Panel Consideration Meeting - Virtual Hearing Application - Tania Beg
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:
- A Virtual Hearing Proposal made by the Servicing Officer for a virtual Full Hearing.
By default, GTC Scotland conducts all its fitness to teach hearings in person in its dedicated Hearings Suite at its office in Edinburgh. However, 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 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.
Electronic communications are commonly used for witnesses to give evidence by participating from a remote location. In addition, an entire hearing may be conducted via electronic communication. Such a hearing is described as a ‘virtual hearing’.
A Proposal for use of electronic communications in relation to a participant taking part in a hearing from a remote location or for a virtual hearing is made by the party who wants to use electronic communication. In certain cases, a proposal is made by GTC Scotland. The relevant procedure and criteria for determining such Proposals are set out in the Use of Electronic Communications in Hearings 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 hearing:
- Servicing Officer Proposal for Virtual Hearing, dated 8 October 2024
- Email from Teacher’s Representative agreeing to Proposal dated 28 August 2024
- Email from Teacher’s agreeing to Proposal dated 6 September 2024
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 Proposal 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 a Proposal for a case to be cancelled.
Unless a party has (in the relevant Proposal) 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.
Proposal
A Proposal dated 8 October 2024 for a virtual hearing was made by the Servicing Officer. The Panel was satisfied that, under Rule 1.7.6, parties had been given the opportunity to make representations on the matter, and that the Teacher had given her response. The Panel considered the Proposal and submissions made in response which addressed, in particular, the following factors:
- Is the Teacher represented?
The Teacher is represented by Stephen George Smith, Livingstone Brown
- Does the Teacher have any particular needs or vulnerabilities?
The Panel were not made aware of any particular needs or vulnerabilities in respect of the Teacher
- How will the Teacher and Representative, if any, communicate during the hearing?
It is a matter for the Teacher and any Representative as to how they will communicate during the hearing.
- The nature of the proceedings and issues to be determined at the hearing?
The Proposal is in relation to a Competency Hearing for a fully registered teacher.
- The estimated length of the hearing?
The estimated length of the hearing is 1-2 days maximum, depending on the standards in dispute.
- The extent and complexity of the issues in dispute?
Although there are issues in dispute regarding standards met by the Teacher, the issues in dispute are not overly complex.
- Will the hearing take place in public or (partly) in private?
The hearing will take place in public.
- The volume of documentation to be referred to during the hearing and how documentation will be provided to witnesses for reference, if required?
The documentation amounts to approximately 120 pages at this time but the Teacher is yet to formally respond to the local authority so this may increase. ‘Mini’ evidence bundles containing any documentation parties wish to direct witnesses to, will be collated and emailed to any witnesses immediately before they are due to give evidence.
- The nature of witnesses to give evidence at the hearing?
The Panel noted that is not known whether the Teacher intends to call any witnesses. The Local Authority attendees are there as attendees only and are not witnesses.
- How long is each witness estimated to give evidence for?
The Panel noted that it is not known whether the Teacher intends to call any witnesses.
- Do any of the witnesses have particular needs or vulnerabilities?
It is not known whether the Teacher intends to call any witnesses and whether any witnesses have any vulnerabilities. The Panel noted that as detailed in the Use of Electronic Communications in Hearings Practice Statement, it is the responsibility of each party to provide GTC Scotland with information about the needs of witnesses.
- How easily the Panel will be able to assess the credibility and reliability of witnesses
The Panel noted that the Use of Electronic Communications in Hearings practice statement states that ‘it may be entirely possible for a Panel to reach the same conclusions on credibility and reliability as it would have had the evidence been given in person at the hearing.’ The Panel noted that, presuming there is no issue with the reliability and quality of the link, it will be entirely possible for a Panel to reach the same conclusions on credibility and reliability as it would have had the evidence been given in person.
- What confidence is there that each witness will be able to follow questions easily and any documents being referred to?
It is not known whether the Teacher intends to call any witnesses. The Panel noted that the practice statement makes it clear that it is the responsibility of each party to provide GTC Scotland with information about the needs of witnesses at an early stage.
- Will all participants at the hearing have access to a suitable electronic device?
While it is not known whether the Teacher will call any witnesses, it is envisaged that the parties have access to a suitable electronic device. GTC Scotland can carry out test calls ahead of the hearing if required.
- Will all participants have a suitable internet connection capable of coping with the requirements of a virtual hearing?
While it is not known whether the Teacher will call any witnesses, it is envisaged that all participants in the hearing will have a suitable internet connection capable of coping with the requirements of a virtual hearing.
- Will all participants have an appropriate location from where they can participate alone and undisturbed?
While it is not known whether the Teacher will call any witnesses, it is envisaged that all participants have an appropriate location from where they can participate alone and undisturbed. In guidance issued to all participants, GTC Scotland make it clear that parties and witnesses must be in a private location where they can be alone and will not be disturbed.
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 Proposal.
The Panel carefully considered the Proposal 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 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 Proposal weighed in favour of granting the Proposal made, and it was in line with the General Objective.
The Panel was satisfied that a fair hearing could be conducted remotely. The Panel noted that, although it is not known if the Teacher will attend the Competence Hearing, she is represented and has been engaging with the process. She has not yet provided a substantive response to the Case Overview Report submitted by the Local Authority, but both the Teacher and her Representative have agreed to a virtual hearing.
Accordingly, the Panel granted the Proposal for the hearing to take place virtually.
