Panel Consideration Meting - Anonymity Application - Teacher F
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 Procedural meeting was arranged to consider an application for Anonymity on behalf of the Teacher.
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:
- Application for Anonymity, dated 18 March 2025 with appendices:
- Letter from [redacted], dated 17 March 2025
- Supplementary bundle, undated
- Teachers' response to final report, dated 20 December 2024
- Expert Report, [redacted], dated 30 March 2024
- Letter [redacted], dated 2 October 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 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.
The Panel was aware that this matter had a lengthy and complex procedural history. The Panel was also aware that it was best practice for the same Panel who had heard the original application to deal with this matter also. The Panel was made aware that there were significant logistical difficulties in reconvening the original panel and that there was a real risk that it could not be reconvened at all. The Panel therefore decided to proceed on the basis that the matter had been delayed significantly already and that there was no realistic indication as to when that delay would end if the original Panel were to be insisted upon.
Therefore, the Panel proceeded to consider the matter on the papers and with reference to the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement and the Health Matters and Medical Evidence Practice Statement.
Decision
The Panel took as its starting point that an anonymity order had already been granted in this matter and that the current application being considered was being made to give the original order proper effect. The Panel also noted that there was no opposition by the Presenting Officer.
The Panel reminded itself it could only grant the application if it was satisfied that:
(i) it is in the interests of justice to do so; and
(ii) the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the interests of the Teacher and the public in the decision being publicised.
Medical evidence
The Panel noted that there were two separate sources of medical evidence before it in respect of the Teacher. The Panel considered that evidence with regard to the appropriate Practice Statement. The first piece of evidence the Panel considered was a letter from [redacted].
The Panel was satisfied that this evidence met its requirements and that significant weight should be attached to it. [redacted].
The Panel also had before it a report from [redacted] which was dated 30th March 2024. The Panel noted that this had been provided some time ago and that it was based on papers seen by [redacted].
Taken together the Panel was satisfied that the medical evidence in its totality suggested that should GTC Scotland decision be published with certain details being anonymised in order to avoid the Teacher being identified [redacted].
The Panel was satisfied from the evidence before it that it was in the intertest of justice to grant the application. The Panel was also satisfied that there is a compelling reason for granting the application [redacted]. In this case those considerations outweigh the interests of the Teacher and the public in the decision being made public in its entirety.
For the reasons set out above the Panel granted the anonymity order in relation to the specific matters as requested in the application dated 18th March 2025.
