A teacher forcefully slapped a pupil who pinched him while they were out picking brambles but told a court it was just a “clumsy” accident.
Alan McCartney lost his temper and “lashed out” at the six-year-old boy during the incident.
A trial at Aberdeen Sheriff Court found the 52-year-old guilty of assaulting the youngster, although McCartney had denied any wrongdoing.
He had been holding the child’s hand during a nature walk but whipped his hand away when the boy pinched him and then slapped the back of the child’s head.
McCartney had claimed the slap was an accident and that he’d just been “clumsy”, but Sheriff Andrew Miller didn’t believe his excuse and convicted the accused.
‘The child squealed’
During the trial, evidence was given by two pupil support assistants from the Aberdeen school who witnessed the assault.
The first told the court how the child in question had additional support needs and was non-verbal.
She said he often used small nips or pinches to communicate or for sensory reasons.
The pupil support assistant (PSA) said she saw McCartney “hit” the back of the child’s head.
Asked by fiscal depute Anne MacDonald what reaction that provoked, she replied: “The child squealed and made a noise and rubbed the back of his head.”
The woman described being “in shock” after seeing the assault.
Colleagues witnessed assault
Cross-examining the witness, defence counsel Mark Stewart KC suggested a different explanation for what she had seen.
He said: “I’m suggesting Mr McCartney pulled his hand away, the child stopped and, as Mr McCartney stepped forward, his hand hit the child on the back of the head and Mr McCartney immediately apologised”.
She replied: “That’s definitely not what happened”.
A second PSA then took to the witness stand and described seeing the assault.
She said: “The child was nipping at Alan’s hand and Alan reacted by shouting at him and smacking him across the back of the head”.
Asked by Ms MacDonald about the child’s reaction, she said: “He stumbled forward and turned round and looked at Alan.
“He looked pretty white-faced and was quiet like he was shocked at what had happened.”
She described the slap as “very forceful”.
Asked about McCartney’s reaction, she told the court: “He looked right at me and said, ‘I’m sorry. I’m really sorry.’ He knew exactly what he’d done”.
Mr Stewart pointed out that the witness hadn’t mentioned the boy stumbling and being “white-faced” in her original police statement.
She replied: “I think I was probably a little bit scared and anxious when I spoke to the police”.
Mr Stewart put it to the witness that McCartney had accidentally made contact with the child due to a combination of him pulling his hand away and the boy stopping suddenly.
She said: “No, that’s not what happened”.
‘A complete and utter mistake’
Taking to the witness stand to defend himself, McCartney was asked by Mr Stewart KC if he had deliberately hit the boy and if he intended to harm him.
He replied: “Absolutely not. I pulled my hand back and up, the child stopped walking and I kept walking and it was just a complete and utter mistake.
“I fussed over him to make sure he was alright.”
McCartney added that his being “clumsy” had played a role in the incident.
Ms MacDonald, cross-examining McCartney, repeatedly asked him if it had been a “gentle” touch of the head.
Eventually, he replied: “No.”
Asked if it had been a touch with some force, he said: “I put no force behind it but it was just the speed of my arm, the fact I was walking and the fact it was awkward”.
The fiscal said: “I’d suggest that you lost your temper with the child because of this continual nipping. You lost your temper for a few seconds. That’s what happened, isn’t it?”
McCartney said: “I’d disagree”.
Ms MacDonald went on: “You deliberately decided to give him a strike on the back of his head to teach him a lesson. That’s what you were doing, isn’t it?”
He replied: “Absolutely not”.
‘Breached position of trust’
Sheriff Andrew Miller found McCartney, of Victoria Road in Alford, guilty.
He told him: “This is undoubtedly a serious matter because, by assaulting the child in this manner, you of course breached the very significant position of trust which you held in relation to him as his teacher.
“This was a very brief incident in which it appeared you lashed out at the child over a very brief period of time. Thankfully no injury is libelled.”
The sheriff said he noted McCartney did not have any previous convictions and fined him £520.
Parents give their reaction
Talking to the Press and Journal outside the courtroom following the trial, the child’s parents spoke of their relief at the verdict.
His dad said: “I’m glad it was the right result. We’re happy we got the guilty verdict.
“I’d have thought more of the guy if he just put his hands up and said, ‘I made a mistake,’ but he pled not guilty and dragged it on and made everybody come to court.”
Asked whether they thought McCartney should be allowed to work in teaching again, they both said no and the father added: “Certainly not with children.”
But the boy’s mum spoke highly of the school and the other staff, adding: “I had no qualms about putting him back to the school the next day because I didn’t blame the school.
“It’s just one person,” she added.
Aberdeen City Council would not confirm if they still employ McCartney.
A spokeswoman said: “We do not comment on individual staffing matters”.
For all the latest court cases in Aberdeen as well as crime and breaking incidents, join our Facebook group.
