Panel Consideration Meeting - Anonymity Application - Teacher D
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 a further anonymity application submitted by the Teacher. Today’s Panel noted that the Teacher had already made an anonymity application in July 2024 (pp.64—76 of the PDF bundle of papers for today’s Procedural Meeting), which a different Panel (made up of different panellists) had considered and granted on 24 September 2024 (pp.34—47) to the extent of restricting disclosure in respect of:
- The Teacher’s name
- The Teacher’s GTC Scotland registration number
- Any username used by the Teacher in digital media
- Any email addressed used by the Teacher
- All IP addresses
- The names of any schools where the Teacher has taught
- The names of any local authority areas in which the Teacher has taught
- The names of the social media platforms, ‘[redacted] and ‘[redacted]’
On 3 to 11 March 2025 the case had proceeded to a full Fitness to Teach hearing in front of today’s Panel (consisting of the same panellists), whereupon it had decided that the conduct in the facts found proved, although ill-judged and inappropriate, did not amount to misconduct (pp.18—33).
Therefore, the Panel noted that today’s further anonymity application represented, in effect, the Teacher’s request that the published iteration of its decision of March 2025 be yet further redacted either by means of more specific redactions as particularised by the Teacher, or by the publication of only a brief summary of the minimum information. The Teacher also requested certain redactions of the Panel Meeting decision of 24 September 2024. Today’s Application included the Teacher’s submissions (pp.2—8), the Presenting Officer’s response thereto (pp.9—12), and the Teacher’s further comments and submissions thereupon (pp.13—16). The Panel had regard to all those parts.
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:
- GTC Scotland Procedural Application Form - Anonymity application, dated 2 May 2025, 5 May 2025 and 23 May 2025 , with appendices including:
- 2025-02-10-[redacted]-[redacted]-FH-Decision-NOT-FOR-PUBLIC.pdf
- 2025-03-11-[redacted]-[redacted]-Procedural-Decision-Annex-public version.pdf
- 2025-02-10-[redacted]-[redacted]-FH-Decision-PUBLIC.pdf
- 2025-04-21-[redacted]-[redacted]-Confidentiality-Key-Written-Decision.pdf
- Response to Teacher privacy anonymity application(37392489.1).pdf
- Vulnerable Witness Application on behalf of the Teacher.pdf
- Application for Private Hearing and Anonymity on behalf of The Teacher.pdf
- Further response on behalf of the Teacher in relation to Teacher's Applications for Private Hearing and Anonymity & PO Application for Pupil A's evidence to~.pdf
- 2024-08-09-[redacted]-[redacted]-Decision-Annex.pdf
- 2024-06-17-[redacted] Vulnerable Wit-Decision-Annex.pdf
- Clinical Psychology Report - Dr [redacted].pdf
- Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
- Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 62
- Beale v Special Case Panel [2018] EWHC 759
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 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.
The Panel noted the terms of Rule 1.7.3, which regulates anonymity applications, and provides as follows, among other things:
Privacy and restrictions on disclosure
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… Such orders may include (but will not be limited to)—
(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…
Accordingly, the Panel took the view that the words “at any stage” was valid at any time until the publication of the Decision on the GTC Scotland website. However, having committed its decision on the merits to finalised written form for private intimation, the Panel also noted that it had thus already also progressed beyond the drafting stage, therefore could not competently amend that iteration in absence of any such provision in the 2017 Rules (albeit this was not what the Teacher was requesting in any event).
Notwithstanding that, as said, Rule 1.7.3 rendered the Application competent in principle, the Legal Assessor provisionally advised the Panel that the Teacher’s making of it on apparently very similarly formulated essential grounds might nonetheless also engage the doctrine of res judicata, thus potentially rendering it legally irrelevant in any event. The Panel noted that the earlier application made in July 2024 (pp.64—76 of the PDF bundle of papers for today’s Procedural Meeting) had set out its essential grounds as follows (pp.64):
For the name of the Teacher, and any details that may lead to the identification of the Teacher, to be anonymised in any published decision(s).
It also later referred, for example, to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), which enshrines the right to privacy, being a proportionate right (pp.66). By way of comparison, the Panel noted that today’s Application set out its essential grounds as follows (pp.2):
For all details that may lead to the identification of the Teacher, or Pupil A, to be anonymised/redacted in any published decision(s) of the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS).
Therefore, the Panel noted that, despite the wording of those grounds adopting slight varying syntaxes, nonetheless their essence was, in effect, identical, being concern for identification of the Teacher.
The Legal Assessor advised that res judicata operates in order to prevent a party from making, in effect, the same application again, where its original purpose was not achieved, or not wholly achieved, at the first instance of making it, thus where that party wishes, in effect, a “second bite at the cherry”. In other words, res judicata exists in order to avoid the prospect of endless litigation. For res judicata to be engaged, typically the following conditions should arise:
- An order has already been made by a competent prior decision-making body (in this case, being said different Panel (made up of different panellists), which had already considered and granted the Teacher’s earlier application on 24 September 2024))
- The new application entails consideration of the same subject matter
- It is made on the same grounds
- And, it involves the same parties
Accordingly, the Legal Assessor advised the Panel that, in this case, it might have a concern for the appropriateness of the Teacher making today’s Application with a view to expanding yet further the scope of redaction beyond that which the earlier Panel had already granted, yet on the same grounds, and where the case was the same, and obviously between the same parties. That said, the Legal Assessor also advised the Panel that res judicata is a large and moderately complex area of jurisprudential interest, thus apt for divergence in approaches, views and outcomes. For example, in this case, a clear point of contention might arise in respect of whether the first and second applications could accurately be described as entailing consideration of the same “subject matter” — although the case was the same in the sense that it related to the GTC Scotland’s adjudication of the same allegations against the Teacher, nonetheless it might be argued that the subject matter per se of today’s Application had altered in the sense that it now also entailed consideration of the more precise wording of the decision of March 2025, which was not, and could not be, known to the Teacher back in July 2024 upon making his earlier application.
Therefore, the Panel decided to deal with the merits of today’s Application, in effect, in isolation, whereupon, only upon reaching a view in principle on the merits thereof, would it return to give its further consideration of res judicata, if necessary.
Decision
The Panel had regard to the GTC Scotland Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement of 2018, to the GTC Scotland Decision Making and Writing Practice Statement of 2019, and to Article 8 of the ECHR.
The Teacher’s request for specific redactions was as particularised from pages 3 to 5 of today’s Application (pp.4—6 of the PDF bundle of papers for today’s Procedural Meeting). The Panel took the view that the most straightforward and equitable approach would consist first of its considering each such specific request in turn and forming a provisional decision thereupon, then their entirety for a final decision, where the Teacher argued that identification might be achievable, in effect, on the basis of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
Overall, the Teacher’s application was predicated on concerns for his health, and particularly for the potential impact of publication of decisions in such a way as might enable identification. In this regard, he again placed reliance on the clinical report (pp.85—104) by Dr [redacted] M.A. (Hons) D.Clin.Psych., C.Psychol., chartered clinical psychologist, dated 3 July 2024 as based on psychological assessment of the Teacher on 29 May 2024 for the purpose of his original anonymity application of July 2024. That report having already been accepted by said different panel on 24 September 2024 as proper medical evidence conforming to the GTC Scotland Health Matters and Medical Evidence Practice Statement of 2018, today’s Panel took the view that it need not consider anew whether it was admissible — it had already been admitted as evidence, and remained admissible in any event. That said, the Panel had some concern for its date, being based on an assessment carried out in the order of 15 months ago. Also, Dr [redacted] had been instructed prior to the full fitness to teach hearing, thus focused largely on the potential impact on the Teacher’s ability to participate meaningfully in that hearing in terms of [redacted] (e.g. paras.7.2.4 to 7.2.5 of the report), albeit he also expressed concern for [redacted] (para.7.2.3). The Panel considered the report legally relevant, albeit its factual relevance to today’s Application was subject to limitation, given its date and original principal purpose.
Panel Meeting decision, 24 September 2024
- The Teacher requested that on page 1 the following be redacted — after the words “Registration Category Secondary Education:” redact the word “Business”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, even treating the Teacher's unevidenced claims about circumstances in which he qualified as a teacher of that subject as accurate for the sake of this Application. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- And,on page 2 at the Overview of Decision-Making, point 2 — after the words “On 13 January” redact the year “2016”.
Likewise, the Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of the year 2016, even treating the Teacher's unevidenced claims about the time at which he qualified as a teacher of business education as accurate for the sake of this Application. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact the year 2016.
- And, on page 2 at Overview of Decision-Making in the penultimate paragraph — after the words ”in essence, Pupil A” redact the words “inappropriately accessed and used images of the Teacher of a private and sensitive nature.”.
The Panel took the view that the identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, given their general nature, where images of a private and sensitive nature might include any images from a very broad range of personal matters, some entirely innocuous, albeit nonetheless private and sensitive thus engaging the right to, or expectation of, privacy. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 4 in the penultimate line of the second paragraph — after the word “across” redact the words “a [redacted] video online of the Teacher which he had screenshotted”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words. However, having regard to the GTC Scotland Decision Making and Writing Practice Statement of 2019, and to Article 8 of the ECHR, the Panel decided that inclusion of the word “[redacted]” was neither necessary nor proportionate. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided to redact that word.
- On page 4 in the last line of the second paragraph— after the words “He said that the next day” redact the words “the video”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, where a video might show any matter, and be entirely innocuous. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 4 in the second line of the third paragraph— after the word “Facebook” redact the word “business”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of that word, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact that word.
- On page 4 in paragraph 4 — after the words “Pupil A stated that on” redact the words “Friday, 31 August 2018, a screenshot of the video showing the Teacher was spread around the school. It got ‘airdropped’”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 4 in the sixth line of paragraph 4 — after the words “blame from the” redact the word “photo”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of that word, where a photograph might show any matter, and be entirely innocuous. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact that word.
- On page 5 in paragraph 2 — after the words “Pupil A said that in about June 2018 he had found” redact the words “a [redacted] video of the Teacher [redacted] and he had taken screenshots of the video. He sent the screenshots by [[redacted]] to another friend at school who knew the Teacher, but he said that he had not ‘posted’ the screenshots. He said he had also sent the video to another person”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words. However, having regard to the GTC Scotland Decision Making and Writing Practice Statement of 2019, and to Article 8 of the ECHR, the Panel decided that inclusion of certain words was neither necessary nor proportionate. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided to redact the words “[redacted]”, and “[redacted]”, and also “[redacted]”.
- On page 5 in the second line of the last paragraph — after the words “a probationer in” redact the year “2016”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of the year 2016, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact the year 2016.
- On page 6 in the second line of the penultimate paragraph— after the word “Facebook” redact the word “business”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of that word, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact that word.
- On page 6 in the first line of the last paragraph — after the words “Witness 3 told the Panel about the” redact the words “photo that was posted on Twitter”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 6 in the second line of the last paragraph — after the words “show the Teacher in a” redact the words “[redacted]”.
Having regard to the GTC Scotland Decision Making and Writing Practice Statement of 2019, and to Article 8 of the ECHR, the Panel decided that inclusion of those words was neither necessary nor proportionate. However, the Panel was of the view that the whole sentence should be redacted “[redacted].”. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided to redact those words.
- On page 7 in the last line of the fourth paragraph — after the words “he had received the” redact the words “video screenshot”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 7 in the sixth line of the penultimate paragraph — after the words “The Teacher said he is now a” redact the words “Faculty Head”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, and that for the same reason as already given above in respect of the Teacher being a teacher of business education. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 7 in the second line of the last paragraph — after the word “a” redact the words “local business”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 8 in the fourth line of the fifth paragraph — after the words “photographs taken at the school in” redact the year “2016”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of the year 2016, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact the year 2016. However, having regard to the GTC Scotland Decision Making and Writing Practice Statement of 2019, and to Article 8 of the ECHR, the Panel decided that inclusion of certain words was neither necessary nor proportionate. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided to redact the words “[redacted]”, and in the preceding paragraph also the words “[redacted]”.
- On page 8 in the third line of the penultimate paragraph — after the words “Facebook to the” redact the words “business site”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 10 in the fourth and fifth lines of the third paragraph — after the words “that he had” redact the words “produced and distributed the video screen shot”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 12 in the last line of the sixth paragraph — after the words “accessing and” redact the words “distributing of the video screenshot”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
- On page 12 in Allegation 2 in the last paragraph — after the words “On 13 January” redact the year “2016”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of the year 2016, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact the year 2016.
- On page 13 in the third line of the second paragraph — after the words “describe the photographs from” redact the year “2016”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of the year 2016, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact the year 2016.
- On page 14 in the fourth line of the penultimate paragraph — after the words “error of judgment in” redact the year “2016”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of the year 2016, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact the year 2016.
- On page 14 in the last line of the last paragraph— after the words “conduct took place in” redact the year “2016”.
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of the year 2016, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact the year 2016.
- On page 15 in the fifth and sixth lines of the fourth paragraph — after the words “probationary teacher in” redact the year and words “2016, some 9 years ago.”
The Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely by reason of the inclusion of those words referring to the timeframe since year 2016, and that for the same reason as already given above. Accordingly, the Panel provisionally decided not to redact those words.
The Panel also then turned to consider the entirety of the requested redactions together in their overall context, where the Teacher argued that identification might be achievable, in effect, on the basis of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. However, the Panel took the view that identification was not reasonably likely on that basis and therefore decided that all its foregoing provisional decisions should be final. For the same reason, the Panel also decided that it would not be appropriate to order yet further redaction by means of the publication of only a brief summary of the minimum information. The Panel was mindful of the default public nature of its decision-making, and of the importance that justice not only be done, but that it also be seen to be done.
Returning to res judicata, the Panel noted that, although it had ordered further redactions, it had not actually done so on the basis of the Teacher’s application per se, but rather on the basis of its own volition and in terms of the GTC Scotland Decision Making and Writing Practice Statement of 2019, and under reference to Article 8 of the ECHR. Accordingly, the Legal Assessor advised that res judicata was, in effect, moot, whereupon the Panel therefore decided to give it no further consideration, and to refrain from any definitive decision on its engagement by today’s Application or otherwise.
The Panel noted that any redactions hereby ordered by it should also be redacted from the published version of this decision.
