Panel Consideration Meeting - Cancellation Application - Patricia McKay

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 application made by the Presenting Officer to cancel the case.

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. Case cancellation application, dated 12 June 2025
2. Panel consideration papers, undated
3. Panel consideration decision, dated 31 May 2025
4. Appendix from Presenting Officer to accompany the present case cancellation application, undated
5. Teacher’s response, dated 18 June 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 the matter on the papers.

Decision

The Panel carefully considered all the relevant documents in this case and the submissions made on behalf of both parties. The Panel considered the Case Cancellation Practice Statement, the relevant Rules, and the public interest. The Panel noted that under Rule 2.5.1 (c), 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 consider an application for a case to be cancelled. The Panel noted that the application was made by the Presenting Officer (PO), and the burden of proof rests with the PO.

The Panel noted that there was no prescribed list of circumstances set out in the Practice Statement indicating when a case may be cancelled. However, the practice statement outlines some situations in which parties may wish to consider making such an application:

• in a conduct case, there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the case and it is therefore considered that the possibility of a panel finding facts proved to be so low that it would not be fair or proportionate to proceed with the case;
• the allegations, if proved, cannot reasonably be said to amount to current impairment;
• the health of the Teacher is so poor and the prognosis is such that the Teacher’s Fitness to Teach case should not proceed. If such an application is to be made the party making the application should refer to the provisions within the Health Matters and Medical Evidence Practice Statement. It is envisaged that, in order to satisfy a Panel that it is in the public interest to cancel a case purely on the basis of the Teacher’s health, the prognosis, as evidenced by a report provided by a medical practitioner, would require to be so serious that the Teacher is unlikely to ever be able to resume their teaching career. Such a prognosis would always require to be considered alongside other factors such as the seriousness of the allegations. Where the prognosis is not at that level of seriousness, health may be one factor amongst others which may justify a case to be cancelled;
• a serious procedural irregularity or error of law is deemed to have had a material effect on the case and there is no other option to remedy it (note: if such irregularity or error can be remedied in another way throughout case management, ahead of or at the start of a full hearing, a Case Cancellation Application would not be considered to be proportionate or appropriate); or
• any other matter which has had or could have a material and profound effect on the fair running of the case, where there is no other option available to remedy the matter (as above).

The Panel discussed the specific terms of the allegations which centred on a failure to respond to safeguarding concerns about another teacher with sufficient urgency and seriousness. The Panel discussed that a number of years have now passed since the alleged conduct. Since the conduct, the Teacher has cooperated with an employer disciplinary process giving rise to her demotion. She has, in that time, worked as a teacher with no concerns having been raised about her fitness to teach. The Teacher has worked in other employment, from which no concerns have been raised about her fitness to teach. She has undertaken extensive training relevant to the allegations. The Panel also noted that she had participated in extensive Professional Review and Development (PRD). The Panel acknowledged that the Teacher reflected in some depth about the circumstances giving rise to the allegations and what she has learned to prevent similar circumstances arising in the future. The Panel had sight of positive references which refer to her trustworthiness, reliability, commitment and professionalism. It was also noted that the Teacher had health difficulties which had been exacerbated by the stress arising from the events and the fitness to teach process.  She had a lengthy work history prior to the allegations emerging, with no prior adverse fitness to teach findings. The Panel noted that the teacher had removed herself from working in classrooms and taken up work out with teaching though remains listed as a supply teacher.  

The Panel was given legal advice. The Panel was advised that it should consider whether the conduct, if proven, amounted to professional misconduct. The Panel was advised that from there, it should consider whether the conduct was remediable and if so, whether it had been remediated. To assist in considering whether the conduct had been remediated, the Panel should consider whether the Teacher had demonstrated insight, regret and remorse. A key question for the Panel was whether the Teacher had looked back on her conduct with a self-critical eye, acknowledged fault, showed remorse and convinced the Panel that there was a real reason to believe she has learned from the experience. The Legal Assessor referred to General Optical Council v Clarke ([2018] EWCA Civ 1463), an authority which, though not binding, is persuasive and advised that the judgement on impairment should be made with reference to whether, if permitted to practice, the Teacher was fit to practice and not on the basis of whether the Teacher in fact currently practiced teaching or intended to in the future.  

The Panel considered all of the above information and the passage of time, 7 years, since the behaviour occurred. Having discussed the allegations, the Panel agreed that, if proven at a hearing, they would likely constitute professional misconduct. While the Panel recognised the seriousness of the allegations, it also acknowledged a mitigating factor in that the Teacher’s actions, or inaction, appeared to stem, at least in part, from naivety rather than deliberate wrongdoing. It was also noted that the Teacher had acted in response to the concerns, albeit the actions taken were not adequate given the seriousness of the situation. However, the Panel was of the view that the alleged conduct was remediable and that it had been remediated on account of the training undertaken by the Teacher and the extensive personal reflection as set out in her reflective statement. The Panel was persuaded that the Teacher had learned from the experience and from what happened in the intervening period to date. [redacted].

In accordance with paragraph 5.2 of the Practice Statement, the Panel considered the General Objective as set out at Rules 1.3.7 and 1.3.8. In line with paragraph 5.3 of the Practice Statement, the Panel also considered whether the cancellation was in the public interest. The Panel noted that the public interest could and has been served by measures short of a finding of current impairment, namely, the regulatory intervention which has taken place over the 7-year period and the employer disciplinary process. The Panel was of the view that a case cancellation would not undermine the protection of the public and a finding of current impairment is not required to protect the public. The Panel was of the view that a case cancellation would not undermine the public’s confidence in registrants and in the integrity of the teaching profession and a finding of current impairment is not required to uphold that. The Panel was of the view that a case cancellation would not undermine the public’s confidence in GTC Scotland as a professional regulator and a finding of current impairment is not required to uphold that. The Panel was of the view that a finding of current impairment was not required in order to declare and uphold proper teaching standards. The Panel was of the view that a finding of current impairment was not required in order to act as a deterrent effect on other GTC Scotland registrants.

Taking account of all of the above, the Panel decided that the case should be cancelled because the allegations, if proved, cannot reasonably be said to amount to current impairment.