Procedural Meeting – Anonymity Application – Iain Weir

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 privacy and anonymity with regard to an upcoming procedural hearing.

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:

• Email containing Privacy Application for Procedural Hearing, email dated 20 July 2022
• Privacy Application, undated
• PO email containing response to application, dated 3 August 2022
• PO application response, undated
• Case Management Directions, dated 28 June 2022

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 had 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.

Decision

The Panel had regard to the GTC Scotland Practice Statement on Privacy and Anonymity.

The Panel took from the Teacher’s submissions that the Teacher was applying for privacy and anonymity in respect of the upcoming procedural hearing which is scheduled to determine his cancellation application, and should the cancellation application be refused, other procedural matters that ought to be considered prior to the substantive hearing being scheduled.

The Panel also noted that the Teacher retired from the profession in 2017, yet remains on the Register pending determination of the current allegations. He was also subject to criminal prosecution 4 years ago in respect of the same circumstances as gave rise to these allegations.

The Panel had regard to the terms of the Teacher’s application for privacy and anonymity. In particular, it noted his reference to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and to his claim that the previous criminal prosecution was the subject of media attention, which he says caused damage to his wife’s professional reputation and to resultant economic loss, and where it is anticipated that further publicity could cause recurrence of this. The Teacher’s wife continues to engage in her profession and has worked to regain the confidence of her patients. In addition, the Teacher submitted that the case would cause disrepute, shame and embarrassment to his adult children in their professional careers.

Further to this, the Panel noted carefully the Presenting Officer’s submissions. In particular, the Panel noted the content of the allegations that the Teacher currently faces, namely, historical allegations of inappropriate contact with a pupil of a sexual nature, dating back to 1995. The Panel was of the view that the allegations are of a very serious nature.

The Panel also had regard to the ECHR at large, and particularly to Articles 6 and 10. It had regard to GTC Scotland’s default position that hearings are held in public to ensure transparency of justice, public confidence in the teaching profession and GTC Scotland as its regulator. It had regard to the potentiality that a public hearing could encourage other individuals to come forward who might also have experienced inappropriate conduct such as that alleged against the Teacher.

The Panel also had regard to the GTC Scotland’s Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement which states that ‘the fact that the Teacher and his/her family will be distressed by the proceedings being held in public or that a private hearing/anonymity would save him/her (and/or his family) from embarrassment are not sufficient reasons for such an application to be granted.’

On balance, the Panel decided that the factors made out in the Teacher’s application are not sufficient to offset the public interest in the hearing being held in public and the Teacher being named in proceedings. Accordingly, the Panel rejected the Teacher’s application in respect of privacy and anonymity with regard to the procedural hearing.