Hearing - Anonymity Application (Published Decision) - Teacher H

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 Hearing was arranged to consider the following:

Full Hearing Published decision – Anonymity Application

[Teacher’s name to be anonymised in any published decision]  

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:

Application

Anonymity (published decision) application & response dated 4 July 2025.

Teacher’s Supporting Papers

• Letter from Dr [Redacted]
• Letter from [Person A], [Redacted]
• Letter from [Person C], [Redacted]
• Email from [Person B] to GTCS
• Teacher - Final Comments - Supporting Information
  
  • [Redacted]

Presenting Officer’s Supporting Papers

• Procedural Hearing decision dated 11 November 2024
• Determination from the Full Hearing

Servicing Officer’s Papers

Notice of Procedural Hearing, dated 19 September 2025 with cover email and delivery receipt.

Preliminary Matters

Prior to considering the Anonymity Application the Panel was asked to consider conducting the Procedural Hearing in private. The Panel noted that this was supported by both the Teacher and the Presenting Officer. The Panel then took legal advice from the Legal Assessor and retired to consider the matter. The Panel reached the view that in assessing the anonymity application it would obviously be necessary to discuss at length matters relating to the private lives of the Teacher and his family and that it was logical to proceed in private so as not to prejudice the outcome of the Anonymity Order application.

The Panel reached the conclusion that it was in the interests of justice for the procedural hearing to take place in private and proceeded on that basis.

The Teacher’s Submissions (Summary)

The Teacher acknowledged that his previous application for anonymity had not been supported by any evidence beyond his own submissions. [Redacted]. He directed the Panel to the new evidence which showed this position. [Redacted]

Submission: [Redacted]

The Presenting Officer’s Submissions (Summary)

The Presenting Officer opposed the Teacher’s Application.

The Presenting Officer directed the Panel to the previous decision dated 11th November 2024. The Panel should take that as it’s starting point.

The Presenting Officer also made reference to Rule 1.7.2 of the 2017 Rules reminding the Panel that it is the default position that hearings before a Fitness to Teach Panel are to be heard in public. He submitted that a written decision following conclusion of a Full Hearing also falls to be considered as part of the hearing process and therefore is included within that default position.

The Presenting Officer directed the Panel to the GTC Scotland ‘Privacy and Anonymity’ Practice Statement (Practice Statement). He submitted that in terms of the Practice Statement, the Panel is asked to consider the terms of Articles 10, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with Article 10 and Article 6 supporting the default position that the Fitness to Teach process will be held in public in the interests of open justice and to ensure that GTC Scotland is operating in a transparent manner. The Presenting Officer further submitted that it is also recognised that the publication of the decisions is generally in the public interest, and it is necessary to maintain confidence in GTC Scotland as a professional regulator.

In conclusion, the Presenting Officer submitted that in light of the overarching principles of openness, transparency and fairness which is the reason for the default position that hearings are held in public, the bar for anonymisation of the written decision is set high and it would be rare where the applications sought by the Teacher, would be granted.

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and noted that this being the Teacher’s application to the Panel, the onus is on the Teacher to satisfy the Panel that the application for anonymity should be granted. The Panel also noted that its starting point was that a previous application for anonymity had been refused and that accordingly it would have to be satisfied that there was now new and sufficient evidence before it to justify a departure from that position. The Legal Assessor also outlined the legal test to be met and the balance to be struck between the Article 6 ECHR considerations that hearings be held in public and the exceptions to that default position where Article 8 ECHR was engaged.

Decision

The Panel was grateful to both the Teacher and the Presenting Officer for their focussed and helpful oral submissions. The Panel also considered the written submissions as well as all the documentation, the Fitness to Teach Rules 2017, GTC Scotland’s Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement and GTC Scotland’s Health Matters and Medical Evidence Practice Statement. The Panel further noted that it had before it the decision from the previous procedural hearing where an anonymity order had been refused dated 11th November 2024 and the determination from the full hearing.

[Redacted]

The Panel noted the terms of the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement:

The fact that a teacher and his/her family will be distressed by the proceedings being held in public or that a private hearing/anonymity would save him/her (and/or his family) from embarrassment are not sufficient reasons for such an application to be granted. Nor is the fact that a private hearing/anonymity could prevent damage to Teacher’s reputation, unless his/her reputation would suffer disproportionate damage as a result of the hearing being held in public/his or her name being made public.

In the Panel’s view this was a case where the potential impact on [Redacted] went some way beyond ‘distress and embarrassment’. The impact on [Redacted] involved is disproportionate and their identification is not in the public interest. That public interest has been discharged in that the fitness to teach hearing was held in public, the GTCS has been seen to fulfil its role as a regulator and has taken the appropriate action against the Teacher who has had serious allegations against him proven.

Looking at the totality of the evidence, its cumulative effect and considering it all in the round meant that the Panel was minded to grant the application before it. That decision was also informed by the sheer length of time this matter has taken to conclude, it is now some 9 years since the allegations first came to light. The public interest would not be served by making a public decision relating to events some 9 years on. The Panel was of the view that an Anonymity Order was necessary to protect [Redacted] involved in this matter from further harm.

The Panel reached a decision that the Anonymity Order be granted in the following terms – that the Teacher’s name, the school concerned, the Local Authority area concerned, and any other unique identifiers which would result in the teacher or his family being identified be anonymised.