Appeal By Lm Against A Decision Of The General Teaching Council For Scotland
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Woolman,Lord Malcolm,Lord Justice Clerk |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] CSIH 42 |
| Docket Number | XA115/19 |
| Date | 14 July 2020 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 14 July 2020 |
SECOND DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2020] CSIH 42
XA115/19
Lord Justice Clerk
Lord Malcolm
Lord Woolman
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LADY DORRIAN, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK
in the Appeal
by
LM
Appellant
against
A DECISION OF THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND
__________________
Appellant: Party
Respondent: Lindsay QC; Anderson Strathern
14 July 2020
Introduction
[1] This is a statutory appeal against a decision of the Fitness to Teach Panel (“the
panel”) of the General Teaching Council for Scotland (“GTCS”). The decision, dated 22 July
2019, was intimated to the appellant on 8 October 2019. The panel considered 15 allegations
of misconduct against the appellant from her probationary year as a primary teacher. The
panel also considered a separate recommendation from the appellant’s employer that her
provisional registration as a teacher be removed on grounds of lack of competency.
2
[2] In respect of the conduct complaint the panel found certain facts of the allegations to
be established and concluded that the appellant had acted in breach of specified paragraphs
of the GTCS’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct (“COPAC”). It concluded that her
conduct fell significantly short of the standards of a teacher and was sufficiently serious to
constitute misconduct.
[3] In respect of the competence recommendation the panel concluded separately that
the appellant: (i) currently fell significantly short of the Standards expected of a Fully
Registered Teacher; (ii) had failed to maintain the baseline of the Standards for Provisional
Registration; and (iii) presented a risk of educational harm.
[4] The panel held that the appellant was unfit to teach and ordered the removal of her
name from the Register, with a prohibition on reapplying for a period of 2 years.
[5] The appellant challenged the panel’s decision on three broad grounds.
(1) That significant procedural irregularities and delay had occurred in the course of the
investigation. These resulted in both issues being considered at one hearing, as a
consequence of a rule change in the interim. The delays and the composite hearing caused
unfairness and prejudice to her. More than 3 years elapsed from referral of the issues to the
panel’s decision. This significant delay was due to the respondent’s actings, and had caused
the appellant financial loss and serious mental health problems.
(2) That the decisions reached in respect of conduct, and separately competence, were
irrational, contained errors in law and fact, and were decisions that no reasonable panel
provided with all the facts could have reached. In particular the panel failed to apply and/or
ignored rules and key authorities on the use of hearsay evidence, the admissibility and
assessment of evidence generally, and in some instances made findings based solely on
uncorroborated evidence and/or hearsay evidence.
3
(3) That esto such a decision could have been reached, the sanction imposed was harsh,
excessive and disproportionate. The appellant should have been given further time to meet
the standards.
[6] The appeal was resisted on the basis that the appellant had failed to identify any
material error of law, irrational exercise of discretion, or procedural irregularity.
Background
[7] The issues considered by the panel derive largely from the appellant’s time as a
probationary teacher at a primary school in the academic year 2015/2016.
[8] By way of background, on seeking entry to the teaching profession an individual
must, as a minimum, meet the Standard for Provisional Registration (“SPR”). Following
provisional registration, a period of probationary service must be completed. During that
period continuing adherence to the SPR must be demonstrated, and, at its end, the teacher
must show that the Standards expected of a Fully Registered teacher (“SFR”) are also met.
[9] The relevant standards are set out in the GTCS Standards for Registration 2012. In
summary these consist of three parts:
1. Professional values and personal commitment.
2. Professional knowledge and understanding, with reference to the curriculum, education
systems and professional responsibilities; and pedagogical theories and practice.
3. Professional skills and abilities, with reference to teaching and learning; classroom
organisation and management; and professional reflection and communication.
The employer of a probationary teacher can make a recommendation to the respondent for
registration to be cancelled due to lack of compliance; or for the period for completion to be
extended to allow competence to be met.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
At Against The Scottish Social Services Council
...be a clear error, one which indicated that the Panel plainly went wrong in its determination (LM v General Tea ching Council for Scotland [2020] CSIH 42; X v GDC 2020 CSIH 71 at paragraph 31). That had not occurred. [70] There could be no question of the Panel’s independence. It was constit......