Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher PFO
[2022] QCAT 254
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 Teacher PFO[2022] QCAT 254
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher PFO[2022] QCAT 254
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher PFO[2022] QCAT 254
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher PFO [2022] QCAT 254 |
PARTIES: | QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS (applicant) v tEACHER PFO (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR107-22 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 1 July 2022 |
HEARING DATE: | 1 July 2022 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Browne |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – suspension of teacher – where Queensland College of Teachers suspended the teacher’s registration – whether – whether suspension should continue – whether non-publication order should be made Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 7, s 49, s 50, s 53, s 54, s 285, s 285A, s 285B, s 287, Schedule 3 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2016] QCAT 511 Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT 048 |
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
- [1]Teacher PFO has been a registered teacher in Queensland and was first granted registration in 1997.
- [2]On 18 May 2022, the Queensland College of Teachers (the College) suspended PFO’s registration under s 49 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) after receiving notification from the Department of Education pursuant to s 76 and s 77 of the Act of an investigation into PFO’s conduct towards a number of students at two different schools.
- [3]The Department investigated multiple allegations of inappropriate behaviour with a student and other students including an allegation that PFO struck a student on the back of his head with her hand.[1] The Department suspended PFO’s employment on full pay pending the outcome of investigations.
- [4]The College later suspended PFO’s teacher registration pursuant to s 49 of the Act having formed the reasonable belief that PFO poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [5]The College has referred the continuation of the suspension to the Tribunal to decide whether to continue the suspension.[2] Section 53(3)(b) of the Act requires the Tribunal to continue the suspension unless satisfied the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [6]PFO has filed submissions in compliance with the Tribunal’s directions.[3] PFO challenges the recent suspension of her teacher registration and says that she refutes the allegation that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [7]The Tribunal must now decide whether BL does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [8]The QCT Act does not define the term ‘unacceptable risk of harm’. The QCT Act defines ‘harm’, amongst other things, as being ‘any detrimental effect of a significant nature’ on a child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing resulting from a single act, omission or circumstance; or a series or combination of acts, omissions or circumstances.[4]
- [9]I find that in order to be satisfied based on the evidence before me that there is an identified risk of ‘harm’, the harm must be significant, rather than minor, and the degree of risk of the harm occurring must be unacceptable. The standard of proof to be adopted by the Tribunal in this matter is the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, commonly referred to as the ‘Briginshaw standard’.[5]
- [10]The consequences that follow a disciplinary proceeding such as this are serious. The Tribunal should not reach a conclusion or make a finding based on inexact or flimsy evidence.[6]
- [11]I accept the approach taken by the Tribunal in Queensland College of Teachers v LDW,[7] that said the determination of any identified risk as ‘unacceptable’ involves a balancing exercise by the Tribunal between the protection of students from harm by the conduct of the teacher on the one hand; and the potential harm to the teacher of having an unjustified suspension of his or her registration on the other hand.[8]
- [12]The College has filed relevant material in support of the referral and the continuation of the suspension.[9] The material includes statements of witnesses and amongst other things, transcripts of interview with some of the complainant students.
- [13]The alleged conduct giving rise to the allegations, as detailed in the material received from the College, involves a number of students at the school where PFO was a teacher and at various times was responsible for the relevant students. One of the relevant schools provides educational support to students with various and often multiple disabilities such as physical, intellectual and vision impairments. It is alleged that PFO knew or ought to have known that one of the relevant students in her care had a medical condition that requires medication and may cause persistent vomiting. PFO is alleged to have yelled at this particular student for vomiting on the desk and told the student to ‘clean it up’. Further to this, PFO is alleged to have threatened the relevant student by stating that she will ‘rub’ the student’s face in his vomit and that she will ‘hit’ him every time he hit PFO. PFO is also alleged to have hit the relevant student’s hands after he hit PFO.
- [14]It is alleged that PFO raised her voice at students in the class if they misbehaved, she spoke negatively about students behaviours, comparing the students behaviours to one another and in one instance PFO stated to one student that ‘if you do not behave yourself you will end up in foster care like [another student]’.
- [15]It is also alleged that PFO locked students in a back room/storage room including on one occasion turning off lights and holding the door closed so the students could not get out as a behaviour management strategy. PFO also allegedly swore at students and used names when referring to them such as ‘bitch’, ‘faggot’ and ‘whore’.
- [16]There is further alleged conduct involving PFO working as a relief teacher at a different school that also provides educational support to various students. One of the student’s in the class has anxiety and Autism Spectrum Disorder. PFO is alleged to have slapped the relevant student on the back of the head with her hand.
- [17]In responding to the allegations, PFO contends that she had no clear idea what had led to her suspension nor the reason why she was relocated from a previous school where she was teaching in the year 2020.[10] PFO states that she was not informed or aware of any specifics of any allegations and says that she has struggled to recall the details of the incident that might have led to her suspicion. PFO raises a number of concerns about the procedures she said were adopted by the Department of Education and amongst other things, denies the allegations that she says are suggestive of physical abuse and states that she is ‘deeply offended and distressed’ by the allegations that she acted inappropriately towards any students.
- [18]I have carefully considered PFO’s submissions and the material filed by the College that has been provided to PFO. The material comprising of transcripts and statements is in my view compelling. The transcripts of interviews conducted by the Department and statements from witnesses that underpin the allegations are serious and involve students who are vulnerable. The alleged conduct involves physical, psychological and emotional harm to students attending two different school that has students with multiple physical, intellectual and vision impairments and medical conditions. There are a number of witnesses who have provided evidence about the allegations and PFO’s behaviour towards the relevant students. Based on the material I am not satisfied that Teacher BL does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. I order that the suspension of Teach PFO’s registration continue.
- [19]In continuing Teacher PFO’s suspension for the purposes of s 55(2) of the Act, the Tribunal must give PFO notice of its decision and the reasons for it. PFO is entitled to apply within 28 days of the notice of this decision to the Tribunal for review of the decision under s 55(6) of the Act. If PFO elects to do so, further material may be provided to the Tribunal in support of the review of the decision.
- [20]I order that the suspension of Teacher PFO’s registration as a teacher is to continue.
- [21]I am satisfied that it is necessary to make a non-publication order in this matter under s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) that involves a consideration of material that includes statements from witnesses and transcripts of interview involving allegations that are serious and sensitive in nature. Relevantly, the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified.
- [22]I am satisfied that it would not be in the public interest for information to be published that would identify Teacher PFO, any relevant complainant, student, school or third party, other than to the extent necessary for the College to meet its statutory obligations under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Act. I order accordingly.
Footnotes
[1] Application or referral filed on 18 May 2022.
[2] See s 53 of the Act.
[3] See s 54(b) of the Act and submissions filed 30 June 2022.
[4] See s 7 of the Act.
[5] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, 361–362.
[6] See Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2016] QCAT 511, [27].
[7] [2017] QCAT 048.
[8] Ibid [15].
[9] Application or referral filed on 16 June 2022 and submissions filed on 18 May 2022.
[10] Submission filed 24 June 2022.