Panel consideration - Conduct - Thomas Taylor

Teacher

Thomas Taylor

Date(s)

16 August 2024

Registration number

093535

Registration category

Primary Education

Panel

Jamie Mollinson, Diane Molyneux, Katie Simpson

Legal assessor

Scott McAlpine

Servicing officer

Zain Balu

Presenting officer

Teacher's representative(s)

Definitions

Any reference in this outcome to:

‘GTC Scotland’ means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
The ’Panel’ means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case;
the ‘Rules’ (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them;
the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland Register of teachers; and
‘COPAC’ means the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012

Notification of meeting

The Panel had before it a copy of the Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 25 June 2024. The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher had been provided with notice of the meeting in accordance with Rules 1.6 and 2.3.1. Accordingly, the Panel proceeded to consider the case.

Preliminary matters

There were no preliminary matters.

Allegation(s)

On 4 September 2023, at Ayr Sheriff Court, the Teacher was convicted of the following offences:
1. That on 1 December 2022 at Heathfield School, Heathfield Road, Ayr, Thomas Taylor did assault [redacted], then aged 10 years, [redacted], c/o Police Service of Scotland and did push him on the body, seize hold of his clothing and arms, forcibly pull his arms behind his back and walk him into the school premises.
2. That on 16 May 2023 at the junction between Welbeck Crescent and Bank Street, Troon, Thomas Taylor did assault [redacted], c/o the Police Service of Scotland and did seize him by the neck, throw him to the floor, stamp on his head and repeatedly kick him to the head and body.

On 2 April 2024 the Teacher was sentenced as follows:

(a) Community Playback Order: Supervision Period – 18 months, unpaid work/activities period – 200 hours to be completed within 12 months, imposition date – 02/04/2024.
Restriction of Liberty Order: 8 months, total period – 8 months, start date 02/04/2024
Electronic Monitoring Order: Imposition date – 02/04/2024.

(b) Community Payback Order: Supervision Period – 18 months, unpaid work/activities period – 200 hours to be completed within 12 months, imposition date – 02/04/2024].
Restriction of Liberty Order; 8 months, total period – 8 months, start date – 02/04/2024
Electronic Monitoring Order: Imposition date – 02/04/2024.

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

Information available to the Panel

Final Investigation Report, dated 6 June 2024, with appendices including:

Teacher self-referral dated 13 January 2023;
Police Scotland Response dated 20 June 2023;
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service – confirmation of assault – offence against a child (ref. AY23000734), dated 21 June 2023;
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service – confirmation of assault charge – offence against a child (ref. AT23001676), 21 June 2023;
South Ayrshire Council email - Employer confirmation of Teacher’s dismissal, dated 12 February 2024;
Extract Conviction Report – Ayr Sheriff Court, dated 22 April 2024; and
Teacher Reflective Statement (email) dated 19 June 2024.

Teacher's response

The Teacher did not make a formal response to GTC Scotland Notice of Investigation; however, he did provide a reflective statement at the final report stage which was made available to the Panel for consideration.

In his reflective statement the Teacher referred to his own mental health. The Teacher explained that he was continuing to serve the community through the Community Payback Scheme and also attending [redacted] to breakdown, understand and amend his problematic behaviours. The Teacher expressed that he hoped the victims of his behaviour can move on from this experience in a positive way themselves. He concluded by apologising for what he described as a momentary lapse of judgment that has had such a significant impact on all involved.

Summary of evidence and submissions

On 4th September 2023 the Teacher was convicted at Ayr Sheriff Court for the following offences:

That on 1 December 2022 at Heathfield School, Heathfield Road, Ayr, Thomas Taylor did assault [redacted], then aged 10 years, [redacted], c/o Police Service of Scotland and did push him on the body, seize hold of his clothing and arms, forcibly pull his arms behind his back and walk him into the school premises.
That on 16 May 2023 at the junction between Welbeck Crescent and Bank Street, Troon, Thomas Taylor did assault [redacted], c/o the Police Service of Scotland and did seize him by the neck, throw him to the floor, stamp on his head and repeatedly kick him to the head and body.

On 2 April 2024 the Teacher was sentenced as follows:

Community Payback Order: Supervision Period – 18 months, unpaid work/activities period – 200 hours to be completed within 12 months, Imposition Date 2 April 2024
Restriction of Liberty Order: 8 months, total period – 8 months, start date 2 April 2024
Electronic Monitoring Order: Imposition Date 2 April 2024
‍
Community Payback Order: Supervision Period – 18 months, unpaid work/activities period – 200 hours to be completed within 12 months, Imposition Date 2 April 2024
Restriction of Liberty Order: 8 months, total period – 8 months, start date – 2 April 2024
Electronic Monitoring Order: Imposition Date – 2 April 2024.

The Panel had before it a Full Extract Conviction Report dated 22 April 2024.

Decision

The Panel considered all of the information available to it as described above. The Panel had a range of options open to it, as set out at Rule 2.3.2 (a) to (f). The Panel had regard to the factors set out in the GTC Scotland Panel Consideration Practice Statement.

The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dispose of the case in accordance with Rule 2.3.2 (a). The Panel reached this conclusion for the following reasons:

The matter amounts to Relevant Conduct and there is on the face of it, a realistic prospect of a finding that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired. The Panel considered the following factors relevant in that the conduct alleged relates to:

Abuse of a teacher’s position of trust
Behaviour of a violent, aggressive or threatening nature
Other serious activities which cause harm and affect public confidence

The Panel considered the relevant Parts of COPAC to be:

Part 1 – Professionalism and maintaining trust in the profession, particularly parts 1.3,1.4 and 1.6.

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

The conduct contained in the allegations occurred within 5 years.
The matter has not already been considered.
The matter is not frivolous or vexatious.
The allegation(s) have not been made anonymously or by a person who has failed to cooperate with the investigation.

The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dismiss the case on the basis of an insufficiency of evidence as provided for by Rule 2.3.2 (b). Whilst the allegations were not directly admitted to GTC Scotland by the Teacher, there is evidence to support the allegations contained within the investigation report. Furthermore, the Panel did not consider the referral to be malicious.

The Panel did not consider Rule 2.3.2(d) to be engaged in this case due to the seriousness of the allegation(s) and the evidence before it.

The Panel decided, in terms of Rule 2.3.2(e) to issue a consent order in accordance with Rule 2.7. The Panel’s reasons for doing so are as follows. Having decided that the case should not be dismissed or disposed of in terms of Rules 2.3.2(a) or (b) the Panel, in accordance with the Panel Consideration Practice Statement asked itself whether the allegations were admitted in full or were likely to be.

The Panel decided that the allegations were likely to be admitted in full. The Panel considered the terms of the extract conviction together with Rules 1.7.18 – 19. Those rules provide as follows:

i. Subject to rule 1.7.19, where a Teacher has been convicted of a criminal offence (and provided that such conviction is neither pending appeal nor has been successfully appealed):
(a) An extract conviction, or copy of the certificate of conviction certified by a competent officer of the relevant court, will be conclusive proof of the conviction; and
(b) Any findings of fact upon which the conviction is based will be admissible as evidence of those facts.

ii. The only evidence which may be presented by the Teacher in rebuttal of a conviction extracted or certified in accordance with the provisions above, is evidence for the purpose of proving that he/she is not the person referred to in the certificate or extract. For the avoidance of doubt, the Teacher may present evidence to explain the circumstances of any such conviction, or in mitigation of it.

The Panel decided that with regards to the extract conviction, and the terms of Rules 1.7.18 – 1.7.19, the Teacher was likely to admit the allegations in full as he was not entitled to challenge the conviction which forms the basis of the allegations against him except insofar as to argue that he was not the person convicted of the offences, which he had not done. As such, the extract conviction was conclusive proof of the allegations.

Having decided that, the Panel next asked itself, again, in accordance with the Panel Consideration Practice Statement, whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired. In answering the question, the Panel had regard to part A of the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement.

The Panel decided that the Teacher’s conduct, for which he was convicted and sentenced for, clearly fell short of the expected professional standards. The conduct involved two separate assaults on children by the Teacher. Whilst breaches of the criminal law by a teacher are always serious matters, the high level of aggression in the Teacher’s behaviour and the fact children were the victims, adds to the seriousness of this case.

The Teacher’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and amounted to misconduct.

The Panel next considered whether the shortfalls identified by the Teacher’s conduct were remediable. The Panel decided that the misconduct identified was so serious that it was fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher. The Teacher was convicted of assault. The offending behaviour was not isolated and involved two separate incidents occurring in December 2022 and May 2023. It involved two separate victims, one of whom was 10 years old.

The Panel discussed and concluded that it was fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher to commit offences of violence, particularly against children. The convictions relate to assaulting another person where the conduct included stamping on his victim’s head and repeatedly kicking them on the head and body adds to the seriousness. It also gives rise to a clear risk of behaviour of this type being repeated by the Teacher.

The Teacher, in his response to GTC Scotland did offer an apology for his behaviour, and referred to undertaking [redacted] but he did not provide any vouching to support his current circumstances. Whilst on the face of his response the Teacher does appear to be taking steps to address his violent offending behaviour, the Panel did not consider the material before in any way undermined the Panel’s decision as regards the seriousness of the conduct, or whether it was remediable.

The Panel next asked itself whether the Teacher had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a Registered Teacher meaning he is unfit to teach. In arriving at that decision, the Panel considered the number of breaches of COPAC – Parts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6. The conduct was serious misconduct in that in involved two breaches of the criminal law for offences of violence, including against a ten-year-old child. One of the assaults occurred in the school environment.

The public interest was considered by the Panel and determined that the public interest required a finding that the Teacher was unfit to teach in the circumstances of this case. Put simply, the Panel determined someone who behaved in the manner the Teacher did, cannot be in a classroom environment, and particularly not as a registered teacher. A finding of being unfit to teach was necessary to maintain the public’s confidence in GTC Scotland as the regulator of the teaching profession in Scotland.

The effect of the Panel’s decision on the Teacher being unfit to teach is that his name shall be removed from the Register. The Panel therefore next considered the period the Teacher should be prohibited from applying to be restored to the Register. The Panel approached this issue having regard to Part 4 of the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement.

The Panel decided to issue a consent order in accordance with Rule 2.7 offering the Teacher the opportunity to consent to removal from the Register. Should such consent be provided, the Panel considered the appropriate period before the Teacher be able to apply for re-registration. The Panel approached this issue having regard to Part 4 of the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement. The Panel decided to specify that the Teacher be prohibited from making a subsequent registration application for a period of 2 years, being the maximum period of prohibition. The Panel noted the terms of the Practice Statement that 2 years is the period that is applied in the majority of cases where registration removal is determined.

The terms of the consent order are set out in the separate ‘Consent Order’ document. Should the Teacher fail to provide his consent to the order, the case is to be referred on for hearing proceedings.