Panel Consideration Meeting - Remote Hearing and Vulnerable Witness Application - Callum Scott
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 Panel Meeting was arranged to consider the following:
- An application made by the Presenting Officer for the full hearing to be held remotely; and
- A vulnerable witness application made by the Presenting Officer in respect of a GTC Scotland witness.
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 meeting:
- Remote Hearing application, dated from 21 July 2025
- Vulnerable Witness application, dated from 21 July 2025
- Notice of Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 25 June 2025
- Letter to Teacher with applications sent by Royal Mail return to sender, dated 22 July 2025
Remote Hearing Application
GTC Scotland conducts its fitness to teach hearings either in person, in its dedicated Hearings Suite at its office in Edinburgh, or remotely. Therefore, in line with Rule 1.7.6, a Fitness to Teach Panel may order that all or any part of a hearing may be conducted by the use of video link or teleconference 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.
Video link is commonly used for witnesses to give evidence by participating from a remote location. In addition, an entire hearing may be conducted via video link. Such a hearing is described as a ‘remote hearing’.
An application for use of either video link or teleconference in relation to a participant taking part in a hearing from a remote location or for a remote hearing is made by the party who wants to use it. In certain cases, a proposal is made by GTC Scotland. The relevant procedure and criteria for determining such applications are set out in the Remote hearings and remote witnesses practice 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 a 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.
Application
An application dated 21 July 2025 for the use of video-link or teleconference in a full remote hearing was made by the Presenting Officer. The Panel considered the application and submissions made in response which addressed, in particular, the following factors:
Remote hearings or hybrid A hearing applications
1. Do all remote participants have access to/knowledge of the technology required?
The Panel noted that the Presenting Officer’s application advised that tests would be conducted with each party in advance of the hearing to assess any issues and that all participants had access to devices and locations from which to give evidence. The Panel also made a reasonable assumption that the majority of witnesses were working teachers, they would have access to the necessary equipment and means within their roles enabling them to participate without issue.
2. Can the teacher participate effectively in a remote hearing?
The Panel noted that the Teacher was given fair opportunity to express his views regarding the application for a remote hearing but elected not to do so. Consequently, 3 the Panel concluded that this was not a justifiable reason to deny the application. In light of the Teacher’s lack of engagement, the Panel had no information regarding his specific needs or potential vulnerabilities. However, the Panel reasonably assumed that the Teacher would be capable of participating in a remote hearing, along with any potential representative, should the Teacher choose to engage at a later stage.
3. Do the particular circumstances of the case suggest that a remote hearing would be suitable?
The Panel noted that this would be a full hearing, requiring evidence from 6 witnesses over an anticipated 6-day period. It was confirmed by the Presenting Officer that all witnesses would have access to the necessary technology to participate in a remote hearing. While the matters under consideration are serious, the Panel did not consider the allegations to be overly complex, with each witness expected to take no more than 1.5 hours to give evidence.
The Panel also observed that the hearing bundle was not excessive, comprising 279 pages. Witnesses would be provided with the relevant documentation in advance and would not be expected to work from the full bundle. Additionally, the Panel acknowledged there was an application to be considered for 1 witness to be given vulnerable witness status, as referenced in the remote hearing application.
The Panel agreed that a remote hearing would likely help witnesses to feel more at ease, as it can be less intimidating and burdensome in terms of travel. The Panel noted that there was nothing in the documents which referenced any issues in relation to possible witness interference and did not have concerns that this could not be managed with appropriate guidance.
The Panel also referred to the Fact-Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement, and based on their experience, were confident that credibility and reliability could be appropriately assessed in a remote hearing setting. The Panel expressed no concerns about proceeding in this format.
4. What are the benefits of a remote hearing balanced against the drawbacks?
The Panel noted that conducting the hearing remotely would likely help avoid delays and ensure the matter was dealt with as expeditiously as possible. It was acknowledged that the witnesses would face significant travel requirements if the hearing were held in person and that the remote format would likely reduce the overall time needed to schedule the hearing. This, in turn, would help mitigate the risk of witness recollection deteriorating over time. While the Teacher’s position on the remote hearing was unknown, the Panel agreed that this did not constitute a valid reason to reject the application, as the Teacher had been given a fair opportunity to make representations on the matter. The Panel also considered that a hybrid hearing would serve no practical purpose in this case.
Decision
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 Remote hearings and remote witnesses practice statement as well as the advice, as required, of the legal assessor and servicing officer.
The Panel decided that the balance of the various factors and interests to be assessed in determining the application weighed in favour of granting the application made. The Panel noted that the Teacher had been given fair opportunity to make representations on the hearing being held remotely and that a remote hearing would likely reduce delays in proceedings. The decision to grant the remote hearing application was based on the factors outlined above. The Panel concluded that conducting the hearing remotely would not compromise the fairness of the process.
Accordingly, the Panel granted the application for the full hearing to take place remotely.
Vulnerable Witness Application
The Panel considered the terms of Rule 1.7.29 and 1.7.30 and also the Witnesses and Hearsay Evidence Practice Statement insofar as it relates to vulnerable witnesses. Pupil A is the witness who is the subject of the vulnerable witness application. The age of Pupil A was unknown to the Panel and there was nothing before the Panel to suggest that Pupil A has a mental disorder nor significant impairment of intelligence and/or social functioning. The Panel noted the specific terms of the allegations. The conduct libelled is of a sexual and abusive nature. Pupil A is the victim of the alleged conduct. The Panel was accordingly satisfied that the quality of the evidence of the witness, Pupil A, was likely to be diminished for the reason set out in Rule 1.7.29(b) iii. The Panel also considered whether the quality of Pupil A’s evidence was likely to be diminished on account of fear or distress in connection with giving evidence. There was no evidence to assist their decision on that issue, the Panel decided not to confer vulnerable status on that basis and, therefore, relied only upon Rule 1.7.9(b) iii.
The Panel noted that the parties had been given an opportunity to make representations on the measures necessary to enable it to receive evidence from Pupil A. The Teacher had not responded. The Presenting Officer proposed that the evidence of Pupil A be given virtually and with a supporter present. The Panel agreed with the Presenting Officer’s request on the basis that in light of all of the information available to the panel about the case, the suggestion appeared to be a reasonable means of enabling Pupil A to better give evidence and the Panel made an order to that effect.
The Panel noted that the measures open to it were not limited to those set out at Rule 1.7.30 nor those requested by the Presenting Officer. The Panel considered whether in light of the allegations, the entire hearing should take place in private. The Panel decided not to make an order to that effect on account of that issue not having been canvassed with the parties and on account of the Panel not having adequate information to determine whether that was appropriate. The Panel did however decide that the evidence of Pupil A should be given in private because of the nature of the allegations and because at the time of the alleged conduct Pupil A was a child. As the Teacher was unrepresented, the Panel acknowledged Rule 1.7.31 which states that where a witness is defined as a vulnerable witness, the Teacher would not be allowed to examine or cross-examine the witness. In such circumstances, examination or cross-examination of the witness would be undertaken by such means, or by such person, as the Hearing Panel considers appropriate.
Prior to reaching its decision, the Panel was given legal advice. The Panel was advised that it could only rely on Rule 1.7.29 (b) iv. if there was information supporting the contention that there was fear or distress in connection with giving evidence. An inference may well be capable of being drawn from the nature of the allegations however, that was not clear and in any event the Panel only required to be satisfied on one part of Rule 1.7.29(b) and it was satisfied on Rule 1.7.29(b) iii. The Panel was advised that in reaching a decision, it should consider all relevant factors and disregard irrelevant factors. Prior to determining whether the entire hearing should be in private, the Panel must consider whether it had adequate information to enable it to make that decision.
The Panel granted the Presenting Officer’s application as it was considered proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, Pupil A was given vulnerable witness status and it was decided that their evidence would be provided remotely, in private and, if desired, with a supporter present.
