Queensland College of Teachers v CSK
[2018] QCAT 70
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 CSK[2018] QCAT 70
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v CSK[2018] QCAT 70
Queensland College of Teachers v CSK[2018] QCAT 70
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v CSK [2018] QCAT 70 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) v CSK (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR212-14 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Presiding Member Hughes Member Clifford Member Grigg |
DELIVERED ON: | 14 March 2018 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – SCHOOLS – GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS – TEACHERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – where teacher engaged in inappropriate behaviour – where serious boundary violations – where teacher had shown some insight and sought treatment for psychological functioning – where teacher was Principal and did not respond appropriately to staff concerns about his behaviour – where teacher did not express remorse or concerns about impact of his behaviour on his students or staff – where objects of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) fulfilled by cancelling registration and prohibiting teacher from applying for registration for four and a half years Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3, s 160 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100 Legal Services Commissioner v Laurie [2011] QCAT 335 Queensland College of Teachers v Banyai [2013] QCAT 180 Queensland College of Teachers v CSK [2016] QCATA 125 Queensland College of Teachers v DTJ [2015] QCAT 443 Queensland College of Teachers v Genge [2011] QCAT 163 Queensland College of Teachers v Smith [2015] QCAT 426 Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186 |
APPEARANCES: |
|
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this Application about?
- [1]CSK, while Principal of a regional school, engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a group of year 7 students. Following a hearing, although the Tribunal found that CSK was ‘not suitable to teach’ it did not find a disciplinary ground had been proven.[1] On appeal, the Appeal Tribunal found that a ground for disciplinary action had been established and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to determine sanction.[2]
- [2]The Queensland College of Teachers and CSK filed joint submissions that the appropriate sanction is cancellation of his registration and that he is prohibited from reapplying for registration for a period of between three and three and a half years from the date of suspension on 24 September 2014.
- [3]For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has determined cancellation is appropriate, but that the teacher is prohibited from reapplying for registration for a period of four and a half years from the date of suspension.
What is the appropriate sanction?
- [4]Although the College and the teacher filed joint submissions on an appropriate sanction, the Tribunal has an overriding discretion to impose the sanction it considers most appropriate in the circumstances.[3]
- [5]The original Tribunal made findings of fact about the teacher’s behaviour that were not disturbed by the Appeal Tribunal. These included:
- Associating with a child on weekends;
- Driving a child without written permission;
- Removing children from school to take them on outings;
- Requesting and allowing children to work for reward at his home on weekends without written permission;
- Driving children to another town outside school hours to mow his wife’s lawn and then taking them to a fete and buying them dinner;
- Permitting and organising a sleepover for children at his home for work done on the garden and games room;
- Taking children fishing after school and on weekends without written permission;
- Allowing unlicensed children to drive his car without parental permission;
- Paying for and taking two students with him on a helicopter ride during a school camp without written permission.
- [6]We are satisfied that the above behaviour does not meet the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher and raises serious boundary violations.
- [7]In determining sanction, we have considered the report of LAV, Consultant Psychologist, who assessed CSK for a period of four hours. LAV relevantly reported that:
- CSK accepts responsibility for shortcomings “in his application of Queensland Department of Education policy and procedure” and in his capacity to maintain professional boundaries and informed LAV that “there are some things I would never do again”;
- CSK’s social supports and reasonably low stress environment mean he has a favourable prognosis for future adjustment; and
- CSK showed personal insight to address relevant stressors including pursuing higher education, securing other employment, maintaining a long-term relationship and having treatment during periods of personal difficulty.[4]
- [8]The Tribunal accepts that CSK has shown some insight into his behaviour as reported to LAV, to the extent that he acknowledged its wrongfulness and to his credit, he has sought treatment for his psychological functioning.
- [9]The joint submissions cited Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong[5] to assist us in determining sanction. At the outset, we note that the Tribunal prohibited the teacher from reapplying for registration for a period of five years, the maximum cancellation period available at the time.
- [10]In Armstrong, the teacher was a 50-year-old experienced teacher who developed inappropriate relationships with three students aged between nine and eleven years. The teacher failed to maintain professional boundaries by showering with a student, sharing a bunk bed with a student, giving special favours and money to students, attending out-of-school events relating to his students, allowing students in his car without other adults and attending interstate trips with a student’s family.
- [11]We are satisfied that Armstrong had aggravating factors not present in the current matter including showering with a student and sharing a bunk bed, and the Tribunal had no evidence of the teacher undergoing counselling or other professional courses relating to the conduct.
- [12]We are also satisfied that the present matter has aggravating factors to distinguish it from Armstrong:
- CSK was the Principal of the school and therefore in a position of greater authority and responsibility, with a greater expectation of leadership;
- When CSK became aware of comments about his conduct between a school staff member and a member of the community, instead of reporting the allegations to the Ethical Standards Unit and Queensland Police as required by Department policy, he yelled at the community member and called a staff meeting;
- At the staff meeting, CSK threatened legal action, dismissal or transfer against any staff member who raised allegations against him; and
- CSK faced previous disciplinary charges and criminal charges relating to inappropriate behaviour while a teacher in the Northern Territory.[6] Although these charges were ultimately not progressed due to a lack of evidence, they show that CSK should have been more alert to community perceptions about appropriate behaviour with students.
- [13]The community expects a teacher to have sufficient insight to know that this behaviour can harm young people.[7] CSK’s recent explanation to his psychologist that his behaviour was “altruistic”[8] and “based in empathy”[9] shows a degree of minimisation of his behaviour and a lack of insight into its impact on the students. This does not address his response to members of his staff, which cannot, on any view, be described as altruistic or empathic. Moreover, it focuses on his own apparent motive for his behaviour instead of its impact on others.
- [14]
- [15]Overall, we are of the view that CSK’s behaviour showed a pattern of serious boundary violations over an extended period. This was aggravated by his overbearing response to members of his staff and the community that showed a willingness to place his own self-gratification above his paramount duties to uphold standards and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession.
- [16]CSK was Principal. He failed to lead by example. He was not an appropriate role model for students or staff. He has not expressed any remorse or concerns about the impact of his behaviour on his students or members of his staff or the local community. The Tribunal has concerns about his level of insight.
- [17]The Tribunal therefore considers that preventing CSK from teaching for a further period is necessary to achieve the Act’s objects. This will convey the Tribunal’s strong disapproval of his behaviour and allow him to further reflect on its impact on both his students and members of staff and will serve to deter others.[12]
- [18]The Act’s objects are therefore fulfilled by cancelling CSK’s registration and prohibiting him from re-applying for registration for a period of four and a half years. Because he has already been serving a period of suspension, we will backdate the period of cancellation from the date of his suspension on 24 September 2014.
Is a non-publication order appropriate?
- [19]Both the original Tribunal and the Appeal Tribunal made non-publication Orders. It is not in the public interest to publicly identify the children or their schools. Allowing publication in these proceedings would negate those previous orders.
- [20]We therefore consider it is in the interests of justice to also make an order prohibiting the publication of any information in these proceedings that could identify the children in any way, including their names and addresses, the teacher and the school involved.
What is the appropriate costs order?
- [21]The parties agreed that each party should pay its own costs. The Tribunal was assisted by the Joint Submissions on the material facts, ground for disciplinary action and sanction. Given this and the Tribunal’s strong contra-indicator against awarding costs,[13] we see no reason to depart from the costs order agreed to by the parties.
What are the appropriate Orders?
- [22]The appropriate Orders are:
- The teacher’s registration is cancelled.
- The teacher is prohibited from applying for registration as a teacher until not before 24 March 2019, being a period of four and a half years from the date of his suspension on 24 September 2014.
- Each party pays their own legal costs.
- The publication of any information that could identify the children in any way, including their names and addresses, the teacher and the schools involved in the disciplinary matter are prohibited from publication under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
Footnotes
[1] Queensland College of Teachers v Smith [2015] QCAT 426.
[2] Queensland College of Teachers v CSK [2016] QCATA 125.
[3] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 160.
[4] Report of LAV, Consultant Psychologist dated 27 August 2017.
[5] [2010] QCAT 709.
[6] Report of LAV, Consultant Psychologist dated 27 August 2017, [27].
[7] Queensland College of Teachers v DTJ [2015] QCAT 443, [31].
[8] Report of LAV, Consultant Psychologist dated 27 August 2017, [59].
[9] Ibid, [36].
[10] Queensland College of Teachers v Genge [2011] QCAT 163, [12]; Queensland College of Teachers v Banyai [2013] QCAT 180, [21].
[11] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3(1).
[12] Legal Services Commissioner v Laurie [2011] QCAT 335, [16]; Queensland College of
Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186, [25].
[13] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100.