Panel Consideration Meeting - Remote Hearing Application - Jordan Kai Vaughn

Teacher

Jordan Vaughn

Date

Dates

22 September 2025

Registration number

224905

Registration category

Secondary – Computing

Panel

Gemma Durnan, Helen Kelly, Michele Knight

Legal assessor

Bill Criggie

Servicing officer

Bruce Nicol

Presenting officer

Gary Burton (not present)

Teacher's representative(s)

n/a

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 an application made by the Presenting Officer for the full hearing to be held remotely.

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:

Presenting Officer’s Virtual Hearing Application, dated 18 August 2025
Presenting Officer’s Virtual Hearing Application Appendix, dated 18 August 2025
Teacher’s Response to Virtual Hearing Application, dated 25 August 2025
Notice of Presenting Officer’s Case Form, dated 17 July 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 18 August 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 within the Presenting Officer’s application that tests can 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 noted the only named witness for the case is a teacher, meaning he would have access to the necessary equipment and means from his profession, enabling him to participate without issue. The Panel recognised the Teacher has not yet provided GTC Scotland with any witnesses in support of his case, and therefore it is acknowledged further witnesses may be anticipated during the hearing. However, there were no indications to suggest any party would have any issues in accessing the technology to participate in the hearing virtually.

2. Can the teacher participate effectively in a remote hearing?

The Panel noted the Teacher was given fair opportunity to express his views regarding the application for a remote hearing and confirmed with GTC Scotland that he was content for the hearing to be held virtually. Given the Teacher's agreement to the proposal, the Panel reasonably assumed the Teacher would be capable of participating in a remote hearing, along with any potential representative, should the Teacher choose to engage one at a later stage. The Panel also recognised there were no vulnerabilities disclosed by the Teacher during his response to the application.

3. Do the particular circumstances of the case suggest that a remote hearing would be suitable?

The Panel noted this application is for a full hearing, requiring evidence from 1 witness, not including the Teacher, over an anticipated 4-day period. The Panel considered the allegations significant in terms of volume, however, did not consider them to be overly complex.

The Panel also recognised the hearing bundle was not excessive, comprising of 479 pages. The named witness would be provided with the relevant documentation in advance, rather than relying on the full bundle, and is not expected to take more than 2 hours to give evidence. The Panel agreed that a remote hearing would be less burdensome to the witness, and relevant parties, in terms of travel.

The Panel were also 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 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.

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 agrees to the proposal of a full virtual hearing 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.