Queensland College of Teachers v Teeney
[2023] QCAT 529
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 Teeney[2023] QCAT 529
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v Teeney[2023] QCAT 529
Queensland College of Teachers v Teeney[2023] QCAT 529
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Teeney [2023] QCAT 529 |
PARTIES: | QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS (applicant) v GREGORY SHAuN TEENEY (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR043-23 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 28 November 2023 |
HEARING DATE: | 16 November 2023 |
HEARD AT: | On the papers |
DECISION OF: | Member Bridgman Member Knox Member Robyn Oliver |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – where a mature, experienced teacher engaged in communication on social media – where the communication included discriminatory and vilificatory language, depictions of a deceased child, themes of violence and use of firearms, sexualised language – where the communication was derogatory about members of the public – where communication identified the person as a teacher – standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – appropriate order – where registration cancelled and teacher prohibited from applying indefinitely ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether non-publication order should be made Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) AB v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 187 ACJ v AD [2023] QDC 176 Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23 Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89 Lehrmann v Queensland Police Service & Ors [2023] QSC 238 Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59 |
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]The Respondent was a teacher at a State High School on the Gold Coast until he was suspended then dismissed from his employment as a result of the conduct that gives rise to the present application by the Queensland College of Teachers (‘College’). His employment with the Queensland Department of Education was terminated on 15 February 2023.
- [2]That conduct was a history of publications on what was then Twitter. The publications were reproduced in the materials and were before the Tribunal.
- [3]An agreed statement of facts was also before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are no relevant contested facts contraindicating a hearing on the papers.[1]
- [4]The Respondent’s teacher registration was suspended by the College on 18 November 2021 under s. 49 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (‘Teachers Act’). The suspension was continued by the Tribunal on 18 January 2022.
- [5]The College referred the Respondent’s case to the Tribunal on 13 February 2023 seeking cancellation of his teacher registration under s. 160(2)(d) and prohibition of his reapplying for registration or permission to teach for an indefinite period under s. 160(2)(j).
- [6]The Respondent:
- accepts there are grounds for disciplinary action under s. 92(1)(h);
- accepts the sanction of reprimand under 160(2)(c);
- seeks the end of the suspension under s. 160(2)(b);
- submits that a non-publication order as to his identity under s. 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) is appropriate.
Discipline and reprimand
- [7]The Tribunal has reviewed the materials and is satisfied, based on the context, extent, and scope of the conduct, that there are grounds for disciplinary action and that the sanction of reprimand is appropriate. In particular the Tribunal noted that the Respondent identified in social media as a teacher, relying on that status for authority for his Twitter contributions. Accordingly, even though the conduct did not directly involve his workplace or his students, there was sufficient connection between the conduct and his status as teacher to make the conclusions: see also discussion below at [15]ff.
- [8]The Tribunal makes orders 1. and 2. accordingly.
- [9]The Tribunal must then consider the Respondent’s registration, and his submission seeking non-publication of his identity.
The offensive conduct
- [10]The offensive conduct consisted of tweets made by the Respondent over several months. The content of the tweets was varied; offensive across themes of violence, racism, sexualised comment, personal attacks on members of the public; and it was extreme in its subject matter and reproduction of images.
- [11]The Tribunal considered the following matters were relevant to the Respondent’s teacher registration.
- The Respondent was a mature man and teacher of many years standing. He characterised himself as a senior teacher. Before entering the teaching profession, he worked in the mining industry and telecommunications.
- He held himself out on Twitter to be a teacher, including sufficient material to lead to his identification.
- The offensive tweets took place repeatedly, over a period of several months.
- Some of the tweets were egregious, for example:
- suggestions of violence including use of firearms against certain groups of people, including images of an unsecured, high calibre pistol claimed to be his, and that he is licensed to possess the weapon;
- repeated sexual references about other users of Twitter and about public figures;
- images of a dead child accompanied by abusive commentary;
- disparaging comments about deceased people referring to their race, ethnicity or religion;
- grossly insulting comments about other users and public figures.
- The offensive material spanned a range of attributes including race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and sexual activity.
- The Respondent submitted that he was remorseful and that the conduct took place in difficult personal circumstances.
- However, he did not adduce evidence of remorse, insight into the offensive conduct and effects on others, or steps he is taking to address the causes of the conduct. The material indicates he was defensive in the disciplinary proceedings brought by his employer, characterising the conduct as robust discourse.
- The Respondent had consulted a psychologist only late in the proceedings (August 2023), and only by way of initial telehealth interview and two therapy sessions. The psychologist opined that at the time, 22 months after the index activity, the Respondent exhibited moderate depression but no particular anxiety or stress. There was no indicator for diagnosis of a mental illness.
- The dismissal and suspension have caused considerable distress to the Respondent, and he detailed grave consequences for him personally and financially.
- Further he contends the actions have caused reputational damage to him and that he has received abuse as a result including unfounded accusation of other inappropriate conduct by the Respondent.
- [12]The Tribunal noted that the Respondent used tweets to attack one particular public figure. This was plainly unwise, as the individual responded forcefully including complaints to various authorities, no doubt contributing to the disciplinary and regulatory responses.
LEGAL CONTEXT
- [13]The Teacher Act’s objects are stated in s. 3:
The main objects of the Act are—
- to uphold the standards of the teaching profession; and
- to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and
- to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.
- [14]Registration of persons who are qualified and suitable to teach (s. 8(1)(a) and (b)) is a main vehicle for achieving these objects.
- [15]A key eligibility requirement for registration as a teacher is that the person is suitable to teach: s. 8(1)(b). The meaning of this term is explored (in the negative) in s. 12(3):
- Without limiting section 11 or subsection (1) or (2), a person is not suitable to teach if the person behaves in a way that—
- does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher; and
- shows the person is unfit to be granted registration or permission to teach.
- [16]‘Standard of behaviour’ is not defined in the Teachers Act but has been addressed by the Tribunal, for example in Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59:
[13] 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]]
…
[35] The test in s 92(1)(h) is, in our view, a broad test which focuses on the behaviour of a teacher but not necessarily behaviour which occurs in the capacity of a teacher. This is made clear by the words ‘the person’ as opposed to ‘the teacher”’ and by the phrase ‘whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise’. This means that PPK’s behaviour, to be relevant, does not need to be in the context of a teacher/student relationship or otherwise have occurred in his capacity as a teacher. When this is appreciated, the need for there to be a direct teacher/student relationship falls away.
[36] The behaviour … needs to be assessed in the context of the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. This standard is a fluid one and informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave.
- [17]The Tribunal considered the Respondent’s behaviour in making the offensive tweets failed the requisite standards.
- [18]The Respondent initially, in the disciplinary proceedings, asserted the tweets were anonymous, although he seems to have abandoned that submission in these proceedings, instead submitting, through his solicitors, that he is ashamed of the content. In any case the question of anonymity was fully dealt against the Respondent’s earlier position in Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23.
Conclusion on registration
- [19]The Tribunal considered the Respondent’s conduct was so inappropriate that he should not be registered. Further, he should be prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely under section 160(2)(j) because of:
- the extraordinarily objectional content;
- his lack of demonstrated insight and remorse; and
- his failure to take adequate steps or undertake future remediation to address the major shortcomings that led to the objectional conduct.
- [20]Accordingly, orders 3 and 4 will issue cancelling the Respondent’s registration and prohibiting him indefinitely from applying for registration or permission to teach.
Non-publication
- [21]The Respondent submits that a non-publication order should be made so that his identity is not revealed in these proceedings.
- [22]Non-publication is possible by order of the Tribunal under s. 66:
66 Non-publication orders
- The tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of the following other than in the way and to the persons stated in the order—
- the contents of a document or other thing produced to the tribunal;
- evidence given before the tribunal;
- information that may enable a person who has appeared before the tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified.
- The tribunal may make an order under subsection (1) only if the tribunal considers the order is necessary—
- to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice; or
- to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person; or
- to avoid offending public decency or morality; or
- to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest; or
- for any other reason in the interests of justice.
- [23]The order sought is seemingly for the purposes in ss. 66(1)(c) and 66(2)(b).
- [24]The Respondent revealed information in his various tweets that led to his being identified. In this regard the Tribunal notes the comments of Applegarth J in Lehrmann v Queensland Police Service & Ors [2023] QSC 238 that, while made in a very different context, fortify the conclusion that the Respondent not seeking anonymity in the offensive tweeting is relevant to whether and order under s. 66 is reasonable in the circumstances.
- [25]In Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89 it was noted:
[10] Where the publication concerns identification of parties or persons affected by proceedings, the mere fact that the publication may produce “embarrassment or unfortunate financial effects” is generally not a sufficient reason to prohibit publication, especially if the names have already been published. (references omitted)
- [26]It was further noted in AB v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCATA 187 at [26] that the “word ‘necessary’ in s 66 is a reminder that such orders should not lightly be made.”
- [27]The Respondent’s own evidence about his psychological state is stated at [11](h) above. It in no way supports the high standard expected in AB and Cutbush. The Tribunal declines to make a non-publication order.
Orders
- A ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
- Gregory Shaun Teeney is reprimanded under section 160(2)(c) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
- Gregory Shaun Teeney’s teacher registration is cancelled under section 160(2)(d) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
- Gregory Shaun Teeney is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely under section 160(2)(j) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
Footnotes
[1] ACJ v AD [2023] QDC 176.