Home News 19/09/2009 - Adam Walker Hearing postponed over "community tension" fears
Banner

Donate Today!

Amount
£

Who's Online

We have 183 guests and 116 members online

Login Form



Sponsored Links
19/09/2009 - Adam Walker Hearing postponed over "community tension" fears PDF Print E-mail

Two days of further legal argumet had been scheduled to take place in the long-running case of Adam Walker at the General Teaching Council in Birmingham. Mr Walker is accused of posting racially and religiously intolerant material on the Internet. He denies the charge. Following representations from the Police, however, both the Presenting Officer and Patrick Harrington (representing Adam) were concerned that it would not be in the best interests of community relations and public order for the case to proceed at this time. Mr Harrington was concerned that far-left extremists would use the hearing to further inflame religious and racial divisions in the community in the wake of provocative demonstrations by the so-called 'English Defence League'. The Union and its supporters had already decided not to demonstrate though many are angry at the assault on the civil liberties of Adam Walker. Adam Walker stated:-

 

"Pat Harrington was prepared to argue my case in Birmingham and I'm naturally concerned  by this further delay  but it is important that we act responsibly as a Trade Union. All responsible people and institutions need to use their best offices to lessen tension during this troubled period. All communities have an interest in harmony and should enter into dialogue not confrontation. That is why I supported the application for adjournment.. Our Union will work with the GTC to ensure that the hearing can be progressed."

 

Below we reprint the full decision of the GTC Panel:-

 

 
 
GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND
Announced Decision of a Professional Conduct Committee
Teacher:                               Mr Adam Walker
Date of Announcement:   19 September 2009                                   
 
Legal Advice
 
The Legal Adviser reminded the Committee of the provisions of Rule 31 of the General Teaching Council’s Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2008. In particular in these circumstances Rule 31(2) applied which stated, "the Committee considering the matter may, prior to the adjourned date, whether of their own motion or upon the application of a party to the proceedings, adjourn that hearing until such time and date as they think fit." It was therefore clear that any decision about adjournment at this stage was a decision that the Committee had to make.
 
Rule 31(3) required that before any such adjournment is granted both parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
 
The Legal Adviser explained to the Committee that they were asked to consider a request from West Midlands Police that the hearing listed for 22 and 23 September be adjourned or relocated. It had to be the Committee who considered and decided whether to adjourn (or relocate). The parties had indicated that they were happy to make their representations in writing and had been able to agree these representations. This document had been provided to the Committee.
 
When deciding whether to adjourn the Committee should bear in mind the interests of Mr Walker, the interests of the GTC and the wider public interest.
 
The Committee had a power under Rule 32(13) at the request of the Presenting Officer or Registered Teacher, at any time after the commencement of the substantive hearing to give directions for the management of the case.
 
The Committee should give reasons for its decision.
 
Committee’s Decision and Reasons
 
The Committee announced its decision and reasons as follows:
 
“We have now carefully considered correspondence from West Midlands Police and the agreed written representations of the parties, Mr Albuery the Presenting Officer for the General Teaching Council and Mr Harrington on behalf of Mr Walker.
 
Our decision and reasons are as follows:
 
We have reluctantly decided that the hearing listed for 22 and 23 September should be adjourned.
 
The Committee has seen an email from Superintendent Ward of West Midlands Police in which he expresses concern about the potential public order consequences of the hearing being convened in Birmingham at this time.
 
The Committee notes that the police have requested that either the hearing takes place outside Birmingham or that it is adjourned to a date in the future when local community tensions have subsided. 
 
The Committee notes that, as a consequence of this email, the representatives for the Council and Mr Walker now jointly apply for an adjournment of the part-heard hearing due to recommence on 22 September 2009. The parties have expressed the view that the nature of the concerns raised by the Police are sufficiently serious as to justify the adjournment of the hearing at this time.
 
The Committee understands that it has not been possible in the time available to the Council since these matters were first raised for an alternative venue to have been identified and arrangements put in place to allow the hearing to reconvene elsewhere.
 
The Committee is concerned about the length of time it is taking to progress this case and have borne in mind the history of this matter. The Committee are concerned that it is in everyone’s interests, including the parties and the witness or witnesses, that this case should not be subject to unnecessary delay however on balance and, in particular given the joint application the Committee felt there was no reasonable option but to adjourn the hearing listed for 22 and 23 September 2009.
 
The Committee is concerned that a degree of community tension may persist for some time in Birmingham and indeed nationally (which might affect other venues where this case may be heard) and that there is no clear indication from the police as to when circumstances might change. The Committee was anxious to convey that this situation cannot result in an indefinite failure to progress this case and therefore the option of finding an alternative venue may be appropriate although the Committee did not wish to limit the Council in its consideration of where the case might be heard.
 
The parties invited the Committee to make case management directions in the event that it adjourned the hearing and the Committee considers that this would assist with the smooth running and prompt re-listing of this matter. The Committee therefore makes the following directions:
 
(1)       within 7 days the parties liaise with the Council with dates to avoid for the next stage of the hearing and the Council liaise with the Committee and Legal Adviser about suitable alternative dates
 
(2)       that as a matter of urgency a timetable of hearing dates be agreed. In this respect the Committee indicates that if it would facilitate an earlier date to resume the matter they would be content to have the next two days listed as separate single days (within a short time span) and not necessarily consecutive days;
 
(3)       that the Council be directed to make enquiries concerning the possibility of this case being heard at a different venue to ensure that progress can be made on the next date available.
 
(4)       that the Council should ensure that there is early consultation with the police about the venue of the next hearing to avoid the unfortunate circumstance that has arisen on this occasion of the issue seemingly being raised at short notice.
 
The case therefore stands adjourned and we would suggest that the GTCE together with the parties make the necessary arrangements for the case to resume at a date to be advised.

Comments

Please login to post comments or replies.
< Prev   Next >