ANNEX
General Teaching Council for Scotland
Fitness to Teach Panel Outcome
Full Hearing
17 May 2016
Respondent
Registration number
Registration category
Panel
Legal Assessor
Servicing Officer
Presenting Officer
Respondent’s representative
James Jamieson (not present)
782455
Secondary – Maths, Physics and Computing
Frieda Fraser (Convener), John Anderson, Peter Rankin
David Clapham
Dani Tovey
Kate Hart, GTCS in-house solicitor
Alastair Milne, Balfour + Manson
Any reference in this decision to:




“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 and Appeals
Rules 2012 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them;
the “Register” means the GTCS register of teachers
Preliminary issues
Absence of the Respondent
The Respondent’s representative told the Panel that the Respondent had decided not to attend the
hearing. He asked to address the Panel more fully on the matter in private and the Panel agreed.
The Respondent’s representative provided two letters from the Respondent dated 16 May 2016
and a letter from the Respondent’s medical practice dated 5 August 2015. One letter from the
Respondent explained that he was unable to attend the hearing for health reasons. That letter also
stated, “I do not seek an adjournment or postponement from this case as I am conscious that it has
been outstanding for a long time and believe it is in everyone’s interest for matters to be
concluded. I am content for my solicitor to deal with this and for the hearing to proceed in my
absence.” The Respondent’s representative confirmed that he was instructed to proceed with the
hearing in the Respondent’s absence and was able to do so. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded
in the absence of the Respondent.
Late paper
Part way through cross examination of Doreen Redfern, the Respondent’s representative sought to
lodge a transcript of an interview between Mrs Redfern and Pupil 7 dated 27 April 2012. The
Respondent’s representative told the Panel that the document had been disclosed by the
Presenting Officer earlier on in the case management process and submitted that it was relevant to
Mrs Redfern’s oral evidence. The Presenting Officer had no objection to the document being
provided to the witness and to the Panel.
The Panel agreed to admit the document having regard to Rule 3.1.3, the advice of the Legal
Assessor and to the overriding objective of the Rules, in particular seeking flexibility and informality
in the proceedings.
1
Complaint
The complaint against the Respondent considered at the hearing was as follows:
1. Between 1 December 2011 and 30 April 2012, both dates inclusive and whilst a registered
teacher, employed by Angus Council at Carnoustie High School, Carnoustie, you did:
a. On or around December 2011, say to other pupils at the school that Pupil 1, then a
pupil at Carnoustie High School in your class, was “lovely” and at another time, that
Pupil 1 was your “favourite pupil”;
b. Between March and April 2012, you did contact Pupil 1 via the online game “Word
Feud” using the chat facility;
c. Thereafter make inappropriate comments during an online chat conversation with Pupil
1, including stating inter alia:
“No you haven’t, you’ve been dancing. Let’s just say you have been revising all
night and I’m not texting a pupil, it can be our secret”;
ii) And on another occasion, when you were informed that pupil 1 had been practising
dancing, you replied, “Wish I could see that”;
i)
d. On various occasions ask Pupil 1 to stay back at school on her own with you;
e. Between March and May 2012, on a different occasion to that in 1(b) and (c) above,
you did:
i) ask Pupil 1 to be ‘friends’ with you on Facebook when you retired and;
ii) ask Pupil 1 for her mobile telephone number in order to contact her via the online
application ‘What’s App’;
And in light of the above it is alleged that your fitness to teach is impaired and you are unfit
to teach as a result of breaching the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of
Professionalism and Conduct 2012, Parts 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 and the General Teaching
Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2008, Parts 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
Respondent’s admissions
The Respondent, via his representative, admitted paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of the complaint. This
was also set out in the Joint Minute of Agreement. In light of the Respondent’s admissions,
paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of the complaint were found proved.
Evidence
In accordance with Rule 3.1.3, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed
below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:
Presenting Officer’s hearing papers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Confidentiality Key
Statement of Pupil 1, signed and dated (statement read aloud by the Presenting Officer)
Statement of Doreen Redfern, Head Teacher, Arbroath Academy signed and dated 25
March 2015 (attended the hearing and gave evidence in person)
Statement of Pupil 2, signed and dated (statement read aloud by the Presenting Officer)
Letter from Fraser J Booth dated 20 April 2012
Child Protection Record of Incident Form dated 20 April 2012
Notes on meeting by Mr Aitken 20 April 2012 at 10:20am (typed)
Notes on meeting by Mr Aitken 20 April 2012 at 10:20am (handwritten)
2
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13
P14
P15
P16
P17
P18
P19
P20
Record of disciplinary investigation interview of Pupil 1 on 20 April 2012
Record of disciplinary investigation interview of Pupil 2 on 20 April 2012
Record of disciplinary investigation interview of Pupil 3 on 25 April 2012
Record of disciplinary investigation interview of Pupil 4 on 26 April 2012
Record of disciplinary investigation interview of the Respondent on 30 April 2012
Notes on meeting by Miss McDermott 2 May 2012 (typed)
Notes on meeting by Miss McDermott 2 May 2012 (handwritten)
Notes on meeting by Miss McDermott 21 May 2012 (typed)
Letter from Neil Logue, Director of Education dated 13 August 2012
Letter from Police Scotland and screenshots
Letter from Procurator Fiscal Helen Nisbet, dated 10 July 2013
School Terms and Holidays for Carnoustie High School for 2011/2012
Respondent’s hearing papers
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
Statement of the Respondent
Statement of Graeme Smith and email testimonial of Graeme Smith
Statement of Paul Strachan
Statement of Sharon Couttie
Character Testimonial – John Anton
Character Reference – David Rowlands
Character Testimonial – Carolyn Margaret Joss
Facebook extract
Record of disciplinary investigation interview of Pupil 7 on 27 April 2012
Letters from the Respondent dated 16 May 2016 and a letter from the Respondent’s
medical practice dated 5 August 2015
Joint hearing papers
J1
Joint Minute of Agreement
Doreen Redfern
Mrs Redfern attended the hearing in person. Mrs Redfern read aloud her signed statement.
Between 2008 and 2013 she was Depute Head Teacher at Carnoustie High School. She became
aware of concerns regarding the Respondent on 20 April 2012. David Aitken, a Religious Studies
Teacher, informed her that Pupil 1 had complained to him about the Respondent. The Head
Teacher, Fraser Booth, instructed Mrs Redfern to conduct an investigation. Mrs Redfern had very
little contact with Pupil 1 during the investigation and thought Pupil 1 felt unsupported by the school
because of the pace of the investigation. Mrs Redfern thought that the school did its best in the
circumstances to investigate the matter fairly.
Mrs Redfern interviewed Pupil 1 who was very straightforward in providing her explanation of
events. Pupil 1 was unaccompanied and appeared relaxed about providing her statement. Pupil 1
showed Mrs Redfern some screenshots but they were not very clear. Pupil 1 was uncomfortable
with the way the Respondent had behaved towards her and did not want to go to his class. Pupil 2
did not have a lot to add, she corroborated parts of what Pupil 1 had said. Mrs Redfern was not
concerned about the credibility of Pupil 1 or Pupil 2.
Mrs Redfern spoke to Pupil 3 about Word Feud. It was obvious that Pupil 1 had not discussed this
with him as he did not know anything about it. Pupil 3 said that the Respondent had said Pupil 1
was a “lovely” girl but was not concerned about it. Pupil 3 told Pupil 1 this around Christmas 2011.
Pupil 4 informed Mrs Redfern that Pupil 1 had told him about the Respondent talking to her on
Word Feud.
Pupils 5, 6 and 7 did not provide any further relevant information.
3
Mrs Redfern interviewed the Respondent. She felt he did not appreciate the severity of the
situation. The Respondent said that Pupil 1 had “persisted in asking me to play”. He was adamant
that it was pupils who had initiated the games and did not seem to appreciate that it was up to him
to maintain the boundaries. Mrs Redfern felt the Respondent to be evasive. When she asked if the
Respondent had used the chat facility to chat with Pupil 1, he stated, “I can’t remember if I chatted
in the Easter holidays”. Mrs Redfern felt that he knew it was his word against Pupil 1’s.
Mrs Redfern was unable to complete her investigation because of a police investigation. She would
have recommended a disciplinary hearing. In her view, the Respondent had admitted that an
inappropriate interaction had taken place. When Mrs Redfern put it to the Respondent that the
GTCS Code of Professionalism and Conduct expects teachers to maintain boundaries, he said it
was OK because the pupil had contacted him first.
The Presenting Officer asked Mrs Redfern a number of questions.
Mrs Redfern thought the comments made by the Respondent on Word Feud were inappropriate.
Pupil 1 was clearly distressed. Mrs Redfern thought the comments were highly inappropriate given
the pupil’s age and that the comments were not related to anything to do with school.
Mrs Redfern said the school made expectations very clear: the onus was on staff in relation to
using online facilities for chatting. The Respondent seemed to think it depended on the content of
the conversation and he did not think it was inappropriate. Mrs Redfern thought he was relaxed
but evasive, and that his answers were calculated.
The Presenting Officer referred Mrs Redfern to the note from Miss McDermott dated 2 May 2012
and asked whether Pupil 1 had ever said to her she was reluctant about “making a fuss”. Mrs
Redfern said, “no”. Mrs Redfern thought it took a lot for Pupil 1 to go to a member of staff and
explain her feelings. Mrs Redfern said that relaxed was the wrong word to describe Pupil 1. Pupil 1
was clear in what she was saying, but clearly distressed and upset by what she had gone through.
The Respondent’s representative asked Mrs Redfern a number of questions.
On the first page of her statement, Mrs Redfern said that she first had contact with the Respondent
in 2013 but confirmed that this was an error and that it was actually in 2008, when she started at
Carnoustie High School.
Mrs Redfern confirmed that there had been a faculty system at the school before she arrived. Mrs
Redfern was not linked to the Respondent’s faculty (Business, Computing and Technology). At one
time, the Depute Head Teacher linked to the Respondent’s faculty would have been John Anton.
Mrs Redfern had not taught alongside the Respondent and could not recall if she had observed
him teaching. Her evidence for this hearing was restricted to her role as Investigating Officer in the
school.
The Respondent’s representative asked questions about Pupil 1’s demeanour. Mrs Redfern said
Pupil 1 was not tearful but she was clearly affected. Mrs Redfern confirmed that, when asked, Pupil
4 had said Pupil 1 “seemed not too bothered” to be telling him about the Respondent contacting
her on Word Feud. Mrs Redfern confirmed that Mr Aitken had written down what Pupil 1 said to
him and had not recorded Pupil 1 being distressed. Mrs Redfern confirmed that Miss McDermott
wrote down what Pupil 1 said to her. Mrs Redfern said that if Pupil 1 had been crying that would
have been recorded. Mr Aitken and Miss McDermott both felt the need to bring matters to her
attention immediately and both felt Pupil 1 had been uncomfortable.
The Respondent’s representative asked Mrs Redfern about Pupils 5, 6 and 7. When Mrs Redfern
spoke to these pupils, she would have started by saying she was looking into something in relation
to their computing class and would have asked questions about Word Feud and Facebook. Mrs
Redfern concluded that nothing was said by Pupil 5, 6 or 7 that supported or corroborated the
4
allegations. Mrs Redfern thought those conversations were to do with the layout of the class. She
would also have asked if they attended study support.
The Respondent’s representative highlighted that Pupil 2 referred to Pupil 7 being there when
comments regarding Facebook had been made and asked whether the absence of Pupil 7
supporting that had seemed irrelevant to her at the time. Mrs Redfern said she did not know if it did
at the time. She would need to look at what had been recorded. At this stage, the record of Pupil
7’s interview with Mrs Redfern was produced by the Respondent’s representative. Mrs Redfern
had asked about Facebook because it had been mentioned by Pupil 1 and Pupil 2, but the specific
investigation she was conducting related to Word Feud.
The Respondent’s representative highlighted that Pupil 7 had stated there had been a picture of
the Respondent on Facebook and that the Respondent said he had dealt with it and had been
speaking to Pupil 1. Mrs Redfern did not follow that up.
The Respondent’s representative referred Mrs Redfern to the record of her interview with the
Respondent. He suggested that it was at odds with her assessment of him as evasive. Mrs
Redfern said she did not think she had said that the Respondent was unconcerned, she just did
not think he saw the seriousness of what was being investigated. She felt he said “I can’t
remember” when it was fairly recent. She thought the Respondent’s choice of words, that “he
regulates himself on a daily basis”, was unusual but she did not ask for clarification.
Mrs Redfern confirmed the dancing referred to was Scottish Highland dancing and that Pupil 1 was
very good at it.
At the time, Mrs Redfern didn’t know anything about Word Feud and had to look into it. She
thought it was Pupil 1 or Pupil 2 who started the discussion about playing Word Feud. Mrs Redfern
would have clarified who suggested that the Respondent join the game had it not been for the
suspension of her investigation when the police became involved.
The Presenting Officer asked Mrs Redfern some follow up questions. Mrs Redfern confirmed that
her investigation had focussed on Word Feud. Facebook had cropped up so she asked some
pupils about it. Mrs Redfern said that she would have regarded as relevant any information that
cast doubt on Pupil 1, but Pupil 5, 6 and 7 had no information about Word Feud.
Mrs Redfern said that having been in teaching for a long time, she was aware youngsters show
concern in different ways. Pupil 1 didn’t show concern outwardly such as by being tearful but she
spoke up and was clear about what she was saying.
Mrs Redfern confirmed that she did not ask Pupil 4 how much information Pupil 1 had given him.
Mrs Redfern felt it was irrelevant who initiated Word Feud as the onus sits with the teacher. If a
discussion arose in class about an online game, she would expect the conversation to be halted. In
her view, there was no situation where it would be appropriate for an online game between teacher
and pupil.
The Panel asked Mrs Redfern if Pupil 3 was in the same class as Pupil 1’s sister. Mrs Redfern said
that they were in different year groups so would not have been in the same class.
Statement of Pupil 1
The Presenting Officer read aloud Pupil 1’s statement.
Pupil 1 was a pupil at Carnoustie High School until 2013. The Respondent was Pupil 1’s
Computing Teacher during third and fourth year. In retrospect, Pupil 1 thought there were a few
things about how the Respondent acted towards her that were a bit strange. He treated her like a
favourite and said, “I wish everyone in class was like you.” Just before Christmas in 2011 the
5
Respondent said to her, “you don’t have to dye your hair, you’re a natural beauty.” In early 2012,
the Respondent asked Pupil 1 to stay after school to work on a project and said, “it’s probably best
if you come on your own”. Pupil 1 did go to the Respondent’s study group sometimes but was not
comfortable going alone. She went with Pupil 2 who was also in the class.
On another occasion, the Respondent said, “I’ll need to get you on Facebook when I retire”. The
Respondent also asked Pupil 1 for her pin for What’s App so he could contact her. Pupil 1 told the
Respondent it was not done by a pin; it was done by using the person’s phone number. The
Respondent gave her a piece of paper and a pen and asked her to give him her phone number.
Pupil 1 said she could not remember it off by heart. Pupil 1 felt really uncomfortable so she text
Pupil 2 and left the class. Pupil 1 told Pupil 2 what had happened.
Not long before the Easter holidays in 2012, Pupil 1 and Pupil 2 had got the game Word Feud on
their phones. They said to the Respondent that he should get the game to play against them and
gave him their usernames. At that time, Pupil 1 was not aware of the chat facility. Not long after
that the Respondent contacted her on Word Feud. He asked her if she had been revising for her
prelim. Pupil 1 replied, “no, I’ve been dancing” as she had been at Highland dancing. The
Respondent replied saying something like “this can be our secret”.
At the start of the Easter holidays in 2012, Pupil 1 got a message from the Respondent at about
1am. The Respondent said he was in the Lake District and had been climbing that day. He asked if
Pupil 1 was dancing in the holidays. Pupil 1 replied saying that her dancing was not on during the
holidays but that she would practice at home. The Respondent replied and said “I wish I could see
that”. When she got that message, Pupil 1 was panicking and scared.
After the holidays, Pupil 1 could not face being in the Respondent’s class and went to speak to Mr
Aitken. Pupil 1 gave a statement to the school and then to the police. The police took information
from her phone and she had screenshots of her conversations with the Respondent.
Since she left school, Pupil 1 had seen the Respondent a couple of times. Once in a bakery and
once at her work. Pupil 1 said the Respondent had also stood outside the window of her work and
looked in twice.
In early 2014, Pupil 1 saw that a friend request had been sent from her Facebook account to the
Respondent. Pupil 1 broke down crying when she saw this as she had no recollection of making
the request. Pupil 1 did not remember sending it, but could not say for certain that it was not her. It
had crossed her mind that the Respondent had got in to her account and sent it as he was a
Computing Teacher. The only other explanation she could think of was that she had sent the
request before all of this happened, but she could not remember doing that.
Statement of Pupil 2
The Presenting Officer read aloud Pupil 2’s statement.
Pupil 2 was a pupil at Carnoustie High School until 2014. The Respondent was her Computing
Teacher in third and fourth year. Pupil 2 thought it was obvious that Pupil 1 was the Respondent’s
favourite pupil. He paid most attention to her and sat next to her. Around exam time in 2012, Pupil
2 was aware of a number of things regarding the Respondent’s behaviour towards Pupil 1.
At some point in April 2012, Pupil 2 played a few games of Word Feud with the Respondent. Pupil
2 added the Respondent to Word Feud after Pupil 1 told her what his account number was. Pupil 2
and the Respondent never chatted on Word Feud.
Pupil 1 told her after class that the Respondent had commented on her hair.
Pupil 2 remembered the Respondent asking Pupil 1 about attending a study group and said that
when another named pupil attended the study group, he distracted them.
6
In around April or May 2012, Pupil 2 remembered receiving a text from Pupil 1 asking Pupil 2 to
meet her. Pupil 1 told Pupil 2 that the Respondent had asked Pupil 1 for her phone number.
Pupil 1 told Pupil 2 that the Respondent had spoken to her on Word Feud about her dancing and
sent screenshots of the conversations. The Respondent said he had been hill walking and was in
bed and asked what she was up to. Pupil 1 said that she was practicing her dancing and the
Respondent replied, “I wish I could see that ”.
The Respondent
The Respondent’s representative read aloud the Respondent’s statement.
The Respondent is retired. From 1986 until 2012, the Respondent was Principal Teacher of
Computer Education at Carnoustie High School. During the course of his career, the Respondent
was never the subject of any complaint regarding his professionalism or conduct. The Respondent
had not been the subject of any criminal enquiry prior to this matter. The Respondent found the
circumstances created by the complaint hugely stressful.
The Respondent participated in an online game of Word Feud with Pupil 1. Pupil 1 and Pupil 2 had
been playing the game during study support and challenged him to play. The Respondent fully
accepted that that decision to play was ill advised and inappropriate. It was not necessary to know
the phone number to play the game and at no time did the Respondent ask for Pupil 1’s phone
number. The Respondent made the comments to Pupil 1 on Word Feud. This was a significant
error of judgement but, he said, there was no sinister subtext to his communications.
The Respondent did not ask Pupil 1 to stay back at school on her own with him. He told all of the
pupils in his class that they would benefit from study support and to that extent all of the pupils
were asked to stay behind after school.
The Respondent did not say to other pupils that Pupil 1 was “lovely” and was his favourite pupil.
The Respondent did recollect intervening when Pupil 1’s sister’s class were entering and Pupil 1’s
class were leaving. Pupil 1’s sister was being hostile and abusive to Pupil 1 and the Respondent
asked why she felt it was necessary to behave in such an unpleasant way to Pupil 1.
The Respondent denied that he had asked Pupil 1 to be friends with him on Facebook after he
retired. Pupil 1 requested that the Respondent be friends with him on Facebook. The Respondent
did not respond to this request and did not have friends who were either pupils or former pupils.
The Respondent did not intend to undertake any further teaching work in future.
Graeme Smith
The Respondent’s representative read aloud Mr Smith’s statement.
Mr Smith was the Head of Department for Craft, Design and Technology at Carnoustie High
School until his retirement in 2009. The Respondent was already at Carnoustie High School when
Mr Smith started in 1990. His classroom was close to the Respondent’s and they worked closely
together. In addition, Mr Smith got on well with the Respondent and they both ran football teams.
Mr Smith described the Respondent as very professional. The Respondent had a good rapport
with pupils and was very good with them. The Respondent went out of his way to offer his pupils
additional study time if they needed it and used to offer that at lunchtimes and after school. This
was usually around exam times and Mr Smith would sometimes take these additional classes with
the Respondent. Mr Smith had never had any concerns about the Respondent’s fitness to teach
and was aware of the allegations made against him.
7
Paul Strachan
The Respondent’s representative read aloud Mr Strachan’s statement.
Mr Strachan is a teacher in the Chemistry Department at Carnoustie High School.
Mr Strachan described the Respondent’s teaching approach as thoroughly professional and said
that the Respondent demonstrated real care about the pupils he taught and would always go the
extra mile to help pupils. Pupils Mr Strachan had spoken to also had a high regard for the
Respondent. Mr Strachan was aware of the allegations made about the Respondent.
Sharon Couttie
The Respondent’s representative read aloud Ms Couttie’s signed statement.
Ms Couttie is the Principal Teacher of Business, Computing and Technical at Carnoustie High
School. Ms Couttie had regular contact with the Respondent as his line manager and because her
classroom was across the corridor from his.
Ms Couttie was aware of the complaint against the Respondent. In relation to the Respondent
asking Pupil 1 to stay back at school, she assumed that the Respondent would have extended an
invitation to all of the pupils in his class to stay and participate in study support. Ms Couttie was
aware that the Respondent was concerned about the numbers attending his study support and
specifically spoke to her about a fourth year class in the 2011/12 session and the strategy to deal
with the situation should only one or two pupils come along. They decided that, if that occurred, Ms
Couttie would be informed and she would stay in the vicinity. In the department there was an open
door policy so the Respondent’s door and her door would be open.
Presenting Officer’s submissions
In relation to paragraph 1(a) of the complaint, the Presenting Officer submitted that Pupil 3 had told
Mrs Redfern the truth. In the transcript, Pupil 3 was very clear about what was said and Mrs
Redfern confirmed that that is what she was told. Nothing had been put forward to suggest Pupil 3
was wrong. Pupil 1 had been made aware of the comment and said her sister’s class was told she
was the Respondent’s favourite. Pupil 2 stated that it was clear that Pupil 1 was the Respondent’s
favourite pupil. In addition, the content of the chat admitted clearly showed the Respondent had an
interest in Pupil 1 outside the classroom and it followed that the Respondent did have a special
regard for Pupil 1.
In relation to paragraph 1(d) of the complaint, the Presenting Officer highlighted that this referred to
conduct that happened between Respondent and Pupil 1 alone. The Respondent stated that this
did not happen and that he had suggested that all pupils stay behind. The Presenting Officer asked
if this made sense against the other evidence. She submitted that it was unclear whether the Panel
were being asked to infer that Pupil 1 had misinterpreted what had been said.
The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to attach weight to Pupil 1’s statement. The statement was
consistent with her account of events previously. There were some minor discrepancies such as
whether Pupil 1 had told Mrs Redfern that it was her or the Respondent who had initiated Word
Feud, however, inconsistencies of that kind was to be expected given the time elapsed and, to
some extent, she submitted, minor inconsistencies supported credibility. Pupil 1 had made every
effort to be clear about what she couldn’t recall and the level of detail would be hard to fabricate.
Against that, the Panel had the written statement of the Respondent. The Respondent’s position
appeared to be that Pupil 1 was mistaken or lying but there was nothing to suggest that Pupil 1
was mistaken or lying.
8
In relation to paragraph 1(e) of the complaint, the Presenting Officer referred to Pupil 1’s statement
which provided a high level of detail. The Respondent had simply stated that this didn’t happen. He
indicated that it was Pupil 1 who wanted to be friends with him on Facebook. Pupil 2 confirmed that
Pupil 1 text her immediately after the incident and told her she was uncomfortable about what
happened.
In terms of the assessment of credibility and reliability, the Panel had heard from Mrs Redfern and
had two witness statements. Mrs Redfern was an experienced teacher and at that time Depute
Head Teacher. She gave a very balanced assessment of the pupils and her impression of the
Respondent. In Mrs Redfern, the Panel had a highly credible and reliable witness. She had no
reason to doubt what Pupil 1 had said. She spoke of the fairness of the investigation. Mrs Redfern
found the Respondent to be evasive and calculating.
On particular allegations now admitted, the Respondent was not forthcoming and did not admit
them at the time: at the time he did not think that the comments were inappropriate. The Panel
should compare his previous position against his current position which lacked credibility.
The Presenting Officer cautioned the Panel with regards to character evidence and reminded the
Panel that the question of whether the Respondent was a good teacher was not in dispute, the
matters related to his conduct.
Respondent’s submissions
The Respondent’s representative invited the Panel to take a different view of the evidence. He
highlighted that the Panel had character evidence in relation to the Respondent who had spent 34
years as a teacher without complaint. There was a body of evidence from witnesses who were
aware of the allegations. He submitted that this provided a context in which the Respondent’s
evidence must be considered. He submitted that character evidence was relevant throughout the
process as it informed the question of probability.
In terms of the individual allegations in dispute, there was limited evidence. There were accounts
provided by Pupil 1 to Mr Aitken; Mrs Redfern; then a Maths Teacher; and then to GTCS. At some
stage, the Presenting Officer seemed to be suggesting that any vagueness or departure from the
original account should be excused by the passage of time, however, Pupil 1’s account seemed to
have grown in terms of specification despite the time.
In terms of paragraph 1(a) of the complaint, there was the account of Pupil 3. The Respondent’s
representative highlighted that nothing had been done about this at the time and that Pupil 3 was
not concerned. The Respondent recollected an exchange which took place when Pupil 1’s class
were swapping with Pupil 1’s sister’s class and the Respondent had made an intervention.
In relation to paragraph 1(d) of the complaint, that was spoken to in Pupil 1’s statement and
seemed to relate to a single incident in the context of attending a study group, which supported the
Respondent’s account. In Pupil 2’s account, there was mention of a pupil who was a distraction at
the study group. There was nothing of repeated demands or requests that Pupil 1 stay behind
alone. In the context of a teacher who had asked pupils to stay behind for study groups, which was
supported as a practice by the testimonials, there was no compelling evidence.
In relation to Facebook, the Respondent’s representative highlighted what was said by Pupil 7 and
that it did not support the accounts offered by Pupil 1 or Pupil 2. He also highlighted the friend
request actually made by Pupil 1 of the Respondent. In relation to the phone number, this was
mentioned in Pupil 1’s and Pupil 2’s statements. Looking at the account provided by Pupil 2 to Mrs
Redfern on 20 April 2012, it was not mentioned. The Respondent’s representative said that may be
surprising given that that was the contemporaneous report.
9
The Respondent’s representative said it was of significance that the evidence of Mrs Redfern that
the Respondent was evasive, was not borne out. He did answer questions in his interview and did
advise that it was plausible that messages were sent.
As part of the overall context, there was the account that Pupil 1 and Pupil 2 invited the
Respondent to join the game. According to Pupil 2, it was Pupil 1 who provided the Respondent’s
username. This was not something that the Respondent was driving or initiating and it was in the
context of a game that the communications took place. There was a pupil taking study support with
exams approaching and a comment was made about study instead of dancing. Against this
background, where there were competing accounts and the Respondent’s account is realistic, and
where a significant body of positive evidence about the Respondent’s teaching career is available,
the Respondent’s account should be accepted.
Findings of fact on the complaint
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 set out in the complaint. The Panel had
in mind that the burden of proof rested on the Presenting Officer and that the standard of proof
required was that used in civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities. The Panel also
had regard to the guidance contained in the GTCS Fact-finding in Fitness to Teach Panel
Complaint Hearings Practice Statement.
The Panel heard oral evidence from Mrs Redfern. The Panel found Mrs Redfern to be credible and
reliable. She provided her evidence in a clear and straightforward way and the Panel had no
hesitation in accepting her evidence. However, Mrs Redfern was not a direct witness to any of the
allegations set out in the complaint and could only speak to what had been reported to her during
the course of her investigation. The Panel was of the view that Mrs Redfern had conducted her
investigation in an unbiased and independent manner. Her oral evidence was supported by the
written interview records she had taken at the time of her investigation, which the Panel accepted
as accurate records of the interviews which had taken place.
The Panel also took account of the conclusions Mrs Redfern had reached during her investigation
with regards to her assessment of the demeanour and credibility of the witnesses involved,
including Pupil 1 and the Respondent. The Panel treated Mrs Redfern’s views on these matters
with caution, given that they were based solely on her personal opinions, however, the Panel noted
that her views tended to support its own conclusions regarding the pupil witnesses as set out
below in relation to the findings on each paragraph of the complaint.
In addition to the oral evidence, a number of witness statements had been provided. In assessing
this evidence, the Panel reminded itself that it had not seen these witnesses give evidence, their
evidence had not been given under oath and had not been tested by questioning. The Panel
assessed this evidence in accordance with the guidance on hearsay evidence contained within the
GTCS Fact-finding in Fitness to Teach Complaints Hearing Practice Statement.
The Panel took account of the character evidence provided by the Respondent in support of his
long and unblemished teaching career. Having regard to the advice of the Legal Assessor, the
Panel considered this evidence in its assessment of probability. However, in making its findings in
fact, the Panel attributed more weight to the evidence which was directly relevant to the allegations
than the character evidence about the Respondent.
The Panel noted that a letter dated 10 July 2013 from Helen Nisbett, Procurator Fiscal, had been
included in the Presenting Officer’s hearing papers. In the Panel’s view, the letter was too far
removed from the circumstances and lacked specificity in terms of who had been questioned, what
questions had been asked, and what the responses had been to carry much weight.
1. Paragraph 1(a) of the complaint was found proved under deletion of the words, “…and at
another time, that Pupil 1 was your ‘favourite pupil’”.
10
The Respondent denied making either statement. However, in his statement he recollected an
incident involving Pupil 1’s sister behaving unpleasantly towards Pupil 1. In April 2012, when
interviewed by Mrs Redfern, the Respondent was recorded as saying, “’lovely’ is not a word that I
use”. In the same interview, the Respondent also described an occasion where Pupil 1’s sister
made the comment, “you’ve got my sister, what’s she like?” and the Respondent possibly
commented “yes, I like Pupil 1 because she works hard.”
It was recorded by Mr Aitken that, in her initial report to him, Pupil 1 said that the Respondent had
been talking about her to other people, including telling Pupil 3 how lovely she was and telling her
sister’s class that she was his favourite pupil in the whole school. These instances of the
Respondent talking about Pupil 1 to other pupils were also recorded in Mrs Redfern’s interview
notes from her interview with Pupil 1.
Mrs Redfern was told by Pupil 3 that the Respondent had said that Pupil 1 was a “lovely” girl to
him. This was also recorded in the meeting notes she had taken at the time of her interview with
Pupil 3. This had arisen when pupils asked the Respondent if there was anyone good in the
Respondent’s other fourth year class and, in response, the Respondent mentioned a couple of
pupils first and then said Pupil 1, and that she was a lovely girl.
On balance, the Panel found that the Respondent had said to other pupils that Pupil 1 was “lovely”.
The Panel accepted the evidence of Mrs Redfern that Pupil 3 had told her that. This was supported
by Mrs Redfern’s interview notes with Pupil 3, which the Panel also accepted. The Panel accepted
the evidence of what Pupil 1 had reported contained within Mr Aitken’s note and Mrs Redfern’s
interview record. Pupil 1’s account on both occasions was consistent with the account provided by
Pupil 3 in that Pupil 3 had told Pupil 1 about the comment. In the Panel’s view, there was no
evidence to suggest that Pupil 3 had any reason to make up the comment. In his interview with Mrs
Redfern, he was clear about the circumstances surrounding the comment and did not seek to
exaggerate the circumstances or suggest that the comment had been concerning in anyway: he
took the comment generally and agreed that Pupil 1 was lovely. In the Panel’s view, all of these
factors lent credibility to Pupil 3’s account.
The Panel did not consider that there was sufficient evidence, on balance, of the Respondent
having said to other pupils that Pupil 1 was his “favourite pupil”. The only evidence in support of
this was what Pupil 1 had reported to Mr Aitken and Mrs Redfern. The Panel was of the view that
little weight should be placed on this evidence as it was unclear how Pupil 1 had become aware of
this particular remark and whether, for instance, her sister had told her that the Respondent had
said she was his “favourite pupil” in class or whether it was from another source.
2. As set out above, the Respondent admitted paragraphs 1(b) and (c) of the complaint and these
were found proved.
3. Paragraph 1(d) of the complaint was found not proved.
The evidence in support of this paragraph of the complaint was primarily that of Pupil 1. In addition
to Pupil 1’s witness statement, where she recalled one specific such incident, it was recorded by
Mr Aitken that Pupil 1 had stated “he keeps asking me to stay on my own”. Pupil 1 was also
recorded as saying this by Mrs Redfern in her interview notes. However, Pupil 1’s reports to Mr
Aitken and Mrs Redfern did not include any specific detail of what the Respondent had said or
when.
The Panel accepted Pupil 2’s evidence in relation to the Respondent asking Pupil 1 to attend study
support. However, there was nothing in Pupil 2’s evidence specifically regarding Pupil 1 being
asked to attend alone. Another pupil was mentioned as being a distraction, but it was unclear from
Pupil 2’s statement whether this was in the context of study support generally or whether she took
it to be implied that the Respondent was asking Pupil 1 to attend on her own.
11
The Panel accepted the record of Pupil 7’s interview, which confirmed that he had attended study
support.
The Respondent’s position was that he invited all pupils to stay behind after school to participate in
study groups. The Panel accepted Ms Couttie’s evidence, which supported the Respondent’s
position in that she had been aware of the Respondent operating study support at that time and, in
particular with Pupil 1’s class. Ms Couttie and the Respondent had also agreed a strategy to deal
with the situation should only one or two pupils attend the study group and had an open door policy
within the department.
On balance, the Panel could not find this paragraph of the complaint proved. The Panel had not
had the benefit of oral evidence from either the Respondent or Pupil 1 and their accounts in
relation to this paragraph of the complaint had not been tested by questioning. In assessing the
evidence, the Panel required to have regard to the other evidence available. The Respondent’s
explanation that he had offered study support to all pupils was supported by Ms Couttie’s evidence.
This was further supported by the evidence of the pupils, which was that there had been study
support available and that it was attended by pupils in Pupil 1’s class. Against this context, the
Panel could not find this paragraph of the complaint proved based solely on the evidence of Pupil
1, which, in the Panel’s view, was not supported by any other evidence.
The Panel recorded that this finding did not mean that it found Pupil 1 to have made up these
remarks or in any way reported them dishonestly. However, the Panel noted that there was the
possibility that Pupil 1 could have misinterpreted any request the Respondent made of her to
attend the study group given her feeling that she had been singled out and favouritised by the
Respondent.
4. Paragraph 1(e) of the complaint was found proved.
The Panel first considered whether the Respondent had asked Pupil 1 to be friends with him on
Facebook when he retired and, on balance, found this to be proved.
The Panel accepted the evidence of Pupil 1. Her account provided in her statement was consistent
with the interview notes recorded by Mrs Redfern, the note recorded by Mr Aitken and the notes
recorded by Miss McDermott. Pupil 1’s evidence was supported by the interview notes Mrs
Redfern had taken at the time of her interview with Pupil 2. Both Pupil 1 and Pupil 2 had reported
the Respondent making that remark. The Panel could see no reason why either Pupil 1 or Pupil 2
would fabricate this allegation. In the Panel’s view, the fact that Pupil 1 and Pupil 2 both recalled
the specific detail that the comment related to after the Respondent had retired supported this
conclusion.
The Panel considered the record of Pupil 7’s interview. Pupil 7 did not refer to having heard the
Respondent ask Pupil 1 to be friends with him on Facebook when he retired, however, Pupil 7 had
stated that the Respondent had spoken to Pupil 1 about Facebook.
The Respondent denied this allegation and suggested that it had been Pupil 1 who had requested
that the Respondent be his friend. The Panel saw that Pupil 1 had made a friend request of the
Respondent in the screenshot the Respondent had provided. However, the Panel did not think that
this was relevant to its determination of whether or not the Respondent had asked Pupil 1 to be
friends with him on Facebook when he retired. In the Panel’s view, the allegation related to the
Respondent asking Pupil 1 about it not that he had used Facebook to make a Facebook “Friend
Request”.
The Panel next considered whether the Respondent had asked Pupil 1 for her mobile phone
number in order to contact her on What’s App.
The Panel preferred Pupil 1’s account in relation to this incident. The Respondent had denied that
he had ever asked Pupil 1 for her phone number. Pupil 1’s account in her statement to GTCS was
12
consistent with her accounts at the time to Mr Aitken and Mrs Redfern. In the Panel’s view, the
specific detail provided by Pupil 1 regarding details such as the explanation of a “pin” not being
required for the app was credible and had the ring of truth. The Panel thought that the level of
detail provided in relation to this incident would be difficult to fabricate.
The Panel accepted Pupil 2’s account that Pupil 1 text her at the time and told her about the
incident, which supported Pupil 1’s version of events. The Panel noted that, whilst this had not
been mentioned by Pupil 2 in her interview at the time with Mrs Redfern, she had not been asked
about it at that time. As a result, the Panel did not consider that this inconsistency in any way
diminished Pupil 2’s credibility.
Findings on fitness to teach
Given that the Panel found that some of the allegations set out in the complaint were proved, the
Panel invited the parties to lead evidence and make submissions in relation to the Respondent’s
fitness to teach.
Presenting Officer’s submissions
The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the GTCS Indicative Outcomes Guidance and the
Code of Professionalism and Conduct (“COPAC”) 2008 and 2012. She submitted that the
Respondent had breached parts 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
The Presenting Officer said that the Respondent had shown too much interest in Pupil 1 and had
put her in a position where, after four months, she had to bring this to the attention of the school
and police.
The Presenting Officer left it to the Panel to determine whether it was possible to remedy the type
of conduct exhibited and submitted that there were indicators of a lack of insight or remorse by the
Respondent.
The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel to consider the public interest. She said that the Panel
may be invited to consider the fact that the Respondent was retired, which the Panel should treat
with caution as, without any finding of impairment, the Respondent would be able to return to work.
The Presenting Officer asked the Panel to consider that the Respondent was described as
calculating and evasive and sought to transfer responsibility to Pupil 1. For reasons unknown, the
Respondent decided to contact Pupil 1 at night when she was asleep about her dancing. The
Respondent had insufficient insight into the impact of his actions: Pupil 1 had removed herself from
his classes, there was a criminal investigation and Pupil 1 had to engage with GTCS. The
Respondent’s immediate reaction was to blame Pupil 1: he stated she was persistent and that he
was caught off guard. The Respondent had further sought to show that it was Pupil 1 who
contacted him on Facebook, which showed an ongoing lack of insight in relation to his duty to
maintain boundaries.
The Presenting Officer submitted that if a finding of no impairment was made confidence would be
lost in GTCS and the teaching profession.
The Presenting Officer referred to the GTCS Indicative Outcomes Guidance on character
evidence.
The Presenting Officer asked the Panel to consider whether the Respondent’s conduct was
fundamentally incompatible with being a teacher.
13
Respondent’s submissions
The Respondent’s representative reminded the Panel that it must look forward to protect and not
be punitive. The Respondent retired four years ago and had not taught in the interim even although
there had been no Temporary Restriction Order fettering his ability to teach. The Respondent had
provided evidence of an unblemished career for an extended period, which the Panel should take
into account.
The Respondent’s representative asked the Panel to consider the public need given these
allegations were being brought against someone with an extended career and who had retired. He
said that being rational and proportionate, it could be questioned whether there was a need to
make a finding of impairment.
There was no conduct which post-dated the matters found established. To the extent that a retired
person has the opportunity to remedy conduct, there was insight in the approach which had been
taken to this process by the Respondent and it was clear in the Respondent’s statement that the
communications were inappropriate and should not have been sent. There was no likelihood of
recurrence.
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 Respondent’s fitness to teach. The Panel addressed the relevant
considerations in relation to fitness to teach, as outlined in the GTCS Indicative Outcomes
Guidance.
The Panel was aware that the fitness to teach process is intended to be protective and not punitive
and noted that the Respondent had clearly expressed his wish to remove himself from the Register
and that, furthermore, he had been retired and had not worked for some years. Nonetheless, the
Panel was required to consider the relevant factors in determining fitness to teach regardless of the
Respondent’s own intentions, upon which it could place little weight.
In determining whether the Respondent had fallen short of the standards expected at the time of
the complaint, the Panel had regard to COPAC 2008 and 2012. The Panel noted that parts of the
complaint fell under COPAC 2008 and parts under COPAC 2012, however, the Panel also noted
that the parts of COPAC it was alleged the Respondent had breached (1.2, 1.3 and 1.4) were
identical in both versions.
The Panel first considered whether the Respondent’s conduct fell short of the standards expected
and found that the Respondent had fallen significantly short of parts 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of COPAC. In
the Panel’s view, some of the conduct in isolation such as calling a pupil “lovely”, whilst ill-advised,
might not breach COPAC, however, it felt that certain aspects of the conduct found proved were
serious and concerning. The Panel was particularly concerned about the communications which
had been sent by the Respondent on Word Feud. The Panel felt that the timing of the
communications was inappropriate in that they were sent on evenings and during the holidays. In
the transcript produced in the Joint Minute of Agreement, it could be seen that on one occasion the
Respondent sent three consecutive messages to Pupil 1 before receiving a reply. The final
message being “You there?”. These particular messages were sent to Pupil 1 at around 1am. The
Panel also found the content of the communications to be wholly inappropriate and the Panel felt
that the comment set out at paragraph 1(c)(i) of the complaint was disturbing in that the
Respondent referred to the communication as “our secret”.
The Panel was of the view that the conduct was made more serious by the fact that it spanned a
period of around 4 months, constituting a pattern of behaviour directed at an individual pupil.
On the whole, the Panel determined that the allegations found proved represented a complete
disregard on the part of the Respondent of his duty to maintain appropriate professional
14
boundaries, avoid improper contact or relationships with pupils and respect his position of trust as
a teacher. The Respondent had failed to uphold proper standards of personal conduct and had
engaged in conduct which called his fitness to teach into question and resulted in a police
investigation.
The Panel next considered whether the conduct could be remedied, whether it had been remedied
and whether there was a likelihood of recurrence. In the Panel’s view, the conduct described could
potentially be remedied if appropriate remedial steps were taken. However, whilst there had been
no repetition, no evidence had been provided that the Respondent had taken any steps to remedy
his conduct. In his statement, the Respondent said that his decision to play pupils on Word Feud
was “ill advised” and that he appreciated that “communicating in this way with a pupil was
inappropriate and represents a significant error of judgement on my part.” The Panel was not
satisfied that this demonstrated sufficient insight by the Respondent or that he had properly
acknowledged his actions or the impact of them on the pupil involved.
The Panel also considered the public interest and was the view that, in light of the seriousness of
the conduct and the lack of any steps by the Respondent to remedy the conduct, the public would
lose confidence in teaching as a profession and GTCS as a regulator were a finding of unfitness to
teach not made.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Respondent’s conduct
falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher and that he is therefore
unfit to teach.
Disposal
As the Panel determined that the Respondent is unfit to teach, in accordance with the terms of
Article 18(2)(b) of the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011,
it directed that the Respondent be removed from the Register.
Once the Respondent has been removed from the Register, the Respondent remains so removed
unless and until an application for re-registration is made by him and a Fitness to Teach Panel
directs that the application be granted. The Panel directed that the Respondent should be
prohibited from making an application for re-registration for a period of one year from the date of its
decision. The Panel considered that a shorter time period was inappropriate because of the
seriousness of the conduct and the lack of insight shown by the Respondent. However, the Panel
considered that a longer time period was not necessary in the circumstances. The Respondent had
indicated that he did not wish to teach again and, in any event, even if the Respondent were to
make an application for re-registration, that application would be considered by a panel and the
Respondent would only be re-registered if that Panel was satisfied at that time that the Respondent
was fit to teach.
Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007
The Panel decided not to exercise its discretion to make a referral under section 8 of the Protection
of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 in order that Scottish Ministers may consider whether or
not the Respondent should be barred from working with children or protected adults. The Panel
considered whether Pupil 1 had been psychologically harmed or had been at risk of being
psychologically harmed, however, having regard to the terms of the Protection of Vulnerable
Groups (Scotland) Act 2007, the Panel was not satisfied that that any ground of referral had been
met.
15
Appeal
The Respondent will receive written notice of this decision within 14 days and has the right to
appeal to the Court of Session against the decision within 28 days of the date of service of that
written notice.
The Respondent will remain on the Register until the appeal period has expired and any appeal
lodged within that period has been determined.
16