Queensland College of Teachers v PJD
[2015] QCAT 162
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 PJD[2015] QCAT 162
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v PJD[2015] QCAT 162
Queensland College of Teachers v PJD[2015] QCAT 162
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v PJD [2015] QCAT 162 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) |
v | |
PJD (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR037-15 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | 6 May 2015 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Acting Senior Member Howard |
DELIVERED ON: | 6 May 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | Occupational regulation – suspension of teacher – whether exceptional case – whether suspension should continue Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 48, s 50, s 53, s 54, s 55 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66 Commissioner for Children and Young People & Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291 Commissioner for Children and Young People & Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87 Commissioner for Children and Young People & Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492 Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98 Perry and Browns Patents (1930) 48 RPC 200 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher S [2013] QCAT 361 RJ v Queensland College of Teachers [2010] QCAT 153 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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]Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) suspended the teacher registration of PJD on 16 March 2015 pursuant to s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘QCT Act’) on the grounds that on 12 March 2015 he had been charged with the following serious offences:
- 17 counts of indecent treatment of children under 16 child under 12 years lineal descendent/guardian/carer pursuant to s 210(1)(a)&(3)&(4) of the Criminal Code;
- one count of indecent treatment of children under 16 (expose) child under 12 years lineal descendent/guardian/carer pursuant to s 210(1)(d)&(3)&(4) of the Criminal Code;
- five counts of indecent treatment of children under 16 (procure to commit) child under 12 years lineal descendent/guardian/carer pursuant to s 210(1)(b)&(3)&(4) of the Criminal Code;
- four counts of attempt to commit rape pursuant to s 350 of the Criminal Code;
- 13 counts of sexual assaults pursuant to s 352(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;
- two counts of rape pursuant to s 349(1) of the Criminal Code;
- one count of attempted sodomy – permit male under 18 years pursuant to s 209(1)&208(1)(b) of the Criminal Code;
- one count of permit sodomy by male under 18 years pursuant to s 2008(1)(b) of the Criminal Code; and
- one count of incest pursuant to s 222(1)(a)&(b) of the Criminal Code.
- [2]In accordance with s 50(5) the QCT has referred the continuation of the suspension to QCAT for review. QCAT must decide whether to continue the suspension or whether it is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children will not be harmed if the suspension were ended.[1] The onus of establishing an exceptional case lies with PJD.[2]
- [3]
- [4]Directions were made by QCAT inviting PJD to file submissions as to why this is an exceptional case for ending the suspension of his teachers registration. He has filed submissions and an affidavit. He submits that this is an exceptional case. The QCT submits that it is not.
PJD’s Circumstances
- [5]PJD deposes to a meritorious teaching (and tutoring) career, during which he has received several awards for excellence in teaching. He attaches numerous letters of recommendation and information regarding his awards to his affidavit. Many of the letters of recommendation are historical, dating back many years. None of recent references refer to the writers’ awareness of the charges against PJD, although PJD says that one referee (a parent of one of his former students, who PJD says is also a teacher) is aware of the charges.[5] The referee concerned says essentially that he did not consider that his child was at any time in an ‘unsafe environment’ and speaks of PJD’s passion and commitment as a teacher.
- [6]References from his principal and a fellow teacher who has known him and worked with him for 10 years do not refer to the charges. The fellow teacher speaks of PJD and his teaching abilities and professionalism in extremely positive terms.
Background to the charges
- [7]The complainants in the charges are not former students of PJD. They are two (now adult) sons of his former wife (she also has a daughter of her former relationship) and a friend of one of her sons who went to the same high school as the older child. It is alleged that the friend who has made a complaint has been spending time at the home of his former wife since mid-2014.
- [8]PJD gives a history of his former wife manipulating her children during his relationship with her, to ensure they did not spend time with their biological father. She alleged that he had attempted to harm the children. PJD also gives a history of her defrauding social security (without his knowledge) to continue to receive benefits despite their relationship. There is one daughter of the relationship between PJD and his former wife.
- [9]PJD says that following their separation in about 2004, his former wife has on numerous occasions made unfounded complaints against him of sexual assault on her children (and on occasion taking one of the children to the Police Station to do so) and endeavoured to have his employment terminated. One of the children was extremely angry about his mother’s actions and told the Police when they visited him that allegations were ‘rubbish’ and relayed this to PJD.
- [10]It seems from the history given that his former wife was unhappy that her older child, then aged 17, chose to live with PJD who supported him for a considerable period, rather than with her following separation. She accused PJD of stealing her son and denied PJD access to their biological daughter. PJD commenced legal proceedings for access. Subsequently, his former wife made an application for a domestic violence protection order against PJD. It contained allegations of sexual abuse of her younger son, as well as allegations of threatening, violent and intimidating behaviour. (He denies the allegations. However, it seems that PJD consented to an order without admissions that he be of good behaviour towards his former wife and her younger son).
- [11]Despite that, PJD says that with her knowledge and facilitated by her, her younger son visited him and the older child, regularly staying with them. Some years later, PJD’s relationship with the older son broke down over arguments about money while he was attending university. He eventually moved out of PJD’s home.
- [12]In late 2008, PJD commenced a new relationship and remarried in late 2009. There are two children of that relationship, and his current wife has two children from a previous relationship. In late 2012, PJD’s former wife came to his home to collect some of their daughter’s belongings. His former wife’s current partner verbally abused PJD. Several days later, the Queensland Police and Child Safety officers visited to interview the children of his current wife’s previous relationship, but found the allegations made unsubstantiated.
- [13]In mid-2014, PJD’s daughter from his first marriage says she told her mother that she wanted to live with him. She has told him her mother has physically assaulted her and threated to drive into oncoming traffic and kill them both.
- [14]In mid-late 2014, the allegations, which are the basis of the current charges, were made to Police.
- [15]Subsequently when PJD agreed to continue paying full child support while his daughter lives with him each second week, his former wife agreed to the arrangement.
- [16]PJD denies sexually assaulting or otherwise improperly dealing with any child in his care as parent, step-parent, guardian, tutor or teacher.
Is this an exceptional case?
- [17]PJD argues that it is open to the Tribunal to find that this is an exceptional case. He says that the allegations made against him are historical, and have previously been investigated. He submits that the current allegations appear to be instigated by his former wife because of the possibility of their daughter going to live with PJD. He submits it is significant that the now adult children who make the allegations chose to continue to associate with him after becoming adults. Further, he says it is significant that the allegations do not relate to his activities as a teacher or tutor of children. He continues to be paid while suspended, and considers it a waste of public resources that he is unable to teach.
- [18]He submits that no concerns have been raised at any time about his performance as a teacher. He says that one parent has given a reference with knowledge of the charges. Although the submissions also suggest that a colleague has written a reference with knowledge of the charges, neither the reference concerned, nor PJD’s affidavit, suggest that this is so.
- [19]PJD submits that he is willing to abide by any conditions the Tribunal may wish to impose, such as chaperoning by a teacher’s aide when dealing with children. Alternatively, he submits that if he is unsuccessful in having his suspension ended, he should have liberty to apply for further consideration of ending of the suspension after he receives a full brief of evidence from Police Prosecutions.
- [20]QCT submits that PJD has not established that this is an exceptional case. It concedes that the material establishes PJD as an effective and committed teacher. However, while acknowledging his references and apparent good record as a teacher, it submits that many of the references are historical and none of them expressly refer to the charges against PJD. It suggests that it is unknown whether they would support him with full knowledge of the very serious allegations which are the subject of the charges. It further submits that denial of the allegations is unexceptional.
- [21]Are the circumstances unusual or extraordinary so as to establish an exceptional case?
- [22]PJD’s portrayal of his former wife is extremely unflattering. If, indeed, she has behaved in the manner he submits, it appears that she is a vindictive, manipulative and dishonest person who says and does whatever is expedient to achieve her goals at the time. I acknowledge that her portrayal of PJD in her domestic violence order application provides some support to the history he gives, and it is difficult to reconcile with the positive references and awards he has received as a teacher over the years. That said, the allegations, which are the subject of the charges, were not made by his former wife. Even if she was able to manipulate her then infant children during her relationship with PJD, it does not follow that she has now done so in respect of the now adult complainants, one of whom is not her child in any event. Even if PJD’s portrayal of his former wife was accepted as accurate, it does not establish that she manipulated the adult complainants into making the allegations.
- [23]Further, PJD’s recent references do not indicate explicit knowledge of the details of the very serious charges made against him. Even if one or (on PJD’s best case, two) of the reference writers had knowledge of the charges, the extent of the information disclosed to them is not apparent. By contrast, in the case of QCT v Teacher S,[6] in which an exceptional case was found to have been established, a reference (among many exemplary references) was provided in support of the teacher concerned, by the P & F Association on behalf of the teacher’s whole school community, with full knowledge of the allegations. In that case, the charges did not concern a child, but a disgruntled ex-teacher.
- [24]Although they do not relate to his conduct as a teacher, the charges made against PJD concern persons who were children at the time of the alleged events. It is not unusual or extraordinary that he continues to be paid while suspended. Nor is it unusual or extraordinary that he denies the allegations, or that he has an apparently good record as an effective and committed teacher.
- [25]I acknowledge that if the allegations have been made vindictively against PJD at his former wife’s instigation and he is later acquitted, his teaching career is being disrupted in a most unfortunate manner. However, he has not discharged the onus of establishing that this is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended.
- [26]I make the observation having regard to PJD’s submissions that he will abide any conditions imposed, that even if I had been satisfied that it is an exceptional case, it does not appear to be open to me under the QCT Act to impose conditions on ending a suspension. If an exceptional case is established, the suspension is ended. Otherwise the suspension continues. Further, I have not been referred to, and nor does there appear to be, any provision which entitles QCAT to reconsider the suspension again after more material is available.
- [27]I make orders for the suspension to be continued.
Non-publication Order
- [28]The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) prohibits publication of identifying information about complainants and, in some circumstances, persons charged with sexual offences. Pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) the Tribunal can make an order prohibiting the publication of information.
- [29]Identification of PJD would tend to identify the two now adult children of his former wife who are complainants. I have initiated an application under s 66 and consider it appropriate to order that until further order the publication of identifying information about PJD and the complainants is prohibited.
Application by QCT for directions
- [30]The QCT also seeks directions for certain information from the DPP in due course. However, once this application is determined QCAT has no residual jurisdiction: the proceedings are finalised. Accordingly, there is no basis for the making of those directions. The application for the directions is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] QCT Act, s 53(1) and (3).
[2] RJ v QCT [2010] QCAT 153.
[3] Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98.
[4] Commissioner for Children and Young People & Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492 adopting the approach in Perry and Browns Patents (1930) 48 RPC 200; Commissioner for Children and Young People & Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291; Commissioner for Children and Young People & Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87.
[5] Affidavit of PJD filed 4 May 2015, at [22] and Attachment L.
[6] [2013] QCAT 361.