Panel Consideration Meeting - Privacy/Anonymity/Admissibility Application - Teacher B

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 GTCS Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them.

Background

The Procedural meeting was arranged to consider the following:

• Admissibility application on behalf of the Teacher
• Privacy Application on behalf of the Teacher
• Anonymity Application on behalf of 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 hearing:

1. Teacher’s Privacy Application, dated 19 February 2025 with appendices including
2. Letter from [Redacted], dated 20 September 2024
3. Letter from [Redacted] dated 31 October 2024
4. [Redacted], dated 16 December 2021
5. Presenting Officer’s response to application, dated 11 March 2025
6. Teacher’s Anonymity Application, dated 19 February 2025 with appendices including
7. [Redacted], dated 20 September 2024
8. Letter from [Redacted], dated 31 October 2024
9. [Redacted], dated 16 December 2021
10. Presenting Officer’s response to application, dated 11 March 2025
11. Teacher’s Admissibility Application, dated 16 February 2025
12. Panel Consideration Panel Papers, various dates between 2019 to 2025
13. Presenting Officer’s response to application, dated 11 March 2025

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 matters on the papers.

Decision

Privacy

The Panel had regard to the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement when considering the Teacher’s application. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the default position of GTC Scotland hearings which is that hearings should be held in public. The Panel noted the Teacher’s submissions that the privacy application related to [Redacted]. The Panel also took into account the Presenting Officer’s position [Redacted].

[Redacted]

The Panel also took into account the context of the allegations in that the Teacher had been found not guilty in court and the local authority did not seem to be pursuing any investigation against him. It seemed to the Panel that whilst the matter was serious it had been aired in public prior to a GTC Scotland hearing.

The Panel had regard to the rights of Child A by reference to GIRFEC “Getting it right for every child”, Article 16 UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and Article 8 (right to private life) [Redacted]. The Panel also had regard to Article 6(1) ECHR which provides for limited exceptions when a hearing can be heard in private.

[Redacted]

The Panel decided therefore to grant the privacy application made by the Teacher and ordered that the hearing be heard in private but also that matters before and after the hearing should remain private.

Anonymity

Again,the Panel had regard to the Privacy and Anonymity Practice Statement when considering the Teacher’s application to anonymise the identities of the parties before, during and after the hearing.

The Panel decided in order to give effect to the decision that matters should remain private the Panel decided that the name of the Teacher, his registration number, his category, name of school and local authority should all be anonymised. It was decided that the hearing Panel should make any further decisions regarding anonymity at the full hearing.

Admissibility

The Panel had regard to the Panel papers, the admissibility application, the Witness and Hearsay Practice Statement, Rule 1.7.17 and the Fact-Finding in Fitness To Teach Conduct Case Practice Statement.

The Teacher submitted that statements made by pupils A, B and C to Police Scotland and others should be regarded as hearsay evidence and be ruled inadmissible. The Presenting Officer opposed the application and submitted that the evidence should be admitted subject to the weight any future Panel may place on the evidence.

The Panel decided that the witness statements made by pupils A, B and C to Police Scotland were hearsay evidence. The witness statements were not signed and the witnesses’ evidence was recorded by Police Scotland. The witnesses were not due to attend any hearing and as such the Panel took the view that the witness statements were hearsay.

The Panel considered the following factors when making its decision whether to allow the hearsay evidence or to rule it inadmissible:

• The Panel noted that the Head of Education stated that they made attempts to contact Pupils A, B and C. None of the witnesses had responded. The Panel did not have any evidence of how and when the witnesses had been approached nor any reason why they chose not to attend. The Panel was not satisfied that all efforts had been made to secure the attendance of the witnesses.
• The Panel decided that the evidence of the pupils was the sole or decisive evidence in the case against the Teacher. The Panel was therefore concerned that the Teacher would not be able to cross examine the witnesses and that it could render the hearing unfair.
• The Panel noted that there was no absolute prohibition on the use of hearsay evidence nor was there any absolute right to cross examine witnesses in disciplinary proceedings but the Panel was concerned as stated above.
• The Panel noted that fairness should be considered in the round.
• The Panel noted that the allegations are serious due to the sexual motivation alleged and therefore the Panel should apply heightened scrutiny to the matter.
• The Panel noted the concerns raised by the Sheriff around the credibility of the Pupils A,B and C. Whilst those concerns were reported by the Teacher’s solicitor as there was no written transcript of the Sheriff’s decision, the Panel also noted that there were discrepancies on the face of it in the pupils’ statements to the Police. The Panel therefore had concerns regarding the nature and quality of evidence of A, B and C.
• The Panel were concerned they had been given no reasons for the non-attendance of the witnesses and so could not assess why the pupils were choosing not to attend.

The Panel took all of the above into consideration and decided that it would be unfair on the Teacher to admit the hearsay statements of Pupils A, B and C made to Police Scotland in the above circumstances. The Panel decided that the statements by Pupils A, B and C to Police Scotland are inadmissible. The Panel noted that the application by the Teacher referred to statements by A,B and C to Police Scotland and ‘others’. The Panel was not clear who the ‘others’ related to so made no decision in relation to statements by A,B or C to ‘others’.