A “highly experienced” primary teacher in Scotland has been cleared to stay in the profession despite having taken a picture of a pupil “in a state of undress”.

The teacher was also found to have tickled a pupil while they were in his bunk bed and wearing pyjamas, and gone into a shower room with a pupil to wash the student’s jacket while the pupil was wearing the jacket and underpants. Other allegations were found unproven.

A General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) fitness-to-teach panel decided that the teacher’s actions amounted to “misconduct”, but that it was “remediable”. Members of the panel noted that the lawyer presenting the case against the teacher had said there was no sexual or other sinister motive to his behaviour.

The panel, which granted the teacher anonymity, noted that he admitted to taking a photograph of a pupil while the student was in his bed and without his consent, and accepted this was inappropriate although he denied that the pupil was in a “state of undress” and maintained that they had been wearing a dark “gorilla onesie”.

He had shown another teacher on the trip the photograph of the pupil, “who appeared to be asleep with his legs and feet on the bed with his upper body out of the bed with his bottom on the floor”. This teacher “was very clear this was the position Pupil D was in and that he was wearing boxer shorts and a T-shirt which had ridden up, so exposing his bare midriff”.

The second teacher, who was “shocked” by the photo, later contacted the police to notify them of his concerns about it.

The teacher at the centre of the allegations was found by the GTCS panel to have gone alone with another pupil into a shower room, after the student had already showered. He then instructed the pupil to put on a dirty waterproof jacket and washed it while the student was otherwise only wearing underpants.

The teacher admitted momentarily tickling another pupil under the chin or at the top of his chest through a duvet in front of other pupils, because the student “was being more talkative than normal”.

The GTCS panel decided that “the proven allegations did amount to misconduct, including as they did the washing of pupils wearing dirty clothing in a shower and the taking of a photograph of a pupil in a state of undress without his consent and where there was no educational value in doing so”.

The panel stated that “there was no justification for taking the photograph whatsoever” and that, in doing so, “the teacher did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries and failed to respect Pupil D’s privacy”.

In relation to events in the shower room, the panel stated that he “should have known not to take such action”, but it “did not consider that, at the time or subsequently, the pupils were frightened or distressed” and “accepted that the teacher had no improper motive and acted in the way that he did simply to clean the waterproofs”.

In relation to the incident in which he tickled a pupil, the panel decided “that this did not of itself amount to misconduct”, noting that “there was no suggestion of any harm” to the pupil - this was “confirmed by his mother” - and that “the tickling was done momentarily when the teacher was responding to Pupil C being more talkative and encouraging him to feel more confident”.

The panel found that the teacher’s behaviour had caused two pupils to feel uncomfortable and had the potential to cause harm or distress to another pupil - the one he had taken a photograph of - and that he had “fallen short of the standards expected of a registered teacher”.

However, the panel decided that that “the misconduct was remediable” and that his “fitness to teach is not currently impaired”.

The panel noted that the presenting officer - the lawyer making the case against the teacher - accepted that “there was no sexual or other sinister motive to his behaviour”. The panel noted that the teacher had “tickled Pupil C playfully whilst speaking to him and had taken the photo of Pupil D as a joke to encourage him to get out of bed when he believed Pupil D to be pretending to sleep”.

The teacher had also “remedied the misconduct” and there had been no repetition or any other adverse incidents since. The panel noted the teacher’s “contrition” and “obvious distress at what had occurred” - the various investigations had a “serious effect” on his health - and that he intended to never go on another school trip again. He was “now very wary of any physical contact with pupils and would never physically touch a pupil where it could be avoided”.

The panel also found that “the misconduct was highly unlikely to recur”. The teacher was “highly experienced” and had never previously been subject to a GTCS referral. He had been suspended by the school, but had since returned to work at another school, where he was “clearly respected and popular with pupils, parents and staff”; a number of colleagues “spoke in the highest terms of his professionalism and teaching abilities”.

Although “pupils had felt uncomfortable due to the teacher’s conduct and had required to be interviewed by police and social work as a result”, the panel found that the proven allegations “were not sufficiently serious to justify a finding of impairment of fitness to teach on public interest grounds alone” and that “No improper motive on the part of the teacher had been alleged.”

The teacher’s request for anonymity was granted by the panel, as being identified “was likely to have a significantly adverse impact on the teacher’s health and his ability to cope”.

His legal representative submitted that the teacher lived in a small community in which it would be easy to work out his identity, which “would have a significant impact on his ability to continue to teach within that community”.

The panel decided that such “factors outweighed the public interest in the reporting of the teacher’s identity”.