Panel Consideration Meeting - Remote Hearing Application - Emmanuel Etrue-Brown
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 a remote Full Hearing.
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.
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 consideration:
- Presenting Officer Application for remote hearing, dated 9 October 2025
- Response from Teacher, dated 18 October 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 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.
Application
An application dated 9 October 2025 for a 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:
Do all remote participants have access to/knowledge of the technology required?
The Panel noted that the witnesses have confirmed they have suitable equipment, suitable internet access and appropriate locations from which to give their evidence remotely. The Panel also noted that the Teacher and representative, who are based in England, consider that a virtual hearing will work well for them. There was nothing in the material to indicate that any participant would have difficulty with the technology required.
Can the teacher participate effectively in a remote hearing?
The Panel noted that the Teacher is represented and that the Teacher’s representative has confirmed that the application is not opposed. The Teacher is based in England and has indicated that a virtual hearing is acceptable. There was no information before the Panel to suggest that the Teacher has any particular needs or vulnerabilities that would prevent effective participation.
Do the particular circumstances of the case suggest that a remote hearing would be suitable?
The Panel noted that the hearing is anticipated to be relatively short and that the issues do not appear to be overly complex. The Teacher resides in England and would otherwise face significant travel. The Panel also noted that witnesses have confirmed they have appropriate arrangements to give evidence remotely. There was no indication of any individual needs or vulnerabilities that would require an in-person format.
What are the benefits of a remote hearing balanced against the drawbacks?
The Panel agreed that a remote hearing would allow the Teacher and representative to participate without the need for substantial travel from England, and that this would support an efficient conclusion to the case. The Panel considered that the issues are capable of being assessed adequately in a virtual format. No unfairness had been identified by either Party and the Panel noted no information that suggested a difficulty in hearing the case remotely.
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 application was not opposed and that the Teacher, who is based in England, has confirmed through their representative that they are content for the hearing to be conducted remotely. The Panel considered that witnesses have confirmed they have suitable equipment and appropriate locations from which to give their evidence and that there was nothing in the material to indicate that any participant would have trouble in joining or participating effectively. The Panel noted that the hearing is expected to be relatively short and does not appear to be overly complex. The Panel also took account of the fact that a virtual hearing would avoid the need for significant travel and would allow the case to be concluded without unnecessary delay. There was no information before the Panel to suggest any disadvantage or unfairness arising from proceeding remotely. Having considered the factors set out in the Practice Statement together with the legal advice provided, the Panel was satisfied that it would be just and equitable for the hearing to be held remotely and that proceeding in that manner would allow for full and fair participation by all parties.
Accordingly, the Panel granted the application for the hearing to take place remotely.
