Panel Meeting - Privacy and Anonymity Application - Applicant 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 Procedural Meeting was arranged to consider the following matters relating to the Applicant’s Subsequent Registration Application (SRA) Hearing:

• The Applicant / Representative requested that the SRA hearing relating to the Applicant’s conduct be held in private.
• The Applicant / Representative applied for “any decision outcome to be fully anonymised.”

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:

• Privacy Application, dated 1 October 2025, including
• Privacy Appendices  
• Anonymity Application, dated 10 October 2025 including
• Anonymity Appendices

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 these matters on the papers.

Privacy Application

Decision

The Panel noted that the privacy application made by the Applicant was in the following terms:

‘[The Applicant] has made a Subsequent Registration Application. As such an SRA Conduct Hearing is due to be scheduled. We are seeking that the Conduct Hearing is held in private.’

The Panel noted that there was no Presenting Officer attached to this matter and GTC Scotland adopted a neutral stance in respect of the application.

The Panel took as its starting point that the default position in respect of Fitness to Teach hearings is that they be heard in public. The Panel noted that there are several good reasons as to why this is the case and that the bar for acceding to a private hearing was set high.

The Panel went on to carefully consider whether it should exercise its discretion to depart from the default position and make an order in the terms requested by the Applicant.

Medical Evidence

The Panel firstly considered the medical evidence lodged by the Applicant in support of both her Privacy and Anonymity applications – this consisted of:

• Letter from [redacted] dated 2 October 2025
• Letters from NHS Borders Renew dated 1 September 2025 and 28 April 2025
• Stow & Lauder Health, Lauder Health Centre GP letter dated 23 September 2025
• GP Letter re referral to psychological services dated 26 June 2025
• GP Letter re referral to psychological services dated 2 July 2025

The Panel considered this evidence with careful reference to the Health Matters and Medical Evidence Practice Statement.

The letters do not provide a specific diagnosis beyond indicating that the Applicant has suffered from [redacted] throughout this process.

The Panel was of the view that the letters were vague in their terms and did not provide sufficient detail with regard to diagnosis, prognosis or ongoing treatment. The Panel recognised that being the subject of regulatory proceedings would be expected to engender a certain level of stress – however, there did not appear to be any factors outlined in the medical evidence which made this case exceptional in that regard. The Panel was of the view that ordinarily the medical evidence provided would not be of sufficient strength and quality to correspond with the seriousness of the matter at issue – i.e. an application that the whole SRA hearing be conducted in private.

However, on considering the above and taking all of the circumstances of the case into account, looking at the cumulative effect of the evidence and the specific evidence regarding the impact that the hearing being conducted in public and not anonymised would have on the Applicant, the Panel was of the view that the hearing being held in public may significantly affect the ability of the Applicant to make appropriate representations. This being the case and standing the fact that there was no opposition from GTC Scotland the Panel took the view that the interests of justice required a departure from the default position.

For these reasons, the Panel grants the Applicant’s application and confirms that the Subsequent Registration Application (SRA) Hearing will take place in private.

Anonymity Application

Decision

The Panel noted that the Applicant had made an application for an anonymity order in the following terms:

‘[The Applicant] has made a Subsequent Registration Application. As such an SRA Conduct Hearing is due to be scheduled. We are seeking that the Conduct Hearing is held in private and in association with that application we are equally requesting that any decision outcome is fully anonymised.’

The application for anonymity was made in similar terms to the application for Privacy and raised similar points.

The Panel noted again that there was no Presenting Officer attached to this matter and that GTC Scotland was neutral in regards to the application.

Again, the Panel referred to the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement closely in reaching its determination.

The Panel took as its starting point that the default position under Rule 1.7.2 of the Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 is that hearings are held in public in the interests of openness and transparency and in accordance with Article 6 ECHR. The Panel also noted that the bar for an anonymity order being imposed was set high. The Panel then went on to consider carefully in light of the submissions made and the evidence submitted whether it would be justified in departing from that default position.

The Panel noted that once again the medical evidence submitted on behalf of the Applicant was cited in aid of the application. A summation of that evidence and the Panel’s view on it is set out above.

After careful consideration and looking at all the evidence lodged and submissions made in the round, the Panel was of the view that it was not in the interests of justice to make an anonymity order in the terms sought. The Panel was however of the view that it could do so ‘as far as it considered necessary’.

The Panel was satisfied that the relevant parties had been given an opportunity to make representations and that it is in the interests of justice to anonymise the decision to a limited extent. The Panel was of the view that taking into account all the evidence before it and the submissions made that the circumstances of the case outweigh the interests of the Applicant and the public in the decision being made public. The Panel had also already taken the decision to grant the Applicant’s privacy application and set out its reasons for doing so, to then dismiss the anonymity application in toto would defeat the purpose of that decision.

For these reasons, the Panel refuses the Applicant’s application that the decision in this matter be fully anonymised but does direct that the decision be anonymised insofar as it excludes the Applicant’s:

• Name
• Registration Number
• Any mention of matters relating to the Applicant’s mental health and physical health