Panel Consideration Meeting - Anonymity 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:
An anonymity application on behalf of the Teacher.
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
- Anonymity application dated 7 February 2025, with appendix:
(a) Clinical psychology report by Dr Simon Petrie dated 4 January 2025
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 to matter on the papers.
Application
Prior to considering the Teacher’s anonymity application, the Panel had considered the Teacher’s whole case by way of Panel Consideration under Rule 2.3.2. Standing that the Teacher had admitted all of the allegations against him in full, and in the whole circumstances of the case, the Panel had decided to issue a consent order to the Teacher in accordance with Rule 2.7. The Teacher’s anonymity application stated:
.... on the basis the Panel agrees with our submission that this case should be disposed of by consent order, the order should be anonymised as it is necessary for protection of [Teacher C’s] private and family life.
The submission in support of the application argued that one situation where an exception should be made to the general rule that consent orders are made public is where there is a compelling reason to grant anonymity to protect an individual’s private life, and that the impact on the Teacher’s health is recognised as a relevant factor. It was said that the courts have allowed anonymity in cases where there is clear and cogent evidence of a real risk to a registrant’s health. Reference was made to General Medical Council v. X [2019] EWHC 493 (Admin) and X v. General Dental Council [2020] CSIH 71.
The application referred the Panel to a report from a Dr Petrie dated 4 January 2025 in respect of the Teacher. Dr Petrie’s opinion was that publicity would be highly damaging to the Teacher’s [redacted] health. Dr Petrie was concerned that publicity would lead to a future increased risk [redacted] by the Teacher. It was submitted that anonymity was not being sought due to any suggestion it would save the Teacher from embarrassment or to protect his reputation, but that there are clear and compelling reasons for the Teacher to be anonymised to protect his health.
The Panel did not have any representations before it from GTC Scotland in respect of the application.
Decision
The Panel had regard to the Rules as well as the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement. Rule 1.7.3 provides that a Panel may make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings.
In the Panel’s view, publication is the norm and applications for anonymity require to cross a high bar. The Panel recognised that where competing interests arose, they required to strike a balance between those interests and determine which was to be preferred. In the present case, there is a public interest in publicity, which has to be weighed against the Teacher’s right to respect for his private and family life, an element of which is his health.
The Panel considered Dr Petrie’s report. With regard to the Health Matters and Medical Evidence Practice Statement, the Panel determined that this was an appropriately detailed report from a suitably qualified medical practitioner, which provided relevant evidence. It provided a specific diagnosis and answered the necessary questions in a detailed manner. Treatment and prognosis were addressed. The Panel were satisfied that the report met the suggested requirements of the Practice Statement, and they were satisfied that they could rely on the report for the purposes of their decision on the Teacher’s application.
