Peter Peace V. A Decision Of The Disciplinary Committee Of The General Teaching Council For Scotland
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Marnoch |
| Docket Number | XA174/01 |
| Date | 25 February 2003 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 25 February 2003 |
| EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION | |
| Lord Marnoch Lord MacLean Lord McCluskey
| XA174/01 OPINION OF LORD MARNOCH in APPEAL under section 12 of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 in the cause PETER PEACE Appellant; against A decision of The Disciplinary Committee of the GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND Respondents: _______ |
Act: Bell, Q.C.; Balfour & Manson (Appellant)
Alt: Smith, Q.C.; Brechin Tindall Oatts, Glasgow (Respondents)
25 February 2003
[1]This is an appeal against a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Teaching Council for Scotland under section 12 of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965. Although eight grounds of appeal were originally tabled under the somewhat inept headings of "Condescendences", Mr. Bell, Q.C., for the appellant, made it clear at the outset that he was not insisting in grounds 1, 2, 3 and 8. At that stage, therefore, the only grounds remaining were those summarised in condescendences 4-7 inclusive of the printed Record.
[2]The hearing before the Disciplinary Committee proceeded under Rules approved by the Lord President of the Court of Session in terms of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1965 Act. The rules currently in force are the Disciplinary Committee (Procedure) Rules 1967 of which rule 4(1) provides that the Council's Solicitor shall
"serve upon the respondent ... a notice of proceedings as nearly as may be in the form set out in the Appendix ... specifying the alleged facts and circumstances in the form of a charge or charges ... ".
The form set out in the Appendix adds little to the foregoing description. In the event, the notice of proceedings served on the appellant dated 18 September 2001 was, inter alia, in the following terms:
"On behalf of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, Notice is hereby given to you that proceedings are to be held to investigate the following charges against you, namely:-
'That between September 1991 and July 1994 while a teacher at the Royal High School, Edinburgh, you did form an inappropriate relationship with a pupil of said school, [name], and with other pupils and that you did act in a manner wholly inappropriate as a teacher and, in the course of which relationship, you did:
(a)repeatedly abuse your authority as Assistant Rector by granting authority to [name], and [name], to be excused classes without good reason and for no proper purpose.
(b)in or around October 1992, having telephoned [name], at home and invited her to come into school during a holiday period, assault [name], attempt to kiss her against her will, take hold of her and pull her to her feet.
(c)in or around December 1992 in your motor vehicle pick up [name] up from her part-time workplace in George Street, having offered her a life home, and thereafter travel to a car park or lay-by in South Queensferry where you did assault said [name] by placing your hand upon her knee.
(d)repeatedly telephone the home of said [name] when her parents were not at home without good reason or proper purpose.
(e)repeatedly engage in inappropriate and improper conversation with said [name] and, in particular, you discussed with her a personal relationship with another teacher.
(f)between December 1992 and March 1993, having invited said [name] to meet you in the school library, have improper physical contact with said [name] and assault said [name] by pressing your body against her and simulating sexual intercourse.
(g)during the period aforementioned, in the school library, act in a shameless and indecent manner towards said [name], take her hand and place it upon your naked erect penis and cause her to masturbate you.
(h)having arranged to give said [name] a lift to a debating society meeting, arrive at her house 20 minutes early, enter the house of said female pupil without her parents being present and therefore compromise yourself in an inappropriate and improper way.
(i)regularly meet pupils alone after school, out with the school and during school holidays without prior authorisation and notification and by doing so compromise yourself in an inappropriate and improper
way.
And further, in respect of the aforementioned facts, you are guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect.' ... "
[3]It was maintained on behalf of the appellant both before the Disciplinary Committee and before us that each of the lettered subheadings constituted a separate "charge" against the appellant. In my opinion, however, particularly when read in light of the Rules, it is abundantly plain that, notwithstanding the reference to "charges" in the second line of the notice, there was only one essential "fact" on which the charge was based, namely the forming of an "inappropriate relationship" with a pupil, FK, and with other pupils. The further reference in the leading part of the notice to acting "in a manner wholly inappropriate as a teacher" was, I think, simply intended to make clear that the forming of that relationship was, inter alia, professionally inappropriate thus anticipating the concluding portion of the charge which, echoing the wording of section 11(1) of the Act, alleges that the appellant was "guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect." If, however, the charge against the appellant had said nothing more it might well have been argued that it gave less than fair notice of the evidence which was to be led against him in respect of the "inappropriate relationship". It was, therefore, quite correct, in my opinion, for the charge to give further notice of the evidence in terms of the more particular facts and circumstances detailed under the lettered sub-headings. It is in that light that those more particular allegations should be read and understood.
[4]So far as the decision of the Committee is concerned, rule 10(5) tells us that a
finding adverse to the respondent should be expressed in the following terms:-
"That in respect of the facts before them upon which the charge is based the respondent is guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect".
Unlike similar provisions in the General Medical Council Disciplinary Committee (Procedure) Rules 1970 (1970 S.I. No. 5906) there is no express provision in rule 10(5) which enables the Disciplinary Committee to delete parts of the charge but it was accepted by both counsel that the Committee had that power and I can see that it can readily be implied.
[5]In the event, when finding the appellant guilty, the Disciplinary Committee made a number of important deletions with the result that the charge of which the appellant was finally found guilty read as follows:
"'That between September 1991 and July 1994 while a teacher at the
Royal High School, Edinburgh, you did form an inappropriate relationship with a pupil of said school, [name], and that you did act in a manner wholly inappropriate as a teacher and, in the course of which relationship, you did:
(a)abuse your authority as Assistant Rector by granting authority to
[name] and [name] to be excused from classes without good reason and for no proper purpose
(b)in or around October 1992, telephoned [name] at home and invited her
to come into school during a holiday period
(c)in or around December 1992 in your motor vehicle pick said [name] up
from her part-time workplace in George Street, having offered her a lift home, and thereafter travel to a car park or lay-by in South Queensferry
(d)on three occasions telephone the home of said [name] when her parents
were not at home without good reason
(e)repeatedly engage in inappropriate conversation with said [name] and,
in particular, you discussed with her a personal relationship with another teacher
(f)delete
(g)delete
(h)having arranged to give said [name] a lift to a debating society
meeting, arrive at her house early, enter the house of said female pupil without her parents being present and thereby conduct yourself in an inappropriate way
(i)delete
And further, in respect of the aforementioned facts, you are guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect.'"
[6]After announcing the deletions from the charge the Convener of the Disciplinary Committee is recorded (at p. 353 of the Transcript of Proceedings) as saying this:
"As a result of these considerations we conclude that the evidence points to an inappropriate relationship with the pupil [name] but not with other pupils as stated in the beginning paragraph and we considered that this constituted infamous conduct in a professional respect. That was the unanimous view of this committee."
In my opinion the terms of that conclusion show an entirely correct appreciation of the nature of the charge which the Committee had to consider.
[7]In light of the above, I come now to consider the first and second grounds of appeal as summarised in "Condescendences" 4 and 5 of the printed Record. These, in effect, are indistinguishable. The complaint in both is that the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that facts could be held established without the need for corroboration. In this connection, Mr. Bell, in the early part of his submissions, founded heavily on the concession, both before the Tribunal and before us, that the appropriate standard of proof was proof beyond reasonable doubt. That concession appears to have been based on what was said by the First Division in Johnstone v. The General Teaching Council for Scotland 1980 S.C. 51 although, according to Mr. Smith, Q.C., for the respondents, there had been some recent authority which might require a different view to be taken in the future. At all events, founding on the concession made, Mr. Bell submitted that it was a necessary corollary that the doctrine of corroboration be invoked. In my opinion, however, that submission - which was based on no authority - is clearly unsound. In that connection, it is perhaps unnecessary to say more than both under statute and in the common law of a neighbouring...
To continue reading
Request your trial