Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2022
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v IOP - [2022] QCAT 241

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

Queensland College of Teachers v IOP[2022] QCAT 241

Queensland College of Teachers v IOP[2022] QCAT 241

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

IOP

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR136-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2022

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Burson (Presiding)

Member Kanowski

Member Oliver

ORDERS:

  1. The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is established.
  2. The Respondent is indefinitely prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach under section 161(2)(c) of the Act.
  3. Under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent, 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 Act.  The respondent may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.

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 nonpublication 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)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709

Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152

Queensland College of Teachers v REC [2020] QCAT 178

Queensland College of Teachers v NBC [2015] QCAT 246

Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671

Queensland College of Teachers v Genge [2011] QCAT 163

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

Background

  1. [1]
    IOP was initially granted provisional registration on 7 July 2015.  On 7 July 2019 IOP’s four-year provisional teacher registration came to an end under sections 34 and 35 of the Act.  IOP is now a former approved teacher pursuant to schedule 3 of the Act.
  2. [2]
    IOP at the time of the hearing was 27 years old.
  3. [3]
    IOP had been employed as a teacher on casual, temporary contracts and permanent roles initially until 31 December 2019.  IOP had been employed at two high schools.
  4. [4]
    On 12 March 2019 and 3 April 2019 the Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) received notice under section 76 of the Act from the Department of Education about allegations that IOP had engaged in sexually explicit conversations with two former students and sent a photograph of his penis to one of the former students.
  5. [5]
    On 9 May 2019 the QCT authorised an investigation pursuant to section 98 of the Act.
  6. [6]
    The QCT suspended IOP’s teacher’s registration on 29 May 2019.  The QCT formed a reasonable belief that IOP posed an unacceptable risk of harm under section 49 of the Act.
  7. [7]
    IOP ceased to be an approved teacher when IOP’s provisional registration ended.  On  15 July 2019 the Tribunal dismissed the application to continue IOP’s suspension on the basis that IOP was no longer an approved teacher.
  8. [8]
    The QCT authorised investigation was completed on 30 October 2019.  All but one allegation was substantiated against IOP.
  9. [9]
    On 18 February 2020 the written investigation report was provided to the Professional Capacity and Teacher Conduct Committee (‘PC &TCC’) as required under section 201 of the Act.
  10. [10]
    On 17 March 2020, the PC & TCC, having regard to the QCT investigation report, determined to refer the matter to the Tribunal
  11. [11]
    The conduct which the QCT alleges occurred and establishes a ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Act is set out in Annexure ‘A’ to the disciplinary referral of 27 May 2021.
  12. [12]
    The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are:
    1. (a)
      whether a ground for disciplinary action is established; and
    2. (b)
      is so, the appropriate sanction to be applied.

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

  1. [13]
    This referral has been decided on the papers.
  2. [14]
    The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Act is that IOP

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. [15]
    QCT provides seven allegations, set out below.  IOP admits six of the allegations and denies allegation 6.
  2. [16]
    Although QCT and IOP agree that the ground for disciplinary action is established (bar allegation 6), the Tribunal must undertake its own assessment and establish that a ground for disciplinary action in section 92(1) (h) of the Act is established.
  3. [17]
    For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal finds the ground for disciplinary action in section 92(1)(h) of the Act is established.
  4. [18]
    The Tribunal notes that the wording ‘’standard of behaviour” in section 92(1)(h) of the Act is not a defined term.  This standard has been addressed in previous decisions of the Tribunal[1].

…the Tribunal agrees that the standard ‘reasonably’ 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 in this turn should reflect the standard that those in the teaching profession should expect of their colleagues and peers.

(Emphasis added)

  1. [19]
    The facts and circumstances of the basis of the ground of disciplinary action are as follows:
  1. Between early December 2018 and 3 March 2019 IOP communicated with grade 11/12 Student A on Snapchat including:
    1. (i)
      engaging in sexualised conversations;
    2. (ii)
      sending photographs of his erect penis;
    3. (iii)
      sending a video of himself masturbating to ejaculation
    4. (iv)
      asking Student A to send him photographs of her breasts;
    5. (v)
      around Christmas 2018 he sent a photograph of himself naked in front of a mirror; and
    6. (vi)
      sending a message to Student A, after she had sent him a photograph of herself wearing lingerie, he stated words to the effect of, “How am I supposed to get off on that?”
  1. (b)
    Between 28 January 2019 and 3 March 2019, IOP communicated with Student A on Kik messenger including:
    1. engaging in sexualised and/or inappropriate conversations;
    2. exchanging sexualised images including sending photographs of his erect penis; and
    3. after receiving an image of Student A wearing a black top with her finger on her clitoris, telling her that it made him happy that she had sent the image without being asked.
  2. (c)
    During term 1 2019, during school hours IOP engaged in a sexualised conversation with Student A on Kik messenger including:
    1. telling Student A that after seeing her at school, he would go to his car and masturbate; and
    2. on a Wednesday sending Student A a photograph of his erect penis whilst in a toilet cubicle on school premises.
  3. (d)
    On 16 or 17 February 2019 asking Student A to attend IOP’s home and give him a “blow job”
  4. (e)
    After 16 or 17 February 2019 IOP told Student A that he loved her.
  5. (f)
    On one occasion during term 3 or 4 2018 IOP engaged in an inappropriate conversation with Student B asking if the student had smoked drugs before.
  6. (g)
    Around 2 March 2019, IOP engaged in inappropriate and sexualised conversation with recently graduated Student B (with whom he had a direct teacher student relationship with), on Instagram including:
    1. asking to see Student B’s boyfriend (‘Student C’) naked;
    2. when Student B denied IOP’s request for a naked photograph of Student C, stated, “I’ll just get off to another hot guy and girl (laughing tears emoji)”
    3. stating to Student B, “But your butt does look so juicy! Just like how his cock must be!”
    4. offering to send Student B a picture of his penis;
    5. stated to Student B, “Can we have our fantasy for just a few minutes?  If you go to the bathroom IL (sic) show you my cock then I can cum (laughing tears emoji) and IL (sic) stop.”; and
    6. sending Student B a photograph of his erect penis.
  1. [20]
    At all material times the Students A and B were year 12 students or former year 12 students and under the age of 18 when contact was initiated. Student C completed year 12 at the same school in 2018.
  2. [21]
    IOP admits all allegations and agreed all conduct in paragraph 19 above save for allegation 6, “on one occasion during term 3 or 4 2018 IOP engaged in an inappropriate conversation with Student B asking if the student had smoked drugs before”. In 2018, Student B was in year 12, and the incident is alleged to have occurred at school.
  3. [22]
    Student B stated in her interview with the QCT at paragraph 60, “And then a specific time that I can remember that kind of just made me feel really uncomfortable was when I was trying to explain to him, I was like look, I don’t know if you’ve talked to [Teacher] but I’m clearly not very stable right now, I will get the work and I always do, I believe I’m getting like extensions and stuff and I was just like full of anxiety just I always am.  And he’s just like, you need to calm down, like have you ever smoked weed, like have you ever done drugs…”
  4. [23]
    IOP provides a denial but does not provide any context or reason to explain this denial, other than to argue that Student B’s mental instability would affect her recall.  Given Student B has provided a clear and honest response during her interview, including matters that could be characterised as a detriment to her, for example her admissions regarding her health, it is accepted that this allegation is on the balance of probabilities in accordance with Briginshaw[2] principle, substantiated.
  5. [24]
    IOP by his own admission and as found by this Tribunal in allegation 6, does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected by a teacher in accordance with section 92(1)(h) of the Act.  The ground of disciplinary action is established.

Factors relevant to sanction

  1. [25]
    Section 161 of the Act applies to a former approved teacher.  It sets out the relevant actions that the Tribunal may take when a ground of disciplinary action is established.
  2. [26]
    Sanctions in a disciplinary action are not a ‘punishment’ nor are sanctions a punitive action against a teacher or former teacher.  This is a well established principle in these matters.  The purpose of the sanction is to uphold the objects of the Act[3]
  3. [27]
    Factors that are relevant to sanction in this matter are as follows:
    1. (a)
      IOP breach of professional boundaries;
    2. (b)
      vulnerability of the students and risk of harm;
    3. (c)
      experience as a teacher; and
    4. (d)
      lack of insight into his behaviour.

Breach of professional boundaries and student vulnerability

Student A

  1. [28]
    IOP has used social media to make contact with Student A. This was done during both school hours and outside school hours.
  2. [29]
    Student A was a teenager completing year 12 and was targeted by IOP.  Student A was led into the belief that she was in a relationship with IOP.  IOP encouraged Student A to provide sexualised photographs of herself, sent photographs of his penis to Student A and sent her a video of himself masturbating.
  3. [30]
    IOP encouraged Student A to attend his home by way of public transport to engage in sexual behaviour with him.  This showed a serious step away from “fantasy” for IOP.  Student A did not attend IOP’s home.
  4. [31]
    IOP also advised Student A that he was in love with her. This shows a high level of manipulation of a vulnerable student, with very little life experience.

Student B

  1. [32]
    Student B was particularly vulnerable as a student that was not living in the family home.
  2. [33]
    Student B advised IOP of her health and challenges.  IOP was aware that Student B was receiving special assistance and support through the school, including direct communication with IOP’s head of department, and medical assistance.
  3. [34]
    IOP made sexually explicit requests of Student B and sent sexually explicit images of himself to Student B.

Student C

  1. [35]
    Student C was not directly approached by IOP.
  2. [36]
    IOP requested and encouraged Student B to send a naked photograph of Student C to him for his sexual gratification.
  3. [37]
    IOP has not respected the autonomy of Student C and attempted to encourage Student B to provide a naked photograph of a third student without Student C’s consent or knowledge.
  4. [38]
    Student B did not provide this photograph.
  5. [39]
    IOP has clearly engaged in a breach of his professional boundaries with Student A, Student B and Student C.

Teacher Experience

  1. [40]
    IOP had been engaged as a teacher for a period of less than four (4) years at the time of his breach of professional boundaries with the students. 
  2. [41]
    IOP had the benefit of Student Protection Training that the Tribunal accepts occurs on a yearly basis. 
  3. [42]
    It is noted and accepted by this Tribunal that IOP was quite early in his career and under 25 years old at the time of his conduct, though this does not excuse his behaviour.

Considerations

  1. [43]
    IOP is aware that his conduct was inappropriate and wrong.  IOP provides this submission to the Tribunal.
  2. [44]
    Further, when IOP was engaging in this behaviour is noted that he has stated to Student A, “The trouble with you is that you are severely under age and if you report me, I go to jail for a very long time.  Like it’s a 20 year prison sentence.  I’m actually so fucked”.[4]
  3. [45]
    IOP attended a psychologist, Dr James Le Lievre.  The Tribunal has considered his report dated 26 July 2021.
  4. [46]
    At the time of the report, IOP had attended Dr Le Lievre a total of six (6) occasions.
  5. [47]
    In the report it is noted that IOP had stated to Dr Le Lievre that he believed the student “had finished school”. 
  6. [48]
    It is apparent that IOP has not advised Dr Le Lievre of the full extent of his communications and that it involved communications with two students and the exchange of sexually explicit information. Further, the report does not identify that Dr Le Lievre had been provided with the material from the QCT.
  7. [49]
    IOP minimising the information provided to De Le Lievre shows that he still has limited insight into the behaviours that he has engaged in.
  8. [50]
    IOP in his submissions to this Tribunal further minimises his behaviour stating that he was using alcohol when he engaged in the communications with the students.  The use of alcohol does not excuse his behaviour.
  9. [51]
    IOP has not provided evidence of completing any educational courses regarding professional boundaries nor does he provide any evidence addressing his use of alcohol with these damaging behaviours.
  10. [52]
    In IOP’s favour is that he agreed with the majority of the allegations, saving the QCT and the Students an oral hearing and avoiding unnecessary costs.
  11. [53]
    IOP does not have any previous disciplinary history, nor has he been charged with any criminal offences as a result of this behaviour.

Previous Decisions of the Tribunal

  1. [54]
    The QCT provided the Tribunal with a number of relevant previous decisions when considering sanction of IOP.[5]  The Tribunal has carefully considered these previous decisions.
  2. [55]
    The Tribunal takes particular note of the submission that there has been an alarming increase in teachers engaging in sexual online and electronic communications with students and former students.[6]
  3. [56]
    IOP in this matter had taken steps to encouraging Student A to attend his home to engage in sexual activity.
  4. [57]
    IOP has provided no evidence of post-suspension education and a single report from a psychologist with limited information as to IOP’s behaviour. 
  5. [58]
    IOP has provided little evidence of insight or remorse into his behaviour towards vulnerable and inexperienced students.
  6. [59]
    The Tribunal has considered IOP’s mitigating factors including his cooperation with QCT and these proceedings.
  7. [60]
    The Tribunal takes particular note of the standard reasonably expected by the community at large.  The community at large would reasonably expect that their vulnerable teenage children are able to attend school without professional boundaries being breached in the manner that IOP has acted.
  8. [61]
    It is unfortunate to note that IOP already had a review of his suspension underway in QCAT and had made submissions prior to the time that his review was dismissed following further submissions by the QCT for this dismissal to occur. The panel is in agreement that whether or not the dismissal of the review occurred would have made no impact on the outcome of the sanction for this egregious misconduct.
  9. [62]
    We consider that IOP poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children and that is unlikely to change.  The Tribunal orders that IOP is prohibited indefinitely from re-applying for registration or permission to teach.
  10. [63]
    We accept the submissions of the QCT regarding a non-publication order.
  11. [64]
    The students affected by this matter may request that the non-publication order is lifted at any time, as the order is for the protection of the identity of the students and the school, not for the protection of IOP.

Orders

  1. [65]
    The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is established.
  2. [66]
    The Respondent is indefinitely prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach under section 161(2)(c) of the Act.
  3. [67]
    Under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent, 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 Act.  The respondent may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.

Footnotes

[1]Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709 at paragraph 33.

[2]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

[3]Section 3(1) of the Act.

[4]Affidavit of Megan Louise Girvan affirmed 21 May 2021, Exhibit E pp 161-162.

[5]Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152; Queensland College of Teachers v REC [2020] QCAT 178; Queensland College of Teachers v NBC [2015] QCAT 246; Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671; Queensland College of Teachers v Genge [2011] QCAT 163.

[6]QCT submissions page 19 paragraph 55.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v IOP

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v IOP

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCAT 241

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Burson

  • Date:

    01 Jun 2022

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
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
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 DRR [2012] QCAT 671
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 671
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 671
Queensland College of Teachers v Genge [2011] QCAT 163
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCAT 163
Cite 2 - [2011] QCAT 163
Queensland College of Teachers v NBC [2015] QCAT 246
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 246
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 246
Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 152
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 152
Queensland College of Teachers v REC [2020] QCAT 178
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 178
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 178

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland College of Teachers v FPD [2023] QCAT 2402 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v LGZ [2025] QCAT 3232 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v MKR [2025] QCAT 1882 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ABC [2024] QCAT 1202 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ELP [2025] QCAT 612 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher LQN [2023] QCAT 4102 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.