Queensland College of Teachers v Satora
[2016] QCAT 411
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 Satora[2016] QCAT 411
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v Satora[2016] QCAT 411
Queensland College of Teachers v Satora[2016] QCAT 411
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Satora [2016] QCAT 411 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) v Daniel Craig Satora (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR022-16 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | 28 September 2016 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Howard (Presiding) Member Kanowski Member Day |
DELIVERED ON: | 31 October 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – SCHOOLS – TEACHERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – conviction for unlawful wounding – whether suitable to teach Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 20 Criminal Codes 1899 (Qld), s 3, s 323 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3(1), s 11(3), s 12, s 92(1), s 161(2), Schedule 3 Queensland College of Teachers v BJH [2015] QCAT 356 Queensland College of Teachers v CSK [2016] QCATA 125 Queensland College of Teachers v DCG [2016] QCAT 29 Queensland College of Teachers v DS [2014] QCAT 373 Queensland College of Teachers v Genge [2011] QCAT 163 Queensland College of Teachers v GHI [2012] QCAT 182 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EAJ [2014] QCAT 29 Queensland College of Teachers v NBC [2015] QCAT 246 |
APPEARANCES: |
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
- [1]The Queensland College of Teachers asks the Tribunal to take disciplinary action against Daniel Craig Satora who was, until recently, a registered teacher. The background to the disciplinary referral is that Mr Satora committed the offence of unlawful wounding in January 2014. In October 2014, Mr Satora was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for that offence, with the sentence suspended after three months.
- [2]Mr Satora’s registration as a teacher lapsed on 24 July 2016.
- [3]QCT made the disciplinary referral on the basis of two alleged grounds for disciplinary action. Firstly, that Mr Satora has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence, namely unlawful wounding. Secondly, that Mr Satora is not suitable to teach because of the events surrounding the commission of the acts which led to his conviction for unlawful wounding.
- [4]The parties agree that grounds for disciplinary action are established. They also agree upon an appropriate sanction. Although the parties are in agreement, the Tribunal must decide for itself whether grounds for disciplinary action are established and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Legislative framework
- [5]
- [6]As discussed, two grounds are relevant in this case. The first is that the teacher has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence (as defined).[3] ‘Serious offences’ are particular offences listed in the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).[4] That list does not include the offence of unlawful wounding. (Different consequences flow if the person has committed a ‘serious offence’). Unlawful wounding is an indictable offence[5] that is not a ‘serious offence’ for the purposes of the QCT Act.
- [7]The second relevant ground is that the teacher is ‘not suitable to teach’.[6] We make the observation that as a result of an amendment to the QCT Act effective on 8 September 2016, the ground that the teacher is not suitable to teach has been replaced. The ground as amended is that ‘the teacher behaves in a way … that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’. However, as the disciplinary referral was made before the amendment, the ‘not suitable to teach’ ground remains operative for this proceeding.[7]
- [8]In considering the disciplinary ground that a teacher is not suitable to teach, the Tribunal has widely accepted that it is appropriate to consider those matters specified in the QCT Act for consideration in determining whether teacher registration or permission to teach should be granted.[8] These include the person’s criminal history including when any offence was committed and whether the offence is relevant to the duties of a teacher.[9] It is also necessary to consider whether the person is suitable to work in a child-related field.[10] A person who behaves in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, or who behaves in a disgraceful or improper way, is not suitable to teach.[11]
- [9]Whether a person is suitable to teach is to be assessed at the time of the Tribunal’s hearing.[12]
- [10]The sanctions that may be imposed on a former approved teacher are set out in s 161(2) of the QCT Act. They include, in cases where the Tribunal would have cancelled the teacher’s registration had the teacher remain registered, prohibiting the teacher from re-applying for registration or permission to teach for a period or indefinitely. They also include adding a notation to the register of teachers.
The offence
- [11]Mr Satora pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful wounding. He was sentenced in the District Court on the basis of the prosecution case which may be summarised as follows. Mr Satora had been drinking at a hotel with friends. Another patron, a Mr Colley, objected to Mr Satora speaking to some of Mr Colley’s female companions. Mr Colley pushed Mr Satora and his friends and did an air kick towards them. Mr Satora spoke to police who were nearby but did not make a formal complaint. Mr Satora went home and put on a darker shirt. He then went out, taking with him a small knife. He approached Mr Colley on the street, ran toward him and attacked him with the knife causing a laceration, three centimetres long, to Mr Colley’s forearm and a wound to one of his fingers. The forearm injury required four stitches and the finger injury was glued. Mr Satora was later identified through closed-circuit television footage and charged.
- [12]Mr Satora has previously given accounts of the incident that suggest he acted in self-defence. However, in the present proceeding (as in his sentence proceeding) Mr Satora has elected not to dispute the prosecution’s version of events.
- [13]Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Mr Satora committed the offence in the circumstances outlined in paragraph [11] above.
Are grounds for disciplinary action established?
- [14]A ground for disciplinary action is established because Mr Satora has been convicted of an indictable offence other than a serious offence (as defined).
- [15]In relation to the second potential ground – that Mr Satora is not suitable to teach – there are factors for and against a finding of unsuitability. A factor in Mr Satora’s favour is that more than two years have passed since the offence was committed. It is not suggested that Mr Satora has committed further offences, or that he had previously committed any offences. The offence was not committed in the course of Mr Satora’s duties as a teacher, and in fact he was not working as a teacher at the time. (He last worked as a teacher in late 2012). It is apparent from Mr Satora’s written submissions that has been trying hard to get his life back on track after his prison sentence. It seems that he has moved a number of times to take up jobs. He appears to be a sincere person who is trying to rebuild his life. He has provided character references which speak well of him. He has cooperated in the disciplinary process.
- [16]It should also be noted that at the time of the offence, Mr Satora’s judgment was clouded by intoxication.
- [17]Nonetheless, the offence involved significant criminality. It was a surprise knife attack on a person at night. There was premeditation to the extent that Mr Satora had gone home and put on a different shirt to disguise himself to some degree. The gravity of the offence is reflected in the fact that he was sentenced to imprisonment.
- [18]The community expects teachers to provide positive role modelling for students. Clearly, Mr Satora’s conduct in committing the offence did the opposite. The offence demonstrated a disturbing lack of judgment and self-control. It raises legitimate concerns about how Mr Satora would conduct himself in stressful situations that he might encounter as a teacher. There is no psychological evidence addressing matters such as whether Mr Satora has underlying problems that contributed to the offending; whether there is an ongoing risk of further lapses in judgment and control; and what steps Mr Satora has made or could make to minimise such risk. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Satora is suitable to work in a child-related field.
- [19]While there are some ameliorating factors, on balance the Tribunal considers that Mr Satora is not suitable to teach.
What sanction is appropriate?
- [20]The purpose of disciplinary action is not to punish the teacher. That has been done through the criminal justice process. Instead, the purpose is to further the objects of the QCT Act. These include upholding the standards of the teaching profession, maintaining public confidence in the profession, and protecting the public by ensuring that education is provided in a professional way.[13] It is essential that persons registered as teachers do not pose a risk of harm to children.[14]
- [21]The parties consider that exclusion of Mr Satora from the teaching profession for a period of one year is appropriate, together with a requirement for a psychological report to accompany any application for re-admission to the profession.
- [22]In his written submission Mr Satora says: ‘I already understand I will never teach again’. Presumably this is an acknowledgement of the difficulty he would face in obtaining employment as a teacher. However, the prospects of Mr Satora gaining employment as a teacher are immaterial in deciding whether he ought to be permitted to re-join the teaching profession should he wish to do so.
- [23]The QCT has referred the Tribunal to the case of Gene De Wilde.[15] That case involved a teacher who ‘glassed’ a victim in the face. The teacher had a drinking problem and was intoxicated at the time of the offence. The Victorian County Court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, suspended after six months. The teacher commenced psychological treatment soon after committing the offence and substantially reduced his consumption of alcohol. A report by the psychologist was provided in the disciplinary proceeding. The Victorian Institute of Teaching (the disciplinary body in the case) was impressed by the teacher’s efforts to rehabilitate himself and was satisfied that he was unlikely to reoffend. The sanctions imposed by the Institute were suspension of the teacher’s registration for six months, a requirement for ongoing counselling, and a requirement for a psychological report at the end of the suspension period.
- [24]The QCT submits that Mr Satora’s case is more serious than the Victorian case because of the premeditation and disguise involved in Mr Satora’s case. The Tribunal notes, though, that a heavier sentence was imposed by the court in the Victorian case, suggesting that the circumstances of the offence were considered more serious.
- [25]A more significant distinguishing feature, in the Tribunal’s view, is that there was evidence in the Victorian case of the teacher’s participation in counselling to address the underlying issues that had contributed to his criminal conduct. Such evidence is absent in Mr Satora’s case.
- [26]The Tribunal therefore considers that a more substantial sanction is warranted in Mr Satora’s case in order to provide protection for children and to promote public confidence in the teaching profession. It is appropriate that Mr Satora be prohibited from re-applying for admission to the teaching profession for one year and that a requirement be imposed that any re-application must be accompanied by a psychological report. The period of one year may seem short in view of the gravity of the offence. However, in practice Mr Satora will have been away from teaching roles for several years by the time the period of exclusion ends. He has not taught since late 2012. In any event, if and when Mr Satora makes an application for registration it will be a matter for QCT to consider whether he meets requirements for registration at that time.
Conclusion
- [27]As the Tribunal is satisfied that grounds for disciplinary action are established, and that the sanction suggested by the parties is appropriate, the Tribunal makes orders accordingly.
Footnotes
[1]Section 92(1).
[2]QCT Act, Schedule 3.
[3]QCT Act s 92(1)(b).
[4]QCT Act, Schedule 3.
[5]Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 3(3), s 323.
[6]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) s 92(1)(h).
[7]Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 20(2)(b).
[8]For example, see QCT v CSK [2016] QCATA 125; QCT v DCG [2016] QCAT 29; QCT v BJH [2015] QCAT 356; QCT v NBC [2015] QCAT 246; QCT v DS [2014] QCAT 373; QCT v Teacher EAJ [2014] QCAT 29; and QCT v Kyei [2012] QCAT 335.
[9]QCT Act s 11(3).
[10]QCT Act s 12(1)(b).
[11]QCT Act s 12(3).
[12]Queensland College of Teachers v GHI [2012] QCAT 182 at [9].
[13]QCT Act s 3(1).
[14]Queensland College of Teachers v Genge [2011] QCAT 163 at [12].
[15]Victorian Institute of Teaching Case Number 106, 20 January 2011.