Panel hearing - Cancellation application and anonymity application - Teacher C

Teacher

Teacher C

Date(s)

18 July 2024

Registration number

[redacted]

Registration category

Primary Education

Panel

Helen James, Jane Robinson and Sophie Taylor

Legal assessor

Alice Stobart

Servicing officer

Emily West

Presenting officer

Catriona Watt, Anderson Strathern (not present)

Teacher's representative(s)

Claire Rafterty, Clyde & Co (not present)

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:

Case Cancellation Application, submitted by the Presenting Officer; and
Anonymity Application, submitted by the Presenting Officer.

Evidence

Inaccordance with Rule 1.7.17, the Panel admitted all of the documents andstatements listed below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

Adjusted Application by the Presenting Officer of the case cancellation of GTC Scotlandand Teacher C (adjusted in italics on 11 June 2024 in response to the Teacher’s Response), dated 4 April 2024 and updated 11 June 2024‍
Adjusted Teacher’s response to application, dated 4 June 2024
Emails between Presenting Officer, Regulatory Investigations Officer and Teacher’s Representative advising that revised responses will be submitted and neither party objects toan oral procedural hearing and is content for the matter to be determined onthe papers
Court of Session Interlocutor, dated 16 February 2024

Preliminary Matters

The Panel carefully 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 preliminarymatter that has arisen in the case;

(b) resolve any issues of law; or

(c) consider an application for a case to becancelled.

‍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 withcase 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 on the papers.

Allegations

1. Between [redacted] and [redacted], whilst employed by [redacted] as a teacher at [redacted], and in relation to Teacher A, [redacted], who had been convicted of [redacted], the Teacher did state to Colleague 1:

(a) that she did not believe [redacted] had done what he was accused of as he was a kind man;

(b) that she believed the complaints were malicious and the root cause was financial gain for the victim;

(c) that one of the victims had been friends with [redacted] for a long time and had offered him a job two weeks before the allegation of sexual misconduct was made;

(d) that [redacted] had love letters sent to him from a victim which, in the Teacher’s view, clearly identified that the victim was an adult, and it was a consensual relationship; and

(e) that one of the victims wished to see the Teacher and [redacted], which would not happen.

2. On [redacted] and [redacted], the Teacher stated that she was unable to confirm what [redacted] would look like once he is released from prison.

And in light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and/or she is unfit to teach as a result of breaching Parts 1.3 and 2.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

Decision

Case Cancellation

The Panel were invited to consider a case cancellation application made by the GTC Scotland Presenting Officer and agreed to by the Teacher. The Panel had regard to the GTC Scotland Case Cancellation Practice Statement. The Panel also had regard to the Rules and in particular Rule 2.10.9 which allows a Panel at any time following the referral of a case to it for a hearing decide to cancel a case (and dispose of it on that basis). Before making any such decision, a Panel must have heard from the parties on the matter and be satisfied that it is in accordance with the general objective and in the public interest to do so.

The Panel had regard to the Presenting Officer’s submissions on the cancellation of the Teacher’s case. In particular it was submitted that GTC Scotland accepted, following a Petition for Judicial Review in the Court of Session made by the Teacher, that allegation 2 was premature. Additionally, the Panel had regard to the Presenting Officer’s submissions that allegation 1 on its own did not meet the necessary threshold for continuing with the case as it was not likely to meet the test for current impairment of fitness to teach. The Teacher’s representative agreed with the case cancellation application on the same basis.

The Panel acknowledged that both parties were in agreement regarding the case cancellation but reminded itself that the Panel had a duty to be satisfied that cancelling the case was in accordance with the general objective and the public interest.

The Panel decided that they were satisfied that cancelling the case was in accordance with the general objective set out in Rules 1.3.7 and 1.3.8. In particular, the Panel decided that it was fair and just to cancel the case given that allegation 2 was premature and that allegation 1 involved comments that were made in private and did not meet the threshold for continuing with the case.

The Panel decided that it was satisfied that it was in the public interest to cancel the case as there was no issue in relation to protection of the public. In relation to maintaining public confidence in the profession and GTC Scotland as a regulator, the Panel was of the view that expressing a private opinion to a friend after a traumatic event was not something that was the concern of the profession. Further to that, the public would be more confident in the regulator if the case was cancelled given that the Teacher should be entitled to hold a private conversation without facing regulatory action. The Panel did not think that the matter touched on teaching standards.

The Panel decided to grant the case cancellation application.

Anonymity

The Presenting Officer made an application for an anonymity order to protect the identity and private life of the Teacher. The Presenting Officer submitted that given a situation where the identity of the Teacher would not otherwise have been made public, it is both compatible with the Teacher’s rights under the ECHR and otherwise fair and just in terms of the general objective as set out in Rule 1.3.7 that she be granted anonymity. The Teacher agreed with the application.

The Panel had regard to Rule 1.7.3 which provides that a Panel may, at any stage of proceedings on its own initiative or on application to it, make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings. A Panel may do this so far as it considers it necessary where it is satisfied (having given the relevant parties an opportunity to make representations and in compliance with all relevant Convention rights) that it is in the interests of justice to do so and the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the interests of the Teacher and the public in the hearing being held in public. The Panel also had regard to the GTC Scotland Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement.

The Panel decided that it was in the interests of justice to ensure that the Teacher’s identity was anonymised so that she could not be identified in the decision given that the Panel had already granted the case cancellation application. The Panel had previously decided that it was not in the public interest for the case to continue and had cancelled the case. In those circumstances the Panel did not think it was in the public interest for the Teacher to be identified given the interests of the Teacher not to be identified and her Article 8 Rights to a private life and her Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. The interests of the public in having her name published did not in the Panel’s view outweigh the Teacher’s interests.

The Panel decided in all the circumstances to grant the anonymity order.

The Panel decided that in order to give effect to the anonymity order, the following redactions would need to be made to the GTC Scotland Panel Decision dated 18 July 2024:

The Teacher’s name and registration number;
The name of the school and Local Authority;
The dates of both allegations;
Reference to [redacted] throughout allegation 1;
Reference to [redacted] in allegation 1(e);
Reference to [redacted] in allegation 2; and
Reference to [redacted] in allegation 1.