Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2023
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BDA - [2023] QCAT 141

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

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BDA[2023] QCAT 141

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BDA[2023] QCAT 141

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BDA [2023] QCAT 141

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

TEACHER BDA

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR118-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2023

HEARING DATE:

20 March 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Goodman, Presiding

Member Kirkman-Scroope

Member Grigg

ORDERS:

  1. The disciplinary grounds in s 92(1)(b) and s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) are established.
  2. The respondent teacher’s registration is suspended for a period of three years from 28 March 2019.
  3. 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 teacher, 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 – SCHOOLS – TEACHER – where teacher hit a student twice in the face while on playground duty – whether disciplinary ground exists – standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – appropriate order

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3, s 92(1)(b), s 92(1)(h), s 160

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

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. [1]
    BDA is an experienced teacher who is a “relevant teacher” under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘Education Act’). He was first registered as a teacher in Queensland on 19 December 2002.
  2. [2]
    On 12 March 2019, the teacher was employed full time in a high school. On that date, he physically assaulted a 14-year-old year 9 student. On 18 March 2019, BDA was charged with one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, and was subsequently convicted after pleading guilty. In the District Court on 26 June 2020, the teacher was ordered to pay a fine of $1,500 and no conviction was recorded.
  3. [3]
    On 28 March 2019, the applicant suspended the teacher’s registration. The suspension was continued by the Tribunal on 16 April 2019, pending this decision.
  4. [4]
    The parties agree that grounds for disciplinary action exist as follows:
    1. (a)
      the relevant teacher has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence, or an offence against this Act, except if, in relation to the conviction, the teacher becomes a relevant excluded person;[1] and
    2. (b)
      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.[2]
  5. [5]
    Although the parties have agreed the grounds are established, the Tribunal must be satisfied on its own assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances that a disciplinary ground exists. The Tribunal must determine whether a ground for disciplinary actions is established, and, if it is, the appropriate sanction.

EVIDENCE OF THE INCIDENT AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL

  1. [6]
    In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is reliant on the version of events provided by BDA. That version is not challenged by the applicant. His statements were provided to colleagues contemporaneously, on the day of the incident, and he has maintained essentially the same version in court and in material submitted to this Tribunal. Further, we have viewed CCTV footage of the incident. While there is no sound available, the video footage accords with the description of the incident provided by BDA.
  2. [7]
    BDA states that:
    1. (a)
      on 12 March 2019, he was on playground duty when he saw a male teenager walking in the “out of bounds” area on a path leading out of the school. The person was not familiar to BDA who formed the view that he was possibly a year 11 or 12 student and may have been leaving school on a flexible timetable;
    2. (b)
      when on playground duty, he was required, pursuant to school policy, to check all students leaving or entering the school. Students are only allowed to leave if they produce a sign-out slip from the office or have a flexible timetable arrangement. Otherwise, it is the teacher’s responsibility to follow the student and attempt to redirect him back to the school for their own safety;
    3. (c)
      the direction which the student was walking led to a busy road which had been the scene of a number of accidents over the years, and a student had been hit by a car as recently as a few weeks before the incident;
    4. (d)
      he began to walk towards the person and called out “hey mate where are you going?” The student ignored him and continued walking;
    5. (e)
      after he was asked again, the student said “corner shop”. BDA followed him and told him that students were not allowed to go to the shop. The student responded that he was hungry and kept walking. BDA continued to follow him, saying “Wait. Stop. I’m trying to talk to you”;
    6. (f)
      the student paused briefly and BDA advised him that students are not permitted to leave school grounds without presenting a sign out slip or timetable as a reason. The student walked away and continued on the path out of school;
    7. (g)
      BDA noticed that the student was wearing a school uniform shirt but had another non-uniform shirt underneath, his shorts and cap were not school uniform, and he did not have a school bag with him. This made BDA suspicious that the student may not have been a student of the school, particularly given that there had been a number of trespassers on school grounds in the preceding weeks, including one former student who had returned to the school wearing a school uniform shirt to avoid detection by staff, and another trespasser who had entered the school with an intention to assault a student;
    8. (h)
      BDA asked the student’s name, to which he replied “none, ya” and quickened his pace. Having encountered situations where he had been sworn at or had food thrown at him by trespassers in the past, BDA was at that stage confident he was able to manage the situation;
    9. (i)
      as no other teachers or students were close enough to identify the student, BDA took out his mobile phone and took a photo from behind and then positioned himself alongside the student and slightly in front of him and took another photo. It was common practice at the school for teachers to take photos of students misbehaving so that the student could be identified. BDA had on occasion been directed to take such photographs previously, and it was his intention to use the photograph to identify the student or, if a trespasser, to pass the photograph onto police;
    10. (j)
      the student yelled “Don’t fucking take my photo, cunt!” and struck BDA who was looking at the screen of his phone and didn’t see the blow coming. The student knocked BDA’s phone, hands, arms and chest, near his shoulder;
    11. (k)
      BDA was shocked by the suddenness of the student’s loud and aggressive verbal abuse and the blow, and stepped back before responding defensively and punching the student, whose hat fell to the ground;
    12. (l)
      the student raised his arm as if to strike BDA again, and BDA punched him a second time and jumped backwards out of the way. The student said “You just hit a fucking 14 year-old, you dumb cunt!”  BDA responded “you hit me first” and instructed the student to accompany him back to the communications block;
    13. (m)
      seeing the student’s hat on the ground, BDA picked it up and repeated his instruction for the student to follow him to the communications block. The student said “You’re going to get fired for this cunt!”. BDA turned to face him, saying “Mate, you hit a teacher. Now come with me.”;
    14. (n)
      BDA started walking back towards the school building and the student said “Give me my hat back cunt”. The student continued swearing at BDA and demanding the return of his hat. BDA told the student that there were bigger problems than his hat that he should be concerned about – that is hitting a teacher and being in serious trouble; and
    15. (o)
      When he arrived back at the staffroom, BDA informed his colleagues that he had been struck by a student and had hit him back.
  1. [8]
    In considering the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher, the Tribunal must have regard to the main objects of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) 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.[3]
  2. [9]
    In the circumstances set out above, the Tribunal finds the grounds in s 92(1)(b) and (h) of the Education Act are established. A teacher is expected not to strike a student in any circumstances. In punching the student, BDA did not uphold the standards of the teaching profession. The incident does not maintain public confidence in the teaching profession, and BDA’s actions were not professional.
  3. [10]
    Having found that the grounds are established, we must turn to consider what the appropriate sanction is.

EVIDENCE OF THE TEACHER IN RELATION TO SANCTION

  1. [11]
    BDA produced a number of references in support. They include:
    1. (a)
      A teaching colleague who was head of his department for 18 years and describes BDA as a responsible man who communicates well, who shows intelligent leadership, honesty and courage. He is regarded as a reflective learner who will often evaluate himself and is always aiming to be a better man. The colleague states that the teacher has shown deep remorse for his actions, is embarrassed and ashamed. He regards BDA as a kind and respectful person who does not condone physical violence, and whose actions in hitting the student were out of character;
    2. (b)
      A senior teacher who has taught with BDA since 2002 who has found BDA to be a genuine, caring considerate and responsible person who always puts others first. He was and is respected enormously by past students, colleagues, and the school’s administration team. He has demonstrated remorse for the assault. He immediately expressed shock and regret and was genuinely shaken and distraught. This incident was very much out of character for BDA, who is a gentle and caring person who abhors all types of violence and aggression;
    3. (c)
      A friend who has known BDA since 2002 and who regards BDA as delightful. Having spent hundreds of hours in his company, the friend has never seen him behave in an aggressive way or even speak in anger. She states that BDA has taken full responsibility for the incident which he regrets. His remorse is described as significant;
    4. (d)
      A friend and colleague who first worked with BDA in 2003 who praises his kindness and compassion and skills as a teacher and comments that BDA has vocalised and demonstrated his remorse in relation to the incident which is described as out of character;
    5. (e)
      His father who himself is an experienced teacher and school leader. He describes BDA as a well liked and highly regarded Christian family man who is deeply remorseful and grieves the pain and distress which his actions have caused the student and the school. Following the incident, BDA has embraced attending counselling. His family has never seen BDA engaged in violent behaviour;
    6. (f)
      A report from HN, a registered psychologist. HN reports that BDA:
      1. diligently attended 27 one hour therapy sessions between 16 March 2019 and 24 June 2020 - the date of the report;
      2. has strong family connections to teaching;
      3. achieved excellence in his university studies;
      4. shares a strong Christian faith with his wife;
      5. does not drink alcohol or use illicit drugs;
      6. is a relatively motivated and enthusiastic individual who has perfectionist tendencies and was referred for increased anxiety and reactive depression (including suicidal ideation) following the incident on 12 March 2019;
      7. has reported benefits in implementing psychological strategies to reduce the effects of stress and anxiety;
      8. has expressed great remorse for his actions on multiple occasions and understands the adverse impact on the child and others; and
      9. possesses deep insight into the consequences of his actions, accepts responsibility and has acknowledged the importance of seeking psychological therapy.
  2. [12]
    The Tribunal was provided with a report from MK, a registered psychologist, prepared for the Court proceedings and dated 25 June 2020. MK reports that BDA:
    1. (a)
      is diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder and is prone to perfectionism;
    2. (b)
      has been feeling extreme guilt about the impact of the actions he inflicted on the student and the student’s family as well as on his own family;
    3. (c)
      feels extremely ashamed of his actions, particularly as the case has drawn significant media attention;
    4. (d)
      has been receiving help from a psychologist, his wife, parents, parents-in-law, elders in his church and his friends. This social support is extremely important in BDA’s successful rehabilitation; and
    5. (e)
      is very remorseful and apologetic for the negative physical and psychological impact of his actions on the student.

DISTRICT COURT SENTENCING REMARKS

  1. [13]
    We have been provided with a transcript of the Court proceedings. In sentencing BDA, the judge made the following remarks:
    1. (a)
      only the second punch was considered to be with excessive force – the first was accepted to be in self-defence;
    2. (b)
      the sentencing principles of particular importance are both personal and general deterrence and community denunciation;
    3. (c)
      at 39 years of age, BDA had no criminal history and an otherwise exemplary record as a teacher. Various character references speak to his actions being completely out of character, being embarrassed and ashamed of his actions, and being a kind and compassionate man and a gentle and caring human being;
    4. (d)
      references speak of the enormous contribution made by BDA to school life, the broader local community, including his church community, going above and beyond for his students and being passionate about and committed to his profession;
    5. (e)
      a teacher striking a student is unacceptable and it was appropriate that BDA wrote a letter of apology to the student; and
    6. (f)
      offending was at the lower end of the spectrum and the nature of the assault is such that it would only call for nominal punishment. The concerning aspect is that BDA was in a position of authority over the student, albeit the student was completely disregarding the authority.

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS AS TO SANCTIONS

  1. [14]
    The applicant submits that:
    1. (a)
      above all, teachers have a responsibility to avoid behaviour which harms, or has the potential to harm, students;
    2. (b)
      the Tribunal should consider a variety of factors, including the nature and context of the behaviour; the ages of the teacher and the student; the impact the behaviour may have had on students and children, the school and community; the teacher’s level of experience and teaching record; the teacher’s participation and cooperation in the investigation and disciplinary process, and the level of insight the teacher has regarding the conduct;
    3. (c)
      the teacher failed to exercise appropriate impulse control and behaviour management strategies. His actions were a reckless over-reaction to adolescent behaviour, in circumstances where he ought to have demonstrated maturity, authority and guidance expected of an approved teacher;
    4. (d)
      the student is an adolescent that, regardless of his own actions, was inherently vulnerable, immature and lacking in the life experience and necessary skills to appropriately manage conflict. It is for the teacher to exercise sound judgement and tempered responses to complex situations;
    5. (e)
      teaches are bestowed with a high level of trust by students, parents and the wider community and, with that trust, an expectation it will not be breached;
    6. (f)
      cancellation of BDA’s registration is required to sufficiently address the relevant considerations of general deterrence and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and the disciplinary system;
    7. (g)
      it is relevant that the teacher’s actions were directly child-related and occurred on school grounds during school hours. Other relevant features of this case include:
      1. BDA was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm;
      2. The vulnerability of the 14 year old student;
      3. The experience of the teacher;
      4. There is no evidence of any previous disciplinary matters;
      5. BDA has expressed remorse and insight into the effect of his behaviour, and has made significant contributions to the education of children and to the broader community;
      6. Psychological reports demonstrate a solid commitment to psychological intervention and confirm BDA’s insight and remorse;
      7. The letter of apology to the victim demonstrates introspection, acceptance of responsibility, and expressions of remorse and insight;
      8. Since being suspended on 28 March 2019, BDA has had time to reflect on his behaviour, and voluntarily seek out and engage in psychological intervention.
    8. (h)
      the assault attracted a significant amount of media attention. Therefore, cancellation of registration is required to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession, whilst upholding the standard of behaviour that is expected from the teaching profession. BDA’s registration should be cancelled for three years; and
    9. (i)
      BDA’s psychologist’s report does not address the strategies he would deploy in the future were he confronted with a similar situation. BDA should not be registered as a teacher without a satisfactory report from a psychologist addressing this issue.

BDA’S SUBMISSIONS AS TO SANCTIONS

  1. [15]
    The teacher submits that:
    1. (a)
      he accepts:
      1. the importance of the disciplinary proceedings and the requirement to further the main objects of the Act; and
      2. his actions were highly inappropriate and a significant departure from the standards expected of a teacher.
    2. (b)
      he accepts responsibility for his actions and agrees that disciplinary action is warranted;
    3. (c)
      he deeply regrets the impact of his behaviour on the student, parents, school and wider community, and continues to feel guilt and remorse;
    4. (d)
      his actions were a terrible mistake arising out of the nature and context of the incident, and were not an intentional or deliberate act. The actions were an anomaly in an otherwise untarnished sixteen-year teaching career. He has respect for, and adheres to, the professional standards expected of teachers and does not pose a risk of harm to children. Over the 16 years he has been a teacher, he has established and maintained positive professional relationship with students and reflected the professional conduct expected of teachers. He has conducted himself in a courteous and professional manner, and has demonstrated a commitment to students and to being the best teacher he can be. While suspended from teaching, he has undertaken further university studies to enhance his pedagogy and benefit his students;
    5. (e)
      he has accepted responsibility for his actions by: 
      1. entering an early guilty plea in the criminal court in acknowledgement that his behaviour was wrong, and to avoid the need for the child to give evidence;
      2. writing a letter to the student accepting full responsibility and expressing his extreme remorse; and
      3. seeking psychological counselling and demonstrating an ongoing commitment to rehabilitation and psychological support in keeping with the recommendations of his psychologist.  
    6. (f)
      he is aware of, and understands the importance of, the need to protect children from harm. Over his career he has experienced and effectively managed many instances of challenging student behaviour both inside and outside of the classroom (for example - fighting, truancy, smoking and drinking). For this reason, he has fulfilled the role of “buddy” teacher, supervising students with behaviour issues from other classes, and has mentored pre-service teachers. He has frequently encountered trespassers while on playground duty and has effectively managed the situation;
    7. (g)
      he does not seek to explain or excuse his behaviour, except to say that it was a terrible mistake in the context of having been unexpectedly verbally abused and physically assaulted by the student. He was immediately aware that his actions were highly inappropriate and a significant departure from the behaviour expected of him, and communicated as much to his colleagues immediately after the incident;
    8. (h)
      the behaviour is not part of a deliberate or ingrained pattern of misconduct but was an isolated occurrence and one that he has sought to remedy in any way that he could since it occurred; and
    9. (i)
      the appropriate sanction is to continue the existing suspension to 28 March 2022 (three years from the date of suspension).

TRIBUNAL DECISION

  1. [16]
    BDA is a highly experienced teacher with an exemplary record apart from the serious incident which occurred in 2019. A teacher must not hit a student. It is a significant failure to uphold the standards of the teaching profession, fails to maintain public confidence in the teaching professions and does not contribute to the provision of education in a professional and competent manner.
  2. [17]
    The legislation provides that the Tribunal may take particular action if satisfied that a ground for disciplinary action is established.[4] The teacher submits that an appropriate period of suspension of his registration is warranted. The applicant submits that BDA’s registration should be cancelled, and that he should be prohibited from reapplying for a period of time.  
  3. [18]
    The Tribunal notes that the incident happened quickly, that the student struck the teacher unexpectedly, that the incident happened on a background of a school policy that students were not to leave the school without permission, students having been previously (and recently) been struck by cars on the nearby road, reports of trespassers on school grounds, particularly in that area, and confusion in the teacher’s mind as to whether the student was a student of the school given that he was not in full uniform and refused to identify himself.
  4. [19]
    The Tribunal accepts that deterrence is a factor for consideration. BDA has been not able to teach for four years. He has always wished to return but has been (he accepts, quite rightly) prevented from doing so. The criminal charges, his inability to work as a teacher, and all the consequences that have flowed from that, will act as a deterrent to him engaging in further abhorrent behaviour. Issues of general deterrence have not greatly influenced our decision. All teachers are aware that they must not hit children. Our decision in this matter will not, in our view, act as a further deterrent to the general teaching population.
  5. [20]
    The applicant states that adverse media coverage has damaged public confidence in the teaching profession. The Tribunal has no particularities of the media coverage. It is unclear, on the evidence available, how accurate such coverage was.
  6. [21]
    BDA has reflected on his behaviour. He is committed to avoiding any repetition and has done all that he can to prepare himself for a more appropriate response if confronted with a similar situation in the future. He has the ongoing support of his family, colleagues, friends and psychologist. He has demonstrated insight into his own failure to act in an acceptable way as a teacher, and the harm he has caused as a result. He is deeply remorseful. His behaviour was an aberration. There is no evidence or suggestion of any other circumstance of BDA behaving in his professional life other than in an exemplary manner.
  7. [22]
    On balance, and in these very particular circumstances, a suspension of three years is appropriate. The Tribunal does not consider the provision of a further psychologist’s report, as sought by the applicant, necessary. BDA has had the benefit of ongoing counselling over a number of years, and has reflected on his behaviour. He has encountered and managed challenging behaviour over the course of his career without engaging in any violent response.

NON PUBLICATION ORDER

  1. [23]
    The Tribunal accepts that it is not in the interests of justice, or the broader public interest, for the name of the student or their family to be identified. Identification of the school and / or the teacher is likely to lead to this outcome.
  2. [24]
    Accordingly, it is in the public interest to make a non-publication order pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), to ensure that the BDA, any relevant child, and the school are not identified. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of any information that could identify BDA, any relevant child, or the school.
  3. [25]
    The parties submitted that if a non-publication order was made, an exception be applied which enables the sharing of information for certain purposes. The Tribunal agrees and has expressed the non-publication order accordingly.

Footnotes

[1]s 92(1)(b).

[2]s 92(1)(h).

[3]s 3 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld)

[4]s 160 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld)

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BDA

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BDA

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCAT 141

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Goodman, Presiding, Member Kirkman-Scroope, Member Grigg

  • Date:

    24 Apr 2023

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

No judgments cited by this judgment.

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MXQ [2025] QCAT 602 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.