Panel Consideration Meeting - Anonymity and Vulnerable Witness Application - Teacher C

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:

• A vulnerable witness application and anonymity application made by the Presenting Officer.

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:

1. Applications from the Presenting Officer, dated 2 July 2024
2. Teacher’s Response to Presenting Officer’s Vulnerable Witness Application, dated 24 July 2024
3. Teacher’s Response to Presenting Officer’s Anonymity Application, dated 2 August 2024

Preliminary Matters

The Panel 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 a 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

The Presenting Officer made an application for:

• i. An order under Rule 1.7.29 of the Rules to have Child A treated as a vulnerable witness and for them to give evidence in private, their name to be anonymised from any written decision, and to have a supporter present when giving evidence
• ii. An order under Rule 1.7.2 of the 2017 Rules for the names of Parent A and Parent B to be anonymised from any written decision of the Panel

In respect of the vulnerable witness application, reference was made to Rule 1.7.29 of the Rules, which entitles the Panel to treat as vulnerable any witness whose quality is likely to be diminished because the allegations against a teacher are of a sexual or violent nature and he or she is an alleged victim.

It was submitted that Child A should be treated as a vulnerable witness in terms of this provision.  It was submitted that the allegations involved in the case include allegations of a sexual nature, which took place when he was a child. It was submitted that given that this is required to be explored in evidence, it is likely that doing so in public will have a detrimental effect upon him. It was also submitted that the proceedings were likely to attract significant press interest.

The Panel had regard to the Rules and GTC Scotland’s Witnesses and Hearsay Practice Statement.  The Panel noted that there was very little information before it in respect of Child A or the allegations.  Standing that there was no opposition to the application, the Panel decided that it should take what was said in the application, albeit in very general terms, at face value. The application made no express submissions whatsoever as to how the quality of the witness’s evidence was likely to be diminished. The Panel inferred from the submission that giving evidence in public would be detrimental to Child A given that it was contended that evidence in public would be more difficult for the witness to provide. The Panel therefore concluded that it appeared that Child A was a vulnerable witness in terms of the relevant provision.  

The Panel considered whether to grant the measures sought. The Panel noted that the default position is that hearings are to be heard in public. The public interest in open justice is an important consideration. However, standing that the application stated that publicity would be detrimental to the witness, the Panel considered that the asserted risk of harm to Child A was sufficient to justify a restriction of publicity in the present case. The Panel determined that it should grant the application in this respect, and the Panel therefore decided:

• i. That Child A should be treated as a vulnerable witness;
• ii. That Child A would be permitted to give evidence in private;
• iii. That Child A’s name be anonymised from any written decision arising from a hearing; and
• iv. That Child A may have a supporter present when giving evidence, with the supporter not being any person connected to the case.

The Panel noted that anonymising Pupil A from any written decision arising from a hearing is in line with the ordinary position set out in the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Publication Policy, that information that may identify pupils or students, and other people (including witnesses) connected with the hearing or who are named as part of the process (including within allegation(s)), would be routinely removed (or redacted) from published decisions.

The Panel then considered the anonymity application in respect of Parent A and Parent B. The Panel again noted that anonymising Parent A and Parent B from any written decision arising from a hearing is in line with the ordinary position, as set out in the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Publication Policy, that information that may identify other people (including witnesses) connected with the hearing or who are named as part of the process (including within allegation(s)), would be routinely removed (or redacted) from published decisions. The Panel considered the GTC Scotland Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement on conducting hearings in private. The Panel recognised that publicity is generally in the public interest. The Panel considered the basis of the application. It was submitted that if Parent A and Parent B were not afforded the same level of anonymity as Child A, there was a risk that Child A could be identified from the content of their evidence. While again noting the limited information provided in relation to the case, standing that the application was unopposed, the Panel saw no reason not to take the Presenting Officer’s assertion at face value. That being so, the Panel determined that prevention of detriment to Child A was an important consideration which outweighed the general interest in open justice. The Panel therefore determined that the application should be granted in this respect. They therefore directed that Parent A and Parent B should be anonymised from any published decision in relation to the case.

The Panel was not aware, from the materials placed before it, whether Child A remained a child as at the date of its decision. Nor did the materials placed before the Panel contain any detail of the allegations against the Teacher. Parts of the application put before the Panel were redacted, for reasons not made known to the Panel, and so it may have been that these redactions contained such details. The Panel observed that it would have assisted them in their task, and might help future panels dealing with similar applications, if a greater degree of specification were provided.