Panel Consideration Meeting - Remote Hearing Application - Julie Pirie

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 use of video-link or teleconference to allow 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 meeting:

1. Presenting Officer Virtual Hearing application, dated 24 June 2025
2. Teacher’s Representative email response to application, dated 27 June 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 24 June 2025 for the use of video-link or teleconference in 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:

Remote hearings or hybrid A hearing applications

• Do all remote participants have access to/knowledge of the technology required

The Panel noted that there were 5 teaching professionals as witnesses as well as [redacted] the Teacher. There was nothing in the documentary bundle to suggest that there would be any issues with the technology. The Presenting Officer confirmed that all participants have access to devices and locations from which to give evidence.

• Can the teacher participate effectively in a remote hearing?

The Panel noted that the Teacher is represented by an experienced representative and that the Teacher’s views had been expressed on the matter. The representative had confirmed that the Teacher had agreed to the full hearing being held remotely.

There was no information to suggest that the Teacher has any particular needs or vulnerabilities.

It was also agreed that the Teacher and their representative will be able to communicate privately during the hearing, should they require to do so.

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

The Panel noted that the expected duration of the hearing was anticipated to be 5 days and that witnesses would provide evidence for between 1-1.5 hours. The Panel was not of the opinion that this was overly lengthy or complex.

In addition to this it was noted that the hearing papers, at this time, totalled 280 pages and this was also not overly lengthy.

The Panel also noted that there was no information which indicated that there are any individual needs to be considered, especially relating to vulnerable or lay witnesses.

The Panel was also of the view that with the hearing taking place remotely, this would have advantages in that teachers would not have to travel to provide their evidence.

The Panel considered whether it would be possible to assess, sufficiently, witness evidence in a remote hearing and agreed that GTC Scotland and other regulators now routinely use virtual hearings and that there is nothing to suggest that there is a difficulty in this.

The Panel did note that [redacted] was a witness however there was nothing to suggest in the Application that there were concerns about control of any party or witness including the risk of witness interference while giving evidence or during any breaks.

• What are the benefits of a remote hearing balanced against the drawbacks?

The Panel agreed that a remote hearing had benefits in respect of witness availability and without there being a need for travel. It was agreed that a remote hearing would increase teacher witness availability due to less time being required to travel and arrange for cover.

The Panel was content that no unfairness had been identified by either party.

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 noted that the Teacher stated, via their representative, that they had no objections to the hearing taking place remotely. The Panel also considered that a remote hearing would not, in and of itself, lead to further delay in proceedings, and that the Parties would be able to navigate the bundle remotely without there being a negative impact on proceedings. The decision to grant the remote hearing application was made on the basis of the factors above and that the Panel did not think that having a remote hearing would affect the fairness of the process.

Accordingly, the Panel granted the Application for the hearing to take place remotely