Panel Consideration Meeting - Case Cancellation Application - Alicia Reid

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 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:

•  Case Cancellation application made by the Presenting Officer (PO) 

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:

Case cancellation submissions both parties, with supporting documents:

• Panel Consideration Paper, undated, with appendices
  
  • Final Investigation Report, dated 21 April 2023, with appendices including:
    
    • Teacher’s response to Notification of Investigation, dated 27 April 2023
    • Stage 2 Complaint – Formal Investigation, dated 11 February 2021 
    • Stage 2 Interview – Complainants, dated 2 February 2021
    •  Stage 2 Interview – Alicia Reid, dated 8 February 2021
    •  Stage 2 Interview – Colleague A, dated 10 February 2021
    • Stage 2 Interview – Colleague B, dated 8 February 2021
    • Stage 2 Interview – Colleague C, dated 9 February 2021 
    • Stage 2 Interview – Person A, dated 9 February 2021
    • Emails, dated 8 to 19 January 2021 
    •  Message screenshot, dated 17 December 2020 to on or around 8 January 2021 
    • GTC Scotland statement – Person B, dated 26 July 2022 
    • GTC Scotland statement – Colleague A, dated 30 September 2022  
    • GTC Scotland statement – Colleague B, dated 23 August 2022 
    • GTC Scotland statements – Person A, dated 2 August and 1 November 2022 
    • GTC Scotland statement – Colleague D, dated 13 December 2022
    • Letter from Dumfries and Galloway to GTC Scotland, dated 6 January 2020 
    • Teacher’s statement, dated 14 March 2023 
    • Submissions on behalf of the Teacher 
    • GTC Scotland supplementary statement – Colleague B, dated 17 April 2023 
    • Email from Colleague E, Dumfries and Galloway Council, dated 20 April 2023 
    • Notice of Investigation, dated 22 February 2022 
    • Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 8 May 2023 
    •  Notice of Panel Consideration cover email and delivery receipt, dated 8 May 2023
• Alicia Reid statement, dated 24 March 2025, with appendices:
  
  • AR1 Alicia CV 2025
  • AR2 Support Learning Children Potential
  • AR3 messages document split up
• Statement of Colleague F
• Statement of Colleague G signed
• Statement of Person C
• Colleague H main statement
• Colleague H anonymity statement.

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 the application was made by the 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 considered that the PO would not have made this submission without good cause. In his submissions, the PO considered that the allegations would not amount to misconduct. The Teacher supported the application for cancellation and provided reasons.  

The Panel noted that there were three allegations where the Teacher breached professional boundaries by sending messages of an inappropriate nature, insofar as it relates to the timing, use of a personal phone and use of kisses and emojis and of one instances of allowing a pupil to spend time out of class and in the school grounds with no good reason. The Panel noted that the Teacher accepted allegations 1 and 3 insofar as the content of the messages being sent; she denied that this amounted to professional misconduct and that her fitness to teach is currently impaired. The Panel noted further that allegation 2 is disputed on the basis that while Pupil A was allowed time out of class to spend in the nurture wing, this was for the Pupil's wellbeing and was with the knowledge of the parents and in her best interests.

The Panel noted the nature of the allegations, their age, and the specific set of circumstances present in the case. The Panel duly considered the content of the messages sent. On reading the messages, the Panel noted that they are pupil-focussed and about the pupil’s welfare and devoid of any suggestion of malicious threat or sexual motivation. Further, the Panel considered that the alleged conduct related to a senior teacher, a Headteacher, and that  Pupils A and B were vulnerable. However, the Panel was of the view that it could reasonably be seen that at time of Covid-19, the Teacher (and the other staff) were very worried about the pupils' welfare. The Panel considered that there was a Depute Headteacher and Social Work involvement, there was no evidence of clandestine or nefarious behaviour, and the Teacher's intentions were well meaning though naive. The Panel noted that the allegations presented isolated incidents which were nearly 5 years of age,   there was no history of misconduct on the Teacher’s part, nor were there any ongoing concerns. The Panel noted the Teacher’s insight and reflection on the matter insofar as the admitted allegations were concerned.

The Panel was of the view that, in the very specific set of circumstances,  the allegations, including the allegation that is denied, would not amount to misconduct, and that the public interest is not engaged in this particular case. Accordingly, the Panel granted the PO’s application and cancelled the case.