Panel Meeting - Teacher A - Anonymity Application

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’s Representative for ‘any information placed in the public domain regarding the Teacher’s Reprimand and Conditional Registration Order be

anonymised so that the Teacher cannot be identified’.

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:

• Anonymity application for consented Reprimand / CRO decision, dated 22 April 2026, with appendices including:
• GP Letter 1, dated 19 November 2025
• GP Letter, dated 13 April 2026  
• Panel Consideration Decision (not for public version), dated 21 January 2026
• Teacher’s Signed Consent Order (not for public version), signed 3 April 2026

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 a procedural hearing had not been requested. Further to this, the Panel considered that a procedural hearing was not necessary. Therefore, the Panel proceeded to consider the matter on the papers.

Decision

The Panel had regard to Rule 1.7.3 which provides:

A Panel may, at any stage of proceedings on its own initiative or on application to it, make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of proceedings. A Panel may do this so far as it considers it necessary where it is satisfied (having given the relevant parties an opportunity to make representations and in compliance with all relevant Convention rights) that it is in the interests of justice to do so and the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the interests of the Teacher and the public in the hearing being held in public. Any such decision (and the reasons for it) will be announced in public or made publicly available.

Such orders may include (but will not be limited to) –

(a) An order that a hearing be conducted (in whole or in part) in private;

(b) An order that the identities of specified parties, witnesses or other persons referred to in the proceedings should not be disclosed at such proceedings to the public (by the use of anonymisation or otherwise) and whether before, during or after those proceedings; and

(c) An order for measures seeking to prevent witnesses at a public hearing being identifiable by members of the public.

Unless a Panel orders otherwise, any vulnerable witness referred to in proceedings will be subject to the measures specified at (b) and (c) above.

The Panel considered that the rule allowed for an anonymity application to be granted absent a full hearing.

The Panel considered the allegations, noting that the Teacher had been convicted of assaulting an 11-year-old pupil, for which he received an absolute discharge, which was the lowest level of outcome by way of a criminal conviction. He had accepted breaches of 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 of COPAC. The Teacher admitted the conduct and had signed a Reprimand with Conditional Registration Order, imposing twelve conditions upon him. The Teacher had accepted that his fitness to teach was impaired.

He had also been dismissed from his post as a result of the accepted allegation. The Panel noted the public interest in publishing a decision of GTC Scotland, which was the default position.  It paid regard to the public interest considerations and the guidance on same provided in GTC Scotland’s indicative outcome guidance practice statement, weighed against the Teacher’s article 8 rights in light of the mental health issues identified if an order for anonymity was not granted.

The Panel considered the terms of the Conditional Registration Order and the obligations imposed upon the Teacher. These were wide-ranging and served to protect the public and children. Further, they would serve as a deterrent effect for other teachers. Should an anonymity order be granted very little of the Conditional Registration Order’s terms would be anonymised which would reassure the public reading the decision that the conduct had been taken seriously, therefore maintaining the public’s confidence in teachers, the teaching profession and in GTC Scotland as a regulator.

In the Panel’s view, these allied to the disposal of the criminal case, led Panel to the view that granting an anonymity order would not impact the public interest.

It then moved to consider the privacy and anonymity practice statement.  It considered the application and the submissions made by the Teacher supporting the application. Rule 1.7.3.(b) was engaged and the Teacher had accepted it was a high bar to displace the default position on publication.

The Panel was provided with advice from the Legal Assessor on the case law relied upon by the Teacher. The case law had not been produced in full to the Panel, only extracts from same. The question was what weight which could be attached to the authorities. The authorities arose in the context of GMC cases, which were different to the instant case. The Panel was reminded that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances. The extracts from the case law simply highlighted principles where the Courts have upheld a privacy application where significant health concerns had been in issue.

The Panel considered the exceptions to the general rule on page 2 and considered that point (c) was the most relevant to the facts of the application. It had regard to the examples of when an anonymity order would be appropriate within the practice statement, in particular instances where mental health is an issue in which case this may justify granting anonymity.

It paid regard to the two GP letters and the potential impact of publication on the Teacher to engage concerns over his Article 8 rights. It considered the weight which could be paid to the GP letters, in particular GTC Scotland’s practice statement on health matters and medical evidence which highlighted that the medical practitioner opining should have the appropriate level of expertise and specialism.

The Panel scrutinised the expertise of the authors to opine on the issue. The second letter dated 13 April 2026 provided a formal diagnosis of [redacted]. It would have been preferable for the Panel if a mental health practitioner had provided evidence in support of the application. However, the Panel was satisfied, in the round, that the GP letters were sufficient to speak to the impact of publication upon his mental health, particularly given the specific psychiatric diagnosis and the causal link to the impact on his mental health to the GTC Scotland proceedings

The Panel noted however the adverse effect of disclosure of the Teacher’s identity, including [redacted] supported by letters from his GP speaking to the adverse impact publication would have upon his mental health.

In these circumstances, the Panel was of the view that there was a compelling reason for acceding to the Teacher’s request and granting anonymity in line with that request and that the public interest could be served by publication short of disclosing the name and registration number of the Teacher. It accordingly granted the application for anonymity.