Panel Consideration Meeting - Anonymity Application - Teacher G

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:

1. For the Teacher’s name and registration number to be redacted within the publication of the GTC Scotland Decision Notice dated 8 May 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:

1. Anonymity application, dated 12 September 2025, with appendices including:
   
   • Appendix 1 – Letter from Person F, undated
   • Appendix 2 – Letter from Person G, dated 19 June 2025
   • Decision annex, dated 8 May 2025

Procedural Matter

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 party 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 considered the Privacy and Anonymity practice statement. The panel was given legal advice. The advice was that a grant of anonymity in these proceedings was in accordance with law. It was in pursuit of a legitimate aim (interests of juveniles,protection of health and protection of rights and freedoms of others). The Panelwas advised that before granting anonymity, the Panel ought to be satisfied that there are good enough reasons to grant anonymity and that it was advised that any order granting anonymity should go no further than is required to achieve the aim.  

The Panel considered the request from the Teacher that the decision of GTC Scotland which is due to be published, be anonymised by removal of his name and registration number. The Panel noted that the Teacher was to be removed with consent and it noted the terms of the allegations which had given rise to his removal. The Panel noted that that Teacher remains in a relationship with Pupil A and they have a child together. The Panel also noted that Pupil A [redacted].

The Panel noted the health difficulties that the Teacher had suffered. It noted that the Teacher’s [redacted]. The Panel did consider his health a relevant factor and considered that it supported the grant of an application anonymity.

The Panel noted that in the absence of anonymity, there was the potential for the disclosure of the identity of Pupil A, their child and the siblings of Pupil A and the potential for repercussions for them. The Panel did consider this and treated it as a relevant factor supporting the grant of an application for anonymity.  

The Panel considered the importance of open justice, publicity of decisions and why decisions should be publicly reported. The Panel acknowledged the importance of these factors and weighed them in the balance.

The Panel formed the view that the balance tipped in favour of anonymity and that the purpose of open justice could be served sufficiently in the case with publication of an anonymised decision. Though not requested, the Panel considered whether the name of the school should also be anonymised. The Panel heard from the Servicing Officer that GTC Scotland had power to redact the school name prior to publication of the Notice of Decision, should that be deemed appropriate. The Panel formed the view that were the name of the school published, that would likely lead to the disclosure of those that the anonymity was designed to safeguard. Accordingly the Panel decided that the name of the school should be anonymised.