Full Hearing - Case Cancellation Application and Anonymity Application - Teacher A
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;
- the ‘Rules’ (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them;
- the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland Register of teachers;
- ‘IOG’ means the Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement; and
- ‘COPAC’ means the Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.
Allegation
The allegation which led to the hearing was as follows:
On or around 28 September 2021, whilst employed by [Redacted] as a teacher at [Redacted], the Teacher did hit Pupil A with her hand on his upper back during an episode of the child's distressed behaviour.
And as a result 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, 1.4 and 1.6 of the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012.
Confidentiality Key Pupil A – Pupil A
The Teacher did not admit the allegation.
Hearing papers
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:
Presenting Officer’s Hearing Papers
- Notification of Investigation Response from Teacher A, dated 7 April 2022
- Employer Investigation Report and appendices, received 20 July 2022
- Appendix 1 – Note of Investigation meeting with Person 1 from 12 November 2021
- Appendix 2 – Note of Investigation meeting with Witness 1 from 12 November 2021
- Appendix 3 – Note of Investigation meeting with Witness 2 from 24 November 2021
- Appendix 4 – Note of Investigation meeting with Teacher A from 10 December 2021
- Appendix 5 – Note of Investigation meeting with Person 1, from 14 January 2022
- Statement from Teacher A, dated 22 August 2022
- File Note re: Witness 1 and Person 1, dated 12 July 2023
- GTC Scotland statement of Witness 2, signed and dated 5 October 2023
- GTC Scotland statement of Witness 1, signed and dated 30 November 2023
- Teacher’s Response to Interim Report, dated 19 January 2024 and additional documentation:
- CPD log and Certificates
- b) Testimonial letters/emails from Eight Individuals:
- Reference 1
- Reference 2
- Reference 3
- Reference 4
- Reference 5
- Reference 6
- Reference 7
- Reference 8
Teacher hearing papers
- T1 Statement of Teacher A with exhibits (Redacted) for Stage 1, dated 10 December 2024
- T2 Statement of Reference 4, dated 9 December 2024
- T3 Statement of Reference 7, dated 3 February 2025
- T4 Statement of Teacher A with exhibits for Stage 2
- T5 Statement of Reference 3, dated 10 December 2024
- T6 Statement of Reference 4
- T7 Statement of Reference 2, dated 17 December 2024
- T8 Testimonial of Reference 9, dated 24 November 2024
- T9 Testimonial Reference 1, dated 9 January 2025
- T10 Testimonial Reference 8, dated 15 January 2024
- Reference 9 Updated Testimonial Letter, dated 22 September 2025
Servicing Officer’s hearing papers
- Notice of Full Hearing, dated 25 August 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt
- Procedural Meeting decisions:
- Virtual Hearing decision (Granted), dated 14 April 2025
- Admissibility and Part Privacy (Granted), dated 29 April 2025
Preliminary issues
Two preliminary issues were raised. The first was a case cancellation application by the Presenting Officer. The second was an anonymity application by the Teacher’s representative.
The Panel elected to deal with each issue in turn.
(1) Case Cancellation Application
The Presenting Officer had made the Case Cancellation application in writing on 26/09/2025. The Teacher had responded to say that she did not oppose it. Notwithstanding this, the Panel still needed to consider the application carefully and so invited parties to make submissions on it.
The Presenting Officer went on to give reasons for the lateness of the application, and the Teacher’s Representative expressed frustration that it was being made at such a late stage.
The Presenting Officer adopted her written application and expanded on it in oral submissions. Having done so and having gone through all the evidence, she had come to the conclusion that there was no realistic prospect of the Panel being able to conclude that the Teacher was either unfit to teach or that her fitness to teach was impaired. She noted that prior to the incident alleged, the Teacher had not had the benefit of extensive training on how to deal with the sort of behaviour which Pupil A had been exhibiting at the time of the allegation. Since then, however, the Teacher has undertaken relevant training. Furthermore, numerous references had been submitted in support of the Teacher’s character and professionalism. These included positive references of the Teacher’s capacity to teach pupils with additional support needs.
The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to Rule 2.10.9 and also to the GTCS Practice Statements on (i) “Case Cancellation” and (ii) “Indicative Outcomes Guidance” (hereinafter referred to as “the IOG”). In terms of the factors set out on pages 2 to 3 of the IOG any misconduct would be capable of being remedied and the Teacher had undertaken training to prevent any misconduct of the type alleged arising in the future. The Teacher had shown insight and reflection into the issue and any risk of recurrence was low. There were said to be no public interest factors that would justify a finding either that the Teacher was unfit to teach or that her fitness to teach was impaired.
The Teacher’s representative had indicated in writing that she did not oppose the application. She made further oral submissions setting out further reasons for this. She submitted that in terms of the general objective (as expressed in Rules 1.3.7 to 1.3.8) it would fair and just for the case to be cancelled at this early stage. Continuing further with the hearing would not serve any useful public interest – it would not further any of the public interest factors set out on page 2 of the IOG.
It was emphasised that the Teacher did not admit the allegations. Notwithstanding this she had undertaken extensive relevant training to ensure that the misconduct alleged was not something she would ever do. Indeed, she had done much of this training long before the case had been referred to a full hearing before the GTCS. The Panel’s attention was drawn to the numerous glowing references provided regarding the Teacher and in particular those of her former colleagues who had worked closely with her at the time of the events alleged. Any reasonably informed member of the public would be aware of the circumstances surrounding the events in question and the training that the teacher had undertaken subsequently. No such member of the public would regard it was being in the public interest to continue with regulatory proceedings against the Teacher.
Following these submissions legal advice was tendered to the Panel to the effect that parties had referred the Panel to the correct part of the Rules, to the applicable GTCS Practice Statement and also that the IOG referred to was also relevant. Ultimately the question that the Panel would need to consider was: if the allegations were proved, was there any realistic prospect of them concluding that the Teacher was either unfit to teach or that her ability to teach was impaired?
The Panel then retired into private session in order to consider the application. In that session the Panel asked themselves what the outcome would be, in the event that the allegations were proved (which, for the avoidance of any doubt, they had not been). To assist them with this they went through the factors set out at pages 2 – 3 of the IOG (under the heading “Part A – Determining Fitness to Teach”).
In this respect, the Panel agreed that the conduct alleged was serious but also that there were no aggravating factors, there was no adverse history, and there was no suggestion of any pattern of misconduct. At worst, the allegation referred to one isolated incident. The Panel also felt it notable that the Teacher had shown insight into the circumstances surrounding the allegations and had undertaken a very substantial amount of professional learning and CPD in order to ensure that so far as was possible, she would be able to respond appropriately to any similar situation should it arise again. It was noted that much or all of this CPD had been verified by training providers and/or third parties who spoke to it in their own witness statements. It was also noted that prior to the incident in question, the Teacher appeared to have not been offered extensive CPD in dealing with such situations. Having identified a gap in her previous training in this respect, the Teacher had taken significant steps in order to remedy this and had done so of her own volition. The Panel also noted that since the incident in question, the Teacher had continued to teach for around 5 years, during which there had been no suggestion of any misconduct on her part (as spoken to by the references and testimonials provided by colleagues at the schools where she has worked since the incident).
In all of these circumstances the Panel agreed that, even if the allegation against the Teacher had been proved (which, again for the avoidance of doubt, it had not), the likelihood of any future recurrence would be very low.
The Panel went on to consider whether there were any overriding public interest factors that would require a finding of impairment or unfitness to teach. Standing their previous findings (re very low risk of future misconduct), public protection would not require any such finding. Furthermore it was also agreed that any informed, reasonable member of the public would not find their confidence in the teaching profession or in GTC Scotland undermined if they were to determine that the Teacher was fit to teach and her ability to do so is not impaired. Ultimately, the Panel considered all of the public interest factors set out in page 2 of the IOG and concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, none of these would justify a finding of impairment or unfitness to teach, even if the allegations had been proved.
For all of these reasons, the Panel concluded that the proposed cancellation of the case would be in accordance with the general objective (as set out in paragraphs 1.37 – 1.38 of the Rules) and with the public interest. Therefore, the case cancellation application was granted.
(2) Anonymity Application
As previously mentioned, the second preliminary issue to be considered was an anonymity application by the Teacher.
The Teacher’s representative made submissions in support of the application. She referred to paragraph 1.7.3 of the Rules and ECHR Articles 6 and 8. She submitted that the case could have been cancelled sooner. If so, there would have been less risk of the Teacher’s details being published. In the event, the proceedings against the Teacher had been hanging over her for around 4 years and this had had an adverse impact [Redacted]. She also submitted that the allegations had been neither proven nor tested and in these circumstances, it would be unfairly prejudicial to the Teacher for her name (or other personal details) to be publicised alongside such allegations against her. Ultimately it was argued that there was no public interest in having the Teacher’s details published in connection with the allegations and, in all the circumstances, the Teacher’s right to privacy (under ECHR Article 8) should prevail.
The Presenting Officer did not oppose the application.
Legal advice was tendered to the effect that the Panel had been correctly referred to Rule 1.7.3 and to ECHR Articles 6 and 8. The rights conferred by both Articles 6 and 8 were qualified (as opposed to “absolute”) rights. That meant that exceptions could be made to them in certain circumstances. For the Article 8 right of respect for privacy, such exceptions could only be made in furtherance of the objectives set out in Article 8(2).
The Panel then considered the application in private session.
The Panel considered carefully the submissions made by the Teacher’s representative, the legal provisions referred to by her, and also to the GTC Practice Statement on privacy and anonymity. By way of further legal advice the Legal Assessor explained that any interference with the Teacher’s right of respect for her privacy could only be justified under Article 8(2) if it was necessary and proportionate for the furtherance of the limited objective set out therein. Those objectives are “the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The Panel agreed that it could be unfairly prejudicial to the Teacher for her name to be published alongside an allegation which was serious and yet also untested (and therefore unproven). They agreed that publication of the Teacher’s personal details could have an adverse impact [Redacted]. At the same time it was difficult to see how publication of the Teacher’s personal details could be justified in terms of the objectives set out in ECHR Article 8(2).
Accordingly, the Teacher’s anonymity application was granted. The Panel concluded that no personal details capable of identifying the Teacher should be published in or in connection with the decision. (In practical terms it was noted that this was likely to extend to the Teacher’s name, her GTC Scotland registration number, the name of the school where she taught at the time of the allegations, and the local authority where it was situated.)
