Panel Consideration Meeting - Case Cancellation Application - Teacher B

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 Teacher’s Representative 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 14 August 2025, including:
   
   • Presenting Officer’s response, dated 18 August 2025
2. Panel consideration decision, dated 21 July 2025
3. Letter from Headteacher (previously submitted), dated 20 September 2024

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 Teacher’s Representative and was not opposed by the Presenting Officer. 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 the terms of the application and noted it stated that on 21 July 2025, a Panel granted privacy and anonymity applications as well as ruling that the “the only substantive evidence” and “sole and decisive evidence against the Teacher” in the form of statements to Police Scotland, were excluded as inadmissible hearsay. The Panel also noted that the Teacher had been acquitted following a criminal trial and that his employer had

chosen not to proceed to a disciplinary hearing. The Panel considered that the lower standard of proof in GTC Scotland proceedings meant that the criminal acquittal did not necessarily mean that the allegation would not be proved in this setting. However, given the absence of any substantive evidence, the Panel agreed with the Presenting Officer that there was no realistic prospect of proving the allegations.

The Panel acknowledged the Teacher had returned to working in the classroom in January 2023 and a positive reference had been provided by the headteacher at the school in which he taught. The Panel took account of the general objective outlined in Rules 1.3.7 and 1.3.8 which stated that cases must be dealt with fairly and justly. The Panel formed the view that where there was no substantive evidence and the sole and decisive evidence against the Teacher was excluded, it would not be just to proceed with the case. The Panel considered the public interest in line with paragraph 5.3 of the Practice Statement and was of the view that the public interest was served by cancelling cases in respect of which there was no substantive evidence, such as the current one.

The Panel therefore decided to cancel the case on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to proceed and, 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.