Queensland College of Teachers v NRR
[2021] QCAT 152
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 NRR[2021] QCAT 152
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v NRR[2021] QCAT 152
Queensland College of Teachers v NRR[2021] QCAT 152
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of teachers |
(applicant) | |
v | |
nrr | |
(respondent) | |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR367-19 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 March 2021 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Aughterson Member English Member Olding |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where teacher engaged in inappropriate communications with former students – whether teacher’s conduct satisfies standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – consideration of appropriate disciplinary action ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether non-publication order should be made – where order necessary in the interests of protecting vulnerable young persons – where exceptions required for protection of future students Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), ss 92(1)(h), 161 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66 Queensland College of Teachers v Banyai [2013] QCAT 180 Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671 |
REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | C Connell, Principal Legal Officer, QCT |
Respondent: | Self-represented |
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
- [1]Following inappropriate communications with several of his former students, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) suspended the respondent’s registration as a teacher on 12 February 2019. The respondent has not sought renewal of his registration which was cancelled on 31 March 2020 for non-payment of the annual renewal fee.
- [2]The QCT and the respondent agree that a ground for disciplinary action is established but are not agreed on the appropriate sanction. The QCT says the appropriate sanction is that the respondent be prohibited from applying for registration as a teacher or for permission to teach for a period of three years from 12 February 2019. The respondent says the prohibition period should be two years from that date.
- [3]The QCT also seeks that a notation be made in the register of teachers in the terms set out in the Tribunal’s Order 3. The respondent made no submission opposing this.
- [4]The respondent sought a non-publication order which QCT agreed should be made, subject to the terms of the Tribunal’s Order 4.
- [5]We are satisfied that a ground for disciplinary action is established and that the proposed notation and confidentiality order are appropriate. We have decided the appropriate period of prohibition from applying for registration or permission to teach is two years and nine months from the date of suspension of the respondent’s registration, 12 February 2019. Our reasons follow.
Legal framework
- [6]Under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’), the following is a ground for disciplinary action:
(h) the 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.
- [7]By s 161 of the Act, upon referral of a matter to the Tribunal by the QCT, the Tribunal, if it decides that a ground for disciplinary behaviour relating to a former teacher is established, may make orders prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely.
- [8]The Tribunal may also make an order preventing the identification of any person where it considers the order is necessary to avoid endangering the mental health of a person or in the interests of justice.[1]
Facts
- [9]The QCT and the respondent filed an Agreed Statement of Facts.
- [10]The agreed facts include:
- (a)The respondent was first registered as a teacher in 2002.
- (b)From May 2010 to December 2018, the respondent was employed as a teacher at a secondary college (‘the college’).
- (c)The respondent initiated and/or actively perpetuated contact with three former students of the college and engaged in inappropriate electronic communications with them without a valid reason or educational context.
- (d)One of the former students graduated year 12 in 2017, the other two in 2018.
- (e)Contact with the first student occurred in mid to late December 2018 and continued to the end of January 2019. Contact with the other students occurred in January 2019.
- (f)The communications included reference to drug, alcohol and steroid use; intimate and/or sexual communications; and the exchange of intimate and/or sexual images. Additionally, the respondent accepted an invitation to meet with one of the former students.
- (a)
- [11]The respondent takes responsibility for his conduct, accepting that it was not of the expected standard. The respondent also produced references indicating, and the QCT accepts, that the respondent had been a dedicated and talented teacher.
Consideration
- [12]We are satisfied, as QCT and the respondent have agreed, that initiating and/or perpetuating communications of the kind outlined above with former students within a short period after the end of their schooling is behaviour that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. A ground for disciplinary action is therefore established.
- [13]We are also satisfied that a non-publication order is appropriate in the interests of the well-being of the former students. It is in the interests of justice that the former students be protected from the potentially adverse effect of publication of details of the respondent’s conduct. The exceptions permitting QCT to communicate our decision and reasons to regulatory officials and for the respondent to comply with any disclosure requirements are necessary for the protection of students in the future.
- [14]That leaves the question of the appropriate length of the prohibition period. Disciplinary action is not punitive, but rather for the protection of vulnerable young persons. It must provide for general and specific deterrence.
- [15]We have considered various previous decisions of the Tribunal drawn to our attention. However, as is to be expected, no two matters are the same and there is no case drawn to our attention where the conduct is directly comparable to this case.
- [16]We note, for example, the case of Queensland College of Teachers v DRR,[2] in which a teacher engaged in inappropriate text message communications with a newly graduated student. A prohibition period of three years and one month from the date of the referral to the Tribunal was imposed. That case involved one former student rather than three as in this case, but the conduct included lengthy discussions about sex, the sending of a graphic sexual image, attempts to arrange to meet the student to have sex with her and an absence of significant remorse. In Queensland College of Teachers v Banyai,[3] the teacher engaged in inappropriate communications of a sexual nature with three former students, but it did not involve the sending of images. The Tribunal imposed a prohibition period of 19 months from the referral.
- [17]Doing our best to ensure, to the extent it is possible to do so, consistency with previous decisions, we have concluded that a prohibition period of two years and nine months from the date of suspension of the respondent’s registration is appropriate in this case.
- [18]Overall, we are satisfied the proposed orders are appropriate in the circumstances. They are within the range of orders made in other broadly comparable decisions drawn to our attention by the QCT. They recognise the seriousness of the conduct but take into account that the respondent takes responsibility for and does not seek to minimise the conduct, and voluntarily attended counselling sessions.
- [19]For the protection of vulnerable young people, the orders provide deterrence to teachers generally, and the respondent in particular, engaging in inappropriate communications with vulnerable former students, while recognising the respondent’s potential to contribute his talents and commitment as a teacher by applying for registration or permission to teach again in the future. If he chooses to do so, the respondent must demonstrate that he has undertaken training and effective psychological counselling. Whether it is appropriate for the respondent to again be granted registration or permission to teach will be a matter for the QCT to determine at that time, having regard to all relevant circumstances.