Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2015
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v Metcalf - [2015] QCAT 147

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Queensland College of Teachers v Metcalf[2015] QCAT 147

Queensland College of Teachers v Metcalf[2015] QCAT 147

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Metcalf [2015] QCAT 147

PARTIES:

Queensland College of Teachers

(Applicant)

 

v

 

Christopher Desmond Metcalf

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR116-14

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

10 December 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Acting Senior Member Howard

Member Green

Member Dr Grigg

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. That under s 161(2)(c) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, that Christopher Desmond Metcalf is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach until 30 May 2018.
  2. That under s 161(2)(b) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, that Christopher Desmond Metcalf must pay costs to the Queensland College of Teachers in the sum of $5,000 by instalments over a one year period as may be agreed with the Queensland College of Teachers and failing agreement within 28 days of these orders.
  3. That under s 161(2)(d) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, the following notation be entered into the register:

Should after the expiry of the prohibition period, Christopher Desmond Metcalf reapply for registration as a teacher that such application includes a detailed psychological or psychiatric report which includes:

  1. An assessment of Christopher Desmond Metcalf’s appreciation of the following:
  1. Differentiating between personal and professional relationships;
  2. The legal obligations of teachers and tutors;
  3. Development and maintenance of professional standards when working with young people and actively determining and implementing professional boundaries with individual students;
  4. Risk assessment and early issue identification of potentially problematic situations and venues as well as initiating realistic solutions for avoiding the risk of harm to students;
  5. The extent and nature of the student, colleague, parental and community trust inherently invested in a teacher or tutor;
  6. Personal and social behaviour that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
  7. Understanding the effect of inappropriate relationships with students;
  8. The trust and power granted to a teacher;
  9. Understanding of and importance of full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
  10. The status of Christopher Metcalf’s current mental health including details of any therapy undertaken since the date of the disciplinary decision.
  1. An indication by the psychologist or psychiatrist about whether the psychologist or psychiatrist is satisfied that Christopher Desmond Metcalf has adequately understood and addressed the above points and confirmation of the psychologist or psychiatrist being provided with copies of:
  1. The disciplinary decision and these reasons for decision;
  2. The amended referral under s 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 dated 14 August 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

DISCIPLINARY REFERRAL – TEACHER – SUITABILITY TO TEACH – where former approved teacher – where allegations over lengthy period of overfamiliarity with students – where allegation of grooming – where no definition or expert evidence of grooming against which to assess allegation of grooming – where costs of disciplinary body sought as part of the sanction together with a prohibition period

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 12, s 92, s 161

Criminal Code (Qld), s 218B

Burgess v Board of Teacher Registration Queensland [2003] QDC 159

Queensland College of Teachers v Banyai [2013] QCAT 180

Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCT 464

Queensland College of Teachers v Chambers [2012] QCAT 491

Queensland College of Teachers v DDR [2012] QCAT 671

Queensland College of Teachers v GHI [2012] QCAT 182

Queensland College of Teachers v Harvison [2013] QCAT 684

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher QKE [2013] QCAT 548

Queensland College of Teachers v Stark [2010] QCAT 592

Queensland College of Teachers v WAS [2015] QCAT 61

APPEARANCES:

 

APPLICANT:

Mr Gormley, Principal Legal Office of Queensland College of Teachers

RESPONDENT:

There was no appearance for Mr Metcalf

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Christopher Desmond Metcalf was registered as a teacher from 20 December 2006 until 24 March 2015 when his registration was cancelled for non-payment of his annual registration fee. His registration had earlier been suspended on 30 May 2014. For the purposes of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the QCT Act’) he is a former approved teacher at the time of this decision.
  2. [2]
    The Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) referred a disciplinary proceeding about Mr Metcalf to the Tribunal for determination. The QCT submits that the Tribunal should find that a disciplinary ground is established, namely that Mr Metcalf is not suitable to teach.[1] The allegations relied upon to found the disciplinary ground involve a lengthy and complicated factual matrix, involving interactions with a number of students over the period from January 2008 to mid-2013.
  3. [3]
    Mr Metcalf participated in the Tribunal proceedings initially, but on 22 August 2014 advised that he would not continue to do so due to the serious impact of the proceeding on his ‘mental health, psychological wellbeing and financial status.’[2] By that time (and somewhat inconsistently with his statements to investigators prior to the referral of the matter to QCAT), he had advised the Tribunal in a two line letter that he disputed all of the ‘allegations’ listed in the referral of the disciplinary matter.[3] He was given notice of the hearing, but did not attend it.
  4. [4]
    Despite that, Mr Metcalf wrote to the QCT in a letter dated 8 December 2014, which its representative received on the day of, but after the hearing. QCT provided the letter to the Tribunal and made some brief submissions about it. Most notably, the letter asks the QCT not to pursue a costs sanction against him.
  5. [5]
    Having regard to Mr Metcalfe’s earlier admissions to investigators, (which are broadly supported by corroborative evidence from other interviewees, and copies of documents such as text and email messages), it appeared that a variety of the alleged particulars were not controversial. It is difficult to reconcile Mr Metcalfe’s more recent blanket statement that he disputes all of the allegations with those earlier admissions. As he did not attend the hearing, we were unable to clarify what he intended to convey regarding his earlier admissions. We have concluded that it is most likely that he did not intend to contradict his previous admissions, but opposes a finding that any disciplinary ground exists and maintains all denials previously made in respect of specific allegations. We have approached the evidence in this manner.
  6. [6]
    If we are wrong about that, if Mr Metcalfe intended to convey that he now denies every particular (including those previously admitted by him) we would prefer his earlier evidence. We would find that where he had made earlier admissions, that his later inconsistent denial is unreliable. He made the earlier admissions when he participated in interview processes. He made them in the context of his explanations of surrounding events. They are, broadly speaking, corroborated by the available documentary evidence and evidence from other persons.

Non-publication Order

  1. [7]
    On 10 June 2014, the Tribunal made an order prohibiting publication of the names, addresses and schools of former students, students and other children referred to in the material.

The allegations giving rise to the disciplinary referral

  1. [8]
    Having regard to the extensive particulars specified (especially in respect of allegations 1 and 5), we do not recite the particulars in full. Instead, we make findings, and reference the basis for them, as set out below in respect of allegations 1, 2, 4 and 5, supported by the material before us. As a matter of background, Mr Metcalf had completed Code of Conduct and Student Protection training through his employer.[4]
  2. [9]
    Allegation 3 was omitted by the QCT.

Allegations 1 and 2 – 1 January 2008 to 20 November 2009

1. Between 1 January 2008 and 20 November 2009, while employed as a teacher at a Queensland high school, Christopher Metcalf, without valid educational reason engaged in conduct with Student A that was:

  • Overfamiliar in nature; and/or
  • Constituted a failure to maintain professional boundaries; and/or

2. Between 1 January 2008 and 20 November 2009, while employed as a teacher at a Queensland high school, Christopher Metcalf, failed to report and/or continue to report, in a timely manner, concerns about Student A being at a risk of harm.

  1. [10]
    For completeness, we note that allegations in similar terms about Mr Metcalf’s relationship with Student A had been investigated by the Department of Education, Training and the Arts in 2009, resulting in a formal caution and warning to Mr Metcalfe that a repeat of similar behaviour would result in formal disciplinary processes.[5]
  2. [11]
    In 2008 and 2009, Student A was a student in Mr Metcalf’s Year 11 and Year 12 Film and Television (‘FTV’) classes respectively. He also mentored her in her role as welfare community chairperson and assisted her with the school magazine. In September 2008, Student A and Mr Metcalf both attended a school camp. One evening during the student school camp Student A became distressed. Mr Metcalf provided emotional support to her, and spent time alone with Student A.[6] Student A told Mr Metcalfe that she was prescribed medication for depression.[7] She subsequently disclosed self-harming behaviours to him and/or threatened self-harm.[8]
  3. [12]
    At some time between 1 September 2008 and 20 November 2008, Mr Metcalf gave Student A his personal mobile number[9] (although he explains that other students of FTV and on the school magazine committee also had it). After the school camp, Student A sent text messages to his personal mobile if she felt she was going to harm herself.[10]
  4. [13]
    There is no evidence that Mr Metcalf discouraged those contacts from her, and he did at some stage tell her to text him if she was going to hurt herself.[11] Indeed, his comments throughout the interview process suggest that he believed he was providing support to her. He spent time with her outside of school on some occasions after receiving text messages from her suggesting self-harm.[12] Mr Metcalf acknowledges that on a number of occasions, he collected her from ‘the lookout’ and delivered her to home or close to her home. On some occasions, he drove her home from school and dropped her around the corner from her home. He also allowed her to attend at his home in the company of his family, and took her on a social outing with his family on one occasion.[13] He did not notify or obtain consent of the school, his employer or Student A’s parents. Text messages received by Mr Metcalf from Student A were often received outside of regular school hours and referred to her depressed state and contemplation of self-harm and/or suicide.[14]
  5. [14]
    Mr Metcalf suggests that he kept the principal informed, at least from time to time, about Student A’s situation and that the school had been aware of it from previous years ‘anyway’.[15] He acknowledges that he met with the principal and the guidance officer on occasions.[16] There are notes of a meeting on 20 November 2008, that the school principal met with Mr Metcalf in relation to his relationship with Student A. During that meeting Mr Metcalf was instructed by the principal to comply with the Student Protection Policy, not to spend extended time with students especially Student A, not to drive students in his motor vehicle and not to disclose the conversation with the principal to Student A.[17]
  6. [15]
    Later that day, Student A presented at the principal’s office in a distressed state and indicated her awareness of the meeting.[18] Mr Metcalf was not asked whether he disclosed the meeting details to Student A, and it does not appear that Student A was asked whether he had done so. However, it is most unlikely that the principal would have done so. It is reasonable to infer, and we do infer, that Mr Metcalf told her about the meeting.
  7. [16]
    On 17 February 2009, the school principal, school guidance office, and Mr Metcalf met to discuss a support plan for Student A.[19] In that meeting Mr Metcalf said words to the effect that the school and Student A’s parents had not been supportive of her.[20] Both the principal and the guidance officer say, and we accept, that he told them he received text messages from Student A 2-3 times per week indicating distress and self-harming propensities.[21] The guidance officer told Mr Metcalf that he should notify the guidance officer of any welfare concerns about Student A; advised him that he does not have the expertise to deal with student depression; told Mr Metcalf that Student A needed to be referred to a specialist mental health service; and gave Mr Metcalf a document outlining staff procedures for students attempting self-harm or with suicidal ideation.[22] The procedures set out in the document require staff to urgently notify the guidance officer or line manager if those issues are raised by a student.
  8. [17]
    On 9 March 2009, the guidance officer spoke with Mr Metcalf who gave him details of recent text messages Mr Metcalf had received from Student A.[23] Mr Metcalf showed or read out to the guidance officer several text messages he had recently received from Student A.[24] Prior to the guidance officer approaching Mr Metcalf on 9 March 2009, he had not notified the principal or the guidance officer (or any other staff of the school or his employer) of messages received between 17 February 2009 and 9 March 2009.
  9. [18]
    On about 14 May 2009 Mr Metcalf applied to travel alone to Brisbane with Student A for the purposes of attending the FTV awards and a professional development session. Student A had won a State FTV award and the presentation was to occur in Brisbane. Mr Metcalf had previously received approval to attend the professional development sessions, but had earlier withdrawn the request.[25] The school principal advised Mr Metcalf that it would be inappropriate for a male staff member to accompany a female student to Brisbane.[26]
  10. [19]
    We do not accept that Mr Metcalf did keep the principal informed about his relationship with Student A or the risk of harm to Student A from her self-harming and suicidal behaviour. It is reasonable to infer from the contemporaneous notes kept of the meetings that they were convened because the principal became aware of issues from other persons about potential issues and convened the meetings. There would have been no need to do so had the principal been aware all along as Mr Metcalf suggests.
  11. [20]
    Between 20 November 2008 and 30 November 2009, Mr Metcalf went jogging with Student A outside of school hours.[27] He suggested to Student A that the two of them go to the movies together sometime.[28] He commented to Student A about her hair.[29] According to the student, he also telephoned her at around 10:00pm in the evening.[30] During a telephone conversation with her, he told her that he understood her and her parents did not.[31] He also told her during a telephone conversation that the principal was ‘on his back’ or words to that effect about his relations with Student A and that he needed to work around those expectations but that he needed to organise more sessions after school for the yearbook.[32]
  12. [21]
    Having regard to the evidence we have accepted, we are reasonably satisfied that between 1 January 2008 and 20 November 2009, Mr Metcalf engaged in conduct with Student A that failed to maintain professional boundaries and was overfamiliar in its nature. Therefore we are satisfied that allegation 1 is substantiated. Also, in respect of allegation 2, we find that Mr Metcalf failed to report and continue to report the risk of harm to Student A in a timely manner to the principal, his employer, Student A’s parents or any other appropriate person or entity at the school.

Allegation 4 – 27 January 2010 to 1 April 2010

4. Between 27 January 2010 and 1 April 2010, while employed as a teacher at a second Queensland high school, Christopher Metcalf spoke to students in a disrespectful manner.

  1. [22]
    Specifically, it is alleged that while teaching Year 10 English, Mr Metcalf said, to members of the class, words to the effect that they were ‘filthy grubs’, and that during Year 10 English and Year 10 FTV classes, he frequently yelled loudly and told students to ‘shut up’.
  2. [23]
    There is some contradictory evidence from students about what was said.[33] Students variously said he called them filthy grubs, feral grubs, dirty grubs. Eight out of nine students said he told the class to shut up. Mr Metcalf generally denied the allegations of speaking disrespectfully to students, although he explained that he had on occasion repeated what students had said in discussing it with them, and this has now been taken out of context to suggest he spoke in that way.[34] He says that the class from which the complaints arise was particularly disruptive and difficult.[35] He acknowledges frequently telling the class to be quiet, and that he may have told individual students in private discussion that when he is teaching, they need to be quiet, stop interrupting, or ‘shut up’. He explains that he has been tough in keeping the students who cause trouble under control. He explains that there is a significant cross-over between the students who are difficult and those who later make the allegations.
  3. [24]
    The disciplinary matter arose following an investigation by the principal, not because of complaints made, but because Mr Metcalf was referring a significant number of students to administration over behaviour issues. The deputy principal interviewed students. Later when the disciplinary investigation was conducted, the allegations were investigated by two Senior Investigators from the Ethical Standards Unit of the Department. A report was prepared.[36]
  4. [25]
    In May 2010, Mr Metcalf’s employer, in response to the allegations and subsequently the investigation, provided managerial action to him, by way of counselling and behaviour management strategies.[37]
  5. [26]
    In the scheme of the allegations made, these allegations are less serious than the others. Mr Metcalfe denies them except as detailed above. His explanations put them in a different light. The students did not independently make complaints: they made assertions after the deputy principal instigated her own investigation. Mr Metcalfe says that largely the most difficult students make complaint. It seems that these allegedly difficult students who had been referred for behaviour issues were the students that the deputy principal chose to interview, although she also interviewed several others.
  6. [27]
    There is the possibility of collusion amongst the students who collectively may have born Mr Metcalfe some ill-will, particularly in the light of Mr Metcalfe’s statements about the crossover between students who were difficult and those who made allegations. However, the report does not raise collusion as a concern. Further, Mr Metcalfe did not appear before the tribunal to actively contest the allegation and test the evidence.
  7. [28]
    In the circumstances, we are reasonably satisfied that Mr Metcalfe used the term “grubs” when referring to students on at least one occasion and that he also told students to “shut up” on occasions. While telling students to “shut up” is at least inappropriate and a poor choice of words, we are of the view that referring to students as “grubs” in any circumstances is disrespectful.
  8. [29]
    Accordingly, we are satisfied that the allegation is substantiated.

Allegation 5 – 1 January 2013 to 3 June 2013

5. Between 1 January 2013 and 3 June 2013, while employed as a teacher at a third Queensland high school, Christopher Metcalf, without valid educational reasons engaged in conduct with year 11 Student B that was:

  • Overfamiliar in nature; and/or
  • Sexualised; and/or
  • Constituted grooming behaviours.
  1. [30]
    Mr Metcalf taught Student B in Years 9 and 10. He then taught her FTV in Year 11 until 3 June 2013. During the relevant period, Mr Metcalf had a school email address, as well as a personal Gmail email address. Student B had a personal Hotmail email address.[38]
  2. [31]
    While he was her teacher in 2013, Mr Metcalf disclosed to Student B that he was depressed.[39]
  3. [32]
    The Year 11 FTV class was required to complete an assessment task involving a short film. Student B agreed to act in Student C’s film. Student B’s role in the film involved her changing items of clothing, appearing semi clothed and nude but obscured. The unedited film depicted Student B in various states of undress and nudity. Between 15 and 19 April, Student C was editing the film in a manner that meant inappropriate footage of Student B may have been visible to other students. Mr Metcalf edited the student’s film by removing, among other things the depiction of Student B in various states of undress.[40]
  4. [33]
    Prior to 19 April 2013, Mr Metcalf and Student B had communicated using his corporate email account and her personal email account. On the 19 April Mr Metcalf communicated with Student B via his corporate account advising her that there was an issue with Student C’s film, that they needed to discuss. He indicated that school emails are monitored and it was difficult to explain the issue without using words that might be identified as inappropriate. Following a response from Student B for his private email address, Mr Metcalf provided it to Student B.[41] Thereafter, Mr Metcalf and Student B communicated using private email addresses.
  5. [34]
    On 24 April 2013, Mr Metcalf and Student B exchanged emails. These communications included the following from Mr Metcalf:

i) At 6.39pm: “… so strange in some ways talking to you as a mate rather than a student because I am tempted to engage in the type of conversations I normally I have with people (I tend to be very blunt) but the fact that you  [sic] still a student is always a factor I can’t seem to shake.”;

ii) At 9.53pm: (Following a response from Student B, including “Well let’s[sic] say outside of school hours you can be as blunt with me as you like. During school your my teacher, so during that time your primary aim is to teach”): “you may regret telling me I can be blunt and open with you, after all your innocent 16 year old self might not be able to handle it! Ha Ha.”;

iii) At 10.21pm: “Maybe I can’t corrupt you, but I guess time will tell. I’ll try not to hold back in future and hope that you will never use it against me to get me sacked, It might also completely change your opinion of me but hopefully not.”;

iv) At 10.47pm: “Okay see ya don’t do anything I wouldn’t do.”[42]

  1. [35]
    On 25 April 2013, further emails were exchanged. These communications included the following from Mr Metcalf:
    1. At 8.47am: “Well here I am at school on a Public Holiday like an idiot making a film that will be shit for a principal who isn’t even going to be here next term … I woke up this morning as horny as a two headed unicorn, but I had to get up and come in here to work on this …”;
    2. At 9.33am: “… Do you have special clothes for every possible occasion? … promise I will never get all paranoid and hold back again, I will just say whatever pops into my head and have enough faith in you that I don’t need to worry.”;
    3. At 9.46am: “… I mean, I’m sure you’re not all happiness and light when you are on your period … I should have woke [wife] up today before I left, it is going to be a long [sic], frustrating day.”;
    4. At 09.58am: “You don’t have a decent sex life? How can that be? You are young and in love, what more motivation do you need? What’s the problem? Being married and living together is no guarantee of anything, believe me.”;
    5. At 10.19am: “Given your theory, does that mean you see [sex] purely as a [sic] means of procreation and therefore you don’t desire it or enjoy it? I find your thoughts very interesting because for many young people it becomes their priority activity at every opportunity once they have started … You are such an interesting specimen as sometimes you are a typical teenager and then others you seem like somebody so much older.”;
    6. At 10.34am: “You are a very interesting young lady. I’m impressed (I think) and we shall discuss this no further given that I am probably bordering on ‘creepy old man’ territory, although I guess you have learned that I tend to say whatever strikes me at the time …”;
    7. At 10.46am: “… I definitely won’t be judgemental and I don’t want you to ever be embarrassed to talk about/tell/ask me anything. I am happy to share my life experiences and offer advice/insights in any way I can. I am certainly not going to change my opinion of you just because of something you may do or have done in the past … Just harking back to what we talking about earlier, are you on the pill?”;
    8. At 11.02am: “So, putting my concerned parentish-type hat on here, what do you do? Condoms, withdrawal? This does surprise me and concern me a little, even though I’m confident that you are responsible enough to have it all under control. Maybe you are unique, or maybe I am, but I am always lamenting not getting enough!”;
    9. At 11.17am: “You make me smile. You are such a serious young person (which is good). Your ‘big on safety’ thing is fantastic but you make it sound so clinical. …”;
    10. At 11.59am: “… As for ‘making’ a beautiful daughter. Yes, she is beautiful but all I did was dump some cum in my wife’s cunt, which is hardly a significant contribution. …”;
    11. At 1.30pm: “I do not think you over-estimate my qualities as a father, teacher or person generally, but I do appreciate it. I hope I wasn’t’ too crass before, but I guess I definitely forgot you were a student for a moment there with my language. …”;
    12. At 2.08pm: “Yeah, I think he did get a sex-change and good for him I say if it makes him/her happy. Maybe [another teacher at a third Queensland High School] needs bit of action and seeing as though I’ve never fucked a redhead before, it could be a win/win. … on a positive note, there was a hot chick in a bikini at the servo before when I got something for lunch, so the day is not completely wasted.”;
    13. At 3.30pm: Following an email from Student B which included “Don’t sleep with anyone at [a third Queensland High School]. This is a golden rule”: Mr Metcalf responded. “Why is this a golden rule, are you speaking from experience? I’m home now and once [wife] gets back from dropping [daughter] at ballet, maybe I can end my frustration and put myself in a better mood …”;
    14. At 3.57pm: “… Well, if [wife] isn’t up for it when she gets back, I will just have to take care of it myself. …”;
    15. At 15.25pm: “… Have a good night, you are a great person and I have even forgiven you for disobeying my instruction the other day not to look at [Student C’s] film.”;
    16. At 7.08pm: “I’m a little disappointed by your response here because it suggests a lack of respect for me as your teacher and that has always been my concern, that my authority is eroded because of our friendship outside of the classroom. …”;
    17. At 7.25pm: “Goodnight mate, talk to you tomorrow.”[43]
  2. [36]
    At some unknown date before 10 May 2013, Student B encouraged Mr Metcalf to start an internet blog site as an outlet to write about his feelings and frustrations.[44] On about 10 May 2013, Mr Metcalf did create a blog known as ‘Mr C Says’. On an unknown date during an FTV class, Mr Metcalf gave Student B details of the link to the blog site.[45]
  3. [37]
    The blog site had both password protected areas and publically accessible areas.[46] The password protected areas included Mr Metcalf’s journal entries.[47] The publically accessible area included articles as well as links to websites. There was a link to ‘skylarkn tumblr’. On that site nude and/or pornographic photographs can be accessed.[48] Student B had the password.[49] The password was ‘GENITALS’.[50] It does not appear Student B was asked how she obtained it.
  4. [38]
    Mr Metcalf denies having given her the password.[51] He admits that it was not password protected initially, but suggests that at that stage there was no content.[52] Mr Metcalfe suggests Student B ‘might have been able to work it out’.[53] Mr Metcalf also says that he ‘had somehow, inadvertently or otherwise’ revealed the password to ‘Student B’.[54] Subsequently, he said he discovered the password protection was not working effectively in any event.[55]
  5. [39]
    The QCT submits that the Tribunal should draw the inference that Mr Metcalf gave the password to Student B. It seems improbable (contrary to Mr Metcalfe’s suggestion otherwise) that Student B guessed the password. Mr Metcalf was actively seeking her feedback about the site and specifically asked whether she had seen the links and journal pages.[56] Student B refers to having seen the journal.[57] Inadvertent disclosure of the password is inconsistent with actively seeking her feedback about the journal pages. We are satisfied that it is reasonable to infer from these events that Mr Metcalf gave Student B the password to the protected area.
  6. [40]
    On 19 May 2013, Mr Metcalf posted an article entitled ‘Let’s talk about sex’ on the blog site which included references to Mr Metcalf’s views about the merits and issues surrounding teenage sexual practices; information about safe sexual practices; and his view about the importance of young women being empowered to demand pleasurable sexual experience.[58]
  7. [41]
    On two occasions in 2013, Mr Metcalf drove Student B in his personal vehicle from the school on one occasion, to a pizza shop, and on the other occasion, to her home. He did not obtain the consent of or notify any other staff member at the school, his employer or Student B’s parents.[59] On the occasion that he drove her home, Student B says that Mr Metcalf volunteered his personal mobile telephone number to Student B.[60]
  8. [42]
    After that time, Mr Metcalf and Student B communicated via text messages.[61]
  9. [43]
    Between 24 May 2013 and 26 May 2013 Mr Metcalf sent Student B text messages, including the following:
    1. ‘New phone and phone plan, so you will get sick of me now with unlimited texts’;
    2. ‘I’ve been emailing regularly except when I was sick. Did you see the new pages I added to my blog – A Journal page and a Links page’;
    3. ‘You need to find a way to relax and relieve your exhaustion’;
    4. ‘Woo Hoo, just had a birthday fuck and I showed pretty good form for an old man’.[62]
  10. [44]
    On 27 May 2013 (in response to a happy birthday message from Student B), Mr Metcalf sent a message to her, ‘Thanks babe’.[63] After school on that day, Mr Metcalf and Student B stayed behind in the classroom to celebrate his birthday. He accepted a birthday gift from her and asked to take a photograph of her.[64] Later that evening, Mr Metcalf sent text messages to Student B including:
  1. (1)
    thanks for this arvo, I enjoyed it. I hope you weren’t bored or made to feel awkward. I really appreciate you starting to open up to me (although not in the same way you open for [another female student at a third Queensland High School] ha ha) I know you know this already but cannot tell anybody the things I talked to you about, it has to remain between us. I think you are pretty amazing and I want us to hang out more, like you would any other friend. I have enjoyed my birthday, so thank you for that.’; and
  1. (2)
    ‘Thanks also for the gift (I think) … Thanks again for the arvo, I feel as though I might be able to tell you my darkest secrets. Don’t let anybody including me, ever tell you that you are anything less than amazing.’[65]
  1. [45]
    On 28 May 2013, Mr Metcalfe sent text messages to Student B which included the following:[66]

i) ‘I think it really says a lot about our lives that whilst you are fucking before school, I’m resorting to jerking off in the shower.’;

ii) ‘Date Claimer Monday June 10’;

iii) ‘Damn You! A fuck and a curly wurly in one day. I am hating on you just a little bit right now. Ha Ha’;

iv) ‘… I know you are a busy bee but you can read my blog whenever you get a chance because I value your feedback’; and

v) ‘Hey, just found out that [wife] and [daughter] will be away this weekend. What have you got planned for Saturday arvo after work or Sunday after church?’

  1. [46]
    On 29 May 2013, Mr Metcalf posted an article on his blog site titled ‘The teenage love story never ends well’. The article included disclosures about Mr Metcalf’s sexual experiences.[67] He also sent text messages to Student B, asking whether she was home that afternoon, (and following a response from Student B that she was busy), he responded ‘Righto then, no worries looks like a lonely weekend for me then. …’.[68] Later that afternoon he asked her if she knew whether there was a brothel on this side of town and later said ‘Fuck you must think I’m a real loser now after that. There must be something wrong with me hey.’.[69]
  2. [47]
    Student B responded saying amongst other things, ‘No. but as much as I enjoy being friends with you, I don’t need to hear all the details of your sex life’.[70] Mr Metcalf sent her a text ‘Are you angry with me?’[71] He later sent another text apologising for upsetting her and that he was worried that he ‘came across as some kind of deviant [sic]. I should have known better. Please don’t hate me’.[72] He sent another message apologising that the things he says are inappropriate or make her uncomfortable. He says ‘I guess the fact that I haven’t had anybody to talk to for a long time has seen me go too far in you(r) eyes. Again I am sorry. I have just been so excited that somebody so amazing would be interested in being my friend that I got carried away.’[73]
  3. [48]
    Student B also says that he encouraged her to meet with him privately outside of school hours to ‘hang out’.[74] Although by May 2014 Mr Metcalfe denied this was the case,[75] the text messages referred to earlier make it apparent that he did enquire on at least two occasions about her availability. It is reasonable to infer, and we do so infer, from those requests that he was suggesting private meetings with her on those occasions. We find that he did encourage Student B to meet with him privately.
  4. [49]
    Having regard to the findings of fact we have made, we are satisfied that Mr Metcalf’s conduct towards Student B was overfamiliar in nature. He treated and spoke to her as though she was a friend, not a student. Although Mr Metcalfe seems to deny that the conduct engaged in was ‘sexual conduct’,[76] we are satisfied that his communication with her was highly sexualised.
  5. [50]
    The sexually-charged communication and overfamiliarity occurred over a six week period. It commenced shortly after Mr Metcalfe viewed a student’s film depicting Student B in states of undress and nudity. From that time onwards, it is apparent that he sought to communicate with her on his private email address, and soon after by text message. He told her, highly inappropriately, about his sexual urges and experiences, as well as his depression and marital issues. He asked about and commented on her sexual experiences. He posted articles and content on his blog site with sexual content and links, and actively sought her feedback. He gave the site a sexualised password, which he then gave to Student B. He actively sought to meet with her outside of school hours.
  6. [51]
    The QCT contends that this conduct constituted grooming behaviours. Grooming is not defined for the purposes of the QCT Act.[77] There is no expert evidence from relevant professionals before the Tribunal providing opinion about behaviours which are accepted as constituting grooming behaviour.
  7. [52]
    The QCT submits that grooming describes a variety of behaviours or acts preparatory to sexual conduct, which need not include sexual intercourse. It concedes that sexual conduct is a broad term. It submits that it includes, in the most serious case, a physical, sexual relationship. However, QCT submits that grooming also includes, at the other end of the scale, conduct which is sexualised by virtue of its connotation, such as a ‘sexting’ relationship. In Mr Metcalf’s case, it concedes that even this did not occur. Instead, it says, highly sexualised communication occurred. QCT submits that Mr Metcalf’s conduct is at the very low end of seriousness of grooming behaviours, but, nevertheless, constitutes grooming behaviours because of the probing undertaken and comparatives made by Mr Metcalfe about sexual matters, suggesting sexual interest in Student B.
  8. [53]
    Several Tribunal cases have accepted that conduct amounted to grooming behaviours,[78] but without explaining the definition of grooming adopted. More recently (and since the hearing in this matter), the Tribunal declined to attach the adjective of grooming to behaviour in the absence of any settled definition.[79]
  9. [54]
    The communication between Mr Metcalfe and Student B was highly inappropriate in that it was sexualised and his conduct towards her was overfamiliar in nature. In the absence of any compelling definition of grooming arising from relevant legislation or judicial authority or alternatively, the absence of any expert evidence about behaviours which might constitute grooming behaviour against which we may assess whether it is grooming behaviour, we are not satisfied that it should be categorised as grooming behaviour.
  10. [55]
    In any event, even if we had accepted the definition of grooming proposed by QCT, we would not have been satisfied that it is reasonable to infer that that Mr Metcalf’s conduct was preparatory to sexual conduct on the facts as found by us. As highly inappropriate as his behaviour was, there is no allegation that Mr Metcalf at any time attempted to touch or kiss Student B (when there was clearly the opportunity to do so), let alone, any direct allegation against Mr Metcalfe that he proposed in his communication that he and Student B should engage in a sexual relationship.

Is there a disciplinary ground: is Mr Metcalf not suitable to teach?

  1. [56]
    A teacher is not suitable to teach if the person behaves in a way that either does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, or is disgraceful or improper.[80] The Tribunal must consider suitability to teach at the date of hearing.[81] Accordingly, the Tribunal must consider whether there is continuing unsuitability to teach.
  2. [57]
    In 2008-2009, Mr Metcalfe was only in his second and third years of teaching respectively, although he was aged in his late 30’s at the time. At the date of hearing, his conduct towards Student A dates back six to seven years. At the time of his 2013 conduct, he was aged 43-44 years. Those events are most recent, being some eighteen months prior to the hearing.
  3. [58]
    Mr Metcalfe received Code of Conduct and Student Protection training on numerous occasions over the years of his employment as a teacher. Although it is now some years ago, his responses in his meetings, and actions following them, with Student A’s principal suggest that although he knew of the Code of Conduct and Student Protection Policy, he considered he knew better about how Student A should be supported. He deliberately ignored the expectations of him as a teacher. An investigation ensued and Mr Metcalfe was formally cautioned for failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.
  4. [59]
    The allegations made against him in 2010, (although of different nature), again raised issues of inappropriate behaviour towards students. Another investigation followed and Mr Metcalfe received managerial management following that investigation. The most serious allegations of improper behaviour occurred in 2013. By that time, Mr Metcalf should have been in no doubt about professional expectations of him, in particular about maintaining appropriate professional boundaries in light of the earlier caution and warning.
  5. [60]
    Mr Metcalfe blames his depression for his behaviour, contending that but for his mental illness, he would not have engaged in the 2013 conduct. He says in a letter to his principal on 3 June 2013, that he realised that the conduct was ‘motivated, subconsciously perhaps, by a desire to bring my illness to the attention of the school.’[82] He made similar comments a year later.[83] He also suggested that the conduct was not harmful to the student,[84] (although he later denied that he is not aware of potential harm),[85] although he acknowledged that it was inappropriate.[86]
  6. [61]
    Despite blaming his mental illness, there is little evidence provided about it.[87] There is no medical evidence of a formal diagnosis of depression. There is evidence, which we accept, that Mr Metcalfe presented himself at the Prince Charles Hospital for suicidal ideation/self-harm on 3 June 2013. He was assessed as ‘low risk.’[88] We also accept, based on a brief psychologist’s report dated May 2014, that his scores on psychological testing scale were indicative of depression and stress, that he had received some psychological therapy over the previous 12 months, made some progress and that continuation was recommended for that year.[89] Mr Metcalf’s letter provided to the QCT dated 8 December 2014, states that he continues to have ongoing therapy. Whether or how it has assisted him to gain insight into matters associated with his suitability to teach is unknown.
  7. [62]
    The suggestion that his conduct was a subconscious cry for help appear inconsistent with his email message to Student B on 24 April 2013, wherein Mr Metcalf specifically told Student B that he hoped she would not use his communications to her against him to get him sacked. Because of his statement, we are satisfied that Mr Metcalf was consciously aware that what he was doing was an inappropriate and deliberate breach of professional boundaries. Even if we accepted that, which we do not on the available evidence, Mr Metcalfe had a mental illness that led to or somehow motivated the behaviour, it would not assist given that Mr Metcalf’s current mental health and level of insight is unknown.
  8. [63]
    We find that Mr Metcalfe’s conduct does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. We also find that his behaviour towards Student B was disgraceful and improper having regard to his sexualised communications with her. The latter represented an escalation of improper behaviour in 2013 despite earlier warning. There is no evidence which reasonably satisfies us of any positive changes. We find that a disciplinary ground is established: Mr Metcalf is unsuitable to teach.

What is the appropriate sanction?

  1. [64]
    The QCT Act sets out sanctions that may be imposed by the Tribunal on a former approved teacher,[90] such as Mr Metcalf.
  2. [65]
    If the Tribunal accepts he engaged in grooming behaviours, the QCT submits that Mr Metcalfe should be prohibited from reapplying for teacher registration for six years from the date his registration was suspended (that is, 30 May 2014). If the allegation of grooming is not accepted, then a lesser, but substantial, period is sought in light of the extended period over which the conduct occurred. It also seeks orders that notations be entered on the register to the effect that if he reapplies after the prohibition period that his application should include a detailed report assessing his appreciation of relevant matters. Finally, it seeks costs of the QCT in the proceedings. Initially, this was framed as costs to be assessed on the District Court Scale, but later clarified it submitted that an order for costs not exceeding $10,000 is appropriate.
  3. [66]
    It submits that a lengthy period of prohibition is warranted for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the time span over which the allegations occurred is an aggravating factor, together with the fact that there are some similarities between the 2008-2009 conduct, for which he was investigated and formally cautioned, and the 2013 conduct. As a result, it argues he should have had a heightened awareness of professional expectations of teachers.
  4. [67]
    Also, it says that Mr Metcalfe’s ‘artificial and ludicrous’ framing[91] of the conduct as being symptomatic of a mental health issue when there is little evidence about his mental health, no evidence of successful treatment, and inconsistently with his statements to Student B, is an aggravating factor. QCT submits that Mr Metcalf’s taking of that position, together with his statements about there being no harm to Student B indicates a lack of insight. It says that if he had insight into his conduct, that would act as a protective factor.
  5. [68]
    Mr Metcalf’s letter to his employer and submissions to his employer acknowledge that his behaviour was entirely inappropriate. However, it occurred in the context of other statements that there was no harm to Student B (despite the later denial in this regard), and sought to characterise his conduct as symptomatic of a mental health issue (which may in some circumstances be a mitigating factor) about which there is scant evidence (which is inadequate for us to be reasonably satisfied as to any diagnosed illness). We are not reasonably satisfied that his admissions are indicative of insight. Rather, it appears that Mr Metcalf’s other representations are intended to minimise the seriousness of his conduct.
  6. [69]
    We find that Mr Metcalfe was on notice of professional expectations of him as a teacher as a consequence of the investigation of the complaint against him in 2009 (and to a lesser extent, 2010). Despite being on notice, the more serious boundary violations and sexually charged communication occurred in 2013 over a six week period. They represent an escalation of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Metcalfe. These factors aggravate the seriousness of the conduct.
  7. [70]
    QCT referred the Tribunal to a number of decisions. In most of the cases discussed below, in addition to the sanction prohibition or cancellation period discussed, notations were made for a psychological report to accompany any future application for registration.
  8. [71]
    In QCT v DDR,[92] a 31 year old teacher had sent sexual texts, including images of his penis, to a 17 year old former student and expressed his fantasy of a sexual relationship with her. The teacher was held not to have insight into the inappropriateness of his conduct. The teacher’s registration was cancelled. He was prohibited from reapplying for registration for 30 months. DDR’s behaviour was more serious than Mr Metcalf’s, in that the teacher sought a sexual relationship with the student and sent photos of his penis.
  9. [72]
    In QCT v Teacher QKE[93] a 40 year old experienced teacher engaged in sexualised communication, including sending photos of himself naked under a blanket with an exposed penis and suggesting that he wanted a sexual relationship with her, to a 16 year old student of another school. The student was not and had not at any time been his student or attended his school. The teacher made admissions and actively sought appropriate counselling. It was an isolated event. His registration was cancelled. He was prohibited from reapplying for two years. Again, there was a clear communication that the teacher sought a sexual relationship with the student.
  10. [73]
    In QCT v Banyai,[94] a 31 year old teacher engaged in inappropriate and sexualised Facebook communication with former students aged 14 and 15 years. On one occasion, the teacher indicated he wanted sex with one of the former students. The teacher’s registration was cancelled, and he could not reapply for 12 months.
  11. [74]
    In the decision in QCT v Brady,[95] a 27 year old teacher made sexualised comments to students in class, kissed a student, and had an overly familiar relationship with a vulnerable student, responding out of school to her threats of self-harm. The teacher was prohibited from applying for re-registration for three years.
  12. [75]
    In QCT v Chambers,[96] over a two month period, an experienced teacher, who admitted the behaviour, had engaged in overly familiar communication with a 12 year old former student and failed to report suspected harm to her, as reported by her to him. In Facebook communication, they discussed deeply personal issues relating to sexual abuse and pregnancy. He met the student over the holidays and gave her a pregnancy test. His registration was cancelled, but recognising his admissions and time spent out of teaching after the allegations were made against him of 14 months, he was allowed to reapply after three months.
  13. [76]
    We were also referred to the ‘grooming’ cases referred to briefly earlier. However, even if that label was not attached, in those cases the sexualised behaviour included more serious conduct than Mr Metcalf’s. For example, in one case it included exposing a former student to a sexual act as well as inappropriate touching and hugging.[97] In another case, it included using avatars to engage in virtual sexualised behaviour with the student.[98] Accordingly, we do not consider they are relevant comparative cases.
  14. [77]
    We observe that whereas the Tribunal may now cancel an approved teacher’s registration or prohibit a former approved teacher from reapplying for registration for a stated period or indefinitely,[99] at the time of the comparative decisions that was not necessarily the case. The maximum period was previously five years. Accordingly, a five year cancellation or prohibition was likely only in respect of the most serious conduct, and lesser transgressions necessarily attracted a briefer period of prohibition (or cancellation for an approved teacher). It may be, having regard to the now indefinite period available, that over time there may be increasingly lengthy periods of cancellation or prohibition imposed for transgressions which previously attracted a shorter period. It would not be appropriate however, to ignore reasonably comparative decisions in deciding the period of prohibition to be imposed on Mr Metcalf.
  15. [78]
    In all of the cases we were referred to except Chambers, the inappropriate behaviour was more overtly to further the teacher’s own sexual gratification or interests, than was Mr Metcalf’s conduct towards Student B. The events in Chambers are in some senses similar to the behaviour of Mr Metcalf towards Student A.
  16. [79]
    Of course, here there are several aggravating factors. The inappropriate conduct of Mr Metcalfe occurred over a protracted period (it is not a brief aberration as in some of the comparative cases). It spans most of his teaching career. It escalated in 2013 despite the formal caution and warning about boundary violations in his relationship with Student A and further subsequent training on the Code of Conduct. As discussed, we are not satisfied on the evidence that Mr Metcalf has insight. Although he had some counselling in the year before mid-May 2014, it appears to have been in relation to negative feelings towards himself. We do not know the extent to which it may have addressed, if at all, issues relevant to the matters about which we have decided to make orders for notations on the register, and which would be necessary before he is suitable to teach again. We are not aware of any plan he may have or steps he may have taken since to address the issues. Accordingly, we consider that he requires time for reflection and development.
  17. [80]
    In none of the comparative cases, was an order made for the payment of any of QCT’s expenses sought or made. An order for the payment of all or any of QCT’s costs under s 161(2)(b), is one of the disciplinary sanctions which may be imposed on a former approved teacher. If we order payment of some or all of the expenses sought by QCT, we must factor that in when considering any period of prohibition and other sanctions imposed. We are aware that Mr Metcalf opposes a costs sanction. However, we know little about Mr Metcalf’s financial position in view of his decision to cease participation in the proceedings. However, his correspondence to QCT on 8 December 2014, reveals that he has been relying on financial assistance from family and that his family home has been sold to enable the purchase of a business so that he can earn income.
  18. [81]
    We are attracted to imposing a costs sanction because QCT is self-funded through registrant’s fees. As a sanction, it also offers considerable specific and general deterrent effect. As the costs sanction only forms part of the sanction we impose, it must be factored into the overall sanction.
  19. [82]
    We have reached the conclusion that it is appropriate to include a costs sanction on Mr Metcalf for two reasons. Firstly, having regard to his behaviour in the course of the proceedings. Mr Metcalf failed to reach any agreed statement of facts with the QCT,[100] in circumstances, where he has admitted many of the allegations (as discussed at paragraph 5). It is reasonable to infer that this failure, together with his subsequent non-participation, has resulted in greater costs for QCT in the proceedings than would otherwise have been the case. In particular, by necessitating a more detailed and costly preparation for hearing for QCT than would otherwise have been necessary. Secondly, teachers who behave properly should not meet the full costs of disciplinary action against those who do engage in inappropriate behaviour.
  20. [83]
    However, when considered as part of the overall sanction, the amount of $10,000 sought by the QCT is not reasonable, in our view. We conclude that $5,000 is the appropriate contribution from Mr Metcalf as part of the sanction imposed.
  21. [84]
    Further, it is important to observe that there is no guarantee that at the end of the prohibition period, the QCT will be convinced to re-register Mr Metcalf or any other teacher who has been subject to either a cancellation or prohibition period, as the case may be. QCT determines the application for reregistration based on the information available to it at that time.
  22. [85]
    In the circumstances and having regard to the comparative decisions, we are satisfied that Mr Metcalf should be prohibited from applying for reregistration for four years from the suspension of his registration, that is, until 30 May 2018, which is some three years from the date of our orders. We also make orders for a notation to appear on the register in the terms sought by QCT as amended in some minor respects by us. Further, we order that Mr Metcalf pay to QCT the sum of $5,000 by way of contribution towards its costs in the proceedings. We allow for payment by instalments as may be agreed with QCT over a 12 month period. Failing agreement, it is to be paid within 28 days.

Footnotes

[1]Grounds for disciplinary action are set out in QCT Act, s 92(1) and include, that the teacher is not suitable to teach: s 92(1)(h).

[2]Letter from Mr Metcalfe filed on 22 August 2014.

[3]Letter from Mr Metcalfe filed 20 July 2014.

[4]Exhibit 2, Attachment A142; Attachment B047; Attachment C323.

[5]Exhibit 2, Attachment A010-A011.

[6]Exhibit 2, Attachment A144.

[7]Exhibit 2, Attachment A143-A144.

[8]Exhibit 2, Attachments A148-A158 (Mr Metcalf saw her self-harm) and A193- A211, also A081-A144.

[9]Exhibit 2, Attachment A146.

[10]Exhibit 2, Attachment A146-A150.

[11]Exhibit 2, Attachment A144-A146.

[12]Exhibit 2, Attachment A150 at [133].

[13]Exhibit 2, Attachment A203-A204.

[14]Exhibit 2, Attachment A195+.

[15]Exhibit 2, Attachment A174-A175.

[16]Exhibit 2, Attachment A174.

[17]Exhibit 2, Attachment A082.

[18]Exhibit 2, Attachment A082.

[19]Exhibit 2, Attachment A174.

[20]Exhibit 2, Attachment A055 and A081.

[21]Exhibit 2, Attachment A061, A099 and A147-A153.

[22]Exhibit 2, Attachment A055, A095-A096, A111 and A174.

[23]Exhibit 2, Attachment A099.

[24]Exhibit 2, Attachment A147-A153.

[25]Exhibit 2, Attachment A178-A180.

[26]Exhibit 2, Attachment A086.

[27]Exhibit 2, Attachment A162 and A318-A319.

[28]Exhibit 2, Attachment A320.

[29]Exhibit 2, Attachment A321.

[30]Exhibit 2, Attachment A262.

[31]Exhibit 2, Attachment A321 at [366].

[32]Exhibit 2, Attachment A323-A324 at [374].

[33]Exhibit 2, Attachment B089-B215.

[34]Exhibit 2, Attachment B043-B072.

[35]Exhibit 2, Attachment B043-B074.

[36]Exhibit 2, Attachment B009 – B023.

[37]Exhibit 2, Attachment B077-B083 and B222-B223.

[38]Exhibit 2, Attachment C183.

[39]Exhibit 2, Attachment C687 and C007.

[40]Exhibit 2, Attachment C022-C023 at [356]-[358].

[41]Exhibit 2, Attachment C183.

[42]Exhibit 2, Attachment C179-C181.

[43]Exhibit 2, Attachment C170-C179.

[44]Exhibit 2, Attachment C087-C088, C114, C492.

[45]Exhibit 2, Attachment C111-C118 and C492.

[46]Exhibit 2, Attachment C364+ and C493-C497.

[47]Exhibit 2, Attachment C085, C088, C330, C362, C364.

[48]Exhibit 2, Attachment C500 and C502.

[49]Exhibit 2, Attachment C088.

[50]Exhibit 2, Attachment C497-C501.

[51]Exhibit 2, Attachment C363.

[52]Exhibit 2, Attachment C363-C364.

[53]Exhibit 2, Attachment C364.

[54]Exhibit 2, Attachment C689.

[55]Exhibit 2, Attachment C689.

[56]Exhibit 2, Attachment C209 and C213.

[57]Exhibit 2, Attachment C209.

[58]Exhibit 2, Attachment C199.

[59]Exhibit 2, Attachment C027 and C407-C408; and C409-C410 at [855].

[60]Exhibit 2, Attachment C110.

[61]Exhibit 2, Attachment C205-C221.

[62]Exhibit 2, Attachment C208-C211.

[63]Exhibit 2, Attachment C211.

[64]Exhibit 2, Attachment C212.

[65]Exhibit 2, Attachment C212.

[66]Exhibit 2, Attachment C213-C215.

[67]Exhibit 2, Attachment C196-C197.

[68]Exhibit 2, Attachment C215-C216.

[69]Exhibit 2, Attachment C216-C217.

[70]Exhibit 2, Attachment C217.

[71]Exhibit 2, Attachment C217.

[72]Exhibit 2, Attachment C218.

[73]Exhibit 2, Attachment C218-C219.

[74]Exhibit 2, Attachment C036.

[75]Exhibit 2, Attachment C671.

[76]Exhibit 2, Attachment C671.

[77]Grooming children under 16 is defined for the Criminal Code (Qld): s 218B.

[78]QCT v Stark [2010] QCAT 592; QCT v Harvison [2013] QCAT 684 (which also refers to a decision in QCAT proceeding OCR010-10 [Unreported]).

[79]QCT v WAS [2015] QCAT 61.

[80]QCT Act s 12.

[81]Burgess v Board of Teacher Registration Queensland [2003] QDC 159; QCT v GHI [2012] QCAT 182.

[82]Exhibit 2, Attachment C295.

[83]Exhibit 2, Attachment C712.

[84]Exhibit 2, Attachment C295 and C422.

[85]Mr Metcalf’s letter to the QCT dated 8 December 2014.

[86]Exhibit 2, Attachment C295 and C670-C680.

[87]Exhibit 2, Attachment C298 and C711.

[88]Exhibit 2, Attachment C296.

[89]Exhibit 2, Attachment C711.

[90]QCT Act s 161, especially s 161(2).

[91]QCT Submissions dated 28 November 2014.

[92][2012] QCAT 671.

[93][2013] QCAT 548.

[94][2013] QCAT 180.

[95][2011] QCT 464.

[96][2012] QCAT 491.

[97]QCT v Harvison [2013] QCAT 684.

[98]QCT v Stark [2010] QCAT 592.

[99]Commencement date for the changes took effect for referrals from 16 January 2012.

[100]QCAT Directions 12 August 2014 following a Compulsory Conference, direction 2.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Christopher Desmond Metcalf

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Metcalf

  • MNC:

    [2015] QCAT 147

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    A/Senior Member Howard, Member Green, Member Grigg

  • Date:

    12 May 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Burgess v Board of Teacher Registration Queensland [2003] QDC 159
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QDC 159
Cite 2 - [2003] QDC 159
Queensland College of Teachers v Banyai [2013] QCAT 180
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 180
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 180
Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCT 464
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCT 464
Cite 2 - [2011] QCT 464
Queensland College of Teachers v Chambers [2012] QCAT 491
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 491
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 491
Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 671
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 671
Queensland College of Teachers v GHI [2012] QCAT 182
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 182
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 182
Queensland College of Teachers v Harvison [2013] QCAT 684
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 684
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 684
Cite 3 - [2013] QCAT 684
Queensland College of Teachers v Stark [2010] QCAT 592
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 592
Cite 2 - [2010] QCAT 592
Cite 3 - [2010] QCAT 592
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher QKE [2013] QCAT 548
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 548
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 548
Queensland College of Teachers v WAS [2015] QCAT 61
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 61
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 61

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland College of Teachers v Plumbley [2017] QCAT 4742 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v SGS [2017] QCAT 3832 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2018] QCAT 1172 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.