Procedural Hearings – Case Cancellation – Teacher A

Teacher

Teacher A

Date(s)

30 August 2024

Registration number

[redacted]

Registration category

Secondary Education: Physical Education

Panel

James Mollison, Diane Molyneux, Katie Simpson

Legal assessor

Scott McAlpine

Servicing officer

Zain Balu

Presenting officer

Chris Weir, Anderson Strathern (not present)

Teacher's representative(s)

Jamie Foulis, Balfour and Manson (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 CancellationApplication, submitted by the Presenting Officer.

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:

Case Cancellation Application, dated 19 June 2024, with appendices including:
- Fitness to Teach Panel Consideration Outcome dated 17 February 2023
- Fitness to Teach Panel Procedural Hearing Decision dated 29 April 2024
- Letter from Presenting Officer to Pupil A, dated 16 August 2023
- Letter from, Presenting Officer to Pupil A, dated 7 June 2024
Teacher’s response to Case Cancellation Application, dated 19 June 2024
Teacher’s accompanying authorities
Emails between Presenting Officer and Teacher’s Representative, dated 28 June 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 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.

The Panel was mindful of a previous order made under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting disclosure of the name of Pupil A and the name of the Teacher and an anonymity order made by a previous panel providing that other redactions should be made to any written decision.

Decision

The allegations against the Teacher in this case concern alleged conduct of a sexually inappropriate nature by the Teacher in respect of Pupil A, a child under the age of sixteen at the time of the alleged conduct. The alleged conduct is said to have occurred in or around [redacted].

The allegations were referred to a Full Hearing following a Panel Consideration on 17 February 2023. Those allegations are:

1. In or around [redacted], whilst employed by Edinburgh City Council at [redacted] Edinburgh, in respect of Pupil A, a child under the age of 16 years, the Teacher did:

a. Give Pupil A a mobile telephone for him to use;

b. Kiss Pupil A;

c. Touch Pupil A’s penis;

d. Allow Pupil A to touch [redacted]; and

e. Send an inappropriate image and/or recording to Pupil A which was sexual in nature

‍2. The Teacher’s actions at allegation 1 were sexuallymotivated.

‍And in light of the above it is alleged that the Teacher’s fitness to teach is impaired and they are unfit to teach as a result of breaching parts 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.3 of the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.

At a Procedural Hearing on 29 April 2024 the Presenting Officer made an application to rely on Pupil A’s Police Scotland Witness Statement. The Panel refused that application. An important factor in that Panel’s decision was whether Pupil A’s Police Scotland statement was the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the allegations. For allegations (a) to (d) Pupil A’s Police Scotland statement was the sole and decisive evidence. Pupil A did not mention allegation (e) at all.

Attempts had been made to engage with Pupil A. That included attempting to contact him at [redacted] by letter dated 16 August 2023. The earlier Procedural Panel was not aware of this due to an administrative error on the part of the Presenting Officer. In any event the Presenting Officer subsequently wrote to Pupil A at [redacted] on 7 June 2024. Pupil A did not respond. Pupil A’s mother has confirmed that Pupil A is not likely to give evidence against the Teacher.

It is now the Presenting Officer’s position that there are no further reasonable attempts that can be made to secure Pupil A’s engagement. A previous Panel had refused the Presenting Officer’s application for Pupil A’s Police statement to be admitted. Consideration had been given to raising a petition to compel Pupil A to give evidence at the substantive hearing but given the likelihood that Pupil A would be considered a vulnerable witness, GTC Scotland would not seek to compel a vulnerable witness to attend, in line with the provisions for vulnerable witnesses in the Rules. In light of there being insufficient evidence for the allegations to be proved on the balance of probabilities, a Case Cancellation Application was submitted by the Presenting Officer.

The Teacher’s Representative responded, in writing, to the Case Cancellation Application (para [4.1(b)] of the Practice Statement). It is sufficient to record that the Teacher’s Representative supported the Case Cancellation Application.

In determining the Case Cancellation Application, the Panel worked through Part 5 of the Practice Statement – ‘Considering and Determining a Case Cancellation Application’. The Panel considered the general objective of the 2017 Rules, set out in Rule 1.3.7, to deal with cases fairly and justly. The Panel also considered the public interest.

The Presenting Officer explained, in the written application, that there was insufficient evidence for the allegations to be proved. That view was arrived at after efforts had been made, first, to contact Pupil A and, secondly, for his Police Scotland witness statement to be admitted as evidence. Neither had proved to be successful. The Panel accepted that there were no other reasonable attempts that could be made to secure the engagement of Pupil A. The Panel considered that, without Pupil A’s engagement, there is no likelihood of the allegations being found proved.

The Panel also had regard to the time this case has been ongoing. The allegations were first made in 2017. The Teacher has engaged in the process.

The Panel also considered the public interest. The Panel considered that granting the application was in the public interest. The case has been investigated. The relevant processes have been followed. Where there is no prospect of the allegations against the Teacher being proved it is simply not in the public interest for the case to continue.

Having regard to all the material before it the Panel decided to grant the Case Cancellation Application. The Panel was satisfied that granting the application was both in accordance with the general objective to deal with cases fairly and justly and that it is in the public interest to do so.

The Panel felt it to be appropriate to further anonymise the location where the alleged conduct took place along with information relating to where Pupil A currently resides.