1(d)(iv), whereupon she placed her hand on her own leg above her knee and moved it up and down vertically between her knee and mid-thigh. When asked to explain what she meant by “grumpy”, she initially answered to the effect that she was not sure, then clarified it to mean “not happy with a situation”.

The Panel found [REDACTED] to be an unreliable witness, albeit not necessarily in a deliberate way, for example in respect of her evidence to the effect that she had seen the Teacher rub Pupil A’s leg for about one minute. Her evidence was inconsistent, and her memory of significant events imperfect.

The third witness, [REDACTED], had been, and remains, the school’s deputy head teacher, who was responsible for the school’s own investigation into the allegations. He adopted his written witness statement of 26 May 2023, and read it out aloud into the record. He spoke of that investigation, and of the school’s safeguarding policy, which he said he would expect the Teacher to have been familiar with, at the material time. He gave his opinion that, if the Teacher had rubbed Pupil A's leg for one minute, that would have gone beyond the boundaries of reasonableness in terms of that policy. However, in cross-examination he accepted that some physical contact between a teacher and a pupil might be appropriate for the purpose of reassurance. He also confirmed the terms of his testimonial for the Teacher, which was broadly favourable for Teacher in terms of his teaching performance.

The Panel put a number of questions to [REDACTED], including in respect of the timeline of the investigation, and whether Pupil A’s parents had ever made a formal complaint. He said he did not remember whether they had done so, although [REDACTED] did meet them on 23 May 2022. [REDACTED] himself never spoke with them about any allegations, and while [REDACTED] had briefed him in respect of his own meeting with them, he could not remember what [REDACTED] had told him in this regard.

The Panel found [REDACTED] to be a credible and reliable witness overall, although he tended to rely on his written evidence. He confirmed that a transcript of his interviews of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] was not produced, and he could not remember the specific timeline of the investigation.

The fourth witness was the Teacher himself. He adopted his written witness statement of 4 June 2024 and read it out aloud into the record. He spoke of his relocation from afar to an area near the school in order to take up his employment there. While initially he had resided in a town away from the school yet within commuting distance, eventually he moved into residential accommodation on school grounds for financial reasons. His relocation coincided broadly with the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, which impacted on him in terms of his prior plan to make social contacts in that area outside the context of school. In these circumstances, the Teacher formed a social friendship with the parents of Pupil A and B, and, in particular, it seems, their mother, with whom he shared an interest in fitness training, [REDACTED], and where he would also arrange for her to provide fitness training at the school. The Panel’s overall impression was that this friendship, as the Teacher had seen it, might have been somewhat uneven and that the closeness/benefits of this relationship was perceived differently by each party. It was presented to the panel that the parents of Pupil A had welcomed offers of outdoor activities, dog walking, lifts and other such support from the Teacher in relation to their sons. The parents were not witnesses, therefore had no opportunity to qualify any such impression.

[REDACTED]

He affirmed his denial of allegations 1(d)(iv) and (vi). Before the campout on 21 May 2022, he had been working in his role as teacher since about 7.00 a.m., whereas the campout was still underway by after 9.00 p.m., i.e. in the order of 14 hours later. Generally, the Teacher had experienced long working hours at the school, sometimes as long as 12 or 13 hours a day for 12 days every fortnight on a cycle of twelve on and two off. On the particular day in question, the Teacher had encountered wayward and off task behaviour on the pupils’ part, including their climbing over the school vehicle, and their failure to follow his directions, e.g. to tidy up. At some point, in order to serve as a form of admonition to the pupils, the Teacher or [REDACTED] had decided to throw marshmallows on the campfire and had produced an upsetting effect on Pupil A. The Teacher recalled that later, during Storytime, whilst sitting next to Pupil A on a log, he (Pupil A) pushed in closer to his side and resulted in him (the Teacher) giving him a ‘side on’ hug. The Teacher stated that although he had no direct recollection of touching Pupil A on the leg or rubbing his back specifically, he fully admitted that this was entirely possible due to his close proximity of sitting next to Pupil A and in the circumstances of momentarily reassuring and comforting him. The Teacher denied rubbing Pupil A’s leg, where he said he would never engage in such physical contact with a child, which he explained in the context of having spent time with the daughter of his friend, [REDACTED] (witness).

The Panel found the Teacher to be a thoroughly credible and reliable witness. His early admission to most of the allegations was to his credit and enhanced his believability overall. The Panel was impressed by his honesty and found his manner of expressing himself to be entirely straightforward, authentic and vivid, including his frank concessions of his own vulnerabilities, particularly in terms of his autism.

Findings of fact

The Panel considered all the evidence presented and the 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 used in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.

The Panel found allegations 1d(iv) and (vi) not proven.

Fitness to teach

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

The Teacher adopted his most recent reflective statement, dated 25 February 2025 (part of the late papers), and read it out aloud into the record. [REDACTED]. The Teacher provided clear evidence on the considerable time and effort he has committed to reflecting and understanding his behaviour that formed the basis of the allegations he had admitted. The Teacher provided evidence that he had sought out professional clinical help, engaged with a counsellor, and continues to do so, sourced a professional mentor, and continues to do so, and undertaken professional courses specifically relating to professional boundaries for those who experience difficulty in recognising them and in acting in accordance with them. The Teacher referred to documentary evidence of the steps he had undertaken. The Teacher expressed significant remorse at his conduct, and insight into the circumstances and [REDACTED] that contributed to said conduct. The Teacher stated that he had accepted unique ownership of his mistakes, that he has insight into them, and that he has learned a variety of strategies on how to recognise and avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

The Panel also heard from a [REDACTED], a qualified teacher and close friend of the Teacher. She adopted her written witness statement of 31 May 2024, and read it out aloud into the record. The witness corroborated much of his own evidence in terms of his inner reflection and efforts towards remediation.

The Panel gave careful consideration to all of the evidence presented and the 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 the GTCS Indicative Outcomes Guidance and with reference to COPAC at paras. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6.

The Panel found that in respect of all allegations, except allegation 1(d)(v), and under qualification in respect of allegation 1(g), the Teacher’s conduct at the time was sufficiently serious and placed him in breach of said provisions of COPAC to the extent that, as at that time, he fell short of expected professional standards. In respect of allegation 1(d)(v), the Panel took the view that the Teacher’s conduct by taking photographs of Pupil A did not amount to a breach of those standards, where it had heard evidence to the effect that the taking of photographs of Pupil A on the campout had actually been arranged, or at least facilitated or endorsed, by the school itself, and that other staff had also taken such photographs. In respect of allegation 1(g), the Panel found that the Teacher’s conduct; by suggesting he take Pupil A and Pupil B skiing by himself while he was on holiday with their family at the same resort and time, did amount to a breach of the standards in terms of maintaining professional boundaries. To the extent that this allegation included an assertion that the teacher had booked a holiday that coincided with the family’s own holiday in place and time, it should not be taken from the Panel’s finding, that teachers are precluded from booking a holiday at a particular place and time simply on the basis that the families of pupils might also happen to have booked the same holiday.

The Panel moved on to consider whether the Teacher’s said conduct was remediable, and, if so, whether it had been remedied, whether there was a likelihood of recurrence, and whether any public interest factor would be a relevant consideration. In this regard, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s conduct was remediable, that he has remedied it through his own said conspicuous efforts, and that there is no material likelihood of recurrence in view of his obvious insight and understanding of how to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. The Panel also concluded that none of the public interest factors relevantly mitigate against a finding to the effect that the Teacher is fit to teach.

The Panel concluded that the Teacher is fit to teach.