Panel Consideration Meeting - Privacy and Admissibility Application - Laura Hislop

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 the following:

• An application made by the Teacher for the hearing to be held in Private; and
• An admissibility application made by 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 meeting:

1. Email from Presenting Officer regarding Evidence Bundle, dated 19 November 2024
2. Evidence Bundle, undated  
3. Teacher’s Privacy and Admissibility Applications, dated 14 October 2024
4. Presenting Officer’s Response to Teacher’s Applications, dated 5 November 2024
5. Teacher’s final comments, dated 11 November 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 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.

Privacy Application

The Teacher submitted that the hearing should be held partly in private on the basis that some matters relate to the Teacher’s health and private life. The Teacher invited the Panel to take into account Rules 1.7.2 and 1.7.3 and the GTC Scotland Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement. The GTC Scotland Presenting Officer did not oppose the application in respect of the Teacher’s health.

Decision

In reaching its decision, the Panel had regard to the Rules and the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Privacy and Anonymity. The Panel noted that the default position set out in the Fitness to Teach Rules is that fitness to teach hearings are held in public. The guiding principle is one of open justice, although the Panel accepted there will be exceptions to the general rule and in particular in respect of Articles 6 and 8 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The Panel decided that the Teacher’s health was a matter that should be protected as it fell within the right to respect for the Teacher’s private life. The Panel decided therefore that any matters relating to the Teacher’s health should be held in private. The Panel did not however agree that matters relating to the Teacher’s private life should be held in private. The Panel noted that the matters referred to were already substantially in the public domain as the mother of the pupil had already shared the matter on social media. Furthermore, saving the Teacher from embarrassment was not a sufficient reason to overcome the default position that the hearing should be in public. The Panel decided it was not in the interests of justice to grant the privacy application in respect of matters pertaining to the Teacher’s private life (other than her health as above).

Admissibility Application

The Teacher made an application to have part of a witness statement by Pupil A’s mother (p. 72 of the bundle) redacted. Specifically:

‘Pupil A has since told me that Laura was walking about with a towel wrapped around herself in that room having just come out of the shower, while Pupil A was there still lying in the bed. Pupil A said that Laura had walked to get her clothes. As she did this Pupil A said that he saw Laura's breasts. Pupil A has also told me that he wanted to back to the room with the boys but Laura would not let him. Pupil A has said to me that if people knew what Laura did at Kilbowie, that they would take her children from her. I, and others, have asked what he means by this and Pupil A has said he cannot tell us. We still do not know what Pupil A means by this. I have asked him if Laura did anything to him and Pupil A has said no.’

The Teacher submitted that it would be fair to have the evidence redacted as it was hearsay evidence and was the sole and decisive evidence. Further it would be unfair as the Teacher would not have an opportunity to test the hearsay evidence.

The Presenting Officer objected to the Application and submitted that it was not the sole and decisive evidence, and that the witness would be present and therefore could be cross examined.

Decision

The Panel had regard to the GTC Scotland Fact Finding in Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases Practice Statement. The Panel first had to consider whether the evidence was hearsay evidence in terms of Rule 1.7.17. The Panel noted that the evidence in question was hearsay in that it was second hand evidence from the mother of Pupil A. As such, the Panel had regard to the GTC Scotland Witness and Hearsay Practice Statement. In deciding whether to redact the hearsay evidence as per the Teacher’s Application, the Panel took into account the following factors:

• Pupil A’s mother and Pupil A had been asked to attend as witnesses and GTC Scotland anticipate that both will attend as witnesses;
• The hearsay evidence is from Pupil A’s mother but there is also evidence from Pupil A. The hearsay evidence is therefore not the sole or decisive evidence;
• There is no absolute prohibition on hearsay and no absolute right to cross examine a witness. Fairness is to be considered in the round;
• If the allegation is particularly serious the question of whether hearsay evidence should be admissible is subject to heightened scrutiny; and
• The hearsay evidence is relevant to a specific allegation, namely allegation (e) in the Notice of Panel Consideration.

The Panel weighed the above factors and decided not to grant the Teacher’s Application. The Panel noted that the hearsay evidence is not the sole or decisive evidence and can be tested during the hearing. The evidence is relevant to one of the allegations. There is no reason to believe that either Pupil A or Pupil A’s mother will not attend as witnesses. If either do not attend, then GTC Scotland would need to make a hearsay application in respect of the witness statements and the Teacher will be able to make representations at that time. Accordingly, at this time, the admissibility application was refused.