Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The pursuer, Deborah Scott, is aged 23, having been born on 7 September 1974. Just before her 12th birthday she entered the first year secondary of the Royal High School in Edinburgh. Quite a few of her friends at her primary school went with her to the Royal High School. The guidance teacher allocated to her in August 1986 was Mr Douglas Patterson. The Royal High School has what is referred to as a vertical system for guidance teachers. That means that the guidance teacher remains with the pupil as the pupil progresses upward in the school. So, Douglas Patterson remained the pursuers' guidance teacher until she left the Royal High School in September 1989 as a result of a serious incident of bullying which I will relate later in this opinion. There were ten guidance teachers at the Royal High School, headed by Mrs Margaret Garvie, one of four Assistant Rectors at the school. She retired from the teaching profession in April 1989. Throughout the pursuer's period at the school the Deputy Rector was Dr John Murray who still occupies that post at the school.

The pursuer in evidence said that her experience in the first year at the Royal High School was quite normal. Douglas Patterson noted in her records following an interview on 29 October 1986, that the pursuer was "cheerful, open, enjoys socialising with pals more than real 'hobbies' - ambition to be a hairdresser or cook (mother's advice)." In fact, since the age of 18 the pursuer has been a hairdresser. In April 1988 in the course of her second year four boys in her year began taunting her by calling her names. They kept this up, both on the way to and from school and also in school, through the summer term and into the autumn term 1988. Throughout April, May and June 1988 the pursuer truanted from school with a friend, Rachel Jenkins. It would appear that the school did not realise that this was happening. Before the summer holidays she told her mother about the taunting but her mother did not draw that to the attention of the school. On 21 September 1988 the pursuer was discovered by Rachel Jenkins in a very upset state as a result of the taunting she had suffered. Her friend told her that it had gone on too long and that she should tell someone about it. So the pursuer went to see the Assistant Head Teacher, Mrs Garvie, just before lunchtime on that day. She was crying as she told Mrs Garvie what the boys had said to her and who they were. She also told Mrs Garvie that it had gone on for a while. She returned to her afternoon classes as normal. She did not go to Mr Patterson as her guidance teacher because, she said, he was very weak and kept very poor discipline with children.

Mrs Garvie recalled the pursuer coming alone into her office, and crying, at the end of the lunch break. She gave her paper tissues and calmed her down. She asked her what the problem was. Four boys, the pursuer said, whom she named, were saying nasty things and calling her names which referred to her size and shape. According to Mrs Garvie, the pursuer did not say how long it had gone on. Mrs Garvie understood that she had been taunted during the lunch break. She tried to make sure that the pursuer had calmed down before she returned to class. She told the pursuer that she would speak to the boys and warn them about their behaviour, and she asked the pursuer to tell her if there was any repetition. She then sent for the boys individually. To each of them she expressed her severe disappointment. She told them that their behaviour was totally unacceptable. In each case she issued a formal warning which was lodged in their school records. The boys accepted that what the pursuer said about their conduct was true. Two of them were crying during their interviews. Mrs Garvie then wrote a note to Mr Patterson about the incident and put it in his pigeon hole. He was the guidance teacher not only of Deborah but also of two of the boys. At that point Mrs Garvie said that if Deborah had not come back to her, she would assume that all was well. Mr Patterson, she said, contacted her in the staff room on the following morning and she gave him a full account of what had happened and what she had done.

When the pursuer left at the end of afternoon school she was followed by the same boys. Some words were shouted. They said that she was a clipe. She said that she cried all the way home and was still crying when she reached home. She had spoken to the teacher and she did not know what else she could do. So she went into the kitchen of her home and took about 40 of her mother's antihistamine tablets. She wanted to kill herself, she said, and did not know any other way out. About 11/2 hours later her mother arrived home. The pursuer told her that she had taken all the tablets in an attempt to kill herself. Her parents immediately took her to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary where she was treated and remained for a couple of hours. She was off school for about a week.

On the day after the pursuer had taken the overdose her father visited the school. According to Mrs Garvie, he came unannounced and was very angry. He came straight into her office. He told Mrs Garvie that his daughter had taken an overdose of tablets. Mrs Garvie said that he was very aggressive towards her and very angry. When she asked him how Deborah was, he said "fine". He asked her what was to be done with the two boys. He wanted them expelled. He told her that the family doctor had been involved and that he and his wife would look after Deborah. He expressed himself in a very forceful manner. Indeed, she felt threatened by him. Her job was to sort out the boys, according to the pursuer's father. At the back of her mind was the idea of getting extra support or arranging for an external referral. But, given his attitude, she found it impossible to raise these possibilities with the pursuer's father. "We'll look after Debbie" he repeated, adding again that they had the support of their general practitioner. She, Mrs Garvie, should get on with her job at school. Mrs Garvie knew that the general practitioner had good relations with the school. She did not communicate with him because she thought that he would contact the school's own doctor. That, however, did not happen. Nevertheless, Mrs Garvie felt that the pursuer needed ongoing support, at least at school. She had noted from the school records that in the pursuer's educational past her parents had not been sympathetic to discipline at school. Mrs Garvie also knew that there were matrimonial difficulties between the pursuer's parents which later led to their separation. So she thought that she and Mr Patterson should try to establish a reasonable working relationship with the pursuer's mother. Following the meeting with the pursuer's father Mrs Garvie about one or two days later discussed the pursuer's case with Mr Patterson over 25-30 minutes. They agreed that they would keep an eye on the pursuer in the context of the school. Mr Patterson would have a quiet word with all the pursuer's teachers about the pursuer and Mr Patterson would be around every morning. They wanted to see her settle back into school routine, rather than draw attention to her. Mrs Garvie saw the pursuer when she returned to school. She told her what she had done with the boys and invited her to report if anything else happened.

Mr Douglas Patterson, who is aged 49, graduated in 1970 and obtained his postgraduate teaching qualification from Moray House in 1972. He began his teaching career in 1973 as an assistant teacher in modern languages at the Royal High School where he has remained. In November 1977 he was appointed one of ten guidance teachers. In 1979/80 he obtained a qualification in guidance from Moray House. The person he went to on the staff for assistance and advice was the Assistant Head Teacher, Mrs Garvie. The pursuer was from the first assigned to him as a guidance teacher. She was, he thought, in his class for social education and that class met once a week. Until Mrs Garvie spoke to him following the incident on 21 September 1988, he had no knowledge that the pursuer had difficulty in relationships. On Friday 23 September 1988 Mrs Garvie explained fully to him what had happened to the pursuer and what had passed between her (Mrs Garvie) and the pursuer's father. He and Mrs Garvie discussed what should happen in the school in relation to the pursuer. He was concerned about what had happened to the pursuer because it had led to such seriousness, but he was reassured to some extent by Mr Scott's reaction. (Mr Scott is the pursuer's father). He had said that the pursuer would return to school on Monday and that the school should not concern itself with what was a medical matter which had been dealt with. Mrs Garvie had said that she had dealt with the boys concerned. He was confident the matter would not be repeated. The pursuer's father, according to Mrs Garvie, did not wish any publicity to be given in the school to what had happened to his daughter. Rather, the matter should be dealt with in a low key way. Mrs Garvie and he, therefore, decided to deal with it in that way. So no immediate action required to be taken. But it was agreed that he, Mr Patterson, would maintain closer oversight of the pursuer by visiting her form class and, generally, being alert to signals. Meeting with the pursuer would not be helpful: her father did not want that. A more active approach would nevertheless be taken, in accordance with what Mrs Garvie had proposed. That did not in his view mean that an education psychologist should be involved. She had no learning or behavioural difficulties, and any further medical matters could be dealt with by her general practitioner.

He recalled speaking to the pursuer after she returned to school. These were brief conversations and not specific, arranged meetings. He would meet the pursuer, for instance, in the corridor. In the months which followed, he sought to make her aware that he was interested and concerned. He was a regular visitor to her class and she seemed to be responding normally. Sometimes the pursuer spoke to him, although he had no memory of any lengthy conversation. Generally he was reassured by her appearance and response.

He agreed in cross-examination that he was conscious that the pursuer could be a vulnerable child. That was why he had written in her notes (23/1 at page 2) that he was concerned that she was the more vulnerable to the boys attentions because of her own personality/behaviour/reaction. He also noted at the time that on her return to school she seemed quite normal. He did not think that in view of her father's attitude he should have the pursuer assessed by an educational psychologist. Nor did he think that he should take the advice of an educational psychologist. In his view he felt that he had sufficient experience in that area, and that it was not helpful to seek that particular assistance at that time. When he was asked if he considered it appropriate that she received counselling, he replied that that would have constituted the kind of intervention her father had made clear he did not want. Even if the educational psychologist had advised on a course and frequency of meetings which might encourage a culture in which the pursuer might reveal things in confidence, to have accepted such advice, Mr Patterson said, would not in his view have been to act in the spirit of what Mrs Garvie had arranged with her parents. Similarly, when he was asked if in the aftermath of the pursuer's overdose there was a need for one-to-one interviews, he replied that that need was determined by the pursuer's father. They would not have been compatible with what he wanted for his daughter. For his part he did not think it prudent to arrange such meetings, even in a low key manner. As for any meeting with her parents, that matter was closed by the meeting Mr Scott had with Mrs Garvie. The pursuer's parents, he understood from Mrs Garvie, wanted to put the matter behind them. He did, however, accept that if a child was vulnerable to bullying, that child would be susceptible to further bullying. He did not think that, if the correct atmosphere had been set for reporting bullying, a child would thereafter be accused of cliping. In theory, though, a child could be ostracised. In the pursuer's case he was sensitive to any signals she gave.

Before proceeding to consider the events which occurred subsequently to the pursuer's return to school on Monday 26 September 1988 I would like to say something about the school's two principal witnesses, Mrs Garvie and Mr Patterson. Mrs Garvie impressed me as a strong personality who, as a teacher at least, would stand little nonsense. She struck me as highly experienced, and she was very clear in the views which she expressed. As I have already said, her connection with the school ended when she left in April 1989. Mr Patterson, I have to say, impressed me less favourably. He was very tense, restless and nervous on the first day when he gave evidence, but he improved greatly when he returned to give evidence after the intervention of the weekend. His general nervousness, however, did not detract from the fact that in my judgement he did not minimise the importance of what had happened to the pursuer. It was apparent that he desired to do his best for her as her guidance teacher along the lines which he had discussed and agreed with Mrs Garvie. It was also very apparent to me that what dominated the consideration which Mrs Garvie and Mr Patterson gave to the problem which the pursuer had presented, were the strong views which the pursuer's father, Mr Scott, had expressed as to how he wished it to be handled. Mr Scott did not give evidence, and I accept what Mrs Garvie said in evidence about his views.

I return now to a narrative of what happened to the pursuer in the period from 26 September 1988 to 7 September 1989. On the first day she returned to school, namely 26 September 1988, she was seen by Mrs Garvie who told her that she had seen the boys and told them not to do it again. If they caused trouble, the pursuer should let her know. She confirmed that Mr Patterson spoke to her also some time after she had returned to school, and asked if she was alright. The taunting of her stopped until an incident at sports day in April 1989 when an uncomplimentary remark, "Run, Fatty, Run", was shouted at her. She did not report this. In that period fellow pupils did not speak to her because they said that she had told on the boys in September. She began truanting in Spring 1988 with Rachel Jenkins, and truanted more regularly in her third year which she attributed to what had then happened to her. In that year, especially after March 1989, she truanted with other pupils, including some of those who had taunted her. According to the pursuer, Mr Patterson only spoke to her once about truanting.

On 28 June 1989 at lunchtime the pursuer recounted being at the back of the PE block on the day before term ended. One of her fellow female pupils tied her shoelaces together, while other girls pushed her down on the grass. They then pulled her T-shirt and bra off, and held her arms open so that her breasts were visible. Boys were in the vicinity and would have seen what had happened. She was, she said, held against a wall in this state for 5 or 10 minutes. Later that afternoon, when in class, boys shouted out that her breasts were abnormal. At the end of that day, when she was going to the back gate of the school to catch a bus, a girl poured spaghetti over her head, forcing her to go home rather than into town. She did not report any of these events to Mrs Garvie or to Mr Patterson because she thought that to do so would only make matters worse for herself. She told her brother only about having spaghetti poured over her head. She felt ashamed, she said, and said that she did not want to cause any more problems.

She returned to school after the holidays in August 1989. Fellow pupils persisted in making reference to what they said was the pursuer's abnormal chest. In addition, there was graffiti on a door at the back of the PE block, ostensibly showing the pursuer and her breasts, with the legend "Debbie Scott poke yourself". The graffiti remained on the door for months thereafter. Shortly after seeing the graffiti she went off ill and remained away from the school for about a week.

She was back at school in time for her birthday on 7 September 1989. At lunchtime it was suggested that she should go behind the gym block in order that she should get the customary "dumps" which would mark her 15th birthday. When she went there, she found that about ten pupils, boys as well as girls, had assembled there. One of them shouted, "get her". Three boys grabbed her, and the girls pulled her T-shirt off and her bra. They all thought it was fun, but the pursuer was very upset, especially when they pulled her along a gravel path. When she begged them to give her her clothes back, they refused to do so. Indeed, one of the boys ran away with her clothes and she only got them back when two girl prefects arrived on the scene. She went to the toilets with a friend and then to the school nurse. Her back was painful as a result of being dragged along the ground. She told the nurse what had happened, but the nurse was unsympathetic and said it was all her own fault. She had scratches and grazes on her back. She went home immediately from school, and never returned to it.

The person whom the pursuer went to for nursing assistance, Mrs Patricia Forbes, was in fact a Welfare Assistant at the school, and was not a qualified nurse. She occupied that post between 1983 and September or October 1989. She did not remember anything about the pursuer. It was only after reading newspaper reports of the proof in the action that her memory was jogged slightly. She could not remember any specific incident of a child coming to her complaining of being bullied. If that had happened, she would, in her role as substitute mother, have comforted the child and either got the guidance teacher down or sent her to the guidance teacher. She agreed that if clothing had been removed from the child, it would have been a serious matter.

I shall deal later with the consequences to the pursuer of this final incident, albeit briefly, because parties were agreed upon the damages to be awarded, namely £7,500, in the event of my finding in the pursuer's favour. Let me now go back to consider how Mr Patterson applied the strategy in relation to the pursuer he had agreed with Mrs Garvie.

As I have already said, opportunities arose in a normal way for talking to her. He was a regular visitor to her class and he would see her in the corridor from time to time. In short, he kept an eye on her. He noted that there were some absences between September and November 1988. In November 1988 he phoned the pursuer's mother about her absences. He recorded in her notes that he had phoned her mother in the wake of more absences from school, especially her going home unannounced on 2 November 1988. The reason, he found, was a heavy cold. Thereafter, he said, he continued to monitor her. In the second term she was more visible, but he had to speak to her about her poor attendance and lack of punctuality. In February and March 1989 he had to seek notes from her in relation to her absences. The notes revealed minor ailments and were unexceptionable. In the Summer term there were further absences. In May 1989 there was an absence for which no explanation was offered, and he had to phone her home. He made a full entry in her notes together with the outcome of his conversation with her father. Entries on 19 May, 23 May and 29 May reveal the steps he took. On the last mentioned date he wrote to the pursuer's mother who responded by telephoning him. (The letter he sent is number 23/2 of process). According to Mr Patterson's note, she initially expressed concern about the lasting effects on the pursuer of the earlier harassment by boys at the school. She agreed, however, that her daughter's recent demeanour was much more cheerful and confident, even cheeky, as a result of her mother spoiling her in the attempt of getting her over her earlier problem. He and the pursuer's mother discussed the pursuer's part-time job as a hairdresser and Mr Patterson expressed the hope that this would continue to raise the pursuer's self-esteem and confidence. This, said Mr Patterson, would have a positive impact on her schoolwork. Her mother acknowledged that there were problems in her schoolwork and expressed concern that her schooling might be affected by the earlier incidents in September 1988. Mr Patterson went on to discuss with the pursuer's mother, more positively, the particular subjects to which attention could be paid. The reason he had a relatively long conversation with the pursuer's mother was because there had been a parents' meeting at which he had not seen either of the pursuer's parents and he was concerned about the pursuer's performance in areas that could usefully be considered with her mother and father. At that time (May 1989) he was not aware of any allegation that the pursuer had been sent to Coventry.

Then in June 1989 the pursuer handed in two notes, one of which was genuine but the other of which was a forgery, passed in an attempt to conceal an absence from school. Mr Patterson acknowledged that it had appeared to him in that third term that the pursuer was associating with an inappropriate group. There were difficulties about motivation and about what was causing the absences from school. He did not link all this specifically in his mind with bullying. If there was distress linked with the earlier incidents, he hoped that the pursuer would have shared that with him or with her parents. In this period he had no recollection of the pursuer being reserved, withdrawn or preoccupied. Indeed, he saw the pursuer at the guidance base, as he put it, to talk to her about her absences. The meeting lasted about 15 minutes. He discussed fully with her the reasons for her behaviour and the kind of difficulties she was building for herself by seeking to be too loyal to her friends and not doing as well in school as she was able to do. In response, the pursuer, he said, was somewhat uncertain and not forthcoming. Later, however, she was more open. She conceded that what she had done was not a good idea. She was not at all happy that her father should find out about it. Mr Patterson assured her that he would respect what she said to him in confidence, but he told her that he would be writing to her home. She understood, he said, that he was acting in good faith and that he was concerned about her progress in school.

This he did, by letter dated 28 June 1989, in which he detailed the pursuer's truanting on 15, 16, 20 and 21 June. He was disturbed that she had asked a fellow pupil to impersonate her father on the phone as well as the passing of a note written by herself as coming from her mother. He went on: "From my lengthy conversation with Debbie I have not been able to discover any satisfactory explanation for this behaviour." He said that he had urged her to think more about herself and her interests. He recounted how they had met her maths teacher who had made encouraging noises about her results. He concluded

He thought that the letter would be positively received by the pursuer's mother.

On the very same day as Mr Patterson wrote the letter to the pursuer's mother, the pursuer was assaulted by her fellow pupils in the playground. She did not reveal this to Mr Patterson nor did he learn about it from any other source.

Mr Patterson's next contact with the pursuer was on 7 September 1989. He received a phone call from Mrs Forbes, the Welfare Assistant. She informed him that the pursuer had reported to her room, having been attacked in the playground. Mrs Forbes said that the matter should be taken further. The pursuer was not over concerned and did not want to implicate anyone. She intended going to her next class. Mrs Forbes herself was concerned and thought that the incident should be further investigated. Mr Patterson could not find the pursuer at school. So he phoned her mother and suggested to her that she should discuss with the pursuer what had happened. The next morning the pursuer's mother phoned him. Her manner, he said, indicated that the matter was of a serious nature and that there would be further consequences. Indeed, she was aggressive and spoke about there being publicity concerning what had happened. If she had her way, the boys would be expelled. She was very very aggressive in her approach. He (Mr Patterson) was anxious that the pursuer should return to school so that the school could investigate who was responsible, through a senior member of the school team. After this conversation, which took place on 8 September 1989, he referred the matter to the Depute Rector since in his view it merited a serious response. He was aware that the school carried out a full investigation. The pursuer's mother, I should add, did not give evidence.

The Depute Rector, Dr John Murray, was put in charge of that investigation. He carried that out on 14 and 15 September. He regarded the matter as extremely serious. Two of the pupils admitted their guilt right away. One of the other two refused to admit guilt, but then it was later established. The fourth had gone on holiday. In the result, four pupils were formally excluded. Dr Murray recognised that there were always problems with victims of bullying being prepared to report it. The school tried to create an atmosphere in which victims were encouraged to report bullying. The objective was to build up relationships of trust. There was always a risk of continuing bullying. If reports were made, there was a risk of an accusation of cliping. He accepted that a guidance teacher would pay particular attention to someone who had reported bullying.

The pursuer recounted what happened to her after the terrifying incident on her birthday. She was really upset by it, and attended the doctor the following day. He examined her injuries. She went back to see him a week or so later. She found that she woke up crying, and that she could not go out by herself because she had been threatened by fellow pupils that, if she reported it to the school, she would get it. She could not sleep. She became paranoid about her breasts. Eventually she was referred by her general practitioner to a psychiatrist. She spent 8 months off school. In May 1990 she went to an independent girls' school in Edinburgh. She was then put in a year which was one behind what she had been in in the Royal High School. She considered that she would have had more and perhaps better passes in her examinations if she had remained on at the Royal High School. She left school in May 1991 and went into catering for two years. She began training as a hairdresser when she was 18. Her parents separated 11/2 months after the incident and she then went to live with her grandmother.

When the proof began, the pursuer made two cases against the defenders as the local education authority. The first involved a personal or direct duty on the education authority to instruct teachers within their authority to be alert to the risk of bullying; to formulate and implement a policy on bullying known both to pupils and parents; and to take reasonable care to control the behaviour of pupils towards each other. Evidence was led on this, and in particular, from an acknowledged expert in the field, Mr Delwyn Powell-Tattum. At the end of the evidence, however, the pursuer's senior counsel intimated that the pursuer was not insisting upon this case.

The second case is laid against the head teacher and other teaching staff at the school. The duties of reasonable care are fully set out in Article 7 of the Condescendence, and are specific and detailed. Senior counsel for the pursuer made it clear that the teachers identified as owing the pursuer these duties of care were Mrs Garvie and Mr Patterson. Counsel for both parties referred me to Hunter v Hanley 1955 SC 200 as disclosing the correct test to apply to the acts and omissions of a teacher, although, of course, the reported case actually concerned a general medical practitioner. The standard of care, it was submitted, which was incumbent upon a teacher was that which would be observed by a reasonable parent . (See Gow v Glasgow Education Authority 1922 SC 260 per Lord Sands at page 267). That standard may not have universal application in all situations involving schools and school children. (See Beaumont v Surrey County Council 1968 Local Government Reports volume 66 page 580 per Geoffrey Lane, J, as he then was, at page 585). But it has obvious application, as it seems to me, in considering the actions and decisions of a guidance teacher in relation to a pupil who was allocated to his care and, indeed, to his guidance. Whether that standard of care has been observed will depend upon the many different situations in which a teacher finds himself or herself in relation to a pupil. (See McDougall v Strathclyde Regional Council 1996 SLT 1124 per Lord McCluskey at page 1126J; and Wright v Cheshire County Council (1952) 2 AER 789 per Birkett, LJ, at page 793D). Following Hunter v Hanley, as I was invited to do, the test I have to apply in determining whether negligence has been established on the part of Mrs Garvie or Mr Patterson or both, is whether they have been proved to be guilty of such failure as no guidance teacher of ordinary skill would be guilty if acting with ordinary care. What the pursuer has to establish, (and according to Lord President Clyde in Hunter v Hanley cited above at page 206 there is a heavy onus upon her) is that the course adopted by Mrs Garvie and Mr Patterson was one which no guidance teacher of ordinary skill would have taken if acting with ordinary care. It should be understood, of course, that, unlike Hunter v Hanley, this is not pleaded as a case in which there was a usual or normal practice from which the guidance teachers deviated, and, in doing so, they were negligent.

I should, perhaps, say something about the pleadings at this point. The pursuer abandoned the first case against the education authority after all the evidence was out. The second case which was originally laid against the head teacher and other teaching staff, is now restricted to one against Mrs Garvie, as Principal Guidance Teacher, and Mr Patterson, the pursuer's guidance teacher. The detailed averments in Article 7 of the Condescendence have therefore to be read somewhat restrictively. While I have never taken a strict view of pleadings, I do note the absence from the pleadings in Article 7 of any formulation and application of the Hunter v Hanley test in relation to the acts and omissions of Mrs Garvie and Mr Patterson. This may matter little in view of the consensus between counsel about the proper test to apply, but it did lead senior counsel for the pursuer to set out in his speech with some particularity what the pursuer's case had become.

He submitted that it was reasonably foreseeable after the report of bullying and the pursuer's overdose in 1988, that the pursuer would have been exposed to the risk of further bullying by fellow pupils. The guidance teachers failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain whether the injury to the pursuer at the hands of fellow pupils was continuing. They failed to take reasonable care to encourage the pursuer to report further instances of injury at the hands of fellow pupils. Had they fulfilled such duties of care and taken the appropriate steps, they would have been in a position to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimise the risk of further injury to the pursuer. They would then have been in a position to know that instances of injury were continuing.

With that understanding of the pursuer's case, I now turn to consider the evidence given by the expert witnesses, Dr Robson for the pursuer, and Mrs Loretta Scott for the defenders. Dr Robson is distinguished in her field as a child psychologist and as a chartered educational psychologist. She holds a teaching qualification. Since 1984 she has been in private practice. She has never been employed as a teacher and the period 1981-1984 was the only time she was employed by an education authority as an educational psychologist. Then she was attached to a secondary school in Fife together with its feeder primaries. She shared two other secondary schools with two other psychologists. She is not a clinical psychologist. She had considered the pleadings in the case. In her view it took a lot of courage for the pursuer to return to school when she did after the 1988 incident. She would expect the guidance teacher then to have a discussion with her about bullying; how she felt about it; and how she felt being back at school. She would expect the guidance teacher to offer counselling services. The educational psychologist attached to the school should be consulted by the guidance staff in order to obtain advice, especially in a case in which the pupil had taken an overdose. The parents ought to have been offered the services of an educational psychologist for their child. She would have expected the guidance teacher to offer the pursuer an appointment once a week for a month after her return to school, for perhaps 15-20 minutes discussion on each occasion, to find out how she was feeling, whether she was still being bullied, and whether she was happy at school. She would have been very vulnerable after her return and, having been bullied, she would be liable to be bullied again. An attempt should have been made to build up trust to enable her to report any other incidents. In that way, the guidance teacher would show her that he cared about what had happened. Thereafter, two weekly meetings would have been appropriate. Throughout the rest of that term monitoring was important. In Dr Robson's view, all that might have prevented the final consequences. The school, however, did deal satisfactorily with the events of the week of 23 September 1988. But the entry by Mr Patterson in the pursuer's notes on 26 September 1988 that she seemed quite normal, was quite naive. He should have realised that the child was putting on a front, following bullying, and he should have realised that she was very vulnerable. It was in Dr Robson's opinion extraordinary and unacceptable to note that she appeared normal after the event she had experienced. The guidance teacher should always keep details of interviews, however brief. With a child like the pursuer every discussion should be logged. Passing conversations with the pursuer in the corridor were unacceptable. She accepted that the pursuer's parents would have had to consent to counselling for her. She agreed that the attitude of the parents would be paramount. She had often talked to parents. She did not think that in a large, busy secondary school it was possible to keep an eye informally on the pupil like the pursuer who had attempted suicide. Any competent guidance teacher would have discussed such a case with the educational psychologist attached to the school. She would have suggested counselling to the parents. As a person who worked with guidance teachers, she would expect all this to have been done by a guidance teacher. It did not surprise her that the pursuer had truanted with those who had bullied her. Being accepted by the bullying crowd would have afforded her some protection. That would almost have been a form of further abuse in itself. It was very difficult in a big school to identify ostracism as a form of bullying. If the guidance teacher was aware that the general practitioner

Mrs Loretta Scott is an Advisor in Guidance employed by the Education Department of the City of Glasgow Council. She is a qualified teacher and in 1977, early in her teaching career, she was involved in guidance as an Assistant Principal which position she held until 1984. In that year she became Principal Teacher Guidance at St Andrews School, Carntyne, Glasgow where she remained until 1991. It was a school of about 1,000 pupils. There she managed and taught in the programme of social education. From there she moved into the Education Offices of the Glasgow Division of Strathclyde Regional Council which Division became the City of Glasgow Council in 1996. She gave her evidence on commission in Glasgow and I acted as the commissioner when her evidence was taken,

Given the information that as a result of bullying a child had taken an overdose, she would, as a guidance teacher, have discussed that matter fully with the child's parents and found out what the child wanted to be done. She would have listened very carefully to what the parents wanted. When the child returned to school she would have made a point of ensuring that the child knew that she was available to meet her needs. She said: "I would be influenced by how the parents wanted me to deal with it". If the parents wished the matter dealt with in a low key manner she would have respected that unhesitatingly, but she would have sought opportunities to observe and use the skills she had as a professional to observe. She would be in classes, she would be around, and she would be visible. She would ask staff to pass information back to her. She would have tried to strike a balance between intrusion which might have had a damaging effect, and her professional duty to ensure that matters had settled down. Involving an educational psychologist would have been an option, but she would have had to be mindful of the wishes of the parents if they did not wish to make a fuss about it and wished it to be played low key. In the climate of the late 1980s she would have been very much swayed by that consideration. If the child had been taken to hospital, then a duty psychiatrist would have been involved and an assessment made. The general practitioner would also have been involved and the leading agency in terms of counselling or therapeutic support would have been in play. She said: "I would have been tempted to think that it might also have been officious of the school to suggest another agency being involved." In the 1980s, at least in Strathclyde Regional Council, work was being carried out on the partnership between the school and the parent and the prime carer of the young person, and if the parents said how it should be handled, an efficient guidance teacher would have listened to that closely. Mrs Scott had herself been involved as a guidance teacher in the case of a child who had taken an overdose. She would not have sought advice from an educational psychologist if she had been faced with a case like the pursuer's because she would have been comfortable to know that the hospital and the general practitioner were involved. She would have thought that there was a danger of intrusion if after the pursuer's return, there had been regular one-to-one meetings. She would question how valuable they would have been. What she would have done was to ensure that she saw what was happening and that she was able to satisfy herself that she was keeping an eye on the pursuer. She would have done that by contact in the social education class, and by maintaining tactful contact with her other teachers. She would be highly profiled. So she would be in the corridors and the dining hall. She would, in short, observe in a deliberate, non-haphazard way. If the child later absented herself from school without providing parental notes, she would have contacted the parent by phoning or writing. She would have monitored the child for 4-6 weeks in the way she recommended but she would always have had the problem in mind. If the child had not approached her as guidance teacher or indeed anyone else in the weeks which followed, she thought that she might be content in thinking that perhaps the situation had resolved itself. If you were to revisit the situation, she said, there was a danger that you were perpetuating something the child did not wish to continue with. In the case of truanting, she would have contacted the parent to ask for their support in trying to find out with the parent if there was a particular reason for the truancy. She would also have spoken to the child, but in a supportive way, in order to find out the reason for the truancy. Thereafter she would monitor the child's a

Schools, in a case like the pursuer's, would have in 1997 involved an educational psychologist but in 1987/88 they would not necessarily have done so. In that latter period it was not the practice in such a case to have weekly meetings, at least initially. Mrs Scott would not have entered that in her list of options. In the pursuer's case she might have sought the advice of an educational psychologist, but she would not have referred the child to that person. She would not have criticised an assistant principal teacher of guidance if, dealing with the pursuer's case in 1988, he did not seek advice from an educational psychologist. Indeed she herself would have been satisfied that he had fulfilled the criteria of what was required of an ordinary competent assistant principal teacher of guidance.

This is a case in which issues of credibility and reliability do not really arise. I would, however, say that I accept Mr Patterson's evidence as to the number of occasions he met and talked to the pursuer after the 1988 incident, in preference to the pursuer's recollection. I think that the pursuer had a different perception of what Mr Patterson was doing as a guidance teacher in relation to her, from what in fact he was doing, albeit in a low key manner. I also accept Mr Patterson's evidence with regard to the report and reaction of Mrs Patricia Forbes following upon the pursuer visiting her after the assault she sustained on 7 September 1989.

Although the events of which she complains happened a decade or so ago the pursuer is still deserving of much sympathy. Bullying, especially within the school environment, is hateful, and it is insidious. The evidence which I heard, especially from Mr Powell-Tattum, demonstrated clearly that it is a phenomenon which is now far better understood in schools than it was, even in the 1980s. But it has existed for a long time, as for example, 19th century English literature bears out. I count myself as fortunate that at neither school which I attended, did I encounter it. Its hidden nature makes it especially difficult for teaching staff to discover and deal with. It is a constant, besetting problem.

Be all that as it may, the question in this case, which I have set out earlier in this judgement, is whether the pursuer has established that the course of action adopted by Mrs Garvie and Mr Patterson in relation to the pursuer after her return to school in September 1988, was one which no guidance teacher of ordinary skill would have taken if acting with ordinary care. The answer to that question must depend on an evaluation of the expert evidence of the parties, having in mind, as I do, that what the pursuer now complains about is that the guidance teachers should have realised that there was a risk of bullying continuing; that they failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain whether the injury to the pursuer at the hands of fellow pupils was continuing; and that they failed to encourage the pursuer to report any further incidents of bullying. The signal fact is, of course, that the pursuer did not report any further incidents, either to the school or to her parents. In the case of her guidance teacher it was not because she felt him to be unsympathetic. Her criticism rather was of him as a teacher. Of the two experts, the one with the requisite experience as a guidance teacher was Mrs Scott. Her expertise in that field goes back to 1977. I found her a very impressive witness who spoke with deliberation and yet frankness. It will be seen from my rehearsal in précis of her evidence that she did not criticise the course of action or strategy which Mrs Garvie and Mr Patterson employed in relation to the pursuer. Rather it was one which she might have adopted herself. Dr Robson, in my view, tended to see the case through the eyes of an educational psychologist. While she has worked with guidance teachers since, she only worked within the guidance system in schools between 1981 and 1984. I also considered that she had much less awareness than Mrs Scott of what was appropriate and standard within the guidance system in relation to bullying in the late 1980s. Because of her obvious expertise and because of the way in which she gave her evidence, I much prefer the evidence of Mrs Scott to that of Dr Robson. Indeed, where they differed, I accepted Mrs Scott's evidence. I thought that Dr Robson tended to offer a more theoretical view than Mrs Scott, and I also thought that at times she advocated a counsel of perfection. It was clear to me that Mrs Garvie and, derivatively from her, Mr Patterson, were strongly influenced and affected by the views of the pursuer's father, expressed in September 1988, about how the school should handle what had happened to his daughter. I do not think that Dr Robson allowed sufficiently for the effect which Mr Scott's views had on the two guidance teachers. I accept that to have enlisted the services of an educational psychologist at that time would have breached the understanding reached between the parents and the school. It is, I think, important to understand that Mrs Garvie was not exactly encouraged to go back to the pursuer's parents with any advice she might have wished to offer. In the result, I am compelled, without much difficulty, to the conclusion that the pursuer on the evidence which I have accepted, has failed to establish that the actions and decisions of Mrs Garvie and Mr Patterson in relation to her, following their awareness in September 1988 of the bullying from which she had suffered, were such that no guidance teacher of ordinary skill would have taken in the circumstances if acting with ordinary care. The action therefore fails.

I will therefore sustain the defenders' third and fourth pleas. I will repel the pursuer's first and second pleas. And I will grant decree of absolvitor in favour of the defenders.