Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2021
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MGI - [2021] QCAT 308

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

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MGI[2021] QCAT 308

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MGI[2021] QCAT 308

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND  ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MGI [2021]

QCAT 308

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

TEACHER MGI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR096-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Goodman, Presiding

Member Robyn Oliver

Member McDonnell

ORDERS:

  1. 1.
    The disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
  2. 2.
    Teacher MGI is issued with a reprimand under s160(2)(c) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
  3. 3.
    The Register of Teachers is to be endorsed with a notation under s160(2)(i) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) as follows:

Before Teacher MGI’s suspended registration can be reinstated, Teacher MGI must provide to the Queensland College of Teachers:

  1. (a)
    A learning reflection satisfactory to the Queensland College of Teachers for the Managing Challenging Behaviour course from the Victorian Department of Education which addresses each of the matters set out in paragraph (b)(i) to (x) of this order,
  2. (b)
    An independent report satisfactory to the Queensland College of Teachers from a psychologist or psychiatrist providing an assessment as to whether the psychologist or psychiatrist is satisfied that Teacher MGI has adequately understood and addressed the following matters:
  1. (i)
    Awareness and understanding of what are and what are not proper ways to engage with students;
  2. (ii)
    Awareness and understanding of appropriate behaviour managing techniques;
  1. (iii)
    An in-depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, colleague, parent and community trust inherently invested in a teacher (particularly in a boarding school situation);
  2. (iv)
    Awareness of the trust and power granted to a teacher;
  3. (v)
    Awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
  4. (vi)
    The need to protect students and children from physical, psychological and emotional harm;
  5. (vii)
    Risk assessment and early identification of potentially problematic situations and venues;
  1. (viii)
    How to achieve realistic solutions to avoid the risk of harm to students;
  2. (ix)
    The identification and awareness of his own triggers and strategies he intends to utilise to ensure there is no future recurrence of the incidents of concern; 
  3. (x)
    The importance of full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
  1. (c)
    The report must indicate that the psychologist or psychiatrist was provided with a copy of this Tribunal’s decision and reasons, the Queensland College of Teachers’ referral under s 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) and the Joint Statement of Facts and Issues dated 21 August 2020.
  1. 4.
    Teacher MGI must bear all costs of and associated with compliance with the Tribunal’s orders.
  2. 5.
    Other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify Teacher MGI, a relevant student or former student, or the relevant school other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations and as provided under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The Queensland College of Teachers may provide a copy of this decision to any regulating authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS – where teacher’s registration was suspended – where conduct occurred in the course of teaching – whether there was a pattern of behaviour – whether ground for disciplinary action exists – where appropriate sanction discussed 

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005

(Qld), s 3, s 92(1)(h), s 97, s 160, Schedule 3

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

Queensland College of Teachers v BAM [2012] QCAT 694

Queensland College of Teachers v David Geoffrey Mears

[2012] QCAT 327 

Queensland College of Teacher v Lisa Gay Carroll [2012] QCAT 395

Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59

Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

K Deo, Acting Principal Legal Officer of the Queensland College of Teachers

Respondent:

Holding Redlich

 

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

Background

  1. [1]
    Teacher MGI was initially registered with the Queensland College of Teachers on 27 May 1999. His current registration is ‘Suspended – Full’. He is 55 years old and is a ‘relevant teacher’ under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (Education Act).[1]
  1. [2]
    Teacher MGI was employed full time as a teacher. On 17 May 2019 the College received notice under s 76 of the Education Act of an allegation that Teacher MGI had thrown a chair at Student A at the school. 
  2. [3]
    On 30 May 2019, pursuant to s 49 of the Education Act, the College suspended MGI’s teacher registration on the basis he posed an ‘unacceptable risk of harm to children’. The College then referred the matter to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. 
  3. [4]
    On 19 July 2019 the Tribunal ordered that the suspension be continued.[2]
  4. [5]
    An investigation was carried out by the relevant education office which revealed further allegations against Teacher MGI. These allegations included that Teacher MGI threw a chair towards Student B, gestured to throw a calculator at Student C and gestured to throw a ruler at students in his class. 
  5. [6]
    On 11 September 2019, the College received notice pursuant to s 77 of the Education Act from the education office that its investigation had concluded. 
  6. [7]
    Under s 97 of the Education Act, if the College reasonably believes that one or more grounds for disciplinary action against a ‘relevant teacher’ exist, the College must refer the matter to a disciplinary body. The College referred the matter to the Tribunal on 14 April 2020.[3]
  7. [8]
    The ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Education Act is that Teacher MGI ‘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’. 
  8. [9]
    The conduct which the College alleges occurred and establishes a ground for disciplinary action under s 97(1)(h) of the Education Act is set out in ‘Annexure A’ to the disciplinary proceeding referral. 
  9. [10]
    The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are:
  1. (a)
    whether a ground for disciplinary action is established; and 
  1. (b)
    if so, the appropriate sanction to be applied. 
  1. [11]
    The Tribunal invited Teacher MGI to provide an updated psychologist’s report addressing specific matters of interest to the Tribunal and to provide his own response to specific matters of interest to the Tribunal.[4] He declined to do so. The Tribunal directed that Teacher MGI attend the hearing in person or by video link and that he make his psychologist available to provide further evidence and for cross examination if he intended to rely upon the psychologist’s report. He did not do so. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted the request by the College that the matter be decided on the papers. 

Was the disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(h) established?

  1. [12]
    The ground for disciplinary action in s 92(1)(h) of the Education Act is that:

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

  1. [13]
    The parties filed a Joint Statement of Facts and Issues dated 21 August 2020. While Teacher MGI did not agree with all the facts in relation to the allegations, he agreed that the agreed facts in relation to Student A establish the ground for disciplinary action.
  2. [14]
    Although the parties have now agreed the ground is established, the Tribunal must be satisfied on its own assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances that a disciplinary ground exists. For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal finds the ground in s 92(1)(h) Education Act is established. 
  3. [15]
    ‘Standard of behaviour’ is not defined in the Education Act but has been addressed by the Tribunal in previous matters: 

The ‘standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’ is not defined. In our view, ‘generally expected’ means by the community and by the teaching profession [referring to Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709; Queensland College of Teachers v CMF (No 2) [2016] QCAT 290, [24]]…[5]

  1. [16]
    In considering the expected standard, the Tribunal must have regard to the main objects of the Education Act which are:
    1. (a)
      to uphold the standards of the teaching profession; and
    2. (b)
      to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and 
    3. (c)
      to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent manner by approved teachers.[6]
  2. [17]
    The parties agreed that:
    1. (a)
      Student A was 17 years old at the time of the incident;
    2. (b)
      On the relevant day Student A entered a classroom where Teacher MGI was supervising a group of students;
    3. (c)
      Teacher MGI engaged briefly with Student A before turning and taking a few steps away from him;
    4. (d)
      Student A followed Teacher MGI and Teacher MGI pointed Student A towards the door before pointing down at the chair and pointing towards the door once again;
    5. (e)
      Teacher MGI picked the chair up and held it above his left shoulder;
    6. (f)
      Student A began walking back towards the door;
    7. (g)
      Teacher MGI followed Student A whilst holding the chair above his shoulder;
    8. (h)
      Student A walked quickly to the front of the classroom, to a position behind the teacher’s desk;
    9. (i)
      Teacher MGI followed Student A, raised the chair above his right shoulder and struck/hit Student A with the leg/s of the chair to the left side of Student A’s face/head, causing Student A to immediately place his left hand up to the left hand side of his face;
    10. (j)
      Student A walked towards the door and Teacher MGI moved out of his path, gesturing towards the door with the chair;
    11. (k)
      As Student A walked towards the door, Teacher MGI followed him and struck/hit Student A’s backpack/back area with the legs of the chair twice; and
  1. (l)
    Teacher MGI behaved in an inappropriate and unsafe manner with Student A.[7]
  1. [18]
    In a letter to his employer dated 29 May 2019, Teacher MGI minimised his behaviour, saying that in the circumstances Student A expected a response from him and that this was part of his relationship with the students. 
  2. [19]
    Student A was interviewed by police and declined to make a complaint saying there was no reason for anything to be reported, that they were joking around, and it was an accident.
  3. [20]
    Teacher MGI’s teaching registration was suspended by the College having formed a reasonable belief that Teacher MGI posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children having found that the (then) alleged conduct towards Student A ‘could have resulted in serious injury to (and consequences for) the student concerned and that similar conduct in the future would pose a significant risk of harm to other children.’[8] The Tribunal agrees with these findings. 
  4. [21]
    The matter was investigated by the education office. At the conclusion of the investigation Teacher MGI’s employment was terminated. In terminating Teacher MGI’s employment the education office wrote:

I also note that your substantiated conduct (particularly the incident with [Student A]) is very serious. I am gravely concerned about what appears to be a pattern of your wielding, throwing or threatening to throw chairs at students in your class as a means of classroom behaviour management. 

I note that a student [Student A] sustained physical harm as a result of your wielding a chair at him. When an object is thrown at or towards a person, there is a foreseeable risk of harm to that person…

Your substantiated conduct is unlawful and inimical to the ethos of [the education office] and the professional and ethical standards for a teacher. 

I am especially cognisant of the particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged character of the students who were subjected to and observed this conduct; and the potential impact on the health and welfare of those students. My view is that your conduct represents extremely poor behaviour modelling by an adult and teacher and there is an untenable risk that students may normalise and indeed be drawn into that kind of behaviour.[9]

  1. [22]
    The Tribunal was provided with the Summary of Investigation and file notes of interviews with Teacher MGI, staff and students. Teacher MGI was interviewed by video link two weeks after the incident. The investigators acknowledged that difficulties arose due to difficulties with a Telelink connection, including that Teacher MGI could not be heard clearly and complained about the associated difficulty of often having to repeat his answers.[10]
  2. [23]
    Students and staff were interviewed more than a month after the incident. The Tribunal requested a copy of any video or audio recordings or transcripts of interviews summarised in the file notes be provided and was advised there were no video or audio recordings or transcripts of the interviews. 
  3. [24]
    These student interviews are stated to have been conducted based on the ICARE Principles of best practice in interviewing children. The quality of the records of interview are poor. The way the interviews of the students were conducted causes the Tribunal to be concerned about whether the students felt safe and properly supported and were indeed properly supported during the interviews. Many of the students showed signs of discomfort during the interview. At least one student interview was conducted in a location which allowed passers-by to see into the interview room which caused discomfort to the student. It is not always possible to discern from the file notes whether a student had knowledge of an event because the student had witnessed the event or because they had heard rumours of it though school gossip. The interviews were undertaken five weeks after the incident. Much of what is said by the students appears to be anecdotal. 
  4. [25]
    Other allegations which arose during the investigation were that Teacher MGI:
    1. (a)
      threw a chair towards Student B;
    2. (b)
      faked throwing a calculator at Student C; and
    3. (c)
      pretended to throw a ruler at students but did not.
  5. [26]
    Teacher MGI did not provide a statement to the Tribunal but in submissions[11] made on his behalf disputed throwing a chair towards Student B or behaving in a inappropriate, threatening or intimidating manner towards Student B. While he accepted he may have had a calculator in his hand, he disputes that he gestured that he was going to throw it. Rather it was suggested that he may have been gesturing while holding the calculator as it is a cultural trait for him to use his hands when communicating. He denied gesturing as though he was going to throw a ruler at students in the classroom. 
  6. [27]
    While the Tribunal has concerns about manner of the conduct of these interviews, we find on balance that there is sufficient consistency in the statements to infer that there has been a pattern of threatening behaviour - whether as a means of discipline or because Teacher MGI was trying to build rapport in an inappropriate manner. In this regard we accept the evidence of Student B that Teacher MGI threw a chair towards Student B,[12] of Student C that Teacher MGI faked throwing a calculator at Student C[13] and of Student D that Teacher MGI pretended to throw a ruler at students but did not throw it.[14]
  7. [28]
    Teacher MGI provided the Tribunal with a petition apparently signed by staff of the school supporting Teacher MGI’s professionalism and his ability to create and maintain a supportive and safe learning environment. A further petition purportedly signed by students at the school supported Teacher MGI’s professional practice and said that the students felt safe and supported in Teacher MGI’s classroom. 
  8. [29]
    It is not apparent whether these signatories are indeed staff and students at the school or whether they had any knowledge of the allegations or Teacher MGI’s admissions. In the circumstances, the Tribunal affords the petitions limited weight. 
  9. [30]
    Two character references signed by five senior staff at the school[15] attest to the good rapport Teacher MGI has with students. They said he is a mentor and father figure for a number of senior students.
  10. [31]
    The Tribunal accepts that Teacher MGI was well liked by some teachers and students, indeed that he was popular and was a teacher who might be called upon to assist in dealing with difficult situations. However, he hit a child.
  11. [32]
    Teachers are bestowed with a high level of trust by students, teachers and the wider community. They must not abuse this position of trust. They must not act in a manner which is physically inappropriate, threatening or intimidating with their students. Teachers must use appropriate and acceptable behaviour management strategies. By reason of a teacher’s position, disparities in age, maturity and life experience and the inherent vulnerability of young people there is a power imbalance between teachers and students which must not be exploited. This power imbalance is amplified in a boarding school situation where students do not have the day to day personal oversight and care of their parents or their support network. 
  1. [33]
    While he denies knowing at the time that he hit Student A, Teacher MGI has subsequently acknowledged that he did hit him – once on the face/head[16] and twice on the backpack/back area[17]. Teacher MGI said he picked up the chair intending to make Student A think he was going to hit him.[18] Student A was vulnerable by reason of being a child and by virtue of being a boarding student. Student A was more reliant upon his teachers to act protectively than a day student might be. This is not conduct appropriate for a teacher.
  2. [34]
    The Tribunal finds that Teacher MGI’s conduct towards Student A would be viewed as inappropriate by the community and by the profession as behaviour that fell below the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
  3. [35]
    Upon becoming aware that Student A had been hit, Teacher MGI did not report the incident or seek medical assistance for the student. The Tribunal finds that Teacher MGI’s conduct upon learning that he hit Student A was also contrary to the standard expected. Harm may also have been caused to the students in the classroom who witnessed Teacher MGI’s behaviour. 
  4. [36]
    We find that Teacher MGI behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher and, accordingly, that the disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(h) of the Education Act has been established. 

What is the appropriate sanction?

  1. [37]
    Section 160 of the Education Act applies to an approved teacher. It sets out the actions which may be taken by the Tribunal where it has determined that a ground for disciplinary action has been established. 
  2. [38]
    The purpose of disciplinary action is not to punish the teacher but to further the objects of the Education Act. Deterrence is a relevant consideration, comprising both a general deterrence to the profession and a specific deterrence to Teacher MGI.[19] 
  3. [39]
    Other factors relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of the appropriate sanction include the nature and context of the behaviour; the level of insight Teacher MGI has in regard to the impact the behaviour may have had on students, the school and the community; what actions Teacher MGI has taken to remedy the behaviour; his level of experience and teaching record and the level of remorse expressed by Teacher MGI.[20] 
  4. [40]
    In determining sanction the Tribunal considered the following aggravating and mitigating factors:
  1. (a)
    Teacher MGI has been a registered teacher since 27 May 1999 and was 51 to 53 years of age at the during the relevant period of time;
  2. (b)
    Teacher MGI has no known prior disciplinary history;
  3. (c)
    His teacher registration has been suspended since 30 May 2019;
  4. (d)
    Teacher MGI picked up the chair with the intention of making Student A believe Teacher MGI was going to hit him but that it was not his intention to hit Student A;[21]
  5. (e)
    His behaviour was directly connected with his duties as a teacher, involved a student and was directly connected with the teaching profession;
  6. (f)
    There is a pattern of threatening behaviour by Teacher MGI;
  7. (g)
    During the interview and in his letter Teacher MGI demonstrated questionable insight. However, at the interview Teacher MGI was not given access to the CCTV footage of the incident so as to fully appreciate the seriousness of his conduct;
  8. (h)
    Teacher MGI participated in and completed the Managing Challenging Behaviour online course since his suspension and in reflecting upon this course said:
    1. Confronted with the same situation in the future his response would be totally different;
    2. He recognized the need to remain calm in the classroom at all times;
    3. He acknowledged that his conduct was contrary to The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers;
    4. That creating a safe and supportive classroom environment is his primary future goal, and his conduct will reflect that;
    5. His own behaviour needs to change in the future in order for him to be a better teacher;
    6. His reactions were definitely inappropriate and he regretted them unreservedly; and 
    7. He feels better equipped to cope in the classroom.
  1. [41]
    Teacher MGI provided report from PSY, a psychologist.[22] PSY had the benefit of reading numerous relevant documents for the purpose of providing her opinion, including his learnings from the Managing Challenging Behaviour course. She opined that Teacher MGI had expressed great remorse for his actions, possesses deep insight and accepts full responsibility. She was of the view that Teacher MGI was aware of his triggers and had demonstrated strategies for managing these within the school environment. However, although the College did not require PSY to give further information it was unfortunate that PSY was not available to clarify some aspects of the report for the Tribunal.
  1. [42]
    In the circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be adequately satisfied that Teacher MGI has gained adequate strategies to mitigate further risk.
  2. [43]
    The College relied upon the character references from senior school staff, who spoke of Teacher MGI as an experienced, devoted, well-regarded and respected teacher. The Tribunal accepts the authors may have had some knowledge of the circumstances leading to the referral.
  3. [44]
    The College did not refer to any decisions of the Tribunal with directly comparable factual situations. It referred the Tribunal to several previous decisions in relation to the appropriate sanction. We do not consider Queensland College of Teachers v Horst Ernest Henry Feireabend,[23] to be sufficiently factually similar to be of assistance in our consideration. 
  4. [45]
    In Queensland College of Teachers v David Geoffrey Mears[24] the teacher’s conduct included slapping a year 8 student on the head, swearing and hitting a student, swearing at students on multiple occasions, throwing a ball and swearing at a year 7 student, using intimidating/abusive language towards students, grabbing a student by the shirt to move him, grabbing a student by the throat, pushing a student into a whiteboard, throwing a duster in the direction of a student, elbowing/poking a student and pushing a student whilst yelling in close proximity to her face. The incidents spanned 2003 to 2011. There were ongoing unsuccessful interventions by the Department of Education to address the teacher’s conduct over the years. The teacher underwent psychological treatment and was noted to have low tolerance for frustration, difficulties with mood, impulse control and managing stress. The Tribunal suspended the teacher’s registration for 15 months and required the teacher to obtain an independent psychological report addressing specific issues prior to reinstatement of registration. 
  5. [46]
    We consider Teacher MGI’s behaviour to be less serious and damaging than the behaviour in Mears. 
  6. [47]
    In Queensland College of Teacher v Lisa Gay Carroll[25] the teacher’s conduct included striking a year 7 student to the back of the head, shaking a year 3 student by the shoulders and striking him on the arm, pushing on the chair of a year 7 student causing him to jump/fall off his chair, and behaving in a manner that upset and scared year 5 students. This conduct occurred over a period of three years. The sanction imposed was that if the former approved teacher reapplied for registration a psychologist report was required on reapplication addressing specific issues. 
  7. [48]
    We consider Teacher MGI’s behaviour to be similarly serious and damaging to the behaviour in Carroll.
  1. [49]
    Teacher MGI’s registration has been suspended since 30 May 2019. The Tribunal has found that a disciplinary ground has been established. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal is of the view that Teacher MGI’s conduct warrants a reprimand which would serve as a general deterrent to other teachers as well as a personal one to Teacher MGI. Before Teacher MGI’s suspended registration can be reinstated the College must obtain from Teacher MGI an independent report from a psychiatrist or psychologist which is satisfactory to the College which addresses the matters set out in the Tribunal’s order and a statement from Teacher MGI addressing the matters set out in the Tribunal’s order.

Non-publication

  1. [50]
    The Tribunal considers that in the public interest a non-publication order should be made under s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), to ensure that the Teacher MGI, any relevant child, Teacher MGI’s employing authority, or the school are not identified. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of any information that could identify Teacher MGI, any relevant child, Teacher MGI’s employing authority or the school.
  2. [51]
    The College submitted that if a non-publication order was made, an exception be applied which enables the sharing of information for certain purposes. We agree and have expressed the non-publication order accordingly. 

Reasons of Member Goodman

  1. [52]
    I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Members McDonnell and Oliver. I agree with and adopt the reasons for decision contained in paragraphs 1 - 36. I agree with the orders in relation to non-publication. 
  2. [53]
    I respectfully disagree with the decision of the other Tribunal members as to the sanction appropriate in this matter and set out below my views on the issue of sanction. 
  3. [54]
    As noted above, the Tribunal issued directions in this matter on 4 May 2021. A copy of the directions is annexed to this decision[26]. Essentially, the Tribunal sought to access recordings of interviews, and clarification of the psychologist report provided to the Tribunal by the teacher. The teacher was also invited to provide information to assist the Tribunal to assess his level of insight, and capacity for learning and change. 
  4. [55]
    On 11 June 2021, the teacher signed an affidavit which was subsequently filed in the Tribunal. It reads:
    1. I thank the Tribunal for the invitations…to provide an updated psychologist report to the Tribunal and a response addressing the matters indicated in attachment 1…
    2. Having considered those invitations carefully, I do not wish to do so. 
    3. I understand that my decision may have adverse impacts on the outcome from my perspective.
    4. I direct (my solicitors) to file and serve this document.
  5. [56]
    The teacher’s solicitors advised that, in relation to the hearing, the teacher “does not wish to attend either remotely or by personal attendance. He understands the Tribunal may make any decision it considers appropriate, and he will abide by any decision made.”
  6. [57]
    The Tribunal must proceed to make a decision based on the evidence available.
  7. [58]
    I agree that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not for punishment, but to act as a deterrence and to further the objects of the Act. In particular, to uphold the standards of the teaching profession, maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent manner by approved teachers.
  8. [59]
    Other relevant factors are considered below:

The nature and context of the behaviour. 

  1. [60]
    This experienced teacher hit a child on the head with a chair inside the classroom, having followed him from one side of the room to the other with the chair raised above his shoulders. The teacher then hit the student twice more with the chair as he exited the classroom. This occurred during class time, and was witnessed by other students. There is no evidence that the student was acting in a threatening or provocative manner. 
  2. [61]
    As noted above, the Tribunal has found that the teacher engaged in a pattern of threatening and intimidatory behaviour, having thrown a chair at another student and pretended that he was going to throw objects at other students. 
  3. [62]
    All of these students attend the school as boarders. The school itself is in relatively remote area. All students who raised allegations against this teacher are indigenous students. There is a well-documented and sorry history of mistreatment and abuse of indigenous people in institutional settings in this country. That factor adds significantly to the vulnerability of these students and their community. All of these students were highly vulnerable.

The teacher’s level of insight in regard to the impact the behaviour may have had on students, the school and the community:

  1. [63]
    I do not attach any weight to the psychologist report provided by the teacher. Following Tribunal directions dated 4 May 2021, the teacher was placed on notice that he could not rely on the report of a psychologist unless the psychologist attended the hearing to provide evidence and be cross examined. Despite this, the teacher has declined to take up this opportunity. The report is incomplete in terms of the information sought by the Tribunal (as indicated in the Directions), and the teacher has refused to provide this information. 
  2. [64]
    The teacher has not provided any oral or affidavit evidence to the Tribunal to assist in determining his level of insight. We have been provided with a copy of a letter which the teacher wrote to his employer in May 2019, where he states:

…(Student A) came into my classroom whilst moving to one of his lessons… He said he came to apologise to me for his recent suspension. I explained that his action was a result of a very bad decision and I was still upset with him but would talk to him later that afternoon when we had mathematics. He refused to leave straightaway, so to emphasis my emotions and for dramatic effect, I picked up one of the classroom chairs from across the desk. This was with the intension of making him believe I was going to hit him. He then turned to run away, which gave me the opportunity to lunge towards him with minimal force knowing I would tap his backpack. He then stopped at the door and reiterated how sorry he was for his suspension and would make better choices next time.

…At 2.10pm … (Student A) was in my class. (He) explained to me that he had been too close to me when I picked up the chair and I had accidently knocked him on his cheek. He reassured me that all was well. He stated that it was his own fault for just walking into the classroom, standing too close to me and understood it was an accident. He once again apologised for his suspension. I in turn inquired after his well being and apologised. He in turn, stated no apology was necessary …. 

This whole incident is based on the relationship I have with the … students. The boys know how much I care for them and their future. (Student A) coming to apologise epitomises this. All the boys expected me to react in some way and so I played up to the boys expectations. I had no intention, and would never ever intentionally hurt any of our students.

I have been working now at (the school) for 5 years. This is my 20th year with (the employer) without a formal complaint against my name. I have given my heart and soul to (the school) and have developed an unprecedented relationship with the boys. Our unique relationship is based on mutual background situations, trust and safety. I can categorically state that there is not a single student who would not ever feel safe around me. I have been in the middle of numerous incidents involving violent behaviour and have always protected the students…

  1. [65]
    This letter does not contain an accurate description of the incident, which the Tribunal viewed on a recording. The teacher demonstrates no insight or remorse for the impact of his actions on the students, the school, or the community. There is no suggestion that he would act differently in the future. 
  2. [66]
    The Tribunal has been provided with a file note of an interview with the teacher on 29 May 2019, which formed part of the investigative process. During the interview, the teacher is questioned about the incident involving student A, and he indicates “there was nothing untoward”, and that when he saw the student in a lesson later that day “everything was fine”. The teacher is recorded to state

it’s all to do with the relationship with the boy, they look at you as a mentor, put it that way and they know when they have done something wrong and they expect something from you, my reaction was a little over the top but that’s what he expected, a reaction at the time, you guys are not a part of it, you don’t know that’s what it’s like to spend a day or week there that’s why I invited you over to see how to get a relationship with the boys.

  1. [67]
    When asked to reflect on his actions, the teacher is recorded to state

I was probably over the top with the chair, I know that’s not right and it’s really really over the top, I did make a mistake…I probably wouldn’t do that again…it wasn’t my intention to hit him in the head with a chair, it was an accident…it wasn’t deliberate. The intention was to scare him with the chair so he would go away, just wanted him to leave the classroom and go away.

  1. [68]
    The teacher has not challenged the accuracy of this file note. I have grave concerns with the teacher’s suggestion that the students expected this type of reaction from him. I note the teacher states an intention to make the student believe he was going to hit him, and, further, an intention to hit the student with the chair on the backpack. It underlines that the teacher had formed a pattern of this type of behaviour.The document does not support a finding that the teacher has any insight into the impact of his behaviour. 
  2. [69]
    As recommended by the Queensland Teacher’s College, the teacher subsequently completed an online course in Managing Challenging Behaviour, including reflected on his behaviour. The reflections have been addressed in the following submissions from the College:

It is noted that for module 1 for example, the respondent wrote that ‘This module made me reflect on the incident that took place in my classroom and how I should have reacted’ and that his response in future will be different. The respondent does not expand upon this by detailing how he should have reacted and how he proposes to respond to future challenging situations, based on what he learned from completing module1.

For module 2, the respondent refers to creating a safe and supportive environment as being his future goal and his conduct reflecting that. There is no expansion as to steps the respondent plans to take to create this environment through his conduct and/or measures he intends to implement.

For module 3, the respondent discusses the module causing him to reflect on his behaviour and ‘how it needs to change in the future in order for me to be a better teacher’. Again, there is no examples given as to what aspects of the respondent’s behaviour needs to change and how he intends on achieving this. 

For module 4, the respondent refers to the research validated strategies he learned about in the module and that had he employed some of those strategies, he would have reacted differently. He also refers to having ‘learned more strategies to cope with challenging behaviours’ and feeling ‘better equipped to cope in the classroom’. There is no detail given as to what these strategies are that could have been or can be utilised in the future to demonstrate the specifics of what was learned. 

  1. [70]
    I find that the reflections are vague and lacking in the detail needed to demonstrate that the teacher has understood and developed the skills to manage behaviour in the classroom, as required of a teacher. Although provided with the opportunity, he has refused to provide further information to the Tribunal as noted in the Directions of 4 May 2021 regarding how his teaching practice and management of classroom behaviour has developed over the course of his career, and what new or additional behaviour management strategies he gained through the online course.
  2. [71]
    The teacher’s employer has referred to his behaviour as unlawful and inimical to the ethos of the employer and the professional and ethical standards for a teacher, noting the “particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged character of the students who were subjected to and observed this conduct; and the potential impact on the health and welfare of those students.’ I agree with these observations. 
  3. [72]
    I cannot be satisfied that the teacher understands the impact of his behaviour on the students directly affected, other students in the classroom, the wider school community, the families of these students and their communities, the broader indigenous community, or the community in general.

What actions the teacher has taken to remedy the behaviour:

  1. [73]
    In the absence of evidence from the teacher, it is not possible to make a finding that the teacher has recognised a need to improve his teaching practice, or has taken steps to do so. The online course is discussed above.

The teacher’s level of experience and teaching record:

  1. [74]
    The teacher is an experienced teacher in his early 50s. There is a mention in a file note made by the investigators of a previous complaint made against the teacher by a colleague. We have not been provided with sufficient details of that matter to consider it as part of this decision. 

The teacher’s level of remorse: 

  1. [75]
    For the reasons discussed above, there is insufficient evidence available to satisfy me that the teacher is remorseful for his actions. 
  2. [76]
    There is an expectation and requirement that teachers will provide a safe learning environment for students in their care. I am not satisfied, on the evidence available, that this teacher has the commitment or the capacity to do so. 
  3. [77]
    I am not aware of current Tribunal decisions that are sufficiently similar to guide the development of an appropriate sanction. Available decisions differ factually, and are in the vicinity of 10 years old. When the Tribunal is charged with considering whether a teacher behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, the Tribunal must consider current expectations of behaviour, which will change over time. 
  4. [78]
    This teacher has departed dramatically from the behaviour expected of a teacher. His behaviour does not uphold the standards of the teaching profession, maintain public confidence in the teaching profession, or protect the public by providing education in a professional and competent manner. He has developed a pattern of directing threatening and dangerous behaviour towards highly vulnerable students, and has not demonstrated remorse or insight. It is my view that an appropriate sanction would be a significant period of suspension, along with the conditions described in the decision of Members McDonnell and Oliver.

Annexure A

DIRECTIONS

Case number: 

OCR096-20

Applicant:

Queensland College of Teachers

Respondent:

Teacher MGI

Before:

Member Goodman

Member R Oliver 

Member A McDonnell

Date: 

4 May 2021

Proceeding type:

On the papers hearing 

Initiating document:

 

THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT:

  1. The hearing is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
  1. The parties will be notified of the time and date of the next hearing.
  1. The resumed hearing will be held in person in Brisbane, or via video link.
  1. If the parties seek to attend the resumed hearing via video link, they must seek the leave of the Tribunal no later than two weeks prior to the hearing.
  1. The respondent is required to attend the resumed hearing.
  1. If the respondent seeks to rely on the report of a psychologist, the psychologist is to be available to attend the resumed hearing to provide evidence, and for cross examination.
  1. If the following are available to the applicant, the applicant is to provide to the Tribunal and to the respondent by 4 July 2021:
  1. A copy of any video recordings or transcripts of interviews summarised in File Notes provided to the Tribunal; and
  1. A copy of the police investigation report referred to on page 2 of the Summary of Investigation provided to the Tribunal.

Notation 

  1. The respondent is invited to provide an updated psychologist report to the Tribunal and the applicant by 4 July 2021.

Any such report should consider:

  1. (a)
    the extent to which Teacher MGI has insight into his behaviours and their impact on society, the students and the wider school community;
  2. (b)
    what risk factors, or triggers, if any, continue to be present which could contribute to a risk of further similar behaviours;
  1. (c)
    what protective factors, if any, are present to reduce the risk of further similar behaviours;
  1. (d)
    what preventative strategies, if any, does Teacher MGI use to reduce his risk of further such behaviour;
  1. (e)
    what, if any, psychological conditions has Teacher MGI been diagnosed with, and what treatment plan is in place to manage and treat those conditions; and
  1. (f)
    the number of therapy sessions Teacher MGI has undertaken with the psychologist, and whether there is an ongoing therapeutic relationship.
  1. The respondent is invited to provide a response addressing the matters indicated in Attachment 1 by 4 July 2021.

Signed

Member Goodman

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Attachment 1

The purpose of asking you for a response is so that you can address the concerns raised in the application your own words. Your description of the incident(s) and your background will enable the members to assess your insight or perception into your situation, and capacity for learning and change. Specifically, the purpose is to provide you with an opportunity to provide evidence regarding your reflections and understanding of the incident(s) and of your behaviour, and of relevant policies and employment responsibilities.

The response may include details of your life, from childhood through to adulthood. Relevant information may be about your functioning as an adult and as a teacher, and details of any counselling you have undertaken. You may include details of your work history, level of education achieved; other training; jobs held; reasons for changing jobs; level of satisfaction with employment; ambitions. You may describe how your teaching practice and management of classroom behaviour has developed through the course of your career, and what new or additional behaviour management strategies you gained through the Online Behaviour Management course.

You may also choose to include details of your professional and personal relationships, and information about any physical, psychological or emotional issues or disorders for which professional help has been obtained and the response to treatment. What has helped/not helped? Current coping skills and strategies may also be included.

Footnotes

[1]      Education Act, Schedule 3.

[2]  Unreported decision Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MGI, 19 July 2019.

[3]  Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2019, Exhibit B.

[4]      Directions 04 May 2021. 

[5]Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59, [13], and see [36]. 

[6]Education Act, s 3

[7]  Joint Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues dated 21 August 2020.

[8]  Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2020, Exhibit C page 65. 

[9]  Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2020, Exhibit C pages 51-52.

[10]  Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2020, Exhibit C page 7.

[11]      Respondent’s Submissions in Response to Allegations dated 3 July 2020

[12]           Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2020, Exhibit C page 20, File note of interview of Student B.

[13]           Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2020, Exhibit C page 23, File note of interview of Student C.

[14]  Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2020, Exhibit C page 16, File note of interview of Student D.

[15]  Dated 16 and 17 June 2019.

[16]  Joint Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues dated 21 August 2020 [30]. 

[17]  Joint Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues dated 21 August 2020 [32].

[18]  Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2020, Exhibit C page 35, letter from Teacher MGI dated 29 May 2019.

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

[20]     Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694, [41]. 

[21]  Affidavit of KK Deo affirmed 14 April 2020, Exhibit C pages 35 to 36, letter dated 29 May 2029.

[22]  Dated 24 September 2020.

[23]  15 June 2011.

[24]  [2012] QCAT 327.

[25]  [2012] QCAT 395.

[26]  Annexure A

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MGI

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MGI

  • MNC:

    [2021] QCAT 308

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Goodman, Member Robyn Oliver, Member McDonnell

  • Date:

    21 Sep 2021

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
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 709
Queensland College of Teachers v Carroll [2012] QCAT 395
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 395
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 395
Queensland College of Teachers v CMF (No. 2) [2016] QCAT 290
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 290
Queensland College of Teachers v Mears [2012] QCAT 327
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 327
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 327
Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 59
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 59
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 694
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 694
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

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.