Panel Consideration Meeting - Privacy/Anonymity/Admissibility Application - Callum Francis
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:
- The Teacher/Representative applied for the name of the Teacher, his GTCS Registration Number and any other information that may lead to the identification of the Teacher or his son to be anonymised in any hearing proceedings (whether in public or private) and any written decision or documentation of any Fitness to Teach Panel relating to the current allegations, in terms of Rule 1.7.3 of the General Teaching Council for Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017.
- The Teacher/Representative requested that the full GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach hearing be held in private, or as a minimum any sections in relation to the [redacted] and any sections which make reference to either directly or indirectly to his [redacted] son, or risk his son being identified, be held in private.
- The Presenting Officer requested that the audio recording of the interview with Pupil A be admitted as hearsay evidence.
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 from Teacher/Representative, dated from 4 August 2025
- Privacy application Teacher/Representative, dated from 4 August 2025
- [redacted] dated 12 June 2025
- Presenting Officer’s response contained in application, dated 19 August 20252
- Presenting Officer Case Form, dated 7 May 2025
- Admissibility of Evidence (Hearsay) application, dated 3 September 2025, with appendices including
- Notice of Teacher Case Form, undated
- Audio Recording of Interview with Pupil A
- Teacher’s response to application, dated 19 September 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 a procedural hearing in the submissions made. The Panel considered that a procedural hearing was not necessary. Therefore, the Panel proceeded to consider the matter on the papers.
The Panel had before it the Teacher’s applications for Privacy and Anonymity, and an application made by the GTC Scotland Presenting Officer for the admission of hearsay evidence.
In considering each application in turn the Panel had regard to the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement, the [redacted], the Fact Finding in Fitness to Teacher Practice Statement, and the Witnesses and Hearsay Evidence Practice Statement. The Panel was also grateful for the fulsome submissions made by both the Teacher’s Representative and the Presenting Officer on the respective applications.
[redacted]
The Panel noted that the Teacher had provided [redacted] in support of both the applications for Privacy and Anonymity. That evidence took the form of a letter from the [redacted]. The Panel considered that evidence carefully withreference to the [redacted].
The Panel was concerned that on the face of it the letter did not appear to meet the requirements for appropriate [redacted]. The Panel noted that [redacted] should take the form of an appropriately detailed letter from a [redacted] setting out a [redacted] the [redacted] a specific explanation of how [redacted] impacts upon attendance at the hearing and/or engagement with the hearing process, what the [redacted], and what the [redacted].
The Panel noted that the letter [redacted] the Teacher with [redacted]. It did not offer a [redacted] or give an opinion on the [redacted] beyond stating that the teacher [redacted]. The Panel also noted that currently the only [redacted]. The letter also stated that the Teacher was concerned with the ‘shame’ of being publicly discussed and debated.
It was not clear to the Panel from the evidence provided as to how long the [redacted] the Teacher or on what level and length of engagement the opinion was based. The Panel also considered that the letter was from the Teacher’s [redacted] rather than from a [redacted] or [redacted].
After careful consideration the Panel was of the view that the [redacted] provided was not of the appropriate strength and quality to correspond with the level and seriousness of the matters at issue. It took the view that the weight of evidence required for applications for a private hearing and anonymity is high and that the evidence provided did not meet that threshold. The letter was scant in detail and vague on important aspects. The Panel’s view of the [redacted] informed its decisions on both the Privacy application and the Anonymity application. The Panel did consider whether it was appropriate to suggest seeking additional [redacted] in this matter and noted that the Teacher’s Representative had indicated that the Teacher would comply with that position. However, the Panel was of the view that the Teacher had had ample opportunity to provide further or more detailed evidence and had not done so.
Decision – Privacy Application
The application for Privacy was made in the following terms:
‘That the full GTCS FTT hearing be held in private, or as a minimum any sections in relation to Mr Francis' [redacted] and any sections which make reference to either directly or indirectly to his [redacted] son or risk his son being identified are held in private.’
The Panel took as its starting point that the default position as set out in the Fitness to Teach Rules is that fitness to teach hearings are held in public. However, the Panel did note that it had discretion to make orders with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings where certain criteria are met.
The Panel noted that there were myriad good and onerous reasons as to why hearings take place in public. The principle of open justice demands that hearings should be held in public, that evidence should be communicated publicly and that fair, accurate and contemporaneous media reporting of proceedings should not be prevented unless strictly necessary. The Panel also considered that it was important for GTC Scotland to be seen to be carrying out its functions openly and transparently and that hearings being held in public maintained the public’s confidence in GTC Scotland as a professional regulator.
Against that background the Panel reminded itself that the bar for making an order that a hearing be held in private was a high one to overcome and that such an order should only be made by exception.
The Panel noted the submissions made on behalf of the Teacher and proceeded to carry out a careful balancing of all the factors involved in this case. The Panel was of the view that the crux of this matter was the balance to be struck between the competing terms of Article 6(1) of the ECHR and Article 8 of the ECHR. That is the need for justice to be open as per Article 6 and the right of the Teacher as set out in Article 8 of respect for his private and family life. The Panel considered at length the [redacted] provided, and its full assessment of that evidence is set out above.
The Panel noted that the Presenting Officer’s position was that consent was provided in respect of the application, only insofar as it related to sections of the evidence where the Teacher's [redacted] would be discussed. The Panel reminded itself that it could decide to prevent or restrict the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings, only where it was satisfied that:
(i) it is in the interests of justice to do so; and
(ii) the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the interests of the Teacher and the public in the hearing being held in public
The Panel had to reach a decision on whether to exercise its discretion to grant the request bearing in mind that a decision to uphold the application should only be to the extent that it considers it necessary.
The Panel after lengthy deliberations concluded that the application for Privacy be granted, only insofar as it relates to sections of the evidence where the Teacher's [redacted] is discussed.
The Panel was of the view that intimate or sensitive details of the of the [redacted] Teacher were likely to be raised in evidence, and this justified holding part of the hearing in private to protect the privacy of the Teacher. The Panel was satisfied that to that limited extent the Article 8 rights of the Teacher outweighed the need for the hearing to be held in public. However, the substantive application that the Full Hearing be held in private is refused.
Decision – Anonymity Application
The application for anonymity was made in the following terms:
‘For the name of the Teacher, his GTCS Registration Number and any other information that may lead to the identification of the Teacher or his son to be anonymised in any hearing proceedings (whether in public or private) and any written decision or documentation of any Fitness to Teach Panel relating to the current allegations.’
The Panel again considered the [redacted] provided in support of this application – set out separately above. The Panel also noted that the majority of its considerations regarding an Anonymity application were in the same terms as those discussed in assessing the Privacy application.
The Panel considered carefully the submissions made by the Teacher’s Representative in support of the Anonymity application. There were two main strands to those submissions – the second of which addressed the medical evidence discussed at length by the Panel previously. The first strand was based on the fact that the Teacher has a [redacted] son. Anonymity was requested as the Teacher’s Representative posited that the case would be reported in the media and that this would place his son at risk and have a detrimental impact on both his and his son’s [redacted].
The Panel had some sympathy for this position but again noted that the bar for granting an Anonymity application was high. The fact that the Teacher and his family may be distressed by the proceedings being held in public and that an Anonymity order would save him and his family from embarrassment are not sufficient reasons for such an application to be granted. Nor is the fact that an Anonymity order could prevent damage to the Teacher’s reputation. There was no indication in the submissions or evidence before the Panel that his reputation would suffer disproportionate damage as a result of his name being made public. The Panel5 had to be satisfied that there was a compelling reason for granting such an application in order to protect an individual’s private life.
The Panel considered that in granting the application for Privacy to the limited extent set out above it had already taken such steps as it considered necessary to protect the Teacher’s private life.
Unfortunately, it is not unusual that Teachers who are subject to Fitness to Teach proceedings will have families and children who are impacted by the proceedings. In the Panel’s view, that fact alone is insufficient to justify the granting of an Anonymity Order. There was no additional or compelling evidence before the Panel that this case would result in anything more than the usual level of discomfort, embarrassment and distress that are inevitably engendered by such proceedings and there was no evidence of specific impact on the Teacher’s son.
The application for Anonymity is refused.
Decision - Admissibility
The Presenting Officer made an application in the following terms:
- The audio recording of the interview with Pupil A spoken to by Witness A to be admitted as hearsay evidence.
Firstly, the Panel reached a view on whether the evidence in question was ‘hearsay evidence’. The Panel satisfied itself that the audio recording was indeed hearsay and that Pupil A had indicated quite clearly that she did not want to play any further part in proceedings:
"I do not wish to be present and also do not wish for my witness statement to be used. As mentioned, I do not feel comfortable being involved in the case at all. I would like the case to proceed without my input and I do not wish to be considered a witness henceforth. I hope you can understand my position on the matter, as a number of factors have informed this decision."
The Panel noted that there may be cases where the GTC Scotland is unable to secure the attendance or co-operation of witnesses and where seeking a court order would be disproportionate or contrary to the public interest. In this case the GTC Scotland had taken the view that action to compel attendance and co-operation from Pupil A would be disproportionate.
The Presenting Officer instead sought to admit hearsay evidence in respect of the testimony of Pupil A. The Hearsay evidence in this instance is evidence which has been provided by Pupil A to a third party – the interview recorded by Witness A. The Panel noted that Witness A was available to give evidence and would speak to the interview.
The Panel reminded itself that hearsay evidence may be admissible within GTC Scotland proceedings. However, the decision as to whether the hearsay evidence is, or is not, admissible will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The only requirement of evidence used in Fitness to Teach proceedings, as set down in rule 1.7.17, is that it is relevant and fair. The Panel noted that is overriding consideration was to ensure that the proceedings are fair.
The Panel then moved on to consider the various factors set out within the Witnesses and Hearsay Evidence Practice Statement in reaching a decision to admit the evidence or not. The Panel reached the view that the evidence in question is not the sole or decisive evidence in this matter. The Teacher has made several admissions regarding the allegations relating to6 Pupil A. He has also admitted allegations in relation to two other Pupils who are to give evidence. It is quite clear that the recording is not ‘sole or decisive’ in this case. Indeed, the Teacher’s response made that point:
‘[the Teacher]is subject to allegations from 2 other pupils who are still due to give evidence at the Fitness to Teach Hearing. Again, [the Teacher] admitted a number of the allegations. [The Teacher] also accepts his Fitness to Teach is impaired. Therefore, the hearsay evidence would not play a central role in this case or be the only or central piece of evidence the Presenting Officer would be relying upon, making it less important that it forms part of the case.’
That being the case, the Panel did not view the admission of the recording into evidence as unfair.
The Panel also considered the extent to which the contents of the evidence are in dispute and whether there are concerns about the credibility of the witness. If her evidence is disputed or her credibility questioned, then the admission of hearsay evidence may well be unfair, and its admission would require additional scrutiny. However, in this case there does not seem to be any dispute regarding the credibility of Pupil A – none is referenced in the Teacher’s response and indeed the Teacher admits a number of her allegations.
The Panel did have some concerns regarding the nature and quality of the hearsay evidence. It was unclear from the material before the Panel why and in what circumstances it was recorded. The Panel would have expected to have more information on the interview itself, such as:
- when was it recorded?
- who was present at the interview apart from Pupil A and Witness A?
However, the Panel noted that Witness A was due to give evidence and would presumably be able to give evidence on those issues.
The Panel finally discussed the submissions made by the Teacher’s Representative referencing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The Panel did take seriously Pupil A’s clear wish not to be involved any further in this case but noted that at the time she came forward to make the allegations she was an adult. The Panel was also of the view that once allegations such as these had been made there was a wider public interest in pursuing them even in a situation where a witness withdrew their co-operation.
Having considered the Presenting Officer’s application, the Teacher’s response, and the relevant practice statement and the criteria laid out there in the Panel granted the application for admission. The Panel had regard to the issue of fairness and reached the view that that overriding consideration extended to both the Teacher and the other pupils who had made allegations.
The Panel was clear that this decision only addresses the matter of admissibility. It will obviously be the role of the Panel at the Fitness to Teach Hearing to give the evidence carefulconsideration and decide on the appropriate weight to attach to it.
