Fitness to Teach Panel Decision - Case Cancellation and Anonymity Applications - Teacher B

Teacher

Teacher B

Date

Dates

17 December 2014

Registration number

[redacted]

Registration category

Secondary Education: Drama

Panel

Michele Knight, Diane Molyneux and Lindsay Morris

Legal assessor

Fiona Drysdale KC

Servicing officer

Emily West

Presenting officer

Gary Burton, Anderson Strathern (not present)

Teacher's representative(s)

Martin Stephen, Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie (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 and Anonymity applications made by the Teacher’s Representative.
‍

Evidence

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

1 Case Cancellation and Anonymity Application, dated 13 August 2024 with appendices including:

• Statement by Teacher B, dated 15 June 2024

• Statement by Person B, dated 15 July 2024

• Statement by Pupil A to Police Scotland, dated 17 June 2022

• Supplementary Statement by Pupil A to Police Scotland, dated 21 June 2022

• Email from (Pupil A) to Solicitor, dated 19 September 2023

• Unsigned report by Person D, dated 16 June 2021

• Statement by Person D to GTC Scotland, dated 20 June 2022

• Statement by Person C to Police Scotland, dated 20 June 2022

• Statement by Person C to GTC Scotland, dated 18 July 2023

• Statement by Person A to Police Scotland, dated 20 June 2023

• Statement by Person A to GTC Scotland, dated 30 August 2023

• Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 20 May 2024

2 Presenting Officer’s response to Application, dated 9 October 2024 with appendices including:

• Panel Consideration Full Bundle

• Panel Consideration Decision Annex, dated 20 December 2023.
‍

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

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.

Case Cancellation Application

The Panel was invited to consider a case cancellation application made by the Teacher. This was opposed by the Presenting Officer. 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 a hearing, to 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 Case Cancellation Practice Statement (”the Practice Statement”) states that there is no prescribed list of circumstances in which cancellation of a case may be sought, but gives outlines of situations including where there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the case and it is therefore considered that the possibility of a panel finding facts proved is to be so low that it would not be fair or proportionate to proceed with the case.

In their Application, the Teacher submitted that since the Panel Consideration on 20 December 2023, where a Panel referred the case for hearing proceedings, there was now insufficient evidence to support the allegations given that Pupil A had provided an email retracting his statement, and new statements were provided by the Teacher and her brother.

The Teacher’s brother’s statement states that it was the family tradition to stay at the parents’ house over Christmas then they went to Tenerife. In the Teacher’s statement, she admits to starting a sexual relationship with Pupil A on Boxing Day 2019.

The Panel considered why the Teacher was applying for cancellation now. The Teacher submitted that since the Panel Consideration on 20 December 2023, GTC Scotland had received an email from Pupil A, dated 19 September 2023, retracting what he had initially said to Police Scotland. She also stated that there were two new statements available: a statement by the Teacher herself and a statement from the Teacher’s brother. The Teacher stated that this email nor the two written submissions were before the Panel at the Panel Consideration on 20 December 2023. The Panel noted that it was not permitted to revisit the Panel Consideration stage.

The Panel noted that the email from Pupil A to the Teacher’s Representative, dated 19 September 2023, was available at the Panel Consideration and that was referred to in the Decision Annex. The Panel referred to p.57 of the bundle which provided information to the Panel from the Panel Consideration stage. It stated that, ‘the Investigating Officer contacted the witness (Pupil A) who engaged with the fitness to teach process, albeit with some hesitation. Pupil A provided a statement to the Investigating Officer; however, he disengaged prior to signing it. Several attempts were made to engage with him, including through email and phone calls, however, he did not respond. The information contained within his statement is therefore, not relied upon in this report. Following the issue of the interim report, Pupil A contacted the Investigating Officer advising that he wanted to retract his statement. The Investigating Officer advised him that his statement was not being used as evidence as he had failed to sign it but confirmed that the investigation would continue. Pupil A advised that the information he had provided in his statement was untrue.’

The Panel noted that Pupil A was the primary and only witness to the allegations, albeit that the Teacher had admitted Allegations 1(a), 1(b) and part of Allegation 3 in that she gave birth to Pupil A’s child in July 2021. The Panel noted that there was hearsay evidence about a telephone call to the Depute Headteacher saying that there was a relationship between the Teacher and Pupil A, and evidence of the Depute Headteacher contacting the Headteacher to discuss what action they should take in response to this telephone call. The only person speaking directly to there being a sexual relationship between the Teacher and Pupil A, while Pupil A was a school pupil, is Pupil A himself. The Teacher acknowledges that the sexual relationship started on Boxing Day 2019, after Pupil A left school that summer. Pupil A has disengaged from the GTC Scotland process, and no order has been made to compel him to attend by the Presenting Officer.

The Panel considered that the Presenting Officer had not directly addressed the points made by the Teacher’s Application in his response to the Application. He did not provide details of contact with Pupil A. The Panel referred to the Witness and Hearsay Evidence Practice Statement. It noted that Pupil A may be treated as a vulnerable witness as he had been a child at the time of the allegations and was the alleged victim of behaviour of a sexual nature, as per Rule 1.7.29. The Panel noted that the allegations were at the top end of seriousness in the range of possible allegations which could be made against a teacher.

The Panel considered Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel considered that it had not been provided with information about any attempts which the Presenting Officer had made to contact Pupil A.

The Panel considered the overriding objective as set down in Rule 1.3.7, to deal with cases fairly and justly.

Notwithstanding that, the Panel referred to the Case Cancellation Practice Statement. At p.2 of the Practice Statement, it is stated that, ‘A Case Cancellation application should not be used as a means by which a party seeks to re-run the Panel Consideration stage and a Panel should be mindful of the guidance in this Practice Statement when addressing such applications. At Panel Consideration stage, the Panel will have taken into account the evidence available to it, including any response provided by the Teacher, and made a decision that a full hearing is required.’. The Panel considered that the Panel at the Panel Consideration stage had considered the issue regarding Pupil A retracting his statement. The Panel recognised that there was now new evidence in the form of statements from the Teacher and her brother.

The Panel noted from the Practice Statement that ‘the appropriate way to remedy any concerns that may be raised relating to an earlier stage in the proceedings that cannot be remedied at the full hearing would be to seek cancellation of the Fitness to Teach case’. The Panel considered that the rationale submitted by the Teacher for cancellation, as noted above, was not a rationale for cancellation but a challenge to the case presented against the Teacher, and these should be presented at the full hearing. The Panel noted that it should consider the case on its facts and circumstances.

The Panel noted that no prosecution had been brought against the Teacher by Police Scotland and there was no explanation provided for this, and considered that it could not speculate as to why the case had not been prosecuted.

Rule 1.3.8 states:

“Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so far as practicable, dealing with it in ways which:

(a) are proportionate to the complexity of the issues;

(b) seek informality and flexibility in proceedings;

(d) avoid delay, so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the issues.”

Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, as far as practicable, dealing with it in ways which:

(a) are proportionate to the complexity of the issues;

The Panel considered that the proceedings were proportionate to the complexity of the issues.

(b) seek informality and flexibility in proceedings;

The Panel considered that the proceedings should not be informal given the seriousness of the allegations. The Panel considered whether there was flexibility, what was available at the original Panel consideration, the flexibility of the processes, the guidance and what it might find.

The Panel found that the Teacher was able to participate fully in proceedings.

(d) avoid delay, as far as compatible with the proper consideration of the issues.

The Panel fully considered whether delay could be avoided and that a full hearing should be scheduled swiftly to avoid delay.

The Practice Statement states that GTC Scotland’s Fitness to Teach process does not operate under precedence and ‘Each and every Case Cancellation Application will be considered individually on its particular facts and circumstances and a decision is ultimately made as is seen fit considering those particular facts and circumstances.’.

The Panel noted that a police statement was available from Pupil A and found that there was not an insufficiency of evidence.

The Panel considered whether cancellation of the case was in accordance with the public interest, including protection of members of the public (in particular, children and young people), both in terms of the teaching setting and beyond; the maintenance of the public’s confidence in registrants and in the integrity of the teaching profession; the maintenance of the public’s confidence in GTC Scotland as a professional regulator; the need to declare and uphold proper teaching standards; and the deterrent effect that the case may have upon other GTC Scotland registrants. The Panel had regard to the seriousness of the allegations and found that it was in the public interest for the case to proceed.

Decision

The Panel found that the case cancellation application should be refused. The Application for cancellation sought an anonymity application if the case cancellation was granted. As the case cancellation application was not granted, the Panel did not consider the anonymity application.

‍