Fitness to Teach Panel Decision - Virtual Hearing Application - Teacher B
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 2017or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them.
Background
The Panel Meeting was arranged to consider the following preliminary matter:
• an application made by the Presenting Officer for a virtual full hearing.
By default, GTC Scotland conducts all its fitness to teach hearings in person in its dedicated Hearings Suite at its office in Edinburgh. However, in line with Rule 1.7.6, a Fitness to Teach Panel may order that all or any part of a hearing may be conducted by the use of electronic communications provided the method adopted allows the parties, the Panel and any witnesses to attend remotely, and, where the hearing is in public, allows the public to view proceedings.
Electronic communications are commonly used for witnesses to give evidence by participating from a remote location. In addition, an entire hearing may be conducted via electronic communication. Such a hearing is described as a ‘virtual hearing’. Alternatively, if part of the hearing is held virtually and another part is held in person then such a hearing is described as a ‘hybrid hearing.’
An application for use of electronic communications in relation to a participant taking part in a hearing from a remote location or for a virtual or hybrid hearing is made by the party who wants to use electronic communication. In certain cases, a proposal is made by GTC Scotland. The relevant procedure and criteria for determining such applications are set out in the Use of Electronic Communications in Hearings Practice Statement.
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:
1 GTC Scotland Procedural Application Form – Virtual Hearing Application, dated 1 April 2025, with appendix:
• Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 20 May 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 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.
Application
An application dated 1 April 2025 for a virtual hearing was made by the Presenting Officer. The Panel considered the application and submissions made in response which addressed, in particular, the following factors:
• the Teacher has legal representation;
• no particular needs or vulnerabilities in respect of the Teacher were noted in the application;
• the hearing is to be a fitness to teach hearing, where the issues to be determined will entail consideration of the allegations made against the Teacher that are not admitted in full and, therefore, will commence at stage one;
• the hearing is estimated to take 4 days;
• while there are factual disputes regarding the actions of the Teacher, none were overly complex;
• at the time of the meeting, the hearing was to be held in public;
• that the paper bundle for the hearing is estimated to be in the order of approximately 117 pages, and the relevant documents would be extracted and produced for witnesses shortly before the hearing;
• the Presenting Officer proposes to lead three witnesses for approximately 1 hour each and that it is not yet known which witnesses the Teacher intends to lead or for how long;
• it was not indicated whether any of the witnesses have particular needs or vulnerabilities;
• the Presenting Officer confirmed that all three witnesses have suitable equipment and were able to participate remotely with suitable internet access as well as an appropriate location from which to give evidence from. From this the panel reasonably inferred that the witnesses would be in a private location where they can be alone and will not be disturbed;
• test calls had been requested with these witnesses and these would be conducted with each witness before the hearing;
• as it was not stated otherwise, the Panel also made the same inference in respect of the Teacher’s own witnesses; and
• that the Teacher opposes the application, requesting that the whole hearing be heard in person or, alternatively, that she is permitted to give her evidence in person.
Decision
The Panel appreciated that it should balance all of the relevant factors outlined above, the interests of the parties and the public interest in deciding whether or not to grant the application.
The Panel carefully considered the application and submissions made in response to it. The Panel had regard to the Rules and to the Use of Electronic Communications in Hearings Practice Statement as well as the advice, as required, of the Legal Assessor and Servicing Officer.
The Panel decided that the balance of the various factors and interests to be assessed in determining the application weighed in favour of refusing the application made.
The Panel noted that the Teacher stated that her preference would be for the hearing to be held in person rather than virtually as she did not accept that a virtual hearing would take place more expeditiously than a hearing in person as ‘both are largely dependent on the availability of parties, panel members and witnesses.’ The Panel also noted that the Teacher stated that she believes an in-person hearing would enable her to participate in proceedings more effectively as she would have the opportunity to present her evidence in person to the panel and to address, face to face, any question from the members. The Teacher stated that by doing so her evidence could have a greater impact hence her request that the default position prevails and the hearing be conducted in person.
The Panel noted that while the Teacher did state that if an in-person hearing could not be held, she would wish to give her evidence in person, which, in effect, meant that she did not oppose a hybrid hearing. However, the Panel were of the view that the Teacher’s primary wishes were to have a full in-person hearing.
The Panel considered and gave cognisance to the ‘default’ position as set out in the GTC Scotland Use of Electronic Communications in Hearings Practice Statement, dated August 2020, which states that:
by default, the General Teaching Council for Scotland (‘GTCS’) conducts all its Fitness to Teach Panel hearings in person in its dedicated Hearings Suite at its offices in Edinburgh…the best form of evidence is generally regarded to be witness evidence given in person at a hearing. As a result, convenience alone should not usually dictate the use of electronic communications; it should be used when it is just, equitable, and in the interests of efficient and effective adjudication.
The Panel noted that the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 and said Practice Statement represent, in effect, the status quo of GTC Scotland’s position on this type of application from a legal and administrative perspective. Accordingly, the Panel felt it was bound by said Rules and Practice Statement, and by said status quo as well as the Teacher’s wishes. Therefore, the Panel took the collective view that any departure from the status quo would require a greater level of positive justification (over and above convenience alone) to warrant granting a virtual hearing when the Teacher opposed it. The Panel was not satisfied that the application gave any such positive justification.
Accordingly, the Panel refused the application for the hearing to take place virtually.
