Panel Consideration Meeting - Privacy/Anonymity Application - Teacher C
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 Hearing was arranged to consider the following:
- Privacy Application
- Anonymity 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:
- Teacher’s Privacy and Anonymity application, undated, with appendices:
- Teacher’s Medical Report, dated 11 September 2024
- Presenting Officer’s response to the Teacher’s Privacy and Anonymity applications, dated 2 July 2024
- Evidence Bundle, undated
- Notice of Procedural Hearing, dated 19 November 2024 with cover email and delivery receipt
- Signed Notice of Procedural Hearing Response Form, dated 9 December 2024
- Email from Teacher’s Representative, dated 4 December 2024, re. procedural hearing being held virtually
- Email from Presenting Officer, dated 5 November 2024, re. procedural hearing being held virtually
- Email from Presenting Officer, dated 17 January 2025, re. privacy and anonymity for the procedural hearing
- Email from Teacher’s Representative, dated 16 January 2025, re. privacy and anonymity for the procedural hearing
Preliminary Matters
Virtual Hearing Application
The Presenting Officer applied for the procedural hearing to be a virtual hearing. The Teacher’s Representative did not oppose the application.
By default, GTC Scotland conducts all its Fitness to Teach hearings in person in its dedicated Hearings Suite in Edinburgh. However, a Panel may order that all or any part of a hearing may be conducted by the use of electronic communications provided the method adopted allows the parties, the Panel and any witnesses to attend remotely, and, where the hearing is in public, allows the public to view proceedings.
The relevant procedures and criteria for determining such applications are set out in the Use of Electronic Communications in Hearings Practice Statement.
The Panel considered the application and the relevant factors set out in the practice statement. The Teacher was represented, but would not participate personally at the procedural hearing. The hearing was procedural to determine the Teacher’s privacy and anonymity application. It would last no longer than a day. No evidence would be led. The Panel had yet to determine a privacy application in relation to the procedural hearing itself, but understood that no members of the public or press wished to observe the hearing. The Panel would consider approximately 200 pages of case related evidence and submissions. The papers had been intimated to parties and the Panel in advance. The hearing would involve oral submissions by the parties and then a private session involving the Panel only when determining the applications. Each Party was able to fully participate in the hearing. The issues were not complex. The Teacher’s representative did not oppose the application.
The Panel appreciated that it should balance all of the relevant factors outlined above, the interests of the parties and the public interest in deciding whether or not to grant the application.
The Panel carefully considered the application and submissions made in response to it. The Panel had regard to the Rules and to the Use of Electronic Communications in Hearings Practice Statement as well as legal and procedural advice from the Legal Assessor and Servicing Officer.
The Panel decided that the balance of the various factors and interests to be assessed weighed in favour of granting the application made.
Privacy Application
The Teacher’s Representative applied for the procedural hearing to be in private. The Presenting Officer did not oppose the application.
The Panel considered the application, oral submissions of both parties and supporting papers. It also reviewed the Rules and guidance in GTC Scotland practice statements the detail of which is more fully set out in the decision concerning the substantive hearing. In short, the default position is that hearings take place in public, but panels may direct otherwise where there are compelling circumstances having considered the private and public interest factors relevant to the hearing.
The Panel decided that the procedural hearing would be conducted in private. No member of the public or press wished to observe the proceedings. The hearing was procedural only. The Presenting Officer did not oppose the application. The Panel observed that the public interest in a procedural hearing was lower than in a full hearing dealing with allegations about a Teacher’s conduct and the outcome of a full hearing.
In addition to ordering that the procedural hearing be conducted in private, the Panel also ordered that the Teacher’s name and registration number be anonymised in the published decision of the procedural hearing.
Substantive Privacy and Anonymity Application
Teacher’s Submissions
The Teacher applied for the full hearing to be conducted in private under Rule 1.7.2(a). He also applied for his identity to be anonymised in the publication of the proceedings. The Teacher had experienced [redacted].
Presenting Officer’s Submissions
The Presenting Officer submitted that the bar for a private hearing and anonymisation within the written decision was high given the overarching principles of openness, transparency and fairness which inform the default position. He acknowledged the recognised exceptions. The allegations were serious. They involved sexual allegations with children. The public interest in them and in proceedings about them was high. The Presenting Officer had been opposed to the applications when framing his written submissions. The Teacher had not provided medical evidence by that point. Medical evidence was now available. The Presenting Officer had considered that evidence and now adopted a neutral position on the applications.
Decision
The Panel considered the application, the written and oral submissions of both parties and the supporting papers. It also accepted the legal and procedural advice of the Legal Assessor and Servicing Officer. It took account of the provisions within the Rules and guidance provided by GTC Scotland practice statements, in particular the Privacy and Anonymity practice statement and the Health Matters and Medical Evidence practice statement.
The Privacy and Anonymity practice statement states:-
“The default position set out in the Fitness to Teach Rules (the “Rules”) is that fitness to teach hearings are held in public. However, Panels have a 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 default position is influenced by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1988. By reference to Article 6, the practice statement identifies what may amount to circumstances that justify exceptions to the default. Potential reasons narrated include “where the protection of the private life of the parties so require”. The practice statement continues, “Panels must be satisfied that there is a compelling reason for granting such an application [for privacy and anonymity] in order to protect an individual’s private life.”
The Panel considered the medical evidence upon which the application was based. It determined that the medical evidence fulfilled the criteria required by the Health Matters and Medical Evidence practice statement and that weight must be given to it. There was [redacted]. However, the Panel also considered the public interest including the maintenance of the public’s confidence in teachers, the teaching profession and in GTC Scotland as a professional regulator. Furthermore, the public interest involved the deterrent effect that the determination of fitness to teach proceedings may have upon other teachers.
The Panel concluded, for the reasons set out above in the Teacher’s submission, that there were compelling reasons to justify the Panel exercising its discretion to restrict the public disclosure of certain aspects of the proceedings. Firstly, the Panel ordered that the full hearing be held in private. Secondly, the Panel directed that the Teacher’s name and registration number be anonymised in the published decision of the Fitness to Teach full hearing. The Panel had only heard submissions on those details. The Panel’s view was that these measures were justified in light of the medical evidence. They were measures that [redacted]. A reasonable informed member of the public appraised of the relevant facts would assess the risk of harm to the Teacher as high. The Panel acknowledged the duty of care it had to teachers during Fitness to Teach proceedings. The public would expect GTC Scotland to comply with its duty of care in its processes.
The Panel observed that there may be other details included in a published decision beyond the Teacher’s name and registration number that ought to be anonymised. There is the potential for jigsaw identification that would undermine the Panel’s decision on anonymity. The Panel noted that a further anonymity application could be made and considered by the full hearing Panel when the risk posed by other details could be considered and addressed.
