EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
	[2013] CSIH 114
Lady Paton Lord Bracadale Lord Wheatley	XA13/13 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD BRACADALE in the APPEAL by J B Appellant; against The General Teaching Council for Scotland Respondent: _______________

Act: Party

Alt: Murray; Anderson Strathern LLP

24 December 2013

Introduction

[1] In 1996 the appellant, who was by then in his forties, qualified and registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) as a teacher of English and History. He went on to teach, apparently with success, in a secondary school in the West of Scotland. In 2003 his two sisters and his brother made allegations against the appellant that he had sexually abused them when they were children and he was between the ages of 14 and 19 years. As a result of the investigation into these allegations the appellant was indicted in the High Court. After trial in 2005 he was convicted of charges relating to each of the complainers and he was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment. In 2009 his conviction was quashed on the ground of defective representation at his trial. Authority was given to the Crown to raise a new prosecution as a result of which, after a retrial in 2010, all the charges against the appellant were found not proven.

[2] His registration with the GTCS having lapsed while he was imprisoned, after his acquittal in 2010 the appellant applied for re-registration as a teacher. When the GTCS became aware of the history of the appellant they considered the question of his fitness to teach. After sundry procedure, which we shall examine in more detail later, on 17 December 2012 the Fitness to Teach Panel of the GTCS directed that the appellant's application for registration be refused and that he should be prohibited from making a further application for a period of two years. Against that decision the appellant has appealed to this court.

The General Teaching Council for Scotland: statutory provisions

[3] The Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 (the 1965 Act) provided for the establishment of the GTCS. Section 6 of the 1965 Act provided for the establishment of a register of teachers. Section 10 provided for the setting up of a Professional Conduct Committee with two sub-committees: the Investigating Sub-committee and the Disciplinary Sub-committee.

[4] In terms of section 10B of the 1965 Act the Investigating Sub-committee was required to conduct a preliminary investigation in a case where it appeared that a person who had applied to be registered may have been convicted of a relevant offence or may otherwise have been guilty of relevant misconduct. "Relevant misconduct" was defined as meaning "conduct which falls short of the standard expected of a registered teacher".

[5] When the appellant's case was first considered by the GTCS in 2011 the relevant rules made under the 1965 Act were the Conduct, Competence and Disciplinary Rules 2006 (the 2006 Rules). Rule 7, so far as relevant for present purposes, provided:

"7.1 The duty of the Investigating Sub-Committee of the council in terms of section 10B of the Act is to carry out preliminary investigations into complaints received by the Council and to consider whether or not any complaint is relevant and whether or not it is just to refer the complaint to be heard before the Disciplinary Sub-Committee.

7.2.1 A complaint shall be a relevant complaint if it demonstrates evidence from at least one source that a teacher or Applicant for registration or re-registration:

(a) may have been convicted of a relevant offence;

(b) may have been guilty of relevant misconduct..."

In rule 1.1 "relevant misconduct" is defined as meaning "conduct which falls short of the standard expected of a registered teacher" thus reflecting the definition in section 10B of the 1965 Act.

[6] On 23 August 2011, after conducting an investigation, the investigating sub-committee decided to refer the appellant's case to the disciplinary sub-committee.

[7] The statutory regime under which the GTCS operated was revised by the Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011 (the 2011 Order). Schedule 4 of the 2011 Order makes provision for fitness to teach and provides for the making of rules on fitness to teach. The relevant rules are the General Teaching Council for Scotland Fitness to Teach and Appeals Rules 2012 (the 2012 Rules). These replaced the 2006 rules. The 2011 Order and the 2012 Rules came into force on 2 April 2012. The appellant's case was an application for re‑registration under section 10C of the 1965 Act. It was therefore subject to the transitional provisions set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the 2011 Order which provided that where a case under section 10C was being considered by the disciplinary sub‑committee prior to 2 April 2012, it must, on and after 2 April 2012, be considered by the GTCS under Schedule 4 of the 2011 Order. The effect of this was that after 2 April 2012 the appellant's case became subject to the 2012 Rules.

[8] Article 16 of the 2011 Order provides that the GTCS must include an individual in the Register of Teachers if it is satisfied inter alia that the individual is not unfit to teach. Article 18 deals with fitness to teach. It provides that the GTCS must investigate the fitness to teach of any individual seeking registration and must refuse to register any individual seeking registration whom it considers to be unfit to teach. Article 18(3) stipulates:

"An individual is 'unfit to teach' for the purposes of this Order if the GTCS considers that the individual's conduct or professional competence falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher (and 'fitness to teach' is to be construed accordingly)."

We note that while competence is qualified by the word "professional" no such restriction is placed on the reference to conduct.

[9] The 2012 Rules introduced a new provision in relation to the initial consideration by the investigating panel convenor and introduces a new definition of "relevant complaint". We need not concern ourselves with this because, as explained above, by the time the 2011 Order and the subsequent 2012 Rules came into force the appellant's case was already being considered by the disciplinary committee, having been referred by the investigating sub-committee on 23 August 2011. It now came before the Fitness to Teach Panel which adjudicated on the appellant's case. The Fitness to Teach Panel is defined in rule 1.2.1 as meaning a panel of individuals appointed by the GTCS to adjudicate, in accordance with the 2012 Rules, any case referred to it and, where the context so requires, may also mean its historic equivalents, the disciplinary sub-committee and the professional standards panel.

[10] In terms of the 2012 Rules, reflecting the definition in the 2011 Order, "unfit to teach" means that the person's conduct or professional competence falls significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. In addition, a new concept of "impairment of fitness to teach" is introduced meaning that the person's conduct or professional competence falls short of the standard expected of a registered teacher. The question of impairment to teach does not arise in this appeal.

The hearing on 17 December 2012

[11] As already noted, when the GTCS became aware of the background of the appellant they considered the question of his fitness to teach and on 23 August 2011 the investigating sub-committee agreed to refer the case to the disciplinary sub‑committee for further consideration.

[12] The hearing before the Fitness to Teach Panel was due to take place in July 2012. For reasons which we shall examine later, that hearing did not proceed and the appellant's case was heard by a Fitness to Teach Panel on 17 December 2012.

[13] For reasons which we shall come to examine in more detail, the appellant did not attend the hearing on 17 December 2012. After waiting for a period of 15 minutes to see whether he might appear, the panel determined that it would be appropriate to proceed in the absence of the appellant.

[14] The complaint against the appellant considered at the hearing was in the following terms:

"1 On various occasions between 1 May 1970 and 27 February 1975, both dates inclusive, the precise dates unknown, you used lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour towards Mrs A and placed your hand over her mouth threatening to kill her, inserting your fingers into her private parts and attempted to force her to take your private member into her mouth.

2 On various occasions between 1 May 1970 and 27 February 1975, both dates inclusive, the precise dates unknown, you instructed Mrs A to enter your bed, forced her to lie face down on said bed, placed your hand over her mouth, threatened to kill her and you raped her.

6 Whilst subject to an investigation by the GTC Scotland [you did] engage in offensive and inappropriate correspondence to the GTC Scotland whilst it was seeking to discharge its regulatory functions."

There then followed a series of 35 extracts from letters sent by the appellant to the GTCS between 9 June 2010 and 29 August 2012.

[15] In support of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint the Fitness to Teach Panel heard evidence from one of the appellant's sisters, who, for the purposes of the hearing was identified as "Mrs A". In support of paragraph 6 the panel was provided with copies of the correspondence between the appellant and the GTCS and, at the request of the appellant, his correspondence with other bodies.

[16] By a majority the panel found paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint proven. While the whole panel accepted the evidence of Mrs A as credible and reliable, there was a minority view that, albeit that corroboration of her evidence was not required, it would have been preferable for the evidence of Mrs A to have been supported by further evidence, particularly in view of the serious nature of the allegations. However, the majority accepted that the allegations had been proven on a balance of probabilities.

[17] The panel unanimously found paragraph 6 of the complaint proven. The panel accepted that the GTCS had a duty to investigate the serious sexual allegations which had been drawn to their attention. Having considered the terms and nature of the correspondence between the appellant and the GTCS and other organisations the panel found that the terms of the correspondence were offensive and inappropriate whilst the GTCS was attempting to discharge its regulatory function. The panel concluded that the appellant had failed to engage in correspondence with the GTCS in an appropriate manner and had levelled unfounded accusations against staff members and officials in terms which were both offensive and inappropriate.

[18] The panel determined that the appellant's conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of an applicant for registration and that he was therefore unfit to teach. The panel gave the following reasons for reaching that determination:

"The nature of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, although of some antiquity, were sufficiently serious to satisfy the Panel that the Respondent's conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of an applicant for registration. The terms and nature of the correspondence set out in paragraph 6 of the complaint, and the unfounded and gratuitous allegations, demonstrated behaviour which also fell significantly short of the standards expected of an applicant.

The Panel considered that its duty to the public interest and the maintenance of the public's confidence in teachers and in the integrity of the teaching profession required that such a finding be made.

The Respondent's conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a registered teacher."

The panel directed that the appellant's application for full registration be refused and that he should be prohibited from making a further application for a period of two years.

Appeal to the Court of Session
[19] The appellant appealed to this court under article 24 of the 2011 Order, which, so far as relevant for present purposes, provides as follows:

"(1) Subject to paragraph (6), an individual may appeal to the Court of Session against any decision of the GTCS in respect of which notification is required under article 23.

...

(3) The Court of Session may determine an appeal giving such directions as it thinks fit (including directions as to the expenses of the appeal).

(4) The Court of Session's decision is final."

Article 23 provides:

"(1) The GTCS must notify an individual of a decision-

(a) to refuse to register the individual because the GTCS considers that the individual-

(i) is unfit to teach..."

Submissions

The appellant's submissions

[20] At the earlier stages of his appeal the appellant was represented by solicitors and counsel who lodged the appeal, which contained six grounds, and, subsequently, a note of argument. At the hearing of the appeal the appellant represented himself. He adopted the submissions in the note of argument without further development and advanced a number of separate submissions of his own. The effect of his submissions was to introduce an additional ground of appeal, namely, bias.

[21] The appellant based his oral submissions to us on a letter written by him, dated 27 September 2013, addressed to the Court of Session, together with a bundle of additional productions which we permitted him to lodge. He contended that the panel's decision was the product of bias on the part of GTCS personnel and committee members. This bias led to what the appellant described as a "dereliction of duties and responsibilities" and to the inevitable outcome of the decision on 17 December 2012. While the appellant made reference to bias, false allegations, presumption, deception and "deeming" as being the fundamental components of this ground of appeal we consider that essentially the complaint is one of bias.

[22] The interaction between the appellant and the GTCS began on 9 June 2010 when, in the wake of his acquittal earlier that year, the appellant wrote to the GTCS in the following terms:

"Following upon the false and malicious (and therefore itself criminal) conviction I was abused with in April 2005 the GTC cancelled my registration, thereby removing my ability to teach in Scotland.

That evil conviction was quashed by their Lordships - Osborne, Eassie and Kingarth - in the court of appeal, at 3^rd February 2009.

The Crown Office - a miserable corruption and Mafia of corrosive gangsterism - unable to face the fact of miscarriage successfully argued for a retrial. This took place in Glasgow High Court in February of this year. I was acquitted of all the matters contained in the false, malicious, wicked and evil indictment.

I intend resuming my teaching career, and I would be obliged to receive your confirmation you have reinstated my registration with the council."

This marked the beginning of a very lengthy correspondence between the appellant and officials of the GTCS. In the course of this correspondence the appellant made allegations against the officials of the GTCS. In particular he made complaints in relation to Mr Mark Paxton, the investigating officer, Miss Irene Hunter, the director of corporate and legal governance, and Mr A Finn, chief executive. In his submission to us he summed up their behaviour in the following way:

"1. From the outset, GTC personnel abused me with a presumption of guilt, lied to me and subjected me to fabricated allegations, rigged and fixed proceedings.

2. GTC personnel undertook no independent and impartial investigation, failed to consider evidence of malice, including admitted criminal threats and purposes, extensive premeditated perjury, self and mutual contradictions and changing tales by their clients, they refused to consider the homophobia evident throughout since 2003 and their common law duty of care. There is no evidence in the decision notice of 17^th December 2012 the members of this Panel applied their minds to these matters.

3. GTC personnel acted contrary to their legal duties as expressed in the Public Services Reform (Geneneral Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011..."

[23] The appellant complained that the officials had demonstrated repeated examples of bias directed against him. He drew our attention to a letter dated 25 October 2011 from Mr Paxton to the appellant's sister, who was subsequently referred to as Mrs A at the hearing before the Panel. In his letter Mr Paxton told Mrs A that the GTCS believed that she may be able to provide them with further information in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by the appellant. He explained that the GTCS had been informed that she had been a witness during the earlier criminal case. In the letter Mr Paxton went on to explain that the investigation by the GTCS was distinct from, and went beyond, what was considered by employers and the police or courts. He explained that employers were concerned with the impact that such allegations have on employment and the police and the courts were concerned only with whether the criminal law had been broken. He explained that in order to maintain standards of professionalism and conduct within teaching it was essential that the GTCS considered the allegations from that distinct perspective. He went on to explain that while the police and the courts required proof of a criminal allegation beyond reasonable doubt, in order to take disciplinary action the GTCS required proof on the balance of probability. He explained that this was an easier threshold to meet. He sought to make an arrangement to take a statement from Mrs A.

[24] Before us the appellant characterised this letter as an example of the biased approach of Mr Paxton. The appellant explained that references by him in his correspondence and in his submissions to "the clients" or "criminal clients" of the GTCS were references to his siblings who had given evidence against him. Describing Mrs A as a "client" of the GTCS, he said that Mr Paxton was essentially promising the "criminals" who had threatened him, that is to say, his siblings, "an outcome, conforming to their admitted threats and purposes by means of an easier threshold of purported proof". Mr Paxton had advised these clients that the "criminal threats and fabrications would be deemed 'information' relating to their victim [i.e. the appellant], inciting them to further criminal activity in pursuit of established criminal threats and purposes". In addition, the appellant submitted that in his letters to the appellant Mr Paxton had repeatedly demonstrated bias.

[25] The appellant claimed that Ms Hunter had lied to him and levelled false allegations against him. He referred to a number of items of correspondence, and, in particular, to the events which occurred on 19 July 2012 when the case was scheduled for a hearing before the Fitness to Teach Panel. According to the appellant, on that occasion Ms Hunter falsely accused him of making threatening comments against her and behaving in a threatening manner. In addition, she lied to the appellant and Mr McLaughlin, of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (MOJO), who was accompanying him, when she told them that she had put her allegations to the GTCS committee members and they had instructed that the appellant and Mr McLaughlin should leave the building on pain of the police being called. That this was a lie was demonstrated by what was said on 27 July 2012 by the legal adviser to the GTCS, who advised Mr McLaughlin and Ms Molloy of MOJO that Ms Hunter had not spoken to the committee on 19 July and they had taken no such decision as that reported by her to the appellant.

[26] In relation to Mr Finn, among other allegations, the appellant complained that Mr Finn was present at the meeting of the investigating committee on 23 August 2011 at which, according to the appellant, certain documents were withheld from the committee. These included a document dated 12 April 2011, which had the appearance of a police report, passed by the Crown Office to the GTCS, and the enhanced disclosure certificate dated 24 March 2011 relating to the appellant which had been obtained by him and submitted to the GTCS. This approach did not reflect fairness and impartiality.

[27] In his submissions the appellant made repeated reference to an admission by Mrs A in her evidence in the High Court in 2010 that she had threatened to ruin the appellant's life and damage his career. This evidence, which demonstrated malice on the part of Mrs A, had not been taken into account by the Fitness to Teach Panel.

The respondents' submissions

[28] Mr Murray, on behalf of the GTCS, submitted that the evidence in support of paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 of the complaint was ample to constitute misconduct. The decision of the panel, as a professional panel, should be accorded a substantial degree of deference.

[29] In relation to the question of bias, Mr Murray submitted that the letters written by the chief executive and others were expressed in an even-handed and fair manner and responded appropriately to the appellant's letters to the GTCS which were extensive and diffuse. The officials went to considerable length to clarify the procedures for the appellant and were scrupulously fair in explaining these procedures. No bias could be detected in the correspondence of the officials.

[30] In addition, the structure of the GTCS and the constitution of the Fitness to Teach Panel was such as to exclude or, at least, to minimise the risk of bias at the stage of the hearing and the making of the decision. The panel operated under the rules and constituted an independent and impartial tribunal. It was a panel of five members, three of whom were members of the teaching profession appointed by an appointments committee for a four year term, together with two lay members. The panel members operated independently of the GTCS and its officials. The panel were assisted by a legal assessor who had security of tenure. The case was presented by a presenting officer. There was no apparent or real bias in the case.

[31] As to the criticism of lack of reasons, under detailed reference to the decision document, Mr Murray submitted that the appellant could have been left in no substantial doubt as to the reasons for the panel's decision.

Discussion

[32] We shall address the grounds of appeal in the following order: first we shall consider grounds 1, 2 and 4, followed by the additional ground of bias; thereafter, we shall consider grounds 3 and 6, and finally ground 5.

Ground 1: "relevant complaint"

[33] The first ground of appeal lodged on behalf of the appellant was that the conduct alleged to have been committed by him between the ages of 14 and 19 years did not fall within the definition of a relevant complaint for the purposes of the 2012 rules. As we have already noted, the decision in relation to the question of a relevant complaint was decided by the investigating sub-committee under the 2006 rules. By the time the 2012 rules came into force the appellant's case was under consideration by the disciplinary sub-committee. Accordingly, the 2012 rules definition of a relevant complaint had no bearing on the appellant's case.

Ground 2: the test to be applied

[34] The second ground of appeal was that the GTCS had misdirected itself as to the meaning of and correct test to be applied in determining whether an individual was unfit to teach. The panel had found that the appellant's conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of an applicant for registration and that he was therefore unfit to teach. The correct standard was set out in article 18(3) of the 2011 Order as being "expected of a registered teacher". In our opinion nothing turns on the use of language by the panel which clearly applied the correct test.

Ground 4: the appellant's letter dated 8 December 2012

[35] The fourth ground of appeal was that the panel had failed to have any, or any proper regard, to the appellant's statement sent by letter dated 8 December 2012. In answer the respondents pointed out that the panel had given careful consideration to all of the evidence adduced. In addition, it was submitted that the letter of 8 December 2012 did not bear to be a submission or representation to the panel but was one of a very large number of lengthy letters written by the appellant. We agree with that observation.

Additional ground: Bias

[36] We now turn to the additional ground of bias. Where the issue of bias is raised the test to be applied is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased (Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, per Lord Hope of Craighead at p 494).

[37] We can readily understand the deep sense of frustration experienced by the appellant in circumstances in which, in his view, his siblings' allegations were without foundation; a lengthy criminal process, during which he spent years in prison, resulted in his acquittal; one of his siblings admitted on oath at the trial in 2010 to having threatened to ruin his life and his career; and, when he had hoped to resume his teaching career, the GTCS embarked on an investigation into the allegations. But it seems to us that once these matters were drawn to the attention of the GTCS they were bound to investigate them. While it is clear that in his own mind the appellant was satisfied that his siblings had lied on oath in the evidence in the High Court, given the serious nature of the allegations, it seems to us that by investigating them the GTCS was carrying out its statutory obligation. This was repeatedly explained to the appellant in the letters sent to him by the officials.

[38] We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the decision of the panel was the inevitable result of bias on the part of the employees and committee members of the GTCS and that the decision of the panel was tainted by the behaviour of the employees. First, having read the correspondence placed before us we are unable to detect bias on the part of the officials of the GTCS who communicated with the appellant. Having read the letter written by Mr Paxton to Mrs A we are quite unable to accept the description of it by the appellant. It seems to us that the terms in which Mr Paxton wrote to Mrs A were no more than would be expected of an investigating officer making contact with a potential witness in the course of carrying out a proper inquiry into allegations which had been drawn to the attention of the GTCS.

[39] We regard the appellant's criticism of the Crown Office as misconceived. It does not follow that because the Crown Office provided the GTCS with the police summary in relation to the allegations against the appellant that the Crown Office were prejudiced against him and were not acting independently.

[40] We are not in a position to have a full understanding of what transpired at the hearings in July. The case had been set down for a hearing before the Fitness to Teach Panel on 19 and 27 July. As we have explained above, according to the appellant, when he attended at the premises of the GTCS on 19 July Ms Hunter falsely accused him of making threatening comments against her and behaving in a threatening manner. She then told the appellant and Mr McLaughlin that the panel had instructed that the appellant and Mr McLaughlin should leave the building on pain of the police being called.

[41] In a letter to the GTCS dated 23 July 2012 Mr McLaughlin gave his account of what happened on 19 July. There appears to have been an issue in relation to unwillingness by the appellant to sign in at reception and wear a name tag or badge. Mr Reid, the presenting officer, became involved. Mr McLaughlin went on to describe the circumstances in which they were asked to leave as follows:

"Ms Hunter followed, returning to inform us that [the appellant] would not be able to appear at the hearing because of the threatening comments she claimed had been made I assume by either [the appellant] or myself. We were then asked to leave the building. I asked her on three occasions to tell me what threatening comments had been made. She could not tell me this because no threats had been made. She changed tack and then said we were being asked to leave because of aggressive behaviour... [the appellant] and myself left under protest and make this clear."

We note that in his letter to the GTCS Mr McLaughlin did not suggest that Ms Hunter was communicating a decision of the Fitness to Teach Panel that the appellant should leave the building.

[42] While we do not have Ms Hunter's account of what happened on 19 July, it is clear that some sort of incident occurred which culminated in the appellant having to leave the building without the hearing going ahead. Whatever was the precise nature of the events of 19 July, what is in our view significant is what happened on 27 July 2012, which had been allocated as the second day of the hearing. On that day the appellant attended at the GTCS office. The Fitness to Teach Panel decided that the hearing should not go ahead. The note of the outcome of the meeting is in the following terms:

"The Panel has carefully considered a number of factors specifically the circumstances of [the appellant's] attendance on Day 1 and day 2 of this hearing and all documentation provided to it.

In considering the circumstances the Panel was fully mindful of its obligation to ensure that cases are dealt with fairly and justly and that all parties are able to participate fully in proceedings in terms of the GTCS Fitness to Teach and Appeals Rules 2012 sections 1.3.5 and 1.3.6.

The Panel has considered this objective and has concluded that as [the appellant] did not have an opportunity to hear the witness's evidence on day 1 or to respond to that evidence, he could not be considered to have been afforded the opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings. Therefore, this Panel has decided to recuse itself and this particular hearing will proceed no further.

It is a matter for the Presenting Officer to consider how to proceed."

It was against that background that the hearing before a fresh Fitness to Teach Panel was scheduled to take place in December. By letter dated 8 December 2012 the appellant advised the panel that he did not intend to attend the hearing on 17 December. He wrote in the following terms:

"Given the nature of GTC committee members inevitable criminal deeming of criminal fabrications got up in conformity with an established criminal threat and the criminal abuses done to me as a consequence of my attendance at Clerwood House at 19^th and 27^th July 2012 it is unsafe for me to repeat the error. I will not expose myself to further such criminal abuses."

[43] Before us the appellant gave an additional reason for not attending the hearing in December. He said that there would be no point in his taking part because he would not be permitted to cross-examine his sister in relation to the allegations of a sexual nature. So far as we can see he had never made this suggestion at any earlier stage. Whatever his motivation, and whatever feelings he had about what happened in July, the fact remains that the appellant made a deliberate decision not to engage with the process at the critical point of the hearing in December 2012. By doing so, he denied himself the opportunity to put to his sister that her evidence was untrue. He denied himself the opportunity to confront her with the threat that she had made, and admitted under oath having made, to ruin his life and his career. He denied himself the opportunity to put his own position before the panel and to make submissions to them.

[44] In our opinion, the structure and composition of the Fitness to Teach Panel is such that, even if some degree of bias on the part of officials could be demonstrated, which, in the event, we have not found to be the case, the independence of the panel cannot be impugned. The make-up of the panel, as explained to us, means that the members of the panel were independent of the GTCS; they would not have had any dealings with the appellant's case before. They were assisted by a legal assessor. The case was presented by a presenting officer. In our view the decision of the panel in July to recuse itself is, in itself, indicative of an independent approach by the Fitness to Teach Panel.

[45] When we apply the test set out in Porter v Magill (supra) we are satisfied that the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts in the appellant's case, would conclude that there was no real possibility that the decision of the panel was in itself biased or was the inevitable outcome of bias at earlier stages. We are unable to detect any real or apparent bias in the case.

Ground 3: Article 6 ECHR

[46] The third ground of appeal was that the GTCS had erred in law in finding the appellant unfit to teach as the conduct complained of in paragraphs 1 and 2 was of such an age as to render any prospect of the appellant receiving a fair hearing negligible in violation of article 6 of ECHR. The conduct was alleged to have taken place thirty-five to forty years ago; it was alleged to have been perpetrated by the appellant when he was a child and a young person between the ages of 14 and 19 years; his conviction had been quashed on appeal; and the charges had been found not proven at his retrial. We have already explained why we are satisfied that the Fitness to Teach Panel which heard the appellant's case was an independent and impartial tribunal. In our opinion, although old, the allegations were of a very serious nature and, on any view, relevant to the question of the appellant's fitness to teach. The panel heard the evidence of Mrs A; they considered evidence of late disclosure of sexual abuse. The appellant chose not to engage in the proceedings. We are unable to see any basis on which it could be said that he did not have the opportunity to have a fair hearing.

Ground 6: Reasons

[47] The sixth ground of appeal was that the GTCS had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. In particular, it had failed to specify what material and information it had before it in connection with the complaints and how it approached that material and information. We have already set out in some detail the findings of the panel. The panel stated that they bore in mind that the burden of proof rested on the presenting officer and that the standard of proof required was that used in civil proceedings, namely, the balance of probabilities. It is also clear that the panel were aware that corroboration of the evidence of Mrs A was not required. In their findings the panel carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of Mrs A. They noted her distress. They analysed her evidence in some detail. They dealt with the issue of late disclosure of sexual abuse. The panel explained why they arrived at a majority verdict in relation to the complaints in paragraphs 1 and 2.

[48] In relation to the complaint in paragraph 6 of the panel set out in very considerable detail extracts from the letters written to the GTCS by the appellant and reported that they had read all of the correspondence. It is clear that they applied their minds to the correspondence.

[49] The panel went on to explain why, on the basis of the evidence which they accepted, they determined that the appellant's conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of an applicant for registration. The panel recognised the age of the allegations but had regard to their seriousness. They explained why the terms of the letters demonstrated behaviour which fell significantly short of the standards expected of an applicant.

[50] We are satisfied that when the decision of the panel is read as a whole the informed reader, such as the appellant, would be in no real or substantial doubt as to the reasons on which the panel arrived at its decision (South Bucks District Council v Porter [2004] 1 WLR 1953; Uprichard v Scottish Ministers [2011] CSIH 59 per Lord Justice Clerk (Gill) at para [26]; Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984 SLT 345, per Lord President (Emslie) at p 348).

Ground 5: Correspondence

[51] The fifth ground of appeal was that the GTCS erred in finding that the appellant's correspondence specified in paragraph 6 of the complaint rendered the appellant unfit to teach in that they fell "short of the standards expected of an applicant". The extracts were taken out of context. It was contended that the tone and content of the correspondence, while admittedly intemperate, when read in the context in which they were written were indicative of a distressed individual of good character who found himself accused of serious crimes, arrested, tried, imprisoned, appealed, retried, acquitted, released from prison and finally, refused re-entry to a profession which he had worked in for 7 years on the basis that he was still considered guilty of the alleged crimes, irrespective of a decision of the jury. Before us the appellant went as far as to suggest that his letters were relatively moderate in their terms and tone. In our view the content and tone of the letters written by the appellant were far from moderate It is sufficient, in order to illustrate that, to quote a few extracts from the letters. On 31 May 2011, under reference to the report passed to them by the Crown Office, the appellant wrote to the GTCS in the following terms:

"This submission is a malicious and criminal fiction: a tissue of lies from first to last. It conforms to the Crown Office's reckless determination to act in conformity with, and to further the purposes of the criminal threat to destroy my career in teaching, issued by the Criminal Complainers in February 2003.

Further, it seeks to cover up the collusion of Strathclyde police, the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, and a criminal masquerading as a High Court Judge, in that criminal purpose.

Strathclyde police and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service are institutionally homophobic; the supposed judge a vicious homophobe.

The Crown Office submission, offered the General Teaching Council in support of a criminal threat, is false and malicious in every particular. It is a work of criminal fiction. Its author is a criminal, as are both Lord Advocates and all other Crown Office and supposed justice personnel who, setting aside duty upon duty, acted in conformity with the purpose of a criminal threat, thereby deserting their duty in favour of the criminal interest. It is filleted as well as fabricated..."

On 21 January 2012 he wrote in the following terms:

"It comes as no surprise you seek to misrepresent the matter at hand for your own illicit purposes. This is the course you and your colleagues have pursued since 2010.

Your threats and the threats of the other pro-criminal thugs, owe nothing whatsoever to ensuring high standards throughout the teaching profession, but are in fact aspects of a continuing campaign of criminal abuse by various degenerate agencies and sick individuals who seek to deliver to criminals the purpose expressed in criminal threats.

You, Paxton, Hunter and Anderson are scoundrels, worse indeed. Each of you is unfit to exercise public authority."

On 6 April 2012 he wrote this:

"I accuse you, Paxton, Hunter, Skirving, Anderson, and any other of your associates complicit in these crimes and abuses: the torture, inhuman and degrading treatment done to me, of collusion in the purposes of a criminal threat and associated threats. In this regard you each have actively and maliciously made common cause with your criminal clients and their cheerleaders in the supposed justice system.

It is abundantly clear you and your colleagues have systematically sought to mislead me in pursuit of a criminal purpose, not the least example of which is the repeated lie the GTC would, and has, conducted an independent investigation."

There were many letters in similar terms and tone written over a considerable period of time.

[52] We have already recognised the extreme stress under which the appellant must have been functioning. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the panel were entitled to come to the conclusion that the letters written by the appellant were offensive and inappropriate and demonstrated behaviour which fell significantly short of the standards expected of a registered teacher.

Disposal

[53] For the reasons set out above we are of the opinion that none of the grounds of appeal is well founded and the appeal must be refused.