Procedural Application - Postponement Application - John Kerr

Decision

It is my decision to grant a postponement application insofar as it relates to the first four dates of the Hearing – 2,3,4 and 5 March 2026.  Dates have been provided when the Teacher and his representative are available in the spring and summer of 2026. I instruct GTC Scotland to explore dates of availability of all participants so that the remaining 4 days can be scheduled without undue delay, ideally before the end of September 2026.  

Diane Molyneux, Convener, 22 January 2026

Reasons

I have made my decision by carefully considering rule 1.7.14 of the Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 along with the GTCS practice statement on Postponements, Adjournments and Proceeding in the Absence.  I have specifically considered:

• the reasons for the request;  
  
  • The request was made by the Teacher’s Representative due to the first four dates of the hearing conflicting with dates for which Teacher had already booked a holiday in Switzerland, (2 March to 8 March 2026) to celebrate a significant wedding anniversary.  Evidence has been presented to confirm that the booking was made on 8 June 2025, prior to notification of the dates of the Hearing to the Teacher’s Representative.  The Teacher’s Representative asserts that, had the Teacher known that 2 – 5 March 2026 were being considered, he would not have agreed to them. While remaining neutral to the postponement application, the Presenting Officer raises the issue of the clash not being notified to GTCS Scotland much earlier, following the Notice of Hearing being issued.  
• the impact that any postponement would have (including any inconvenience that may be caused to a party or any witnesses to be called by that party);  
  
  • A postponement of the hearing would have the benefit that the Teacher would be able to be present and be represented.  However, a postponement would have considerable inconvenience to all participants, in terms of rescheduling the panel, legal assessor, servicing officer, parties and their witnesses.   For this reason, it is my decision that the dates for which there is no conflict (9,10,11 and 12 March 2026) should be utilised, and a further 4 days sought for the completion of the hearing.    
• the overall fairness to the Teacher;    
  
  • The Teacher has a fundamental right to attend the hearing, and he is represented.  It would be unfair to the Teacher to commence the hearing in his absence, as he would not be able to give instruction to his representative.  
• the general need to avoid delay in the conduct of proceedings (in the interests of the public as well as the parties);    
  
  • In terms of the general objective to deal with cases fairly and justly, it is in the interest of the public and the Teacher for this case to be dealt with expeditiously.  The Teacher is represented, and dates of non-availability have been provided for both the Teacher and the Teacher’s Representative.  There is a much greater likelihood of a significant delay if the full 8 days were to be rescheduled.  A partial postponement, requiring rescheduling of only 4 days presents a solution which would reduce the overall delay to the completion of the case.  
• the history of the case;  
  
  • Relevant case history taken into consideration is that the Panel Consideration Decision was sent to the Teacher’s Representative in April 2024.  This indicates that the case has been ongoing for a number of years, and it would be in the interests of the public and the Teacher for this case to be dealt with timeously.