Panel Consideration Meeting - Anonymity, Privacy and Admissibility Application - Teacher A
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 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 the Presenting Officer
- A privacy application made by Teacher A
- An admissibility application made by Teacher A
- An application by Teacher A for a Stage 2 witness to give their evidence by video link.
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:
- Anonymity application by Presenting Officer, dated 22 July 2024
- Teacher A’s response to application, dated 5 August 2024
- Privacy, Admissibility and Videolink application by Teacher A, dated 23 Jul 2024
- Presenting Officer’s Response to Privacy, Admissibility and Videolink application, dated 22 August 2024
- Teacher A’s reply to Presenting Officer Response, dated 22 August 2024
Preliminary Matters
Teacher A’s admissibility application was concerned with materials which were not in the bundle of documents provided to the Panel in advance of the hearing. The Servicing Officer therefore withdrew that part of the application from the Panel’s consideration at the Panel Meeting.
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 the 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 (aside from the admissibility application) on the papers.
Anonymity
The Presenting Officer made an application for:
(a) An order to be made in terms of Rule 1.7.3(b) of the Rules for anonymity of the following in any published decision(s) of the GTC Scotland:
a. The identity of Teacher A,
b. The identity of the school, [Reacted]
The application submitted that under Rule 1.7.2 it is the default position that fitness to teach hearings are held in public. However, Rule 1.7.3 provides that a Panel may make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings. The Panel may do this insofar as it considers it necessary where it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so and that the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the interests of Teacher A and the public in the hearing being held in public.
It was submitted that if Teacher A’’s name and of the name of the school was to be disclosed, given the locality of where the alleged events occurred, the names of Pupils A and B would likely be identified. It was said that in the circumstances, protection of the pupils’ private lives would be furthered by the grant of the application, and that this outweighed the need for the identity of Teacher A or school to be made public in any written decision.
The application was not opposed.
The Panel considered the application and had regard to the Rules and GTC Scotland’s Practice Statement on Privacy and Anonymity. The Panel agreed that the pupils had an interest in their privacy and that, standing the particular circumstances of the case (the school being a small school in a small community) it would be likely that publicity of the details of the case could lead to their identification as being involved in the allegations against Teacher A. The Panel agreed that it would be to their benefit for those details not to be publicised. The Panel determined that in the circumstances the achievement of that benefit outweighed the public interest in publicity. The Panel therefore determined to grant the application.
They therefore directed that the identity of Teacher A and the school, [Redacted], would be anonymised in any published decision of GTC Scotland in relation to the case.
Privacy
Teacher A’s privacy application was that parts of Teacher A’s hearing should be heard in private on the basis they relate to [Redacted]. A witness statement was provided with [Redacted] which he considers relevant to the conduct which is alleged against him. It was submitted that he [Redacted]. It was also submitted that Teacher A [Redacted]. The application requested that any details of this and [Redacted] should be heard in private.
The application made reference to relevant rules and the Practice Statement on Privacy and Anonymity. It was submitted that Teacher A’s circumstances were exactly those envisaged in the practice statement, although no comparison was drawn with any particular circumstances outlined in the practice statement. It was stated that the application was made for matters to be held in private to protect Teacher A’s private life [Redacted]. It was said that the public interest in the proceedings did not outweigh the very real and substantive private life interests of Teacher A. The application highlighted that it was an application for isolated, focused, confidential and sensitive matters of evidence to be heard in private. It was added that it would be straightforward to identify the parts of evidence that ought to be heard in private.
The application did not appear to be opposed by the Presenting Officer.
The Panel considered the relevant rules and GTC Scotland’s practice statement. The Panel was of the view that, as outlined in Teacher A’s application, it was required to weigh the public interest in publicity against Teacher A’s personal interest in privacy.
The Panel considered whether it was able to undertake this task on the basis of the information provided in the application. The Panel considered that it was unable to do so. The application is in very broad terms. Although the application stated that it would be straightforward to identify the parts of the evidence that would be heard in private, the Panel noted that this had not been done in the application.
The Panel noted that Teacher A’s [Redacted] played a central role in his responses to the allegations against him. The Panel considered that exclusion of publicity from parts of Teacher A’s hearing “on the basis that they relate to [Redacted]” could, in practical terms, result in proceedings taking place largely or even entirely in private. The Panel was unclear as to whether this was what was intended by the application, or whether the intention of Teacher A was to seek privacy only in relation to specific matters concerning diagnosis and treatment. Without coming to a concluded view, which was unnecessary in the circumstances, the Panel was of the view that the latter outcome was more likely to be justified than the former.
The Panel determined that the application should be refused at this stage as it is insufficiently precise. The Panel considered that it required to be provided with a greater degree of specification of the evidence which Teacher A wished to be heard in private. The Panel was of the view that it would be open to Teacher A to re-make the application with further detail included. Whether and when to do so was a matter for Teacher A and his representatives, but the Panel noted that preparation for fitness to teach hearings appeared to be at an early stage and there was no running order of witnesses available to this Panel.
Admissibility
As noted above, Teacher A’s second application, for removal or redaction of certain documents on the basis of inadmissibility, was withdrawn from this Panel.
Remote Evidence
Teacher A’s third application was for a testimonial witness at stage 2 to give evidence remotely.
The application referred to the GTC Scotland practice statement on the use of electronic communications and Rule 1.7.6 of the Rules.
It was submitted that the proposed testimonial witness lived [Redacted] and was not a vulnerable witness. The only document she required was her witness statement, and any other evidence could be provided electronically. The internet connection she would use when giving evidence could be tested in advance. The use of electronic communications would provide a benefit by avoiding the need for significant travel for what would likely be a short period of time giving evidence. The Panel would be able to assess her evidence remotely, which was not concerned with the allegations themselves.
The Panel had no reason to doubt Teacher A’s Representative’s submission that remote evidence could be given successfully by the witness. The Servicing Officer confirmed to the Panel that tests to equipment could be arranged in advance. Although the Panel was of the view that in-person evidence was possible, the Panel recognised that there was a benefit to the witness in remote participation. There did not appear to be a significant amount of relevant documents for the witness to consider in her evidence. The Panel agreed that it was likely that the Panel taking the witness’s evidence would be capable of assessing the witness remotely. There was no basis for the Panel to think that remote evidence might result in unfairness The Panel was of the view that in the whole circumstances it was just and equitable for electronic communications to be used as described in the application. The Panel therefore directed that the witness referred to in the application would be permitted to give evidence remotely, by video link.
