Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher G
[2015] QCAT 158
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher G[2015] QCAT 158
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher G[2015] QCAT 158
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher G[2015] QCAT 158
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher G [2015] QCAT 158 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) |
v | |
Teacher G (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR208-14 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Acting Senior Member Howard Member Ford Member Grigg |
DELIVERED ON: | 1 May 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION – not suitable to teach – conviction of indictable offence Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 92 Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464 Queensland College of Teachers v Hayes [2013] QCAT 657 Queensland College of Teachers v Segger [2013] QCAT 690 Queensland College of Teachers v Osborne [2013] QCAT 471 |
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]Teacher G has been a registered teacher since 1990. His teacher registration is current until 31 December 2015. For the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (the QCT Act), he is an approved teacher. The Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) made a disciplinary referral about Teacher G to the Tribunal.
- [2]The Tribunal must determine whether a ground for disciplinary action is established against Teacher G. If so, we must decide what disciplinary action should be taken. The parties have filed a statement of agreed facts. They agree that a disciplinary ground exists under s 92(1)(b) of the QCT Act. The parties have also made joint submissions about the appropriate disciplinary sanction.
- [3]Although the parties have reached agreement, the Tribunal must consider the evidence and satisfy itself of the existence of a disciplinary ground and the appropriateness of the proposed sanction. That said, the Tribunal has considered that in professional disciplinary proceedings that it ought not depart from a jointly proposed sanction unless it falls outside of the permissible range of sanction for the conduct having regard to the particular circumstances.[1]
Do grounds exist for disciplinary action?
- [4]The alleged ground of disciplinary action relates to Teacher G’s conviction for Fraud - Dishonestly cause Detriment Value of/over $5000.00 on 7 March 2014.
- [5]The agreed facts relating to the charge of fraud are paraphrased as follows:
Circumstances Surrounding Offence
- At the relevant time, Mr X was the Senior Manager at a facility in South East Queensland (the “Facility”).
- The Facility was operated by the Department of Innovation Information Economy Sport and Recreation Queensland.
- Teacher G was in a defacto relationship with Mr X’s daughter, Ms Y during the period from 1995 to 1998.
- Teacher G was the primary carer of the child from that relationship.
- Although the relationship with Ms Y had ended, Teacher G remained in contact with Mr X, and they had a close relationship similar to father and son.
- From about 2002, Teacher G was employed as a relief teacher by the Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE).
- On or about January 2003, Mr X proposed a scheme to Teacher G which involved a Scheme as follows:
- (a)Invoices being generated by Mr X in the Teacher G’s name;
- (b)That the invoices specify that Teacher G had performed work for the Department;
- (c)Teacher G was generally not required to actually perform any work for the Department;
- (d)That the invoices be submitted to the Department for payment;
- (e)That the invoice nominate Teacher G’s bank account for payments by the Department;
- (f)Teacher G pay to Mr X fifty per cent (50%) of all monies received into his bank account from the Department;
- (g)That the payments referred to in paragraph 11(f) were to be paid in case by Teacher G to Mr X.
- (a)
- Teacher G agreed to the Scheme proposed by Mr X.
- Invoices were submitted to the Department in accordance with the Scheme.
- In total, the sum of $44,965.90 was paid into Teacher G’s banking account by the Department as a result of invoices issued to the Department in accordance with the Scheme.
- Teacher G withdrew an amount of $26,620.00 from his bank account in cash paid them to Mr X.
- Teacher G personally benefited from the Scheme in the amount of $18,340.00, which he repaid to the Department in early 2014.
- Teacher G was aware at the time of accepting the money that he was defrauding the Department.
Charges
- On or about 17 May 2013, Teacher G was charged with Fraud.
- Following the charges, Teacher G participated in a covert operation with the Crime Misconduct Commission (the “CMC”) to assist in prosecuting Mr X.
Conviction
- On 7 March 2014, Teacher G pleaded guilty to the charge of Fraud – Dishonestly Cause Detriment Value of/over $5000.
- Teacher G was convicted of that charge and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment which was suspended for 2 years.
- [6]
- [7]Accordingly, we find that a disciplinary ground exists in respect of Teacher G.
What is the appropriate sanction?
- [8]The sanction jointly proposed by the parties is that Teacher G’s teacher registration be suspended for 12 months, with such sanction immediately suspended provided that Teacher G:
- Completes Code of Conduct and ethics courses approved by QCT at his own cost within 12 months of the orders; and
- Is not subject to any disciplinary proceedings for a period of 18 months from the date of the orders.
- [9]QCT submits that the proposed sanction follows the correct approach to sanctioning as it meets the need for both general and specific deterrence.[5] It further submits that it is not inconsistent with comparative cases to which it referred us, in both of which the actions of the teacher’s concerned were less serious than Teacher G’s conduct.[6] It says that Teacher G’s case is more serious because he knowingly entered into a scheme to defraud his employer, by receiving monies for work he had not performed. It involved a significant sum of money. That said, it acknowledges that Teacher G has cooperated with the disciplinary process and made early and frank admissions.
- [10]Teacher G became a committed Christian in 2003. He submits that he has carried guilt since that time, and is glad ‘it has been brought into the light’. Teacher G submits that he deeply regrets the conduct which led to the conviction. He says he agreed to the Scheme proposed by Mr X, knowing that it was wrong, but because of his relationship with Mr X, who was a father-figure to him and when he felt financially vulnerable. He made restitution, repaying the amount he gained from the dishonest scheme, after receiving funds from his father's deceased estate.
- [11]His current employer is aware of the charges against him. The Principal refers to knowing Teacher G for 5 years (at the time of his correspondence). He speaks highly of Teacher G’s teaching skills, confirms his commitment to his faith evidenced by leading school worship and modelling Christian values, and attests as to his remorse and humility.
- [12]Teacher G’s conduct is more serious than the other comparative cases. However, we accept that since 2003, Teacher G has rehabilitated himself and genuinely regrets his actions. We are satisfied that the disciplinary sanction proposed by the parties is within the permissible range of sanction.
- [13]We make orders in the terms sought by the parties, save that we amend the condition relating to not being subject to future disciplinary proceedings, such that the reference is to substantiated disciplinary proceedings.
Non-publication orders
- [14]The Tribunal is unaware whether charges against Mr X have been heard or otherwise finalised. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that, to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice, it would be inappropriate for information in these proceedings identifying Mr X to be published. Because of the family connection between Teacher G and Mr X, identification of Teacher G or his family members may lead to identification of Mr X. Accordingly, on the Tribunal’s initiative, we make orders under s 66 of the QCAT Act, prohibiting publication of any information which may identify Teacher G or any other person named in the proceedings. De-identified reasons for decision must be published, other than to the QCT and Teacher G.
Footnotes
[1] Queensland College of Teachers v Hayes [2013] QCAT 657.
[2] QCT Act s 92(1)(b).
[3] Fraud is a crime: Criminal Code s 408(1)(e). Crimes are indictable offences: Criminal Code s 3.
[4] Serious offence is defined in the QCT Act with reference to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening Act) 2000, under which fraud is not a serious offence.
[5] Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464.
[6] Queensland College of Teachers v Osborne [2013] QCAT 471 involved a dishonesty offence (which was not an indictable offence) outside of duties as a teacher, and involving lesser amount. The teacher was suspended for 6 months (with such suspension suspended for 18 months provided no further disciplinary action); Queensland College of Teachers v Segger [2013] QCAT 690 involved a scheme to defraud a travel company and the teacher’s employer resulting in a charge of fraud. However, the teacher had a psychiatric disorder and the scheme was not for his personal benefit. His actions were aimed at satisfying a symptom of his psychiatric illness. The teacher was reprimanded.