Queensland College of Teachers v Mills
[2015] QCAT 476
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 Mills[2015] QCAT 476
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v Mills[2015] QCAT 476
Queensland College of Teachers v Mills[2015] QCAT 476
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Mills [2015] QCAT 476 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) |
v | |
Kirsty Anne Mills (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR019-15 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member O'Callaghan |
DELIVERED ON: | 30 November 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | DISCIPLINARY MATTER – where non-publication order sought – whether non-publication order necessary in the interests of justice Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), sch 3 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 66 Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89 Queensland College of Teachers v Stark [2010] QCAT 592 |
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]Kirsty Anne Mills is a registered teacher. A disciplinary matter has been referred to the Tribunal to consider whether a ground for disciplinary action against her has been established. The referral relevantly alleges that a ground for taking disciplinary action exists in that Ms Mills has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence. She was convicted for ‘unlawful stalking’. The conviction was not recorded.
- [2]Ms Mills has filed an application for a non-publication order to be made in the proceedings to prohibit publication of documents, evidence or information which may enable her to be identified.
- [3]The ordinary course is that full publication of the proceedings will occur. This reflects the principle of open justice. This principle aims to ensure that court proceedings are fully exposed to public scrutiny and that the integrity and independence of the courts is maintained.[1]
- [4]In disciplinary matters there is a deterrent effect in publishing details of the person the subject of the sanction.
- [5]The Tribunal does have a discretionary power under s 66 of the QCAT Act to prohibit publication of information that may enable a person who is effected by a Tribunal proceeding to be identified.[2] The discretion is not be exercised lightly though, and only if the Tribunal considers it necessary for any of the reasons set out in s 66(2). These reasons include to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person,[3] to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication is contrary to the public interest,[4] and for any other reason ‘in the interest in justice’.
- [6]Ms Mills says that the non-publication order should be made because ‘it would serve the best interests of justice and the community’. No reliance is placed on any other ground, e.g. the possibility of endangering her mental health.
- [7]She says a non-publication order would be in the interests of justice because publication of information would undermine the courts order that no conviction be recorded against her.
- [8]She also says the publication would undermine her current teaching position as it would damage her reputation in the eyes of her (predominantly teenage) students.
- [9]Further, she says that the matter originally went before the College’s Professional Practice & Conduct Committee (‘PPC’) for determination. They referred it to the Tribunal because they formed the view that disciplinary action may be taken against her which only the Tribunal had power to impose. She says if the matter had stayed with the committee for determination then any decision would not have been published.
- [10]The College opposes the non-publication order. It says she has failed to establish that the order is ‘necessary’ in the interests of justice.
- [11]I accept the College’s submission that publication of these proceedings does not undermine the Magistrate’s decision not to record her conviction of ‘unlawful stalking’.
- [12]The order that no conviction be recorded restricts where the information can be recorded and the purposes for which it can be used. It is noted that pursuant to the provisions of s 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (‘PSA’), the effect of a non-recording of a conviction is that it is not to be taken as a conviction for any purpose or entered into any record by a department unless exceptions apply.
- [13]The College notes[5] an exception is provided for in Schedule 3 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). This section provides ‘conviction means a finding of guilt by a court, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court, whether or not a conviction is recorded’.
- [14]The protection provided by the PSA is not effected by the publication of details of the charge in these proceedings. The non-recording of a conviction is different from a non-publication order. An order not recording a conviction in itself does not prevent the publication of the offender’s identity, the offence, or a finding of guilt and non-recording of the conviction.[6]
- [15]I am not satisfied that publication of the information about the charge in these proceedings would undermine the order not to record the conviction.
- [16]The concerns of Ms Mills that her reputation and teaching position may be adversely affected are, no doubt, legitimate concerns but do not in themselves make it necessary to make a non-publication order in the interests of justice.
- [17]As has been noted in previous Tribunal decisions, a non-publication order is not appropriate in order to avoid the unfortunate consequences of a person’s behaviour.[7]
- [18]The fact that the matter was originally dealt with by the PPC, and therefore the outcome would not have been published is of no real relevance. The PPC have referred the matter to QCAT and no suggestion is made that it was wrongly referred.
- [19]I am not satisfied on the submissions of Ms Mills that it is necessary in the interests of justice to depart from the ordinary course that the proceedings be published.
- [20]The application for non-publication is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89, at para [8].
[2] QCAT Act, s 66(1).
[3] Ibid, s 66(2)(b).
[4] Ibid, s 66(2)(d).
[5] Queensland College of Teacher’s submissions 12 November 2015, para [13].
[6] Ibid, para [19].
[7] Queensland College of Teachers v Stark [2010] QCAT 592.