Panel Consideration Meeting - Anonymity, Privacy and Vulnerable Witness Application - Teacher J

Definitions

Any reference in this decision to:

• ‘GTCS’ 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:

• Presenting Officer’s Anonymity Application
• The Teacher’s Privacy Application
• The Presenting Officer's Vulnerable Witness Application

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, Presenting Officer

• Application
• Response (Teacher)
• Reply (Presenting Officer)

Privacy Application, Teacher

• Application
• Response

Vulnerable Witness Application, Presenting Officer

• Application
• Response (Teacher)
• Reply (Presenting Officer)

Servicing Officer’s Note

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.

Overview of Decision-Making

The Panel noted the terms of the allegations in their current form as appearing in the undernote to the Presenting Officer’s vulnerable witness applications of 14 August 2024 (e.g. at p.20 of the Panel Meeting Papers). In essence, these allege a range of sexually motivated conduct by the Teacher from 2015 until mid-2019, involving four pupils, A, B, C, D and E.

Decision on Presenting Officer's Vulnerable Witness Application

The Presenting Officer applied for vulnerable witness status for pupils A and E, and for permission that they can give their evidence by means of video link, and with a supporter. The Panel had regard to the GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 at rules 1.7.29-1.7.30, and to the GTCS Witness and Hearsay Evidence Practice Statement. The Panel decided to grant this application in respect of both those witnesses, and for the measures sought subject to its stipulation that, in the instance of each witness, the supporter should have had no prior involvement in, or knowledge of, the case.

The Panel was satisfied that without vulnerable witness status and the special measures sought, the quality of the witnesses’ evidence would be likely to be diminished because the allegations are of a sexual nature, and they are alleged victims (rule 1.7.29(b)(iii)).

While the Panel noted the Teacher’s observation in respect of Pupil A to the effect that “No evidence has been submitted by the Presenting Officer to show that [she] has expressed fear or distress in respect of the evidence she will require to give in connection with these allegations” (rule 1.7.29(b)(iv)), nonetheless the Panel was satisfied that the sexual nature of the allegations (rule 1.7.29(b)(iii)) was sufficient alone to justify its reasonable inference that the quality of evidence was at stake upon plain reading of the rules.

While the Panel also noted the Teacher’s observation regarding what he characterises as lack of clarity over the measures sought (p.24 of the Panel Meeting Papers), the Panel was satisfied that it was tolerably plain form the Presenting Officer’s submissions overall that what was applied for was the use of a video link with a supporter.

Decision on Presenting Officer’s Anonymity Application

The Presenting Officer also applied for an order requiring anonymisation of the eventual decision to be issued upon determination following the hearing by restricting disclosure in the decision in respect of the Teacher’s identity, the school, and the local authority. The Presenting Officer’s purpose is to prevent ‘jigsaw’ identification of the pupils. The Panel had regard to the GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 at rule 1.7.3, to the GTCS Privacy & Anonymity Practice Statement. The Panel decided to grant this application.

The Panel also noted the Teacher’s submission that the Teacher’s registration number also be anonymised. The Panel decided to grant that too.

Decision on Teacher’s Privacy Application

The Teacher applied for an order requiring that the hearing be held in private (as part of his submissions in response to the Presenting Officer’s said anonymity application), and that likewise, it was necessary to prevent the identification of the pupils. The Panel had regard to the GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 at rule 1.7.3, to the GTCS Privacy & Anonymity Practice Statement. The Panel decided to grant this application. The Panel was satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice that the hearing be held in private, where the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the default public nature of such a hearing (rule 1.7.3).