Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher HFE
[2017] QCAT 425
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 HFE[2017] QCAT 425
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher HFE[2017] QCAT 425
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher HFE[2017] QCAT 425
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher HFE [2017] QCAT 425 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) v Teacher HFE (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR224-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | A/Senior Member Browne |
DELIVERED ON: | 28 November 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – suspension of teacher – where Queensland College of Teachers suspended the teacher’s registration on the basis of its belief that the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children – whether the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm – whether suspension should continue Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 49, s 50(5), s 53, s 54(1)(b), s 55(6) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2016] QCAT 511 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GXM [2016] QCAT 441 Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT 048 |
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 HFE has been registered in Queensland as a teacher since 1995. On 5 October 2017, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) suspended Teacher HFE’s registration pursuant to s 49 of Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the QCT Act’) on the basis that he poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [2]The QCT has referred the continuation of the suspension of Teacher HFE’s teachers registration to the Tribunal seeking an order that the suspension continue.[1] Directions were made by the Tribunal inviting submissions from Teacher HFE as to why he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[2] Teacher HFE has responded through his legal representative and has indicated that he makes no submissions, and in doing so makes no admissions.
- [3]
What are the relevant provisions in the QCT Act?
- [4]The QCT may suspend a teacher’s registration only if it has formed a reasonable belief that the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[5] The QCT must then refer the matter to the Tribunal to determine the continuation of the suspension under s 49 of the QCT Act. The relevant teacher, in this case, Teacher HFE, then bears the onus of proof to satisfy the Tribunal that they do not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[6]
- [5]If the Tribunal decides to continue the suspension, Teacher HFE may apply within 28 days of the notice of this decision to the Tribunal for a further ‘review’ of this decision.[7] It is open to Teacher HFE to provide any additional material in support of the further review proceeding that is conducted by the Tribunal as a review of the decision that he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
What is an unacceptable risk of harm to children?
- [6]The QCT Act does not define the term ‘unacceptable risk of harm’. The QCT Act defines ‘harm’ as being any detrimental effect of a significant nature on a child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing resulting from a single act, omission or circumstance; or a series or combination of acts, omissions or circumstances. Section 7 relevantly provides as follows:
7 Meaning of harm
- (1)Harm, to a child, is any detrimental effect of a significant nature on the child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing.
- (2)It is immaterial how the harm is caused.
- (3)Harm can be caused by—
- (a)physical, psychological or emotional abuse or neglect; or
- (b)sexual abuse or exploitation.
- (4)Harm can be caused by—
- (a)a single act, omission or circumstance; or
- (b)a series or combination of acts, omissions or circumstances.
- [7]I find that in order to be satisfied based on the evidence before me that there is an identified risk of ‘harm’, the harm must be significant, rather than minor, and the degree of risk of the harm occurring must be unacceptable.
- [8]The standard of proof to be adopted by the Tribunal in determining whether or not there is an identified risk of harm as unacceptable risk is the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, commonly referred to as the ‘Briginshaw standard’.[8] Given the serious consequences that follow a disciplinary proceeding such as this, the Tribunal should not reach a conclusion or make a finding based on inexact or flimsy evidence.[9]
- [9]In Queensland College of Teachers v LDW, the Tribunal accepted the submission of the QCT that the ordinary meaning of the term ‘unacceptable risk of harm’ should be preferred having regard to the context of the term in the QCT Act and the purpose of the Act. The Tribunal said [footnotes omitted]:
I accept the submission of the QCT that the ordinary meaning of the term should be preferred having regard to the context of the term in the QCT Act and the purpose of the QCT Act.
The QCT refers the Tribunal to the High Court case of M v M, which considered the degree of risk of sexual abuse which would lead to denial of parental access. The Court in that case formulated the issue as ensuring the protection of a child from ‘unacceptable risk of abuse’. The QCT submits, and I accept, that this formulation directs the Tribunal to an assessment of the ‘chances’ of the risk occurring and the magnitude of potential harm if it did occur, and requires a balancing exercise of advantages and detriments.[10]
- [10]In Queensland College of Teachers v LDW[11], the Tribunal said that the determination of any identified risk as ‘unacceptable’ involves a balancing exercise by the Tribunal between the protection of students from harm by the conduct of the teacher on the one hand; and the potential harm to the teacher of having an unjustified suspension of his or her registration on the other hand.[12]
- [11]I accept the approach taken by the Tribunal in Queensland College of Teachers v LDW in determining whether there is an identifiable risk of harm as “unacceptable”.
- [12]I accept that in assessing the evidence before me I must achieve a balance between the protective nature of s 49 and the interests of the teacher who is the subject of the suspension. I must ensure that any children are protected by removing the risk that a teacher may harm, or be in a position to harm children. I must also ensure that the objects of the QCT Act are met, that is: to uphold the standards of the teaching profession; and to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.[13]
The grounds of Teacher HFE’s suspension.
- [13]The QCT submit that Teacher HFE’s suspension should continue. The notice of suspension sets out the QCT’s reasons for forming the view that Teacher HFE posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The grounds include a failure by Teacher HFE to observe and supervise students when the students were using tools and equipment in workshop environments.
- [14]As an Industrial Design Technology (IDT) Teacher HFE’s duties included teaching students in workshop environments to utilise a variety of tools and machinery including bench grinders, metal cutting guillotines, bandsaws and pneumatic rivet guns.
- [15]Teacher HFE’s responsibilities included the requirement that he ensure student safety through adequate supervision of students when they are using machinery and tools in allocated workshops.
- [16]On a number of occasions, Teacher HFE failed to adequately supervise students who were operating and using certain equipment without the proper use of the equipment, without the appropriate licence and on other occasions without wearing safety goggles.
- [17]The notice of suspension identifies a number of incidents that took place in June 2016 and October 2016. One particular incident that took place in June 2016 resulted in a student being held in a cupboard. The student held in the cupboard subsequently kicked the cupboard doors open, causing a facial injury to another student. On another occasion in June 2016, students were allowed to set off a fire-extinguisher.
- [18]The QCT filed material on which the decision was based, including amongst other things, A4 surveillance signs, safety courses for students, workshop procedures, screen capture of CCTV footage, the relevant school’s personal technology device etiquette policy, an incident report, course details of a course titled ‘manage risks in Manual Arts Workshops’, 2016 a journal completed by the head of the IDT Department concerning Teacher HFE; and the relevant school’s Standard Operating Procedures.
Does Teacher HFE pose an unacceptable risk of harm?
- [19]Teacher HFE has the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm. He has declined the opportunity to make any submissions.
- [20]I accept the QCT’s submission that the suspension should continue. I am satisfied based on the material provided by the QCT that Teacher HFE poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. I therefore order the suspension of Teacher HFE’s teachers registration continue.
- [21]Pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the QCAT Act the Tribunal can make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal to be identified. The Tribunal may do so on the application of a party or on its own initiative.[14]
- [22]Teacher HFE submits that a non-publication order should be made in respect of any information that may enable him to be identified. Teacher HFE provided a report of a clinical psychologist concerning his mental health and submits that in terms of that report it is appropriate to not publish his identity.
- [23]I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published which would identify Teacher HFE based on the clinical psychologist’s report provided by Teacher HFE and given that identification of Teacher HFE would lead to the identification of the relevant school where he was teaching and any of the relevant students or former students of the school.
- [24]I order that other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information which may identify Teacher HFE, any relevant student, or the relevant school. This non-publication order can be revisited in any subsequent disciplinary proceedings. I make orders pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of that information.
Footnotes
[1]In accordance with s 50(5) of the QCT Act.
[2]Directions dated 13 October 2017.
[3]The QCT Act, s 53.
[4]Ibid.
[5]The QCT Act, s 49.
[6]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2016] QCAT 511, [26]; Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GXM [2016] QCAT 441.
[7]The QCT Act, s 55(6).
[8]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, 361-362.
[9]Ibid and see QCT v Teacher CXJ [2016] QCAT 511, [27].
[10]Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT 048, [10] - [11].
[11][2017] QCAT 048.
[12]Ibid, [15].
[13]QCT Act, s 3.
[14]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(3).