Janet Garner V The General Teaching Council For Scotland
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Clark Of Calton,Lady Paton,Lord Brodie |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] CSIH 34 |
| Date | 06 May 2015 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 06 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | XA150/13 |
EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2015] CSIH 34
XA150/13
Lady Paton
Lord Brodie
Lady Clark of Calton
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LADY PATON
in the appeal
by
JANET GARNER
Appellant;
against
THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND
Respondents:
under
The Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011
against
A decision of the Fitness to Teach Panel of the General Teaching Council for Scotland dated 27 November 2013
Appellant: Party
Respondents: J Cullen, solicitor advocate; Brodies LLP
6 May 2015
Introduction
[1] The appellant is a mathematician and a statistician. She is an honours graduate of St Andrews University, with a further degree from Manchester University. She entered the teaching profession late in her career, having previously worked as a mathematician in both public and private sectors. She fulfilled her period of probation by working for several years as a supply teacher, ending in Dunblane High School in June 2001. She then began work as a full-time registered maths teacher at that school.
[2] The appellant received a good annual appraisal dated 25 June 2001 from the principal teacher, Robert Naylor. He then left on secondment. The appellant began to experience difficulties at the school, explored to some extent in her evidence in cross-examination, all as recorded in transcript number 25 of process.
[3] In November 2003 the appellant began working at Alva Academy. Issues arose concerning inter alia the appellant’s control of her classes, teaching skills, treatment of individual pupils, pupils’ attainment, parents’ dissatisfaction, and inter-colleague relationships. Disciplinary measures were in train, with a hearing set for 1 September 2006. However in mid-August 2006 that hearing was cancelled. The appellant was transferred to Alloa Academy. There, she was asked to sit in classes observing others teaching. She was, on occasions, asked to teach. She experienced difficulties with colleagues.
[4] In June 2007 the disciplinary procedures were recommenced. The appellant was invited to a Clackmannanshire Council disciplinary hearing, which ultimately took place on 22 August 2007. The appellant did not attend and was not represented. She was dismissed. In October 2007 she appealed to Clackmannanshire Council, but was unsuccessful. She lodged a case with an employment tribunal, but was again unsuccessful. She was summoned to a General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) Disciplinary Subcommittee Panel. At a hearing in 2010 – 2011 at which the appellant represented herself, evidence was led from her former colleagues at both Alva and Alloa. The appellant also gave evidence. For the reasons given in their findings and determination dated 13 July 2011, the panel concluded that the appellant had failed to meet certain standards of competence expected of a registered teacher. They directed that her name be removed from the Register of Teachers.
[5] The appellant appealed to the Court of Session. She represented herself. In a judgment dated 13 April 2012, the court quashed the decision of the Disciplinary Subcommittee Panel for the reasons given, and remitted the case to the GTCS for a re-hearing.
[6] At a fresh hearing in 2013 before a differently-constituted panel (by then named the Fitness to Teach Disciplinary Panel, hereafter “the FTT panel”), the appellant faced a complaint of failure during the period November 2003 to 29 August 2007 to maintain the following GTCS Standards for Full Recognition: Standard 2.1.2 (Registered teachers communicate clearly making skilful use of a variety of media, and interact productively with pupils individually and collectively); Standard 2.1.4 (Registered teachers set and maintain expectations and pace of work for all pupils); Standard 2.1.5 (Registered teachers work co-operatively with other professionals, staff and parents); Standard 2.2.1 (Registered teachers organise and manage classes and resources to achieve safe, orderly and purposeful activity); Standard 2.2.2 (Registered teachers manage pupil behaviour and classroom incidents fairly, sensitively, and consistently, making sensible use of rewards and sanctions and seeking and using the advice of colleagues when necessary).
The FTT hearing
[7] The FTT panel in 2013 comprised five members, namely a convener who was a registered teacher; two further registered teachers (one being a teacher of maths in a senior school); and two lay persons. The appellant represented herself. At a procedural hearing, the appellant requested greater specification of the alleged failures to maintain the standards. As a result, the complaint was enhanced to specify the particular failures, with facts and examples of types of behaviour and incidents (paragraph 335 and pages 2 to 12 of the panel’s findings and determination). At a further procedural hearing on 13 April 2013, the appellant was ordered to lodge a fresh witness statement which did not include excerpts from transcripts of the previous proceedings, legal argument, submissions, and comment (as had her previous witness statement).
[8] The main hearing commenced on 27 August 2013. The presenting officer led evidence from nine witnesses (again the former colleagues from Alva and Alloa). The appellant cross-examined each witness in detail, challenging much of their evidence. She also gave evidence on her own behalf. In particular she produced and referred to a considerable dossier of school records, including class timetables, lesson plans, assessment results, test results, exam results, lesson observations, and teacher reviews, which, in her submission, demonstrated that her classes’ results were satisfactory or better than satisfactory (as stated in her evidence in cross-examination at pages 136 et seq of the transcript number 25 of process). The evidence took fifteen days and was tape-recorded.
[9] On 29 August 2013 (Day 3 of the fifteen days), the convener referred to a timetable which had been drawn up for the assistance of both the panel and the parties. The convener inquired whether the appellant’s cross-examination of the witness Mrs Croll would take “the whole [of Day 4, i.e. 2 September 2013] or whether it will be somewhat shorter than the whole day” (page 63 of transcript number 24 of process). The appellant indicated that the cross-examination would take the whole day, but that she hoped to leave enough time for re-examination and panel questions. The GTCS presenting officer accordingly decided not to bring the next witness (Mrs Brown) for that day. On 2 September 2013, the convener welcomed parties and observed (as recorded in transcript number 24 of process):
“Can I just address both parties first this morning and point out that the schedule that was arranged by the General Teaching Council, which …was drafted in consultation with both parties, aims to complete the cross-examination of Mrs Croll this morning, move to re-examination and also afford the opportunity for the panel to ask some questions, so I would think it would be reasonable to expect, Mrs Garner, if you could aim to try and complete your cross-examination certainly by lunch time, that would allow I think a reasonable amount of time, given the amount of cross-examination that has undergone for the last day and a bit, for the presenting officer to re-examine, should she wish to re-examine, and indeed for the panel to ask questions, and I know that the panel have raised with me that they do have questions that they wish to ask of the witness …”
Thereafter the appellant finished her cross-examination by midday, and after a break for lunch, re-examination and panel questions ended at about 2.30 pm. Everyone then left, and the hearing recommenced the next day.
[10] After all the evidence had been led, written submissions were given to the panel. The appellant’s extended to 215 pages with detailed references and cross-references. The presenting officer’s extended to 22 pages. The panel then deliberated for two days. They considered “all of the evidence presented, including the oral evidence of the witnesses led on behalf of the GTCS, the oral evidence of [the appellant], and the documentary evidence lodged by both parties. … the Panel also took account of the submissions made by the parties in making its findings of fact …” (paragraph 318 of their findings and determination). Subsequently, they issued their findings (paragraphs 1 to 440) and then held a further one day hearing at which the appellant and the presenting officer were invited to make submissions about fitness to teach.
[11] The main themes of the appellant’s submissions to the FTT panel, read short, were:
(a) The GTCS witnesses were incredible and unreliable: The appellant attacked the credibility and reliability of the GTCS witnesses from Alva and Alloa. She described Mrs Croll as “a deeply unreliable witness”, “prone to embellishment and wild generalisations (see, for example, paragraphs 306, 510, 514, 613, 633, 645 of the appellant’s FTT submission statement). Mrs Brown was “an unreliable witness”, “inflexible”, whose evidence was “a very deep form of harassment” and who “indulged in a huge dose of embellishment” (paragraphs 508, 581, 706 of the appellant’s FTT submission statement). Thomas Doherty was “a deeply unreliable witness whose judgment has been demonstrated to be faulty” (paragraphs 491, 608, 629, 749 of the appellant’s FTT submission statement). Alan Reedie was “deeply unreliable” (paragraph 688 of the appellant’s FTT submission statement). Similar criticisms were made of other GTCS witnesses. Wherever a conflict in the evidence arose, the appellant invited the panel to accept her evidence in preference to that of the GTCS witnesses.
(b) Inconsistencies and contradictions in the GTCS evidence: The appellant drew the panel’s attention to inconsistencies and contradictions in the GTCS evidence, providing references and cross-references. She pointed out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee Khoon Hoo vs Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd
...Intelligence. [3] On 13.12.2016, the Petitioners obtained a judgment against the Respondent via Sessions Court Suit No. BKI-B52NCvC-77/10-2016 (SC1) for the payment of the following (“JID”) – i. The sum of RM776,097.00 as at 31.08.2016; ii. Statutory interest at the rate of 5.00% per annum ......