ANNEX
General Teaching Council for Scotland
Fitness to Teach Panel Outcome
Procedural Hearing
16 October 2015
Respondent
Registration number
Registration category
Panel
Legal Assessor
Servicing Officer
Presenting Officer
Respondent’s representative
Elizabeth Manley
999035
Primary
Irene Kitson (Convener), Matthew Thomson, Miriam
Zziwa
Chris Smith
Dani Tovey
Kate Hart, GTCS in-house solicitor
Alastair Milne, Balfour + Manson
Any reference in this decision to:




The “Convener” means the Convener of the Panel;
“GTCS” 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 and Appeals
Rules 2012 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them.
Preliminary matters
Proceeding in private and by written submissions
The parties had agreed that the applications could be dealt with by way of written
submissions given the routine nature of the applications and that they were not opposed.
The written applications were detailed and the Respondent’s position had been confirmed.
The Panel decided that it was appropriate to consider the applications in private and by way
of written submissions and it did not require to contact either party regarding the
applications. The Panel noted that the applications were focussed on particularly narrow
areas and that the applications were not opposed. The Panel had regard to the nature of the
applications and the overriding objective of the Rules in Rule 1.3.5. The Panel also
considered Rule 1.3.3 and was content to proceed on the basis of written submissions and
in the absence of the parties.
Background
The Procedural Hearing was arranged to consider:
Applications by the Presenting Officer for:
1) The names of the school and Pupil A’s mother to be anonymised throughout
proceedings; and,
2) The parts of Pupil A’s mother’s evidence which relate to Pupil A’s health (as
identified in the enclosed highlighted version of the statement provided by the
Presenting Officer) to be heard in private.
ANNEX
General Teaching Council for Scotland
Fitness to Teach Panel Outcome
Evidence
In accordance with rule 3.1.3, the Panel admitted all of the documents and statements listed
below as evidence for the purposes of the hearing:
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Notice of Hearing dated 19 August 2015 and proof of service of Notice
Notice of Procedural Hearing Response Form for the Presenting Officer setting out the
Presenting Officer’s application
Confidentiality Key
Highlighted statement of witness 1
Email from the Presenting Officer requesting that the matter be dealt with by written
submissions
Notice of Hearing dated 30 September 2015 and proof of service of Notice
Email response from the Respondent to Notice of Hearing dated 30 September 2015
Email from Respondent’s representative dated 2 October 2015
Presenting Officer’s Submissions
Application One
In her written submission, the Presenting Officer explained that the identities of Pupils A, B,
C and D would be protected throughout the GTCS proceedings given that they were primary
aged pupils. The mother of the pupils (Witness 1) was to be the primary GTCS witness in the
case at the full hearing.
The measures were requested in order to protect the identities of the pupils. The Presenting
Officer submitted that, given the nature of the small community in which the complaint was
alleged to have taken place, the identification of the school and the pupils’ mother would
lead directly to the identification of the pupils. In her submission, the application should be
granted so that the pupils’ identities would be protected.
Application Two
The Presenting Officer requested that the parts of Witness 1’s evidence, relating to her
children’s health, be heard in private. The Presenting Officer had provided a highlighted
version of Witness 1’s statement so the Panel could see the parts requested to be heard in
private. The highlighted parts of the statement related to sensitive and personal information
about the medical conditions of two pupils. Exposure of such private information was not
desirable in the interests of the children.
Respondent’s Submissions
The Respondent’s representative had confirmed by email that neither application was
opposed.
Decision
In considering both applications the Panel carefully read the Presenting Officer’s applications
and had regard to Rules 1.7.2 to 1.7.4 and the GTCS Conducting Hearings in Private
Practice Statement. The Panel noted that neither application had been opposed by the
Respondent’s representative.
ANNEX
General Teaching Council for Scotland
Fitness to Teach Panel Outcome
Application One
The Panel was aware that it was standard GTCS procedure for the identities of children to
be anonymised throughout its proceedings in order to protect their privacy. The Panel was
satisfied that the identification of the school and Witness 1 would likely lead to the
identification of the pupils. As the pupils were children, the Panel felt that the measures
requested were necessary and proportionate in order to protect their identities. The Panel
considered that the need to protect the identities of the pupils outweighed the public interest
in the information being made public.
Application Two
The Panel noted that the GTCS Conducting Hearings in Private Practice Statement stated
that where information about health were to be raised as part of a case, that may justify all or
part of the hearing taking place in private. The Panel felt that it was necessary for the parts
of Witness 1’s evidence, as identified by the Presenting Officer in the highlighted copy of
Witness 1’s statement, to be heard in private as they related to sensitive and personal
medical information about pupils. The Panel felt that there may be a detrimental impact on
the pupils were such information to become publically known. The Panel felt that it was
necessary for this information to be considered in private, even when measures had been
put in place to protect the identities of the pupils, to limit any potential impact were any
inadvertent mention made of the pupil names, Witness 1’s name or the school during the
hearing. The Panel was of the view that the need to protect the sensitive medical information
about the pupils outweighed the public interest in any of that information being known.