A teacher who was convicted of head-butting a colleague at a Lanarkshire school will remain in the classroom after receiving conditions and a reprimand following a hearing.
Russ Johnston attacked his colleague, who was also his line manager, at Chryston High School in November 2018 and later fined for his actions at Airdrie Sheriff Court in November 2019.
Mr Johnston did not attend the hearing after emailing General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTC Scotland) stating that "his professional union had withdrawn from representing him and that he would therefore not be attending the hearing and would not be represented at it." He instead chose to provided a written submission to the panel on the allegations.
READ MORE: Glasgow Jet2 flight in emergency landing after 'drunk passenger peed in cabin frightened children’
The allegations against Mr Johnston read: "On November 29, 2019, the teacher was convicted at Airdrie Sheriff Court of: Behaving in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear and alarm in that he did shout, swear and utter a threat of violence towards Colleague A contrary to section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010; and Assaulting Colleague A by butting him on the head and pushing him on the head with his head, all to his injury. And in respect of the above convictions the Teacher was sentenced to pay a fine of £400."
However, despite his conviction, Mr Johnson "made some admissions regarding shouting at, but not head-butting" his colleague.
The colleague attacked by Mr Johnston also provided evidence for the hearing, stating that he was left "dazed and confused" by the incident.
The report read: "He explained that he was the Teacher’s line manager at the time of the allegations. Colleague A said he had some concerns about the Teacher, who would frequently challenge him and his abilities. He said he was frequently verbally abused by the Teacher and that he reported matters and had found the Teacher difficult to manage.
"Colleague A described the incident on November 5, 2018 when the teacher swore and shouted at him and then head-butted him, causing injury to his face and nose. Colleague A told the Panel that he had been injured by the head-butt from the teacher and had been left with a mark on his nose and head. He said he had been left dazed and confused. He was shocked by the assault and later reported the incident to the police.
"He explained that he had inadvertently audio-recorded the incident on his mobile telephone, as he had been about to record some notes as a reminder of things to do later, when the incident occurred.
"The matter proceeded to trial and the teacher was found guilty and convicted of assault on November 29, 2019 at Airdrie Sheriff Court. Colleague A referred to the Extract Conviction from Airdrie Sheriff Court and said that the conviction had made him feel vindicated and validated his concerns and experience of the teacher."
The colleague's evidence was described as "open, credible and reliable" by the GTC Scotland panel.
The report continued: "The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague A, whose evidence it found was open, credible and reliable. It found he was consistent and professional in giving his evidence.
"He was the victim of the criminal assault, and his account was supported by the audio-recording in relation to the argument which took place, and was consistent with the Extract Conviction. The Panel accepted his evidence."
In an email responding to the evidence, the report states that Mr Johnston said: "There were two contributing factors: his poor relationship with his line manager and his state of mind at the time. He explained that his life was now simpler, resulting in him being less stressed and no longer taking medication. He expressed his desire to do some supply teaching before he retired, and to keep working for the charity for which he volunteered."
The Presenting Officer described Mr Johnston's conduct as "serious" and said he was "not fit to teach".
The report stated: "The Presenting Officer submitted that the conduct was serious as the teacher had fundamentally misunderstood his responsibilities and his conduct was substantially below what was acceptable. The statements and written submissions from the Teacher showed little insight or remorse and gave rise to a risk of repetition.
"She submitted that he had offered no insight and sought to abdicate responsibility. He had not provided any references or testimonials attesting to his good character. She submitted that the Teacher had acted in a way that fell significantly short of what is expected and was not fit to teach. She submitted that his actions were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register."
However, despite finding that Mr Johnston had "undermined public confidence in the profession and damaged the reputation of the profession", the panel concluded it "was not fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher".
The report stated: "The Panel took account of the teacher’s written submissions. Although he had not accepted or demonstrated remorse for the assault on Colleague A, he had shown some limited insight and had said that he would handle matters differently in future. He had expressed regret and apologised to Colleague A for his language and verbal abuse. He accepts that he ‘lost control’."
However, the panel also acknowledged there was "a risk of repetition of the conduct" as Mr Johnston "lacked sufficient insight and understanding of his conduct".
The panel decided to impose a Conditional Registration Order (CRO) alongside a reprimand on Mr Johnston for two years.
Their decision stated: "The Panel had found that the teacher had the potential to respond to conditions and to remedy his practice. This is a serious case which involved conduct and behaviour that resulted in a criminal conviction. To sufficiently reflect the nature and gravity of this case, the Panel decided that a CRO and a reprimand were required and were the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case. That sanction would sufficiently mark the seriousness of the case, protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulator.
"The Panel found it was able to devise realistic, workable, and proportionate conditions that would serve to protect the public and maintain public confidence. The Panel was able to formulate conditions that it was satisfied sufficiently manage any risks by requiring the teacher to be monitored and to provide reports when he works, to have support from a mentor and which also require the teacher to undertake training and to reflect and develop insight into his conduct, behaviour and well-being."
READ NEXT:
Glasgow couple needed for job on beautiful Scottish island in 'dramatic and pristine wilderness'
Port Glasgow dad murdered daughter's boyfriend in horror attack after losing control over messy flat
Woman and pet dog die in horror crash on A82 Loch Lomond as road closed for eight hours
Dog stolen from outside Glasgow McDonald's as owner buys him chicken nugget 'good boy' treat
Earliest date Celtic can win the title as Hoops take another step towards Premiership crown
