Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2020
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD - [2020] QCAT 469

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

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD[2020] QCAT 469

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD[2020] QCAT 469

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD [2020] QCAT 469

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

v

TEACHER ETD

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR056-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Presiding Member Hughes

Member Jones

Member Robyn Oliver

ORDERS:

  1. A ground for disciplinary action isestablished.
  2. The suspension of Teacher ETD is lifted immediately from the date of this order.
  3. A Notation is to be made on the Register of the Queensland College of Teachers of the outcome of the relevant Magistrates Court hearings and the decision and reasons given by this Tribunal.
  4. Publication of any information which may identify persons involved in the conduct which is the subject of these proceedings and referred to in the decision and reasons for decision is prohibited pursuant to section 66(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) subject to Order 5.
  5. The Applicant may provide a copy of the decision and the reasons for the decision to any relevant body conducting an investigation or disciplinary proceeding relating to the matters giving rise to these proceedings to:
  1. (a)
    The Chief Executive of the Department of Education;
  2. (b)
    Other teacher regulatory authorities;
  3. (c)
    Any employing authority for a school;
  4. (d)
    Any principal of a school who was provided with a copy of the notice of suspension under section 50(4) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld);
  5. (e)
    The Minister for Education;
  6. (f)
    A relevant agency with whom the applicant has entered into an information sharing agreement under section 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld);
  7. (g)
    The Chief Executive of Employment Screening; and
  8. (h)
    Any other entity relevant to the teacher’s practise of the teaching profession.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – Teacher charged with assault unrelated to teaching occupation – no conviction recorded – standards of behaviour expected of a teacher – whether disciplinary ground exists – appropriate orders

Criminal Code Act 1889 (Qld), s 339, Schedule 1

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 92, s 97, s 158, s 160, Schedule 3

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66, s 172

Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709

Queensland College of Teachers v Utz [2015] QCAT 247

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

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

What is this Application about?

  1. [1]
    This is an unusual case in that the teacher’s behaviour was not connected with any duties of a teacher and did not involve any student or school.
  2. [2]
    Teacher ETD’s sister was involved in an acrimonious marriage breakdown. A prior arrangement had been made for Teacher ETD and his father to collect his sister’s belongings from the footpath of her husband’s residence on 31 August 2019. The teacher arrived at the home approximately 15 minutes early which set the scene for an unintended meeting. His brother-in-law was in his vehicle in his garage and in the process of leaving the property.
  1. [3]
    Words were exchanged. Teacher ETD threw his brother-in-law’s mobile phone into the garage. After his brother-in-law stepped out of the car, the situation escalated into a physical argument where his brother-in-law sustained minor injuries from a head- lock and after being wrestled to the ground by Teacher ETD. Neighbours called the police, who laid charges against the teacher.
  2. [4]
    Under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (‘the Act’), the Queensland College of Teachers suspended Teacher ETD’s registration on 12 September 2019 after being notified of two charges against him. The two charges were heard separately in Sandgate Magistrates Court on 8 January 2020 and 15 January 2020.
  3. [5]
    On 15 January 2020, Teacher ETD was sentenced for one offence of ‘assault occasioning bodily harm’ following a guilty plea.[1]
  4. [6]
    Teacher ETD was sentenced to a 12-month good behaviour bond with $1,500 recognisance with no conviction recorded. He was also required to pay $174.45 in compensation. In addition, with the consent of Teacher ETD without admission, the court imposed a Protection Order that remains in force for a two-year period.[2]
  5. [7]
    The second charge was an indictable offence, ‘assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company,’[3] relating to the same incident. On 8 January 2020, the learned Magistrate amended this charge to ‘assaults occasioning bodily harm’ simpliciter and dismissed it.[4]
  6. [8]
    On 14 February 2020, the College referred the matter to the Tribunal.

Are the grounds for disciplinary action established?

  1. [9]
    Teacher ETD does not materially dispute the facts.
  2. [10]
    It is unnecessary here to separately examine each charge, as the ground for disciplinary action is established in section 92(1)(h) of the Act where a person ‘…behaves in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’.
  3. [11]
    The ‘standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’ in section 92(1)(h) is not defined in the Act. The Tribunal has previously said that

…the standard expected should be the standard ‘reasonably’ expected by the community at large, as the actions of a teacher may impact directly upon the children of the community, and this in turn should reflect the standard that those in the teaching profession would expect of their colleagues and peers.[5]

  1. [12]
    In addition, it is appropriate to consider the objects of the Act, which are:
    1. (a)
      To uphold the standards of the profession;
    2. (b)
      To maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and
  1. (c)
    To protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.[6]
  1. [13]
    Teacher ETD’s behaviour together with CCTV footage from his brother-in-law’s home, his brother-in-law’s mobile phone and dashboard camera, would be viewed by both the community and the profession as behaviour that clearly failed to adhere to the standards of behaviour expected of a teacher.
  2. [14]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that a ground for disciplinary action is established.

What is the appropriate sanction?

  1. [15]
    The Tribunal notes the College’s submission that:

The assault was either wilful or stemmed from a loss of self-control. It is submitted that were the act wilful, that demonstrates the seriousness of the conduct. If it stemmed from a loss of self-control, it is submitted that the ability to retain physical and emotional control is essential as a teacher and for any individual working in a child related environment.[7]

  1. [16]
    Teacher ETD’s behaviour is not to be condoned or excused. However, in this case, the Tribunal finds that the matter has been properly and adequately dealt with by the Magistrates Court. When speaking of the seriousness of the matter and the length of time to be given for a good behaviour/ domestic violence order the learned Magistrate was clear:

…The offence is entirely out of character for you. I have a plethora of material before me that speaks to your standing in the educational community and more broadly. The offense [sic] reflects poorly on yourself, but it is one very truncated in time and around which there are relevant surrounding circumstances.[8]

…In my view, having regard to the history of this matter, the small – and when I say small compass [sic] I do not mean a lack of seriousness of this event itself, but in terms of the past history and future prospects, indeed, of there being any contact even perhaps between these persons, that I am minded to make it for less than five years. It is the one standard condition by consent without admission for two years.[9]

  1. [17]
    The purpose of disciplinary action is not to punish a teacher but instead to further the objects of the Act. Although punishment is not the aim, deterrence is a relevant consideration. A suitable deterrent is imposed in the interests of the protection of children, of the community and of the teaching profession itself. Disciplinary action must provide ‘general deterrence to the members of the teaching profession and specific deterrence to further irresponsible conduct by the teacher in question.’[10]
  2. [18]
    A letter of apology was presented to the Magistrates Court expressing both remorse for and insight into the inappropriate behaviour. The Tribunal has considered this information, the context and various references.
  3. [19]
    The evidence suggests that the teacher’s behaviour was a misguided attempt to act protectively towards his sister, unrelated to his work as a teacher. It is undeniable that his behaviour unfortunately escalated the situation. However, his sister had been in a volatile marriage over an extended period. In these highly charged and emotive circumstances, the teacher’s behaviour, while unacceptable, was not without context.
  1. [20]
    Teacher ETD was first registered in 2006. In 2012, he started a business selling inspirational curriculum-aligned workshops to schools, to promote his niche subject area to children of all age groups. His business is successful and employs 14 other people. His behaviour was not connected with his duties as a teacher, did not involve a student and was not directly connected with the teaching profession.
  2. [21]
    The Tribunal is mindful that Teacher ETD has been unable to effectively conduct his business since his suspension on 12 September 2019, a period over twelve months to date. This has also impacted the 14 other people who work in the business.
  3. [22]
    The Tribunal does not consider further sanction is warranted.

What are the appropriate Orders?

  1. [23]
    The Tribunal finds that a ground for disciplinary action is established.
  2. [24]
    The Tribunal orders that the suspension of Teacher ETD’s registration be lifted from the date of this decision.
  3. [25]
    The Tribunal orders that a notation be placed on the register outlining the outcomes of the hearings in the Magistrates Court and the decision and reasons given by this tribunal.[11]
  4. [26]
    The President of the Tribunal has issued a Direction that the publication or disclosure of information that may identify a victim or alleged victim of domestic violence to a person who is not party to the proceeding is prohibited pursuant to section 66 of the QCAT Act.[12] The Tribunal will therefore make a non-publication order, with the following conditions:

The applicant may provide a copy of the decision and the reasons for the decision to:

  1. (a)
    The Chief Executive of the Department of Education;
  2. (b)
    Other teacher regulatory authorities;
  3. (c)
    Any employing authority for a school;
  4. (d)
    Any principal of a school who was provided with a copy of the notice of suspension under section 50(4) of the Act;
  5. (e)
    The Minister for Education;
  6. (f)
    A relevant agency with whom the applicant has entered into an information sharing agreement under section 287 of the Act;
  7. (g)
    The Chief Executive of Employment Screening; and
  8. (h)
    Any other entity relevant to the teacher’s practise of the teaching profession.

Footnotes

[1] Exhibit ‘C’ to the affidavit of KKD affirmed on 1 June 2020.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Criminal Code Act 1889 (Qld), Schedule 1 s 339(1), (3).

[4]Exhibit ‘B’ to the affidavit of KKD affirmed on 1 June 2020.

[5]Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709, [33].

[6] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3(1)(a), (b), (c).

[7] Applicant’s Written Submissions, [36].

[8] Exhibit ‘C’ of KKD dated 1 June 2020, [5].

[9]Ibid.

[10]Queensland College of Teachers v Utz [2015] QCAT 247, [13].

[11]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 161(2)(d).

[12]QCAT Act, s 172(2)(b).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD

  • MNC:

    [2020] QCAT 469

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Presiding Member Hughes, Member Jones, Member Robyn Oliver

  • Date:

    30 Nov 2020

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
Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 709
Cite 2 - [2010] QCAT 709
Queensland College of Teachers v Utz [2015] QCAT 247
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 247
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 247

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland College of Teachers v ATB [2025] QCAT 1813 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v TLU [2025] QCAT 1462 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.