Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2017
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA - [2017] QCAT 224

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

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA[2017] QCAT 224

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA[2017] QCAT 224

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA [2017] QCAT 224

PARTIES:

Queensland College of Teachers

(Applicant)

v

Teacher FDA

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR214-16

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

A/Senior Member Browne

Dr Cullen, Member

Member MacDonald

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. Teacher FDA’s registration is cancelled.[1]
  2. Teacher FDA is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach until a period of four (4) years has elapsed from the date of this order.
  3. The register be endorsed with the following notation that any application by Teacher FDA for re-registration must be accompanied by a detailed and independent psychologist’s report addressing the following issues:
  1. The teacher’s general suitability to teach and work in a child related field;
  2. Awareness of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate communication and behaviour with children;
  3. The concept of professional boundaries and the importance of maintaining professional boundaries is for the protection of children;
  4. An in-depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, parental and community trust invested in a teacher;
  5. Understanding and ability to implement the Queensland College of Teacher’s Code of Ethics and Professional Boundaries Guidelines; and
  6. Whether, in the opinion of the psychologist, the former teacher has adequately understood and addressed these issues.
  1. Other than to the parties to the proceeding,  publication of any information which may lead to the identification of Teacher FDA, the relevant student or relevant school is prohibited until further order of the Tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – SCHOOLS – TEACHER’S EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – where teacher entered into a relationship with a student – where relationship commenced shortly after student graduated from secondary school – where admissions made by the relevant teacher during a disciplinary investigation – whether allegation is proven – whether proposed disciplinary action should be taken

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 8, s 9, s 10, s 11, s 12, s 95(1)(h), s 160, s 161

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66, s 135

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464

Queensland College of Teachers v Derbyshire [2011] QCAT 536

Queensland College of Teachers v Eldridge [2013] QCAT 683

Queensland College of Teachers v Grisedale [2011] QCAT 539

Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186

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. [1]
    Teacher FDA was first registered as a teacher on 30 November 2011. He worked as a physical education teacher and was continuously registered as a teacher until his registration ended on 30 November 2016.[2]
  2. [2]
    On 15 October 2014, the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) authorised an investigation into alleged conduct by Teacher FDA. A referral followed in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to determine whether a disciplinary ground is established.[3] This decision is the determination of that referral.
  3. [3]
    The relevant ground for disciplinary action is that Teacher FDA behaved in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.[4] The QCT alleges that Teacher FDA (aged 27 years at the time) entered into a relationship with a recent former year 12 student (aged 17 years at the time) from the same school where he worked as a teacher.
  4. [4]
    The QCT say that sexual and intimate relationships with recent former students are improper due to the power imbalance as well as the age and sexual disparities between the teacher and the former student.[5]
  5. [5]
    Teacher FDA has not filed any material. Teacher FDA has indicated that he is unable to attend the hearing and that he is ‘happy’ for a decision to be made in his ‘stead’.[6]
  6. [6]
    The Tribunal must now consider whether a ground for disciplinary action has been established and consider whether disciplinary action should be taken.

Has a ground for disciplinary action been established?

  1. [7]
    In determining this matter, the Tribunal must be reasonably satisfied to the required civil standard, in line with the Briginshaw principle, that the allegation has been proven.[7]
  2. [8]
    If the Tribunal is satisfied to the required civil standard on the balance of probabilities that a ground for disciplinary action against Teacher FDA has been established, it must then consider relevant disciplinary options.[8]
  3. [9]
    In the referral the QCT allege that between 13 November 2013 and September 2014 (inclusive), whilst employed as a teacher at the relevant school, Teacher FDA formed and engaged in a relationship with a former student.[9]
  4. [10]
    The relevant student was at the school where Teacher FDA worked during the years from 2008 to 2012 (inclusive). There was no direct teacher/student relationship between Teacher FDA and the relevant student whilst she was a student.
  5. [11]
    The relationship between Teacher FDA and the relevant student is alleged to have commenced in about November 2013 and ended in September 2014.[10]
  6. [12]
    The particulars of the allegations that we must find proven, contained in the material filed by the QCT, are as follows:
  1. From late October/early November 2013, and prior to [the relevant student’s] Year 12 graduation, the respondent engaged in Facebook communication with [the relevant student] following a Facebook friend request by [the relevant student]. The respondent accepted the request and advised [the relevant student] that teachers were not meant to be friends with students.
  2. On or about 14 November 2013, having attended a post formal party with year 12 students from [the relevant school], the respondent:
    1. Agreed to share a taxi home with [the relevant student];
    2. Upon arriving at his home address, remained with [the relevant student] for a period of time outside his house talking with her.
  3. Between 16 November 2013 and 22 November 2013, while [the relevant student] was attending ‘schoolies week’ on the [redacted] with friends, the respondent:
    1. Had ongoing telephone communication including a text message with [the relevant student];
    2. Sent [the relevant student] a teddy bear and/or box of chocolates and/or a bottle of champagne.
  4. From 23 November 2013 onwards the respondent entered into a relationship with [the relevant student] consisting of:
    1. Frequent communication with [the relevant student]  including:
      1. Via telephone including SMS;
      2. Via Snapchat;
      3. Via Instagram.
  1. Spending time with [the relevant student] including:
    1. Walking his dog together;
    2. Watching TV and/or movies together at his home;
    3. Cooking meals and/or having meals together at his home;
    4. Having [the relevant student] stay the night at his home;
    5. Hugging one another.
  1. From January 2014 the respondent entered into a sexual relationship with [the relevant student] including:
    1. Having [the relevant student] regularly stay the night at his home;
    2. Sleeping in the same bed with [the relevant student];
    3. Displaying affection to [the relevant student] around his home.
  2. In February 2014, the respondent visited [the relevant student’s] parent’s house with her.
  3. From February 2014, following [the relevant student] relocating to [redacted] to attend university, the respondent’s relationship with [the relevant student] included:
    1. Communicating with [the relevant student] daily via text messaging and telephone;
    2. Regularly visiting [the relevant student] at her [redacted] location:
  • Every 2 to 3 weeks;
  • Staying overnight at her [redacted] home;
  • Going out to restaurants with [the relevant student].
  1. Spending time with [the relevant student] when she returned to [redacted] including:
  • In around March or April 2014, having dinner together at the [local hotel].
  • Going to [redacted] on a motorbike.[11]
  1. [13]
    Although no material was filed in the Tribunal by Teacher FDA admitting the allegations, he made admissions during an interview with an investigator with the Ethical Standards Unit, Department of Education, Training and Employment (the ESU) in September 2014. We have carefully considered the transcript of the interview and other interviews conducted by the ESU, and all of the material filed by the QCT. We are satisfied that the allegations are substantially proven.[12]
  2. [14]
    The transcript of interview shows that Teacher FDA accepted that from late October 2013 to early November 2013, there was Facebook communication between him and the relevant student. Teacher FDA stated during the interview that he and the relevant student were friends on Facebook and that this occurred around December 2013 following the relevant student sending him a ‘friend request’.[13] Teacher FDA stated that at this point (in December 2013) he and the relevant student were not in a relationship and to his recollection, he had never communicated with her via Facebook.[14] Teacher FDA maintained his evidence given earlier (in the interview) that he met the relevant student at an after-formal party.[15] Teacher FDA accepted when questioned that he may have advised the relevant student after she sent him a friend request that he cannot be friends with her until she has finished school. Teacher FDA stated that he could not recall talking to the relevant student on Facebook ‘at all’.[16] Teacher FDA stated that the first time he spoke to the relevant student was at the after-formal party (in late November 2013).[17]
  3. [15]
    During the interview, Teacher FDA stated that he knew the relevant student as a former grade 12 student but did not know her whilst she was at school. He did not teach the relevant student at any time whilst she was a student at the relevant school and he did not believe she was in any of his classes.[18]
  4. [16]
    Teacher FDA admits (during the interview) that he attended a post formal party on 14 November 2013 with year 12 students from the relevant school and agreed to share a taxi home with the relevant student. Upon arriving at his address, Teacher FDA remained with the relevant student for a period of time outside his house talking with her.
  5. [17]
    Teacher FDA stated during the interview that he attended the formal with other teachers. He stated that prior to the formal he had two beers at the local pub with other teachers referring to ‘three or four of us’.[19] He also stated that during the formal he ‘might have had one or two more…’.[20] Teacher FDA stated that he did not take the alcohol to the formal. Teacher FDA was questioned about whether he  had told the deputy principal (in an earlier meeting about drinking alcohol at the formal) the truth about drinking and attending the after formal party. Teacher FDA could not recall why he had denied this at first instance when speaking to the deputy principal. Teacher FDA stated that early the next morning (after the conversation with the deputy principal) when he got to school he went to her and ‘told her [the deputy principal] the truth’.[21] Teacher FDA stated that he told the deputy principal that there was alcohol brought into the formal, that it was not brought by him and that he did attend the after-formal party.[22] Teacher FDA stated that he apologised to the deputy principal for ‘misleading her’.[23]
  6. [18]
    In relation to the party Teacher FDA stated that a couple of rugby league students approached another teacher and himself and offered them a ticket to go to the after-formal party. Teacher FDA stated:

…Originally we didn’t really see a point in going. We went home to my house and then, yeah, basically made a pretty crappy decision to go.[24]

  1. [19]
    The after-formal party was held at a private address and was not a school event. Teacher FDA stated that he attended the party with another teacher and whilst at the party the relevant student disclosed to him that she had had a fight with her boyfriend. The relevant student asked Teacher FDA and the other teacher (attending the party) if she could ‘carpool’ with them.[25] The relevant student travelled in a taxi with Teacher FDA and the other teacher (attending the party). Teacher FDA and the relevant student stayed outside his house (the other teacher went inside) and talked. The relevant student then left. The relevant extract from the transcript is as follows:

…as we were leaving [the relevant student] was upset, so I approached her, you know, to see if she was all right. She said she, she had a fight with her boyfriend at the time and she obviously [the other teacher] and I were leaving so she, she noticed that, so she asked if she could, we could car pool home. I said we were catching a cab. She said okay, can she share the cab with us. Lack of better judgement; I said yes. So she, we, we all caught the cab back to my house. That’s when I, [the other teacher] went out of the cab straightway. I waited back for maybe max five minutes just to see if she was okay. And then she left in the cab and I went inside.[26]

  1. [20]
    The transcript shows that Teacher FDA accepts that there was telephone communication between him and the relevant student including text messages and that he sent the relevant student a gift during ‘schoolies week’.
  2. [21]
    Although Teacher FDA could not recall (in the interview) messaging the relevant student two weeks prior to her completing school, he accepts there was communication between him and the relevant student in late November 2013 whilst the relevant student was at ‘Schoolies’.[27] Teacher FDA stated during the interview that the relevant student ‘got my number and she started texting me’.[28]
  3. [22]
    Teacher FDA admitted to sending the relevant student a gift being a teddy bear and a box of chocolates to the value of $30-$40 through an unknown gift delivery company. Teacher stated during the interview that the gift was to show his support (to the relevant student) and to ‘cheer her up’ after she had broken up from her boyfriend. The relevant extracts from the interview are as follows:

Question: …information we have is that you were constantly in communication with each other, texting each other, and then [the relevant student] received a text from you advising her that there was something in the reception or the foyer for her. What can you tell me about that?

Teacher FDA: She, I think, I believe she broke up with her boyfriend at some stage around then, so I sent her a gift, sort of like a, you know, get, oh, you know, I don’t know, yeah.

Question: So what did you send her?

Teacher FDA: I think a box of chocolates, I think. Maybe a bear or something.

Question: …how did you know where she was staying?

Teacher FDA: She was texting me at the time so I asked her.

…

Teacher FDA: I just organised a gift company to take it to the place.

…

Question: What about value [of the gift]?

Teacher FDA: Again, couldn’t tell you. Maybe 40 bucks, 30 bucks, something like that.

Question: …Why being a teacher would you send a grade 12 student a gift?

Teacher FDA: She’s not, she wasn’t a student then, but, yeah…

…

Teacher FDA: …so why would I do that? Well, I don’t know. I guess to reassure, I don’t know, yeah….Cheer her up I guess.

Question: So why did you want to cheer her up?

Teacher FDA: Well, you know, everybody has broken up with someone before. It’s not a good time.[29]

  1. [23]
    Teacher FDA was questioned about his ‘intention’ in relation to sending the gift to the relevant student and whether his intention was to ‘court’ the relevant student. Teacher FDA stated ‘No’ and referred to it (the gift) as being ‘a friendly gesture’.[30]
  2. [24]
    After considering all of the evidence, we find that from 23 November 2013, Teacher FDA entered into a relationship with the relevant student consisting of frequent communication in the form of SMS messaging, Snapchat and Instagram.[31] We find that Teacher FDA also spent time with the relevant student including watching movies at his home, cooking meals and/or having meals together, having the relevant student stay the night at his home and hugging one another.[32]
  3. [25]
    We find that there was ‘other communication’ between Teacher FDA and the relevant student including Snapchat and texting. Teacher FDA accepted during the interview that he and the relevant student were linked on Snapchat around Christmas time in 2013.[33] Teacher FDA accepted that he and the relevant student commenced texting each other in mid to late December 2013. During the disciplinary interview, Teacher FDA admitted to communicating with her on Snap chat stating he would do this ‘fairly regularly’.[34] Teacher FDA was questioned about the nature of the Snapchat communication. The relevant extract from the transcript is as follows:[35]

Question: And you [sent] Snapchat messages to [the relevant student] back then. What were they in relation to?

Teacher FDA: Just what she was up to, what I was up to. I went away to my Dad’s place for Christmas, so, you know, we went, we did various things over Christmas so I’d be sending her things that I was doing.

  1. [26]
    We find that from January 2014 Teacher FDA and the relevant student entered into a sexual relationship including having the relevant student regularly stay the night at his home, sleeping in the same bed with the relevant student and displaying affection to her around his home. Teacher FDA disclosed during the interview that he and the relevant student were currently dating and the relationship began in January 2014.[36]
  2. [27]
    We also find that in February 2014, Teacher FDA visited the relevant student’s parents’ house; and from February 2014 continued to communicate with the relevant student and communicate with her via text messaging and telephone at her Brisbane location.[37]
  3. [28]
    We also find that Teacher FDA and the relevant student were in a relationship when she relocated to another area to attend university. The material before us, including the transcripts of interview, show that Teacher FDA and the relevant student spent time together from February 2014, including communicating regularly, spending the night together at the relevant student’s residence, going out to restaurants in March or April 2014 and spending time together in the local hotel.[38]

What is the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken?

  1. [29]
    Teacher FDA is a ‘former teacher’ and therefore a ‘relevant teacher’ for the purposes of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (the QCT Act). We find that a ground for disciplinary action has been established by the QCT because of the admissions made to the ESU by Teacher FDA and having considered all of the material, we are satisfied that a relevant ground for disciplinary action has been proven.[39]
  2. [30]
    We may take certain action regarding Teacher FDA because he is a former teacher against whom a ground for disciplinary action has been established. This includes, amongst others, cancelling his teacher’s registration, prohibiting Teacher FDA from applying for registration as a teacher for a period of time and making a notation or endorsement about him to be entered in the register.[40]
  3. [31]
    If Teacher FDA wants to obtain registration as a teacher in the future, he must submit an application for re-registration and the QCT must be satisfied that he is suitable to teach.[41]
  4. [32]
    The QCT submit that disciplinary sanction in the nature of a cancellation of Teacher FDA’s registration and a prohibition for 5 years on re-applying for registration from the date of decision is appropriate.[42]
  5. [33]
    The QCT submits that the register should be endorsed with a notation that should Teacher FDA re-apply for registration as a teacher after the expiration of the prohibition period, that the application for re-registration must be accompanied by a detailed and independent psychologists report addressing the following issues:
    1. The teacher’s general suitability to teach and work in a child related field;
    2. Awareness of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate communication and behaviour with children;
    3. The concept of professional boundaries and the importance of maintaining professional boundaries is for the protection of children;
    4. An in-depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, parental and community trust invested in a teacher;
    5. Understanding and ability to implement the Queensland College of Teacher’s Code of Ethics and Professional Boundaries Guidelines; and
    6. Whether, in the opinion of the psychologist, the former teacher has adequately understood and addressed these issues.
  6. [34]
    The QCT relies on earlier decisions of the Tribunal that have considered conduct similar to Teacher FDA’s conduct in this matter, involving teachers having a relationships with former students.
  7. [35]
    The QCT says that the transcript of interview with Teacher FDA shows that he appeared to have limited insight into the appropriateness of forming a relationship shortly after the student had graduated from year 12 and submitted that he was not aware of the rules associated with a teacher forming relationships with students.[43]
  8. [36]
    The QCT says that Teacher FDA did complete Code of Conduct and ethical decision making programs and training. The QCT says that despite the training Teacher FDA had, he was not aware of the rules associated with teachers forming relationships with students.[44]
  9. [37]
    The QCT also says that Teacher FDA’s limited insight into the conduct is further demonstrated by his failure to ‘take heed’ of the advice of his housemates and fellow secondary school teacher that forming a relationship with the relevant student was inappropriate.
  10. [38]
    It is the QCT’s submission that, in all of the circumstances, Teacher FDA’s relationship with the relevant student constitutes conduct that falls significantly below the behaviour generally expected of a teacher, and a ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act is established.[45]
  11. [39]
    We agree that the conduct of Teacher FDA in this matter falls significantly below the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. Teacher FDA has formed a close relationship with the relevant student by accepting and encouraging communication initially in the form of social media (Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram) and later via telephone and SMS. Teacher FDA has encouraged and continued communication and contact with the relevant student by sending her a gift in late 2013 and having ongoing telephone communication with her before commencing a sexual relationship in January 2014.
  12. [40]
    The timing of the sexual relationship between Teacher FDA and the relevant student is important because there is a power imbalance that exists which takes time to dissipate as well as professional boundaries and standards expected of a teacher that extend beyond a student’s completion of secondary school.
  13. [41]
    Although the evidence before us suggests that the relationship was not unwelcomed by the relevant student, Teacher FDA has failed to allow sufficient time for the teacher and student power imbalance to dissipate before entering into contact that was not appropriate for a teacher and student. We accept the QCT’s submission that Teacher FDA has demonstrated a lack of insight in relation to the Code of Conduct (of teachers) and professional standards generally expected.
  14. [42]
    During the disciplinary interview, Teacher FDA admitted to having had code of conduct training a couple of months prior to the interview but could not respond when questioned about his knowledge and understanding of it. The relevant extract from the interview is as follows:

Question: Okay. And so you had [code of conduct training] a couple of months ago. What’s your knowledge and understanding of the Code of Conduct and kind of how it relates to your role?

Teacher FDA: I guess, I’m not really sure what you mean by that. I don’t really know a lot about it, no.[46]

  1. [43]
    Teacher FDA was questioned during the disciplinary interview about whether his interactions with the relevant student were appropriate and professional taking into consideration his employment as a teacher and the relevant student having recently graduated. Teacher FDA stated that he did not know the ‘guidelines’ and ‘rules’.[47] When questioned about whether he tried to ‘seek guidance’ from the principal or anyone else in relation his interactions with the relevant student. Teacher FDA replied ‘Not really, no’.[48] Teacher FDA acknowledged during the interview the age difference between him and the relevant student (approximately 10 years) and stated that he never ‘at any stage’ put ‘pressure’ on the relevant student to have a relationship with him.[49]
  2. [44]
    We also accept the QCT’s submission that Teacher FDA has, based on the transcript, limited insight into the inappropriateness of forming a relationship shortly after the relevant student graduated from year 12.
  3. [45]
    We also find that there is evidence before us that Teacher FDA would appear to have been cautioned by another teacher who was also Teacher FDA’s flatmate at the time about the relationship with the relevant student. In a statement provided to the QCT the relevant teacher states that in December 2014 he became aware of ‘rumours’ in the community that Teacher FDA and a former student of the school were in a relationship. The relevant teacher states that he ‘decided’ to bring the matter up with Teacher FDA and had a conversation with him on or about 17 or 18 December 2013. The relevant teacher states he reminded Teacher FDA about ‘certain professional responsibilities of being a teacher’.[50] The relevant teacher states that he advised Teacher FDA that any communication between him and the relevant student should stop and that there were ‘rumours circulating in the town’ about Teacher FDA and the relevant student.[51]
  4. [46]
    There is also evidence before us that another teacher who also resided with Teacher FDA at the relevant time told Teacher FDA in or about April 2014 that he should talk to ‘some professionals’ about the ‘appropriate timing’ of having a relationship with a former student.[52]
  5. [47]
    In determining the appropriate orders to be made we have also considered the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. They are not to punish a teacher but to further the objects of the Act, to uphold standards of the teaching profession, maintain public confidence in the profession and protect the public to ensure that education is provided in a professional way.[53]
  6. [48]
    The sanction or disciplinary action to be taken by the Tribunal must provide ‘both general deterrence to the members of the teaching profession and a specific deterrence to further irresponsible conduct by the teacher in question’.[54]
  7. [49]
    We have also taken into consideration relevant mitigating circumstances such as the admissions made by Teacher FDA about his relationship with the relevant student and the fact that Teacher FDA has no previous disciplinary history.
  8. [50]
    We find the appropriate order in this matter is cancellation of Teacher FDA’s teacher’s registration and a period of prohibition from applying for registration for four (4) years with a notation endorsed in the register in the terms provided by the QCT in the submissions filed.
  9. [51]
    We are satisfied that a period of prohibition for four (4) years is appropriate having considered the nature of the allegations, the mitigating circumstances, the admissions made by Teacher FDA in the disciplinary interview, the number of years’ experience Teacher FDA had as a teacher, the submissions of the QCT and earlier decisions of the Tribunal.
  10. [52]
    We accept the QCT’s submission that Teacher FDA’s conduct is comparable to the decisions of Grisedale,[55] Derbyshire,[56] and Eldridge.[57] The Tribunal has not taken into consideration, by way of comparable decisions, the decision of Queensland College of Teachers v Walters[58] because written reasons for that decision were not provided by the Tribunal (or the QCT) on the basis that reasons were given orally.
  11. [53]
    In Derbyshire’s case, the conduct took place when the student was still a student and although the teacher did not teach the student, he supervised the student in a class. The teacher attempted to gain entry with the student to a nightclub and there was a dispute in relation to determining the allegations as to whether the teacher purchased the student alcohol. The relationship between the teacher and the student commenced in October 2010 and although the relationship was not as long as the relationship in Teacher FDA’s case, the matter was dealt with and orders made by the Tribunal within a relatively shorter period of time. That is, in Derbyshire’s case the orders made by the Tribunal prohibiting the teacher from applying for registration or permission to teach were for a period of three (3) years effective from 19 October 2011. The conduct in Derbyshire’s case took place in 2010.
  12. [54]
    In Eldrige’s case, the conduct took place between January 2011 and November 2012 and the teacher was the relevant student’s music teacher. The Tribunal made orders on 5 December 2013. Again the Tribunal’s orders were made not long after the alleged conduct took place.
  13. [55]
    In Grisedale’s case, the conduct took place between 2008 and 2009 and the relevant teacher engaged in a special relationship with a student, engaged in romantic and or affectionate conduct with a student and engaged in a physical and or sexual relationship with a former student. Although the relevant teacher did not teach the student any subjects, the teacher was involved with the student in his capacity as a teacher through the Art Faculty activities. The relevant teacher was aged 30 years at the time of the conduct and had approximately six years experience as a teacher. The QCT referred the matter to QCAT in June 2010 and the matter was determined based on an agreed statement of facts. The Tribunal ordered a period of five (5) years prohibition from the date of the order. An aggravating feature of the matter, as submitted by the QCT, was cohabitation which warranted a more serious penalty.
  14. [56]
    In Teacher FDA’s case, the period of time between the alleged conduct and the date of referral to the Tribunal was approximately three years. Teacher FDA has not been suspended from teaching by the QCT because, as submitted by the QCT, Teacher FDA resigned from his teaching position and his registration ended on 30 November 2016.[59]
  15. [57]
    A cancellation of Teacher FDA’s registration and a period of prohibition for four (4) years from the date of this order is therefore appropriate, having regard to all of the comparable cases, in particular Grisedale,[60] Derbyshire,[61] and Eldridge.[62] An important distinguishing feature in Teacher FDA’s case is that Teacher FDA has not cooperated with the disciplinary process by providing any submissions as to his conduct or any acceptance of the allegations referred by the QCT. In Grisedale,[63] Derbyshire,[64] and Eldridge[65] the relevant teachers did cooperate with the disciplinary process by providing agreed statements of facts and making submissions as to the appropriateness of a sanction to be imposed.
  16. [58]
    The material provided by the QCT refers to Teacher FDA having intended to resign from his teaching position in late 2014.[66] There is no evidence before us of any further inappropriate conduct or behaviour by Teacher FDA from the date of the disciplinary investigation and we make findings accordingly.  Although Teacher FDA has provided no material or submissions in relation to the disciplinary proceeding referred by the QCT, he has communicated to the Tribunal that he is ‘happy’ for a decision to be made. Teacher FDA has also participated in the disciplinary investigation at first instance by answering questions during an interview.
  17. [59]
    In this matter, Teacher FDA has not sought to continue teaching and had he been suspended as a teacher by the QCT, the relevant period of suspension may have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal when determining appropriate orders to be made. Teacher FDA should not be disadvantaged in relation to the time that has passed between the conduct in question and the referral of the disciplinary proceeding some years later. We will therefore take the relevant time that has passed into consideration in this matter as evidence of no further inappropriate conduct since the referral.
  18. [60]
    We find that the appropriate orders to be made in this matter are a cancellation of Teacher FDA’s registration and a period of prohibition for four (4) years from the date of this order and that the register be endorsed in the terms provided by the QCT.

Non-publication order

  1. [61]
    The Tribunal has previously made an order that the names and addresses of the children referred to in the disciplinary matter are prohibited from publication under s 66 of the QCAT Act.[67]
  2. [62]
    The circumstances of the conduct between Teacher FDA and the relevant student took place in a region where, based on the material before us, rumours were circulating in the community about Teacher FDA and the relevant student. It is therefore appropriate to prohibit the identification of Teacher FDA and all witnesses who have provided statements to the QCT and/or participated in an interview, in circumstances were identifying their respective names could lead to the identification of the name of the relevant student and/or the school where she completed her year 12 schooling.
  3. [63]
    We order that, other than to the parties to the proceeding, the publication of any information which may lead to the identification of Teacher FDA, the relevant student or the relevant school is prohibited.[68]

Footnotes

[1] All amendments made in these reasons are underlined and made on 28 July 2017, pursuant to s 135 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) and the Tribunal’s directions dated 28 July 2017.

[2] Submissions on sanction filed by the Queensland College of Teachers on 21 March 2017 (‘Sanction submissions’), para 43(d). See Referral filed 15 November 2016. Teacher FDA’s registration is taken to continue because an application for renewal of registration was made before the registration end date.

[3] Referral filed on 15 November 2016.

[4] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (QCT Act), s 95(1)(h).

[5] Sanction submissions, [30].

[6] Email from Teacher FDA to QCAT dated 1 December 2016.

[7] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[8] QCT Act, s 160.

[9] Sanction submissions and Referral filed on 15 November 2016. See annexure ‘A’ for further particulars of the allegation.

[10] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Attachment “D”, QCT 117 of 186.

[11] Sanction submissions, see annexure ‘A’.

[12] The Tribunal has not found that, in relation to allegation 3.ii, Teacher FDA sent the relevant student a bottle of champagne.

[13] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Attachment “D”, QCT 48 of 186 to 49 of 186.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid, QCT 34 of 186, [127].

[16] Ibid, QCT 50 of 186 to 51 of 186.

[17] Ibid, QCT 51 of 186.

[18] Ibid, QCT 34 of 186.

[19] Ibid, QCT 36 of 186.

[20] Ibid, QCT 40 to 186.

[21] Ibid, QCT 46 of 186 to QCT 47 of 186.

[22] Ibid, QCT 46 of 186 to QCT 47 of 186.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Attachment “D”, QCT 37 of 186.

[25] Ibid, QCT 39 of 186.

[26] Ibid, QCT 39 of 186.

[27] Ibid, QCT 63 of 186.

[28] Ibid, QCT 66 of 186.

[29] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Attachment “D”, QCT 66 to 69 of 186.

[30] Ibid, QCT 69 of 186.

[31] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Attachment “D”, QCT 70 of 186.

[32] Ibid, QCT 70 to 72 and 84 of 186. See QCT 109, 130, 133 to 136 of 186.

[33] Ibid, QCT 55 of 186.

[34] Ibid, QCT 55 of 186.

[35] Ibid, QCT 57 of 186.

[36] Ibid, QCT 35 of 186.

[37] Ibid, QCT 84 of 186.

[38] Referral filed 15 November 2016.

[39] Under s 92(1)(h) of the QCT Act.

[40] QCT Act, s 160.

[41] Ibid, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 11, s 12.

[42] Sanction submissions.

[43] Sanction submissions.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Attachment “D”, QCT 32 of 186.

[47] Ibid, QCT 81 of 186.

[48] Ibid, QCT 84 of 186.

[49] Ibid, QCT 85 of 186.

[50] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Attachment “D”, QCT 128 to 131 of 186.

[51] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Attachment “D”, QCT 128 to 131 of 186.

[52] Ibid, QCT 133 to 136 of 186.

[53] Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186, [25].

[54] Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464, [55].

[55] Queensland College of Teachers v Grisedale [2011] QCAT 539.

[56] Queensland College of Teachers v Derbyshire [2011] QCAT 536.

[57] Queensland College of Teachers v Eldridge [2013] QCAT 683.

[58] OCR152-10.

[59] Sanction submissions. Teacher FDA’s registration is taken to continue because an application for renewal of registration was made before the registration end date.

[60] Queensland College of Teachers v Grisedale [2011] QCAT 539.

[61] Queensland College of Teachers v Derbyshire [2011] QCAT 536.

[62] Queensland College of Teachers v Eldridge [2013] QCAT 683.

[63] Queensland College of Teachers v Grisedale [2011] QCAT 539.

[64] Queensland College of Teachers v Derbyshire [2011] QCAT 536.

[65] Queensland College of Teachers v Eldridge [2013] QCAT 683.

[66] Referral filed 15 November 2016, Affidavit of Carson Lloyd sworn 14 November 2016, Attachment “B”.

[67] Tribunal Directions dated 23 November 2016.

[68] QCAT Act, s 66.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA

  • MNC:

    [2017] QCAT 224

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    A/Senior Member Browne, Member Cullen, Member MacDonald

  • Date:

    20 Jun 2017

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
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCAT 464
Cite 2 - [2011] QCAT 464
Queensland College of Teachers v Derbyshire [2011] QCAT 536
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCAT 536
Cite 2 - [2011] QCAT 536
Cite 3 - [2011] QCAT 536
Cite 4 - [2011] QCAT 536
Queensland College of Teachers v Eldridge [2013] QCAT 683
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 683
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 683
Cite 3 - [2013] QCAT 683
Cite 4 - [2013] QCAT 683
Queensland College of Teachers v Grisedale [2011] QCAT 539
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCAT 539
Cite 2 - [2011] QCAT 539
Cite 3 - [2011] QCAT 539
Cite 4 - [2011] QCAT 539
Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 186
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 186

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland College of Teachers v ALE [2019] QCAT 1432 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v CHR [2023] QCAT 5092 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v CMK [2019] QCAT 2712 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v DKA [2024] QCAT 3633 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v DTC [2020] QCAT 953 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v GOH [2022] QCAT 222 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v JBO [2020] QCAT 1322 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v JN [2019] QCAT 2412 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v PPK (No 2) [2019] QCAT 2702 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v RGK [2019] QCAT 1801 citation
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2018] QCAT 1172 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBJ [2018] QCAT 1352 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MUE [2021] QCAT 4011 citation
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher XBW [2019] QCAT 2402 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v WAT [2020] QCAT 852 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v WXY [2019] QCAT 422 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.