Panel consideration meeting - Conduct - Callum Murray

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 28 March 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 issues.

Allegation(s)

1. Whilst employed by Argyll and Bute Council as a Health and Wellbeing Teacher at Rockfield Primary School, the Teacher did:
   • Between 1 July 2022 and 23 January 2023, impose himself into the support and care of Pupil A without having any official or designated professional responsibility, duty of care or appropriate authority or permission to do so
   • During December 2022, communicate with Pupil A via personal mobile phone and TikTok social media, outside of any formal process or procedure, and without having any official or designated professional responsibility or duty of care to do so.
   • During December 2022, communicate with Pupil A via personal mobile phone and TikTok social media, outside of any formal process or procedure, and without having any official or designated professional responsibility or duty of care to do so.
   • Between 1 December 2022 and 23 January 2023, arrange and engage in ‘five or six’ unsupervised meetings with Pupil A at Rockfield Primary School, outside of school hours, without having any official or designated professional responsibility, duty of care or proper authority or permission to do so.
   • On 29 December 2022, together with partner, Person A, meet with Pupil A, her mother and siblings during the school Christmas holidays for coffee at a local cafe.
   • On an unknown date in December 2022, attend Pupil A’s home, during the school Christmas holidays, to check an issue with the attic there.
   • On an unknown date in December 2022 or January 2023, go on a dog walk with Pupil A and her mother, during the school Christmas holidays.
   • On the 30 December 2022, together with partner, Person A, allow Pupil A into their home to assist with DIY for a period of approximately 2 hours, during the school Christmas holidays.
   • On the 20 January 2023, together with partner, Person A, allow Pupil A into their home for dinner without alerting, informing or seeking approval from the relevant authorities, school management / Child Protection Coordinator or Social Work.
   • On 21 January 2023, together with partner, Person A, visit Pupil A’s home before taking her to their own home with the intention of Pupil A residing there, and done so without alerting, informing or seeking approval from the relevant authorities, school management / Child protection Officer or Social Work.
   • On 21 and 22 January 2023, together with partner, Person A, accommodate Pupil A in their home, overnight, without alerting, informing or seeking approval from the relevant authorities, school management / Child Protection Officer or Social Work.
   • On the evening of 21 January 2023, whilst Pupil A was resident in his home, associated with her alone in the following manner:
     • (Played video games together
     • (ii) Travelled to Pupil A’s home together to check the electricity supply
     • (iii) Returned to the Teacher’s home to play video games together
     • (iv) At around 11:30pm, travelled together to pick up the Teacher’s partner from a social event.
   • On 23 January 2023, fail to immediately inform the relevant school Head of Establishment / Child Protection Coordinator or Social Work of the events of the 20 January to 23 January 2023 relating to matters of a serious and safeguarding nature concerning Pupil A, when there was a reasonable professional expectation to do so, and in accordance with Argyll & Bute Child Protection Guidelines and Procedures.

It is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired as a result of breaching Parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 2.4 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC).

Information available to the Panel

1. Employer Referral (Argyll and Bute Council), dated 27 January 2023.
2. Local Authority Investigation Report (Callum Murray) and Appendices, dated 5 May 2023.
3. Argyll and Bute Council Child Protection Policy, updated 2022.  
4. Final Written Warning Letter from Employer, dated 5 June 2023
   • Reflective Note, dated 6 September 2023.
   • COPAC Reflection.
   • CPD Reflection.
   • Future CPD plans.
   • Testimonial – Colleague 1 (Rockfield PrimarySchool)
5. Teachers Response to Interim Report, dated 15 September 2023. 
6. Summary of CPD & Experience, dated 22 January 2024.
7. Mental health First Aid Certificate, dated 14-17 August 2017.
8. Season for Growth Participation Certificate, dated 13 and 14 September 2021.
9. JR1 – Message from Teacher to Person B (Oban High School Youth Worker), dated 4 December 2022.
10. CFA1 - Message from Teacher to Pupil A’s aunts (provided to Person C), dated 19 January.
11. CF1 – Generic Health and Wellbeing Teacher Job Description.
12. GTCS Statement - Colleague 2 (headteacher of Rockfield Primary School), dated 26 January 2024.
13. GTCS Statement - Colleague 3 (depute headteacher of Rockfield Primary School), dated 31 January 2024.  
14. GTCS Statement - Person B (Youth Worker, Oban High School), dated 9 February 2024.
15. GTCS Statement – Person D (Guidance Teacher, Oban High School), dated 8 February 2024.
16. GTCS Statement – Person E (former depute headteacher and Child Protection Coordinator, Oban High School), dated 26 February 2024.
17. GTCS Statement – Person C (Social Worker), dated 1 March 2024.

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

1. Final Report Teacher Response, dated 18 April 2024
2. ‘Person C’ message, dated 23 January 2023
3. Reflection April 2024
4. Understanding Roles, Responsibilities and Relationship in Education and Training – Level 3 Certificate, dated 12 April 2024
5. Course Reflection

Teacher's response

The Teacher admitted all of the allegations. The Teacher also accepted that he failed to adhere to the standards expected of him.

It was submitted, on the Teacher’s behalf, that the Panel should consider issuing a Reprimand as well as a Conditional Registration Order (CRO). The CRO should include conditions geared towards personal development including safeguarding, child protection and maintaining professional boundaries. It was also suggested that there should be regular meetings with a mentor who would assist in his personal development.

Summary of evidence and submissions

The allegations arise out of the fact that, using his own words, the Teacher attempted to ‘help a family in my local community through a range of crises that unfolded in their lives with particular focus on helping a 14-year-old.’ The Teacher was not the only person involved in these activities. Person A, his partner and also a teacher, was also involved in this intervention.

All teachers employed by Local Authorities in Scotland are provided with regular training on safeguarding, child protection and professional boundaries. At the time of the allegations, he knew or ought to have known that it was inappropriate to intervene without either permission or discussion of his role with the multiple agencies who were involved. The Teacher accepts that ‘I approached the support in a way that is not appropriate for any teacher. I overstepped the boundaries…’

The overstepping of the boundaries involved him befriending Pupil A for a period of around 6 months during which he and Person A provided her with emotional support. The full extent of this support and his involvement in her life is set out in the allegations that have been admitted.  

The Teacher also accepts that when his intervention was discovered and his support to Pupil A ceased, there would have been emotional harm to Pupil A.

Decision

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

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

• The matter amounts to Relevant Conduct and there is on the face of it, a real prospect of a finding that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired. The Panel considered the following factors relevant in that the conduct alleged relates to:
  • Forming inappropriate relationships with pupils/young people

The Panel considered the relevant Parts of COPAC to be:

• Part 1 – Professionalism and maintaining trust in the profession
• Part 2 – Professional responsibilities towards Pupils

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

• The matter is not over 5 years of age.
• The matter has not already been considered.
• The matter is not frivolous or vexatious.
• The allegation(s) have not been made anonymously or by a person who has failed to cooperate with the investigation.

The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dismiss the case on the basis of an insufficiency of evidence as provided for by Rule 2.3.2 (b). The allegation(s) have been admitted by the Teacher. Furthermore, the Panel did not consider the referral to be malicious.

Fitness to Teach

The Panel carefully considered all of the available information and had regard to Part A of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance in considering whether the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

The Panel carried out a full assessment of the Teacher’s fitness to teach.

It had regard to COPAC. The Teacher accepted that by his actions set out in the allegations, he had contravened the standards expected of him. The Panel considered that whilst Parts 1.2 and 1.3 had been breached, the most relevant part of COPAC which had been breached was:

2.4 - You must maintain an up-to-date knowledge and understanding of, implement, and comply with, child and protected adult procedures as they may currently apply in your workplace.

The Panel did not consider the Teacher’s departures from the standards expected of him to be sufficiently serious to justify a finding that he was unfit to teach and, accordingly, that he should be removed.

The Panel was satisfied that the Teacher’s actions that led to the allegations are capable of being remedied. The Teacher has fully engaged with the fitness to teach process, admitted the allegations and already taken steps to remediate. He has no prior history of misconduct and, in particular, there is no suggestion that he has previously breached Part 2.4 of COPAC. The Panel concluded that this episode could be categorised as an isolated chapter in his career. The Panel considered that the Teacher has already commenced his journey to full remediation. However, in light of the nature of his actions, the Panel considered he required more time to be in a position to satisfy GTC Scotland that there would be no repetition of his conduct. Having regard to the public interest, the Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate for steps to be taken to permit the return of an otherwise competent teacher to unrestricted practise.

For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

Disposal

As the Panel concluded that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is currently impaired, it moved on to consider the appropriate disposal of the case. In considering this matter, the Panel had regard to Part B of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance. In line with that guidance, the Panel considered the available options from least to most severe. The Panel noted that not all indicating factors required to be present for a disposal option to be considered appropriate.

The Panel considered the Indicative Outcomes Guidance and considered that many of the factors that were listed there justified issuing a Reprimand:

• The matter has been admitted.
• The Teacher has reflected on the matter, shows genuine remorse and has taken steps to properly address the issues.
• There has been no repetition.
• There is evidence attesting to the good character and history of the Teacher.

The Panel having considered the factors for the Reprimand alone and determined that some, but not all, of the factors were present. The Panel therefore concluded that a Reprimand, of itself, did not fully address the nature of the regulatory concerns identified and concluded that a reprimand alone was not the appropriate or proportionate sanction.

The Panel then moved on to consider imposing a Conditional Registration Order. The Panel looked at the factors and agreed that most of the following factors were present:

• The Panel already identified specific areas relating to his conduct that required retraining.
• Conditional registration will be sufficient to protect the public.
• The Teacher has already indicated that he will be willing to respond to conditions.
• The Teacher has shown sufficient insight.
• Imposing such an order marks the seriousness of the matter at issue.

However, the Panel considered that the last factor, referred to in the guidance, could not be addressed by the imposition of a Conditional Registration Order alone. The Panel did not consider that this sanction would, on its own ‘indicate to both the profession and the public the seriousness of the matter’. It considered that public confidence required the Panel to consider imposing something other than conditions alone.

The Panel went on to consider the next sanction upwards and considered whether a Reprimand together with a Conditional Registration Order would be appropriate. The Panel had already determined that each of these sanctions, on their own, would not be appropriate. However, the Panel determined that the imposition of both sanctions was an appropriate disposal and address the deficiencies of imposing one of these sanctions alone.  A Reprimand would make it clear that such conduct was unacceptable, and a Conditional Registration Order would allow the Teacher to remediate.

The Panel noted that the Teacher was prepared to accept both a Reprimand and the imposition of relatively rigorous conditions geared towards continued professional development regarding safeguarding and child protection. It was indicated that he intended to take a three day Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) course on safeguarding and the health and wellbeing of children and young people. He also anticipated provisions for mentoring which would involve regular discussions with his mentor.

In considering what conditions to impose upon his registration, the Panel had regard to two issues. The issue of proportionality meant that it should impose the least restrictive conditions that would address the public protection issues identified. The second issue was that of workability. The Panel were reluctant to impose conditions on the Teacher that he would not be able to comply with or may render him less employable.

The Panel was concerned that if it imposed specific conditions requiring him to find a mentor and requiring regular supervision sessions, that these may be too burdensome. The Panel considered that it was open for him to find a mentor, meet with that mentor, formulate a development plan and discuss progress. It was also open for him to attend such courses as he saw fit without any need for the Panel to prescribe them.  

In addition, it was reluctant to prescribe that he must attend a specific course. The Panel was concerned that a particular course may be cancelled, or the wording of the course had changed to deal with other concerns.

It was open for the Teacher to make sure that all of his progress towards remediation be included in the report sent by his line manager.

The Panel determined that it should issue a Reprimand for an aggregated period of 2 years.

The Panel decided to impose, in addition to the Reprimand, the following conditions for an aggregated period of 2 years:

1. Whilst employed as a teacher, you must provide annually to GTC Scotland's Fitness to Teach Department written reports from your line manager confirming that you have kept your knowledge and skills up to date in child protection and have successfully completed any appropriate course accordingly.
2. You must inform the following parties that your GTC Scotland registration is subject to these conditions and provide them with a copy of the Decision Notice that resulted in this Order being imposed upon you:
   • Any organisation or person employing you as a teacher or in a post for which GTC Scotland registration is required (whether on a permanent, temporary or supply basis); and
   • Any prospective employer covered by a) above at the time of making your application for employment.

The Teacher’s registration with GTC Scotland will be subject to the above conditions specified within the Conditional Registration Order for an aggregated period of 2 years.

Having identified the appropriate disposal, the Panel decided to issue a consent order in accordance with Rule 2.7. The terms of the consent order are set out in the separate ‘Consent Order’ document. Should the Teacher fail to provide his consent to the order within 28 days from the date of the decision notice, the case is to be referred on for hearing proceedings.