Panel Consideration Meeting - Anonymity Application - Teacher E

Teacher

Teacher E

Date

Dates

9 July 2026

Registration number

[redacted]

Registration category

[redacted]

Panel

Katie Simpson, Lindsay Morris, Anne Petrie

Legal assessor

Victoria Ulph

Servicing officer

Keith Ward

Presenting officer

n/a

Teacher's representative(s)

Iain W Glennie (Not Present)

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 Panel Meeting was arranged to consider the following:

An application for Anonymity 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 3 March 2026 with appendices including:

[redacted] Wellbeing Plan
[redacted] Social Work Assessment
[redacted] Social Work Chronology

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 Panel directed themselves to the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement. They noted that this matter involved the interests of a juvenile, in particular, a [redacted] young person with [redacted]. It further involved the private life of that young person and of the Teacher’s [redacted]. The [redacted] and [redacted] young person shared the surname of the Teacher so jigsaw identification was a real risk to their privacy. They noted [redacted]. They noted the severe impact identification would have on the Teacher's [redacted] and how this would adversely affect her ability to care for the [redacted] young person who continued to reside [redacted].

The Panel determined that the public interest in this matter was significant but that the public interest would be served by the publication of the action taken by the Regulator against the Teacher and did not necessitate overriding the interests of a [redacted] young person and the Teacher's [redacted] all as set out. To avoid jigsaw identification the Panel granted the anonymity application and decided that the Teacher's name, school, details of his category of registration and the Local Authority should all be appropriately anonymised.