Procedural Panel Meeting – Hearsay and Redactions - Billy Dewar Riddick
Definitions
Any reference in this decision to:
- ‘GTCS’ 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 GTCS 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 application by the Presenting Officer to admit hearsay evidence;
- An application by the Teacher’s Representative for redactions to be made to the draft hearing bundle;
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 meeting:
- Applications by the Presenting Officer with supporting evidence
- Teacher's Applications and Response to the Presenting Officer’s applications
- Supplementary Response to the Presenting Officer’s applications
- Final Comments from the Presenting Officer
- Full Hearing Papers - outstanding redactions
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 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.
Decision
In consideration and determination of both applications, the Panel had regard to the Rules, the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Fact-finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases, the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Witnesses and Hearsay Evidence, and the submissions of both parties in relation to both applications.
In particular, the Panel noted that rule 1.7.17 of the Rules states that:
1.7.17 Subject to the requirements of relevance and fairness, a Panel may admit oral, documentary or other evidence, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in civil or criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom.
The Panel determined both applications by reference to whether it considered that the disputed evidence was relevant, and that its admission would be fair.
Presenting Officer’s Application
The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to admit the hearsay evidence of three witnesses, as follows:
- Colleague 8 – [redacted]
- Statement of Colleague 8 including message screenshots, dated 21 February 2019, signed 22 May 2019
- Record of interview of Colleague 8, dated 22 May 2019
- Colleague 9 – [redacted]
- Statement of Colleague 9, dated 22 February 2019, signed 21 May 2019
- Record of interview of Colleague 9, dated 21 May 2019
- Colleague 12 – [redacted]
- Statement of Colleague 12, signed 22 May 2019
- Record of interview of Colleague 12, dated 22 May 2019
The Presenting Officer’s Submissions
The Presenting Officer’s submissions in respect of these witnesses were as follows:
Colleague 8 had been away from work for some time and contact was eventually facilitated by her employer, although her responses were intermittent. She did provide a date she would be available for a statement, but the Investigating Officer was unable to make contact with her at this time. A final email was sent requesting her engagement following this, but no response was received prior to the issuing of the Interim Investigation Report. Efforts were made following the issuing of the report to contact Colleague 8. It was hoped that the personal circumstances which made initial contact with her difficult would have been resolved by this point, making it easier for her to engage in the process. Again, intermittent contact was received, and the Investigating Officer took the view that it was not proportionate to delay matters further by continuing efforts to contact Colleague 8. The final allegations reflect the evidence available in light of this.
The evidence in its totality is relevant to the allegations relating to colleague 8. Other witnesses speak to the conduct and therefore she is not the sole and decisive witness. In any event there are good and cogent reasons for the lack of a GTCS statement and non-attendance by the colleague.
It is against the backdrop of the legislation, rules and case law that I invite the Panel to admit the statement provided by Colleague 8 in the course of the local authority investigation and spoken to in her record of interview with the local authority.
Colleague 9 requested not to be involved in the fitness to teach process. She has moved to a different school since the incident and felt stressed by being contacted about the investigation and asked to give a statement. There is an expectation that registered teachers will engage in fitness to teach investigations.
However, Colleague 9 provided reasons as to why she did not wish to engage, and the investigating Officer formed the view that it was not fair or proportionate in all the circumstances to continue insisting she do so, particularly as allegation 3 is evidenced by two other witnesses.
It is submitted that the evidence in its totality is relevant to the allegations relating to Colleague 9. Other witnesses speak to the conduct and therefore she is not the sole and decisive witness. In any event there are good and cogent reasons for the lack of a GTCS statement and non-attendance by the colleague.
It is against the backdrop of the legislation, rules and case law that I invite the Panel to admit the statement provided by Colleague 9 in the course of the local authority investigation and spoken to in her record of interview with the local authority.
Colleague 12 took some time to respond to contact, with her employer eventually being involved. She ultimately advised that it was due to the pandemic that she had not previously responded. Colleague 12 regretfully felt unable to engage with the fitness to teach process due to her personal circumstances. The Investigating Officer felt it was not fair or proportionate in all the circumstances to continue efforts to engage Colleague 12 in the process. Colleague 12 is not a registered teacher and as such is not subject to the same expectation to engage in fitness to teach investigations.
It is submitted that the evidence in its totality is relevant to the allegations relating to Colleague 12. Other witnesses speak to the conduct and therefore she is not the sole and decisive witness. In any event there are good and cogent reasons for the lack of a GTCS statement and non-attendance by the colleague.
It is against the backdrop of the legislation, rules and case law that I invite the Panel to admit the statement provided by Colleague 12 in the course of the local authority investigation and spoken to in her record of interview with the local authority.
The Teacher’s Representative’s Submissions
The Teacher’s Representative made submissions on the Presenting Officer’s Application contained in the submission in respect of the Teacher’s Application, and are referred to further below. The Panel had regard to those submissions when determining the Presenting Officer’s Application The Teacher’s Representative made further specific submissions in opposition to the Presenting Officer’s Application, as follows:
88. The Presenting Officer makes an application for the hearsay evidence of Colleagues 8, 9 and 12 to be admitted. These applications are opposed on the basis that this evidence is hearsay and should be held to be inadmissible. Full reasons for this are set out above in relation to our second application. We do not repeat all of that here but make the following observations on the Presenting Officer’s application:
• Colleague 8
89. It is prejudicial to Mr Dewar-Riddick that Colleague 8’s statement is admitted as hearsay without the opportunity for her to be cross-examined. There is a conflict of evidence between Colleague 8 and Mr Dewar-Riddick. Colleague 8 is a vital factual witness in respect of allegation 2.
90. The Presenting Officer refers to Colleague 8 not engaging in the investigation at all though limited information is provided. It is said that the investigating officer considered it was not proportionate to continue the efforts to contact Colleague 8. This is not a good reason for this witness’s nonattendance and admission of this hearsay statement. Her refusal to engage is not a compelling reason such that a hearsay statement should be admitted. That is prejudicial to Mr Dewar-Riddick.
• Colleague 9
91. The Presenting Officer refers to Colleague 9 not wishing to engage in the investigation. It is said that the investigating officer considered it was not “fair or proportionate” to consider insisting that she engage, despite being a registered teacher. This is not a good reason for this witness’s nonattendance and admission of this hearsay statement.
92. Colleague 8 is a vital factual witness in respect of allegation 3. Mr Dewar-Riddick should be given the opportunity to challenge her evidence. Her refusal to engage is not a compelling reason such that a hearsay statement should be admitted. The inclusion of her evidence is prejudicial to Mr Dewar-Riddick.
• Colleague 12
93. As set out above, the allegation relating to Colleague 12 is very serious. It forms part of allegation 8 in relation to alleged sexual or sexually motivated behaviour. There is a conflict of evidence between Colleague 12 and Mr Dewar-Riddick. It is prejudicial to Mr Dewar-Riddick that Colleague 12’s statement is admitted as hearsay without the opportunity for her to be cross-examined.
94. Colleague 12 is a vital factual witness in respect of allegation 4(d)(ii). Her refusal to engage is not a compelling reason such that a hearsay statement should be admitted. That is prejudicial to Mr Dewar-Riddick. Given the importance of Colleague 12’s evidence and the lack of reasons as to why she cannot attend we do not consider there to be compelling reasons why the Mr Dewar-Riddick [sic] should be deprived of the requirement of fairness and the right to a fair hearing to cross-examine her.
The Teacher’s Representative made further submissions in a letter of 22 November 2023, as follows:
2. The presenting officer has provided documentation evidencing the GTCS’s contact with Colleague 8 (redacted), Colleague 9 (redacted) and Colleague 12 (redacted).
3. Colleague 8 did not confirm she was unwilling to engage and responded by email suggesting she was willing to assist. It appears no telephone number was sought for her and she was not contacted further to the email correspondence to confirm whether she would be willing to assist. Colleague 12 confirmed by email that she was unwilling to engage in the proceedings. We submit that no good reason has been given for the non-attendance of Colleagues 8 or 12. This is a relevant factor under Thorneycroft v Nursing & Midwifery Council (2014) EWHC 1566 (Admin). The GTCS have not taken reasonable steps to secure their attendance as further methods of communication could be exhausted with these witnesses. The threshold for allowing this hearsay evidence has not been met and the evidence should be excluded as being inadmissible.
4. In relation to colleague 9 there is an attendance note between her and the GTCS. In this note it is recorded that colleague 9 stated that the GTCS could contact her “when things have calmed down”. There is no evidence that the GTCS followed up that contact or attempted to obtain a statement from her. While there were circumstantial barriers to her providing a statement at the time of the call, the GTCS did not pursue this further by contacting her at a later date, despite her comments suggesting that they could do so. There is no good reason for the non-attendance of this witness and on the evidence provided it is clear the GTCS have failed to take reasonable – and simple – steps to secure their evidence. Colleague 9’s evidence should not be admitted as hearsay evidence as the GTCS have failed to satisfy the requirements set out in Thorneycroft.
Decision on the Presenting Officer’s Application
The Panel had regard to these submissions and all other relevant materials when considering the Presenting Officer’s Application.
Having done so, the Panel decided to grant the Presenting Officer’s Application in full.
In the Panel’s view, evidence is not inadmissible simply because it is hearsay. The test is always whether the admission of evidence is fair and relevant. This said, the Panel was conscious that it may not be a sufficient answer to say that the significance of hearsay evidence is a matter only of weight, rather than admissibility The Panel was of the view that hearsay will not be admitted if it is unfair to do so.
The Panel considered the relevant practice statement which suggests factors which may be taken into account in relation to fairness and relevancy.
The Panel considered the steps that had been taken to contact Colleagues 8, 9 and 12. The Panel considered that there was evidence of the steps which had been taken to secure the attendance of these witnesses. Although the Panel noted that there had been some time since attempts had been made to engage with these witnesses, the Panel agreed that in the particular circumstances of the case, where there are other witnesses who will give oral evidence in relation to the allegations, further steps would be disproportionate.
It did not appear to the Panel that Colleagues 8, 9 and 12 were the decisive witnesses in relation to any particular allegations.
The Panel was conscious that the Teacher would not be able to cross examine these witnesses, but submissions could be made in relation to weight which in the circumstances was not unfair.
The Panel was of the view that the allegations against the Teacher were serious but that they were not so serious as to render the admission of this hearsay evidence unfair. The Panel noted that the contents were in dispute, but the Panel was of the view that other witnesses appeared likely to give oral evidence of the same matters and that they would be exposed to cross examination. The Teacher will not be without the opportunity to test the evidential case against him.
The Panel did not see why there had been no further attempts to engage with the witnesses, and to that extent considered that there was some force in the Teacher’s Representative’s submissions in this respect. However, this relevant consideration is not determinative of fairness.
Overall, while the Panel noted that Colleague 8, Colleague 9 and Colleague 12 could not be cross examined, this did not create unfairness so as to render the documents inadmissible. Accordingly, the Panel decided to admit the statements and the records of interviews of Colleague 8, Colleague 9 and Colleague 12.
Teacher’s Representative’s Application
The Teacher’s Representative’s application contained a long list of objections to various parts of the draft hearing bundle. The Panel considered each objection by reference to a) the terms of the material under objection; b) the Teacher’s Representative’s submission in this respect; and c) the Presenting Officer’s Submission in response. In this section of this decision the parties’ respective submissions are reproduced in turn, with the Panel’s decision on each objection stated following the respective submissions, with that process repeated until the totality of the objections are addressed.
1. Page 9-11 – section 4 of the employer’s report
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
This material has no bearing on the allegations. It relates to the investigations conducted by the teacher’s employer. The conclusions from such an investigation are irrelevant and have rightly been redacted. However, this recitation of the investigation’s history is just as irrelevant. The investigating officer’s conclusions, such as those that at 4.5 about the comprehensive nature of the investigations, are irrelevant. The Panel is to make their decision afresh, uncorrupted by knowledge of what has gone before.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
It is submitted that, while the objection to the employer’s conclusions is well founded, the progress of the employer’s investigation and therefore provenance of the statements are relevant considerations in whether the evidence ought to be admitted albeit hearsay and is relevant to the Panel’s consideration on the weight that can be attached.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel considered whether the documents were relevant and whether their admission was fair. The Panel did not consider that admission would lead to unfairness. If the statements are accepted the evidence simply explains where the statements come from. The Panel did not consider that putting evidence before a hearing panel as to how statements were created would constitute the leading of irrelevant evidence and decided that the evidence was therefore admissible. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for section 4 of the employer’s report on pages 9-11 to be redacted.
2. Pages 43 – 46 in their entirety
[redacted]
Panel’s Decision
[redacted]. Accordingly, the Panel granted the Teacher’s application for pages 43 – 46 to be redacted in their entirety.
2. Page 55 in its entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
39. This is hearsay evidence of Colleague 9. No witness statement has been provided to the GTCS. She is not giving oral evidence. Colleague 9’s evidence is relevant for allegation 3. This is that:
"3. In or around February 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, the Teacher did shout at Colleague 9, ‘fuck off’, or words to that effect."
40. Colleague 9 is the individual who is the subject of the allegation and to whom the words are alleged to have been said.
41. Given the serious nature of the allegations faced by Mr Dewar-Riddick, Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged. Mr Dewar-Riddick’s case attracts the protections of Article 6 notwithstanding the case is neither civil nor criminal; what is relevant is the gravity of the issue in the case, rather than the case's classification (R(G) v X School Governors [ . . .]. Mr Dewar-Riddick is therefore entitled to a fair trial spelt out in Articles 6(2) and (3) including the right to cross examine witnesses whose evidence is relied on against him.
42. The Presenting Officer has indicated that efforts were made to contact Colleague 9 and that reasons were provided as to why no statement is provided. Those reasons are not disclosed notwithstanding that Colleague 9 is a registered teacher. As set out in Bonhoeffer it is not sufficient merely that a witness does not want to attend. If Mr Dewar-Riddick is to lose the opportunity to cross-examine this witness, there need to be "compelling reasons" to justify this disruption of Mr Dewar-Riddick’s right to a fair hearing. A lack of convenience, a reluctance to engage, or feelings of stress are not compelling reasons. The further guidance in Ogbonna demonstrates that regard must be had to the steps taken to secure the witness's attendance. The panel nor the defence can assess whether there are “compelling reasons” for this witness to not engage in these proceedings without being given further details. If Mr Dewar-Riddick is to lose his right to a fair hearing a thorough assessment should be undertaken to assess whether there are sufficient reasons for the witness not to attend.
43. While we accept that Colleague 9 is not the sole witness who narrates the alleged events in allegation 3, her evidence in relation to what was shouted at her is key to potentially corroborate, or not, the evidence of others. Given the seriousness of the allegations, and the importance of Colleague 9's evidence in relation to the following events, it is fair that Mr Dewar-Riddick be given the opportunity to cross-examine her on her account.
44. The starting point of the assessment of fairness in a case such as this is the basic proposition that the teacher should have an opportunity to test the evidence against them. This hearsay evidence cannot be tested by the teacher. Colleague 9’s hearsay statement should be redacted.
45. If this is not agreed the teacher reserves their position to make further an admissibility application in respect to elements of Colleague 9’s hearsay statement.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This is addressed in the Presenting Officer’s submissions above. If those are rejected then the statement falls to be excluded. Equally if the evidence is admitted then it cannot be redacted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel, having considered the submissions in relation to the Teacher’s Representative’s application, has decided to admit Colleague 9’s hearsay evidence. In addition to the reasons stated above, the Panel considered that the objection by the Teacher’s Representative was founded at least in part of a misconceived legal analysis where it is stated that the proceedings are neither civil nor criminal. The Panel is not aware of a third category of legal proceedings into which the present proceedings fall. In terms of the Panel’s understanding of the law, legal proceedings are either civil or criminal. The present matter is not a criminal matter; therefore it must be a civil matter. The Teacher’s Representative did not categorise the present proceedings other than to say that they are neither civil nor criminal. The Panel considers that this is likely wrong, and the Teacher’s Representative did not explain how the present proceedings might be otherwise categorised. In any case, articles 6(2) and 6(3) ECHR concern only criminal proceedings. Whether the present proceedings are civil proceedings or fall into some unspecified third category, they are patently not criminal proceedings, and contrary to the submission of the Teacher’s Representative, those parts of Article 6 ECHR do not apply. Article 6(1) ECHR does apply to the present proceedings, which is the requirement for a fair hearing. That requirement is inherent in rule 1.17.7 and the Panel has decided, overall, that it would be fair to admit colleague 9’s relevant hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for page 55 to be redacted.
4. Pages 58-59 in their entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
46. This is hearsay evidence of Colleague 8. No witness statement has been provided to the GTCS. She is not giving oral evidence. Colleague 8’s evidence is relevant for allegation 2. This is that:
"2. Between in or around September 2017 and in or around April 2018, whilst employed at [redacted] Primary School, the Teacher did act in an offensive manner towards Colleague 8, in that he did;
a. Advise her that he had contacted staff at [redacted] to ask about her time as a pupil there, and that she had been described as a ‘right idiot’; and
b. Send a message to her on Facebook stating ‘Typical Dumfries Place. Fucking Shit Hole!! Haha x’"
47. The message referred to at allegation 2(b) is provided at page 60. Mr Dewar-Riddick accepts that he sent this message though disputes the context (or that it was offensive).
48. The comments above regarding Colleague 9 apply to this hearsay statement from Colleague 8. Fairness requires that Mr Dewar-Riddick be given the opportunity to cross-examine Colleague 8 on her account. He cannot do so. Again while the Presenting Officer has given a general outline of the efforts to engage with this witness no details have been given as to her reasons for not engaging. Again Colleague 9 is a registered teacher so is expected to engage with GTCS investigations. Without any reasons we cannot assess whether compelling reasons have been provided for her failure to provide a statement or attend to give evidence.
49. If this is not agreed the teacher reserves their position to make a further admissibility application in respect to elements of Colleague 8’s hearsay statement.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This is addressed in the Presenting Officer’s submissions above. If those are rejected then the statement falls to be excluded. Equally if the evidence is admitted then it cannot be redacted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided that the evidence should be admitted and that the proposed redaction should be refused, for the reasons given in relation to the Presenting Officer’s application and as further discussed in relation to the previous objection. The Panel noted that the content of these places refers to the screenshot on the next page, and it therefore relates to the allegations. The Panel did not agree with the Teacher’s Representative’s submission that fairness requires an opportunity to cross examine this witness. The Panel did not consider that admitting this witness’s evidence as hearsay evidence would be unfair in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for pages 58 to 59 to be redacted.
5. Page 62 – first paragraph, the words [redacted] and the words [redacted]
[redacted]
Presenting Officer’s Submission
There appeared to the Panel to be no submission for the Presenting Officer on this matter
Panel’s Decision
[redacted]. Accordingly, the Panel granted the Teacher’s application for the passages on page 62 to be redacted.
6. Page 67- the final paragraph
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
52. The witness’ medical condition and opinion of Mr Dewar-Riddick are irrelevant to the consideration of the Fitness to Teach panel. The teacher is not accused of any matters relating to vulnerable children. There are no allegations regarding these comments. We refer to our comments on Murphy above. Witnesses are to provide evidence on the facts that the Presenting Officer seeks to prove. It was open to the Presenting Officer to formulate such allegations and he chose not to do so. There can therefore be no factual finding that this occurred. Without a factual finding, the evidence is irrelevant. It would be prejudicial to the teacher to allow such material to be included without it being framed as an allegation.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This paragraph is the witness’ [sic] contention of how the behaviour affected him. This is relevant to the allegations under consideration. Fair notice of what the witness will contend has been given. A consideration relevant to impairment is what impact, if any, alleged behaviour had on an individual. The witnesses’ contention that the Teacher is not someone that he feels is suitable to teach is a relevant consideration for the Panel. It is for the Panel what weight to attach but given he is a professional colleague who understands the requirements of GTC Scotland registration his assessment is relevant to the Panel. It is fair to admit this evidence. It will be open to the Teacher to cross examine the witness. It should be admitted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided that the evidence challenged was relevant and it was fair to admit it. The Panel agreed with the reasons provided by the Presenting Officer. The Panel considered that evidence of the context, scale and impact of the Teacher’s alleged actions was relevant, fair and admissible. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the final paragraph on page 67 to be redacted.
7. Page 68 – 69 – from the final sentence of page 68 and the first two paragraphs of page 69
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
53. No allegations are being pursued in respect of this conduct. It was open to the Presenting Officer to make this the allegation and they have chosen not to do so. It is not the role of witnesses to provide context beyond the allegations. The evidence is irrelevant.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This allegation is set out within the notice and is set out at allegation 4b. Mr Riddick’s behaviour both in the lead up to the alleged incident and after are relevant to the Panel’s consideration. Fair notice of the allegation has been given. The Teacher’s representative will be able to cross examine the witness on their recollection of events. The second paragraph on page 68 is relevant to the Panel’s assessment of credibility and reliability of the witnesses account. It is fair to admit it.
Panel’s Decision
Firstly, the Panel noted that the Presenting Officer agreed to the redaction of the second paragraph on page 69. The Panel further agreed with the Presenting Officer that the outstanding challenged evidence constituted a description of the behaviour stated at allegation 4b. Accordingly, the Panel rejected the Teacher’s Representative’s submission that the evidence was irrelevant. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the final sentence of page 68 and the first paragraph of page 69 to be redacted.
8. Page 76 in its entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
54. This is hearsay evidence of Colleague 12. No witness statement has been provided to the GTCS. She is not giving oral evidence. Colleague 12’s evidence is relevant for allegation 4(d)(ii). This is that:
"4. On 29 March 2018, whilst on a work night out with colleagues at The Anglers bar, Annan, the Teacher did:
d. Make unwanted physical contact with female colleagues in that he did;
ii. In respect of Colleague 12, grab her lower back and/or buttocks on at least one occasion;"
55. This is an exceptionally serious allegation. As the allegation relates to contact made to Colleague 12’s body only this witness can talk directly to the nature of that contact. The comments above regarding Colleagues 8 and 9 apply to this hearsay statement from Colleague 12. Fairness requires that Mr Dewar-Riddick be given the opportunity to cross-examine Colleague 12 on her account. He cannot do so. While the Presenting Officer has outlined contact with Colleague 12 no specific and detailed reason has been provided as to why Colleague 12 will not engage. Therefore there is no compelling reasons her failure to provide a statement or attend to give evidence.
56. Fairness requires that Mr Dewar-Riddick be given the opportunity to cross-examine Colleague 12 on her account. He cannot do so and this document should be removed from the bundle. If this is not agreed the teacher reserves their position to make a further admissibility application in respect to elements of Colleague 8’s hearsay statement.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This is addressed in the Presenting Officer’s submissions above. If those are rejected then the statement falls to be excluded. Equally if the evidence is admitted then it cannot be redacted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided to admit this evidence for the reasons given above in relation to Colleague 12’s hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for page 76 to be redacted.
9. Page 81 – second paragraph, from ‘but I did meet up…’ to the end of the paragraph
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
57. This is unquestionably hearsay evidence. This hearsay evidence is evidence in relation to what the teacher is said to have told [redacted]. There is no evidence from [redacted]. What was reported to Colleague 7 by [redacted] is irrelevant. The teacher is charged with specific conduct. Direct evidence from those involved in those events will be lead. It would be unfair to admit this hearsay evidence when the teacher cannot cross-examine those who are said to have reported what occurred.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
It is accepted that this is hearsay. The Presenting Officer nevertheless submits that it would be relevant and fair to admit it. The witness will be called to give evidence. She can be cross examined on what she was told. It is relevant to the later question of impairment. Mr Riddick’s attitude to these allegations is relevant to whether it is behaviour that is capable of remedy and a material consideration at stage 2 of proceedings. Fair notice has been given of the content of what the witness is said to have been told and they can be cross examined on its contents. The Panel can consider what weight to attach thereto.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided to admit this evidence for the reasons given by the Presenting Officer. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the passage on page 81 to be redacted.
10. Page 81 – from ‘He responded with:” to the end of the paragraph ending “…who had been there that night.’
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
58. This evidence could have been formulated to be an allegation. The Presenting Officer has chosen not to. There will therefore be no finding of fact on it. It would be prejudicial to the teacher to allow such material to be included without it being framed as an allegation.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This is not an allegation of misconduct however the Teacher’s attitude to the alleged behaviour is relevant to the question of impairment. It is therefore admissible. The witness will be available for cross examination. Fair notice of what is said to have happened is contained in the statement. It should be admitted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel noted that the evidence did not form the basis of an allegation but did not consider that this was required. The Panel agreed with the Presenting Officer that the challenged evidence was relevant to impairment and to the context of the allegations made and the Teacher’s attitude to what may have happened. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the passage on page 81 to be redacted.
11. Page 82 – from the end of the first paragraph starting “He had shown no remorse...” to the end of the next paragraph ending “…in our staffroom.”
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
59. The first paragraph includes Colleague 7’s opinion on Mr Dewar-Riddick’s apology. This is not relevant to the panel’s fact-finding role. The comments are prejudicial to their consideration of the charges. The second paragraph contains Colleague 7’s speculation as to Mr Dewar-Riddick’s motives for his alleged actions. Colleague 7’s speculation is not relevant to the panel’s consideration and should be removed. To include it would be prejudicial.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
The question of Mr Riddick’s conduct after the behaviour occurred is relevant to the issue of impairment. The specific allegations of misconduct are libelled. His behaviour and approach after are relevant to what weight, if any, can be attached to insight shown or explanations for the behaviour. The witness can be cross examined on their recollections. It is a matter for the Panel what weight to attach but as it is relevant and fair it ought to be evidence available to the Panel’s consideration of these matters.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel accepted the Presenting Officer’s submission in this respect. The Panel did not accept that the challenged evidence must be categorised as pure speculation, and the witness’s comments may also be read as being an assertion of facts based on what the witness saw or heard. The Panel agreed with the Presenting Officer that the evidence may be relevant to the issue of impairment. The Teacher will have the opportunity to rebut the evidence and the Panel considered that it would be fair to admit it. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the passage on page 82 to be redacted.
12. Pages 85-86 in their entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
60. This is Colleague 9’s interview during the disciplinary investigation. It holds the same status as her account at page 55. Colleague 9 is the subject of allegation 3. Our submissions outlined at paragraphs 39 to 45 apply. It would be unfair for this evidence to be admitted as Colleague 9 is not attending the hearing. Mr Dewar-Riddick does not have the opportunity to test this evidence. In addition no substantive reason has been provided as to why this witness cannot attend and without that we and the panel cannot assess whether there are compelling reasons for this witness to not attend the hearing. Inclusion of colleague 9’s comments deprive Mr Dewar-Riddick of a fair hearing.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This is addressed in the Presenting Officer’s submissions above. If those are rejected then the statement falls to be excluded. Equally if the evidence is admitted then it cannot be redacted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided to admit this evidence for the reasons set out in the Presenting Officer’s submissions. The Panel did not accept the Teacher’s Representative’s submission that admission of the evidence would deprive the Teacher of a fair hearing, and the Panel considered that the evidence was relevant. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for pages 85-86 to be redacted.
13. Pages 96-98 in their entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
61. This is Colleague 8’s interview during the disciplinary investigation. It holds the same status as her account at page 58. Colleague 8 is the subject of allegation 2. Our submissions outlined at paragraphs 46 to 49 apply. It would be unfair for this evidence to be admitted as Colleague 8 is not attending the hearing. Mr Dewar-Riddick does not have the opportunity to test this evidence. In addition, no substantive reason has been provided as to why this witness cannot attend and without that we and the panel cannot assessing whether there are compelling reasons for this witness to not attend the hearing. Inclusion of colleague 9 comments deprive Mr Dewar-Riddick of a fair hearing.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This is addressed in the Presenting Officer’s submissions above. If those are rejected then the statement falls to be excluded. Equally if the evidence is admitted then it cannot be redacted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided to admit this evidence for the reasons given above. The Panel did not accept the Teacher’s Representative’s submission that admission of the evidence would deprive the Teacher of a fair hearing. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for pages 96-98 to be redacted.
14. Page 102 – in the answer to Question 3 the words, “’This is a babe magnet’”
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
62. The teacher is charged with specific conduct about what he is alleged to have said to Colleague 2 about his wedding ring (see allegation 1(b)). There is no allegation that he used words to this effect, including to Colleague 3. There can therefore be no factual finding that this occurred. Without a factual finding, the evidence is irrelevant. It would be prejudicial to the teacher to allow such material to be included without it being framed as an allegation.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
Allegation 1b charges the Teacher with saying the words ‘slut magnet’ or words to that effect. It is submitted that “babe magnet” falls under the remit of words to that effect. The witnesses’ response to the question is relevant to what weight the Panel can attach to the evidence and make findings in fact thereon. Fair notice has been given. The witness will be available for cross examination and can clarify the point. What the witness is noted to have said is relevant to the Panel’s consideration and fair notice is provided. It is submitted that it should be admitted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel accepted the Presenting Officer’s submission in this respect and determined that the evidence should be admitted. The words which the Teacher seeks to redact are capable of falling within the category of being words to the same effect of those specifically stated in the relevant allegation. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the passage on page 102 to be redacted.
15. Page 102 – in the answer to Question 4 the words, ‘I saw him in the Loreburn…’ to the end of the paragraph
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
63. The witness’s feelings towards Mr Dewar-Riddick are irrelevant to the panel’s consideration of his fitness to teach. Inflammatory comments are prejudicial to the panel’s consideration of the allegations. This passage should be removed.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
The witness’ [sic] feelings about the Teacher in the aftermath of the incident are relevant to the question of impairment. The witness will be available for cross examination. Fair notice of what the witness is going to say has been provided. It is submitted that it should be admitted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided to reject the application for redaction for the reasons given by the Presenting Officer. In the Panel’s view, the evidence is relevant, and it would be fair to admit it. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the passage on page 102 to be redacted.
16. Page 107 – the answer to Question 5 in its entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
64. The witness’s feelings towards Mr Dewar-Riddick are irrelevant to the panel’s consideration of his fitness to teach. Inflammatory comments are prejudicial to the panel’s consideration of the allegations. This passage should be removed.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
The witness’ feelings about the Teacher in the aftermath of the incident are relevant to the question of impairment. The witness will be available for cross examination. Fair notice of what the witness is going to say has been provided. It is submitted that it should be admitted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided to reject the application for redaction for the reasons given by the Presenting Officer. In the Panel’s view, the evidence is relevant and it would be fair to admit it. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the passage on page 107 to be redacted.
17. Pages 110-111 in their entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
65. This is Colleague 12’s interview during the disciplinary investigation. It holds the same status as her account at page 76. Colleague 12 is the subject of allegation 4(d)(ii). Our submissions outlined at paragraphs 54 to 56 apply. It would be unfair for this evidence to be admitted as Colleague 12 is not attending the hearing for her account to be tested. In addition, no substantive reason have been provided as to why this witness cannot attend and without that we and the panel cannot assess whether there are compelling reasons for this witness to not attend the hearing. Inclusion of colleague 12 comments deprive Mr Dewar-Riddick of a fair hearing.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This is addressed in the Presenting Officer’s submissions above. If those are rejected then the statement falls to be excluded. Equally if the evidence is admitted then it cannot be redacted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided to admit this challenged hearsay evidence from Colleague 12 for the reasons given above. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher's application for pages 110 -111 to be redacted.
18. Page 213 – in paragraph 17 the words [redacted]
19. Page 214 – in the first paragraph the words [redacted]
[redacted]
Panel’s Decision (on both proposed redactions)
[redacted] Accordingly, the Panel granted the Teacher’s application for pages 213-214 to be redacted.
20. Page 214 – in paragraph 20 from the second sentence to the end of paragraph 21 on page 215 and paragraphs 27 to 29 in their entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
68. Colleague 2’s views on Mr Dewar-Riddick are not relevant to the panel’s consideration of these charges. The comments are prejudicial and should be removed. At paragraph 28 Colleague 2 recounts hearsay evidence of events where she was not present and speculation as to Mr Dewar- Riddick’s motive for his actions. This information should not be placed before the panel as it is prejudicial.
69. Colleague 2’s views on Mr Dewar-Riddick as a teacher at paragraph 29 are not relevant to the panel. There are no allegations about Mr Dewar Riddick’s ability to teach and it will be a matter for the panel and them alone to decide on his general fitness to teach. These comments are irrelevant and prejudicial. They must be redacted to ensure a fair hearing.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
Colleague 2 reports the conduct having a negative impact on her. The impact of the behaviour on members of the public, including colleagues are relevant considerations for the Panel in determining the Teacher’s fitness to teach. It is relevant to the question of impairment. Fair notice has been given. The witness will be available for cross examination. As it is relevant and fair it should be admitted.
Colleague 2’s views on the Teacher in this context are relevant both to what weight can be attached to her evidence but also relevant to the question of impairment. Colleague 2 is a registered Teacher and is aware of the relevant standards of conduct. She will be available for cross examination. The evidence therefore is both relevant and fair and should be admitted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel decided to accept the Presenting Officer’s submission and to reject the submission by the Teacher’s Representative. The Panel decided that the challenged evidence was relevant for the reasons given by the Presenting Officer and that it would be fair to admit the evidence. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for paragraph 20 from the second sentence to the end of paragraph 21 and paragraphs 27 to 29 in their entirety to be redacted.
21. Page 217 – in paragraph 4, from the second sentence to the end of the paragraph
[redacted]
Panel’s Decision
[redacted]. Accordingly, the Panel granted the Teacher’s application for the second sentence to the end of paragraph 4 to be redacted.
22. Page 230 – in paragraph 3, from the sentence starting, [redacted] to the end of the paragraph
[redacted]
Panel’s Decision
The Panel preferred the submission of the Teacher’s Representative in this respect. [redacted]. Accordingly, the Panel granted the Teacher’s application for the redaction of the passage paragraph 3.
23. Page 234 – in paragraph 4, the whole paragraph
[redacted].
Panel’s Decision
The Panel preferred the submission of the Teacher’s Representative in this respect of the first sentence [redacted]. The Panel therefore decided that the application for redaction of the first sentence in paragraph 4 should be granted.
However, the Panel was of the view that the second sentence, ‘I didn't really like (…) when he was there’, should remain as it was relevant context.
24. Page 236 – in paragraph 10 the words from, ‘as I was really concerned…’ to ‘…to hurt her’
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
73. This evidence from Colleague 4 is speculation. That is irrelevant to the panel’s consideration. It would be grossly prejudicial to Mr Dewar-Riddick to include such evidence.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
The witness’ impression is relevant to whether it can be said that the Teacher acted in a physically aggressive manner as set out in allegation 4. Fair notice has been given. The witness will be available for cross examination. It should be admitted as it is relevant and fair.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel accepted the Presenting Officer’s submission in this respect. In the Panel’s view, it may not be speculation for a witness to describe what they saw and their concerns as to what might have been about to happen next. A witness’s concern as to how a situation might develop, held at the material time, is a matter of fact that is relevant to the determination of the allegation. Whether that concern was actually held, held validly, and whatever the Teacher’s actual intentions may have been at the material time, are matters which can be explored in evidence. The Panel decided that the evidence was relevant and that it was fair to admit it. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the words from ‘as I was really concerned…’ to ‘…to hurt her’ to be redacted.
25. Page 237 – paragraph 15 in its entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
74. This evidence is not relevant to whether the events outlined in the charges took place and it is prejudicial for the panel to consider it.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
Colleague 4 reports the conduct having a negative impact on him. The impact of the behaviour on members of the public, including colleagues are relevant considerations for the Panel in determining the Teacher’s fitness to teach. It is relevant to the question of impairment. Fair notice has been given. The witness will be available for cross examination. As it is relevant and fair it should be admitted.
Panel’s Decision
In the Panel’s view, the challenged evidence related to the impact the events had had on the witness even sometime after the incident were relevant and therefore this should not be redacted. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher's application for paragraph 15 to be redacted.
26. Page 238 – in paragraph 3, from the sentence starting, [redacted] to the end of the paragraph
[redacted]
Panel’s Decision
[redacted]. The Panel decided to grant the Teacher’s application for redaction of the sentence starting [redacted] to the end of the paragraph 3.
27. Page 239 – paragraph 7 in its entirety
Teacher’s Representative’s Submissions
76. Colleague 7’s views on Mr Dewar-Riddick as a Teacher at paragraph 7 are not relevant to the panel. The comments are vague and unspecific. There is no date. No information is provided as to how Mr Dewar-Riddick is said to have been “inappropriate” or how colleague 7 would “keep him in check”. The comments are prejudicial and should be removed. There are no allegations about Mr Dewar Riddick somehow being generally inappropriate to colleague 7.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
Colleague 7 is a professional Teacher with significant experience in the teaching profession. Her views on the Teacher are relevant to the question of impairment. They are relevant to what weight can be attached to her evidence on the facts. The Panel ought to consider the evidence in this context to reach a fair view of the evidence before them. She will be available for cross examination. Fair notice of the content of her evidence on this point has been given. As it is relevant and fair it should be admitted.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel accepted the submissions of the Presenting Officer. While the Panel was of the view that general impressions of the Teacher without any relevant context have no obvious relevance to the matters before a future Panel, in the Panel’s view this objection was in a different category to those it had previously upheld on that basis. Here the challenged evidence is provided following a previous paragraph of the same document. That paragraph (which is not challenged) contains evidence which is of direct relevance to the allegations against the Teacher. In the Panel’s view, the challenged evidence describes the witness’s interactions with the Teacher following elements of the allegations, and reaction to those same elements, and the Panel therefore considered that the evidence was relevant and that it was fair to admit it. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher's application for paragraph 7 on page 239 to be redacted.
28. Page 240 – in paragraph 13 the words from, ‘with enough force’ to the end of the sentence
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
The Panel will note the specific wording of the allegations regarding Colleague 7. The relevant allegations are 5, 6 and 7. There is no allegation that Colleague 7 was pushed with force by Mr Dewar-Riddick. It was open to the Presenting Officer to make this the allegation and they have chosen not to do so. The witness is to provide evidence on the facts that the Presenting Officer seeks to prove. There can therefore be no factual finding that this occurred. Without a factual finding, this evidence is irrelevant. It would be prejudicial to the teacher to allow such material to be included without it being framed as an allegation.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
The Panel will note the specific wording of allegation 4 in its entirety. Colleague 7’s evidence is relevant to that allegation. It is noted that the Teacher is alleged to have acted in a physically aggressive manner and attempted to attach [sic] colleagues 2 and 3. Colleague 7 was present. Her evidence that she was pushed with force is in the context of intervening in the vents [sic] at allegation 4. It is therefore relevant to the Panel’s consideration of whether they occurred and amounted to physically aggressive behaviour or an attack. The fact that a specific allegation alleging that colleague 7 was pushed with force is irrelevant [sic]. The Teacher has been given fair notice. Colleague 7 will be present for cross examination. It is relevant and fair to admit this evidence and question colleague 7 on such matters.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel preferred the submission of the Presenting Officer in this respect. In the Panel’s view the challenged evidence is relevant on a fair reading of the allegations against the Teacher. The Panel noted that the Teacher did not seek to redact the first part of the sentence in paragraph 13 on page 40, which is to the effect that a push took place. Further to this, in the Panel’s opinion it is relevant and fair to lead evidence which further describes the alleged push. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the words ‘with enough force’ to the end of the sentence to be redacted.
29. Page 242 – in paragraph 21, the final two sentences
[redacted]
Panel’s Decision
[redacted]. Accordingly, the Panel granted the Teacher’s application for the final two sentences in paragraph 21 on page 242 to be redacted.
30. Page 243 – in paragraph 23, from the sentence, “The apology did not come…” to “…drive me to work?”
Teacher’s Representative’s Submission
79. Colleague 7’s opinion on Mr Dewar-Riddick’s apology is not relevant to the panel’s fact finding role. The comments are prejudicial to their consideration of the charges.
Presenting Officer’s Submission
This is not an allegation of misconduct. The Teacher’s attitude to what occurred in the aftermath of events are relevant considerations to the Panel’s question of the Teacher’s fitness to teach. Fair notice of what is said has been given. The witness will be available for cross examination. It is both relevant and fair to admit these sentences.
Panel’s Decision
The Panel preferred the submission of the Presenting Officer. The Teacher’s attitude to events is relevant to impairment. The witness explains why she did not consider that the Teacher’s apology to be genuine. The Panel considered that the witness’s assessment of the apology given to her at the material time is relevant where she explains the basis for that view in reference to primary facts. The Panel determined that it was fair to admit this relevant evidence. Accordingly, the Panel refused the Teacher’s application for the sentence, ‘The apology did not come…” to “…drive me to work?’ to be redacted.
Conclusion
The Panel has considered each element of both applications for itself and on its own merits in terms of rule 1.7.17. In so doing the Panel has determined:
- To grant the Presenting Officer’s application in full; and
- To grant the Teacher’s Representative’s application to a limited extent and that by ordering that the following elements of the full hearing bundle be redacted:
- Page 43 – 46 in their entirety
- Page 62 – first paragraph, the words [redacted] and the words [redacted]
- Page 213 – in paragraph 17 the words [redacted]
- Page 214 – in the first paragraph the [redacted]
- Page 217 – in paragraph 4, from the second sentence to the end of the paragraph
- Page 230 – in paragraph 3, from the sentence starting [redacted] to the end of the paragraph
- Page 234 – in paragraph 4, the first sentence
- Page 238 – in paragraph 3, from the sentence starting [redacted] to the end of the paragraph
- Page 242 – in paragraph 21, the final two sentences.
