Panel consideration - anonymity application - Teacher B

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

• ‘GTC Scotland’ means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
• the ‘Panel’ means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case; and
• the ‘Rules’ (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland’s Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them.

Background

The Procedural Meeting was arranged to consider the following:

• An anonymity application made by Teacher B.

Evidence

In accordance with Rule 1.7.17, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

1. Application from Teacher B, dated 6 April 2024
2. GP Letter, dated 12 April 2024
3. NHS Letter – [redacted]Appointment, undated
4. NHS Letter – [redacted]Appointment, dated 25 November 2020
5. NHS Outpatient Appointment Letter, undated
6. NHS Outpatient Appointment Letter, dated 11 May 2023
7. NHS Outpatient Appointment Letter, dated 17 April 2023
8. NHS Outpatient Appointment Letter, 5 September 2022
9. NHS [redacted] Services Letter, dated 24 May 2019
10. Medical Report from GP, dated 24 July 2024
11. Letter from Teacher Admitting Allegations and asking for removal, dated 21 February 2024
12. Signed Consent with Removal Order, dated 28 March 2024
13. Decision Annex, dated 26 October 2023
14. Panel Decision Annex, dated 17 June 2024

Preliminary Matters

The Panel considered the terms of Rule 2.5.1:

At any stage of proceedings, a Panel of its own volition, on the Convener’s direction or upon the application of a party (in such form as may be specified by the Servicing Officer), may:

(a) determine any interim or preliminary matter that has arisen in the case;
(b) resolve any issues of law; or
(c) consider an application for a case to be cancelled.

Unless a party has (in the relevant application) requested that a procedural hearing be held or a Panel considers that such a hearing is necessary in the particular circumstances, the above matters will be considered by a Panel at a meeting based on the written representations made by the parties in compliance with case management directions set for this purpose.

The Panel noted that neither of the Parties requested a procedural hearing in the submissions made. Further to this, the Panel considered that a procedural hearing was not necessary. Therefore, the Panel proceeded to consider the matter on the papers.

Decision

Fitness to teach proceedings had been commenced against Teacher B in respect of the following allegations

1. Between 7 May and 11 June 2021, [redacted], Teacher B did:
   a. in a conversation with Colleague 1:
   i. describe the [redacted] as ‘arseholes’;
   ii. state “there is nothing more satisfying than sitting relaxing with my feet up, and a beer in hand, watching some models with certain children’s names on them burn, especially if had put more effort into getting them to make the model than they had.”; and
   iii. state that Colleague 1 should not apply to [redacted] for a job because they only employ and promote women, or words to that effect;
   b. in a conversation with Colleague 1 asked him not to tell Colleague 3 that [redacted] and suggested this was in order to avoid being given additional work to do.
   c. make comments in a range of professional settings in the school, namely:
   i. to Colleague 2 that Catholics often had big families because they were always having babies, or words to that effect;
   ii. to Colleague 1 that Catholic schools were made up of 40% Asians and asked, ‘have you ever met a Pakistani Catholic?’ or words to that effect;
   iii. to Colleague 1 ‘and I’ve never come across an Asian Catholic yet’;
   iv. to an [redacted], that he used to believe that all Catholics had walking problems because they had to get the school bus, or words to that effect; and
   v. to Colleague 4, state that he knew Colleague 4 was Catholic.
   d. on 11 June 2021, make comments to Colleague 5 regarding a personal issue, namely that he noted that Colleague 5 was going to the toilet a lot and asked her if she was a diabetic.
2. Teacher B’s comments at allegation 1(c)(i) to (v) above were discriminatory against the protected characteristics of ethnicity, religion and belief.
3. Teacher B’s conduct at allegation 1(b) lacked integrity.

And in light of the above it is alleged that Teacher B’s fitness to teach is impaired, and he is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.4, 1.6, 2.3, 2.5, 4.1 and 5.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (COPAC) 2012.

By letter to GTC Scotland dated 26 February 2024, Teacher B admitted all of the allegations in full and requested that he be voluntarily removed from the Register. Teacher B signed a Removal with Consent Order on 28 March 2024, by which he again admitted the allegations in full, waived his right to further adjudication proceedings, and agreed to the imposition of the disposal stated on the Consent Order, which was that he would be removed from the Register and prohibited from applying for restoration to the Register for a period of two years.

By letter dated 6 April 2024, Teacher B made an application headed “Formal application for anonymity of signed Consent Order”. In that letter Teacher B referred to challenges which he had faced with his [redacted] and his engagement with medical services in that respect, and stated, amongst other things [redacted].

The anonymity application came before a Fitness to Teach Panel for consideration on 17 June 2024. Having considered the relevant GTC Scotland practice statements on privacy and anonymity, and on health matters and medical evidence, that Panel was not minded to grant the application at that time. That Panel did not have a specific diagnosis before it and there was no medical report on the likely impact of the publication of the Removal Order on Teacher B’s wellbeing. However, having regard to the seriousness of the issue raised by Teacher B, and his potential vulnerability, that Panel was of the view that it was fair to provide Teacher B with a further opportunity to provide additional medical vouching in support of his application for anonymity. That Panel accordingly decided to direct that GTC Scotland contact Teacher B and ask that Teacher B provide the following information within 60 days:

1. Dated medical evidence from a medical practitioner containing a specific diagnosis and prognosis of a health condition, as well as details of any treatment;
2. A medical report specifically addressing the likely impact of publication on Teacher B.

The Panel of 17 June 2024 further stated that on the expiry of that period, with or without the requested evidence, Teacher B’s application will be placed before a Panel for further consideration

The present Panel considered Teacher B’s application, with regard to the decision of the previous Panel and all evidence placed before it. The Panel considered GTC Scotland’s practice statements on privacy and anonymity, and on medical evidence, as well as GTC Scotland’s publication policy.

The Panel noted that Rule 1.7.3 of the Rules entitles the Panel to make an order restricting public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings, if it was in the interests of justice to do so. This would include a Consent Order.

The Panel was aware that the default position is that proceedings are publicised. Open justice was an important principle which was reflected in the general rule. However, the Panel was aware that the requirement for publicity was not absolute and that there may be competing interests which arise. In the Panel’s view, the overall question was whether the interest which the application sought to advance was sufficiently important to outweigh the public interest in open justice. The Panel noted that in the present case the interest which the proposed anonymity sought to promote was protection of Teacher B’s welfare, and in particular his [redacted] from the possible effect of publicity upon him.

Since the decision of the Panel of 17 June 2024, Teacher B had submitted a further letter from his General Practitioner, dated 24 July 2024. This letter provided a specific diagnosis of [redacted] from April of 2024 in respect of Teacher B. It appeared, from the letter, that Teacher B had suffered from this condition for a significant period of time. He had been prescribed medication since around 2010 and had been referred to [redacted] in around 2019 and had been reviewed by [redacted] in 2022. [redacted] was a repeated feature. The Panel was of the view that these facts indicated an ongoing condition with some severity.

Teacher B’s GP appeared to the Panel to have provided a specific explanation of how the impact of publicity would affect Teacher B’s mental health. The GP stated “I do feel that the additional stress which [publicity] would bring to him would certainly cause his [redacted] to deteriorate and would cause [redacted] for him”. There was no prognosis of a recovery in the GP’s letter.

In the Panel’s view the GP’s letter fulfilled the requirements of the request by the previous Panel. The Panel concluded that publicity gave rise to a significant risk of harm to Teacher B. In the Panel’s view, in the particular circumstances of the case, the risk of harm to Teacher B as vouched by the recent GP’s letter outweighed the public interest in publicity.

The Panel therefore determined that Teacher B’s application should be granted. It therefore directed that the following details of Teacher B’s case should not be publicised:

1. Any references to:
   (a)    Teacher B’s name (including signature)
   (b)    Teacher B’s registration number
   (c)    Teacher B’s employer at the time of the allegations
   (d)    The name of the school in which Teacher B was employed at the time of the allegations
   (e)    Teacher B [redacted]
   (f)      That the allegations involved [redacted]