Panel Consideration Meeting - Anonymity Application - Catharine Porter

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 GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them.

Background

‍

The Procedural Meeting was arranged to consider the following:

·         Application for anonymity of written/published decision, dated 29 April 2025

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 (Teacher)

·        Anonymity Application, dated 29 April 2025

Teacher Supporting Evidence

·        Porter C – Case Cancellation Panel Papers Combined

·        Porter C – Case Cancellation Decision

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.

Decision

The application for the teacher was as follows:

1.   For the name of the Teacher, their GTCS Registration Number, GTCS Registration Category, School, Local Authority, and any other information that may lead to the identification of the Teacher and/or Pupils A, B and C, to be anonymised in any written decision or documentation of any GTCS Panel in terms of Rule 1.7.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017.

2.   [Redacted]

The application is made under Rule 1.7.3 which states:

1.7.3 A Panel may, at any stage of proceedings on its own initiative or on application to it, make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings. A Panel may do this so far as it considers it necessary where itis satisfied (having given the relevant parties an opportunity to make representations and in compliance with all relevant Convention rights) that it is in the interests of justice to do so and the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the interests of the Teacher and the public in the hearing being held in public. Any such decision (and the reasons for it) will be announced in public or made publicly available.

Such orders may include (but will not be limited to) –

(a) An order that a hearing be conducted (in whole or in part) in private;

(b) An order that the identities of specified parties, witnesses or other persons referred to in the proceedings should not be disclosed at such proceedings to the public(by the use of anonymisation or otherwise) and whether before, during or after those proceedings; and

(c) An order for measures seeking to prevent witnesses at a public hearing being

identifiable by members of the public.

Unless a Panel orders otherwise, any vulnerable witness referred to in proceedings will be

subject to the measures specified at (b) and(c) above

The Panel considered the application in light of the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement.  It also had regard to GTC Scotland’s publication policy.  This states that certain information is routinely removed or redacted from materials which are published by GTC Scotland.  This includes teacher’s date of birth and personal address, information that may identify pupils or students, which may include the school or college name where this would lead to identification, information that may identify other people including witnesses,and information about a registrant’s health or other personal/family circumstances that creates a risk of breaching article 8 ECHR.

The Panel bore in mind that the default position, as stated in rule 1.7.2 of the Rules, is that hearings will take place in public, and that decisions will be made available to the public. The Panel recognised that it had a discretion to restrict publicity in terms of Rule 1.7.3.  There is a recognised public interest in the details of GTC Scotland proceedings.  Publicity of proceedings was also part of article 6 ECHR.  In the Panel’s view the question for it was whether other competing interests outweighed adherence to the default position.  

The application submitted that the interests of juveniles required the granting of the privacy sought, that this was necessary for the protection of private life, and that publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.  The case had been cancelled and the allegations against the Teacher had not been admitted or proved.  Publicity would be unfair and unjust in that context.  This would go against the overriding objective.  It was also submitted that anonymising the name of the Teacher and other information which would lead to identification of the Teacher would prevent the identification of the pupils who were involved in the matter, which would be contrary to their interests.  It was submitted that to identify the Teacher would interfere with her private life by disproportionately damaging her reputation, as it would associate her with allegations that have not been taken forward.

[Redacted]

GTC Scotland did not oppose the application.

The Panel was not persuaded by the submissions made in support of the application. If the first submission, as to anonymity due to the case having been cancelled, and the allegations not having been taken forward were of merit, this would mean that case cancellation was automatic and mandatory in all cases. This is not the position, and the Panel was not persuaded that anonymisation for this reason was necessary in the case.  Contrary to the argument advanced, the Panel did not accept that the Teacher would be associated with allegations in the sense that a reasonable member of the public would conclude that they are true.  A reasonable member of the public would understand that the allegations were not determined.  There is no suggestion in the case cancellation statement that the allegations are true or were proved.  The Teacher would be associated with the fact that allegations were made against her and not determined, which is an accurate description of the state of affairs.          

In relation to the submission that pupils involved in the allegations could be identified if anonymity were not granted for the Teacher, this submission is misconceived when the publication policy is considered.  This is clear that steps will be taken to prevent identification of the pupils, and the application is simply unnecessary when viewed in that context.  The Panel did not accept that merely naming the Teacher would lead to identification of the pupils. This is in any event a matter for GTC Scotland to consider when applying the publication policy.  

[Redacted]

In the Panel’s view the reasons put forward were insufficient to justify the anonymity order sought. They accordingly determined that the application should be refused.

‍