Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ABC - [2024] QCAT 120

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

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ABC[2024] QCAT 120

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ABC[2024] QCAT 120

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ABC [2024] QCAT 120

PARTIES:

Queensland COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

TEACHER ABC

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR036-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2024

HEARING DATE:

22 January 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member H. Katter (Presiding)

Member Olding

Member English

ORDERS:

  1. The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
  2. The suspension of the Respondent’s registration is ended immediately upon satisfactory completion of the Morrison Consulting and Advisory Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries for Teachers online course. 
  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 conduct with students of the school where the teacher was then teaching – 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 non-publication order should be made – where order necessary in the interests of protecting vulnerable young person – where exceptions required for protection of future students

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 49, s 50(5), s 76, s 97(1)(d), s 97(1)(h), s 97(1)(i), s 97(1)(j), s 97(4)(a), s 97(4)(b), s 158, s 160(2)(b), s 160(2)(d), s 160(2)(j), s 160(2)(i)

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

Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher Max [2013] QCAT 436

Queensland College of Teachers v REC [2020] QCAT 178

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher VK [2014] QCAT 268

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

B. Manttan, Queensland College of Teachers

Respondent:

R. Drew, Holding Redlich Solicitors.

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this case about?

  1. [1]
    This case concerns whether there is a ground for disciplinary action against a teacher, on the basis that the teacher behaved in a way that did not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, and, if so, the appropriate sanction.
  2. [2]
    The Respondent teacher accepts that two of the ten alleged grounds – concerning inappropriate touching of students – are made out. The Respondent denies the other allegations – mainly concerned with allegedly inappropriate communications with students – would establish grounds for disciplinary action, in some cases contesting that particulars of the allegations occurred.

Procedural matters

  1. [3]
    The application was filed with the Tribunal on 2 February 2021. 
  2. [4]
    At part C of that application or referral – disciplinary proceeding form number 22, as to the orders sought by the Applicant, it states: ‘see attached referral’.  At part C as to the legislative provisions providing the grounds for taking the disciplinary action it states: “ … sections 97 and 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005” (Qld) (‘the Act’). In part C of the application it further states that the particulars of the grounds are set out in the affidavit filed with the form. 
  3. [5]
    Section 97 of the Act states:

Requirement for college to start practice and conduct proceedings

  1. If the college reasonably believes, other than on the basis of interstate information, that 1 or more grounds for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher exist, the college must refer the matter to the practice and conduct body stated in subsection (2).
  1. The practice and conduct body to which the matter must be referred is—
  1. for a general matter—QCAT; or
  2. for a PC&TC matter—the PC&TC committee.
  1. However, subsection (1) does not apply to a matter in relation to which the college and the relevant teacher have entered into a practice and conduct agreement.
  1. If a matter is referred to QCAT—
  1. the college must inform QCAT about the grounds for the practice and conduct matter and the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the grounds; and
  2. QCAT must conduct a hearing and make decisions about the practice and conduct matter referred to QCAT having regard to the information provided by the college.
  1. [6]
    On 1 August 2022 it was directed that the disciplinary referral be heard and determined by a member of the Tribunal on the papers based on the written submissions filed and without an oral hearing. On 1 March 2023, it was directed that the matter be listed for a half-day oral hearing on a date and time to be advised and that the “purpose of the hearing is for the Queensland College of Teachers to cross-examine [the Respondent] on the allegations in dispute”. The Tribunal was then constituted for hearing in January 2024.  The hearing to cross-examine the Respondent occurred on 22 January 2024. 

Background

  1. [7]
    The Respondent was first granted registration as a teacher in Queensland in 1984. 
  2. [8]
    The Respondent had been employed at a particular school, full-time, for much of the period from 2000, including in the years 2018 and 2019. 
  3. [9]
    In June 2019 the Applicant “authorised” an investigation into the Respondent’s conduct, with interviews occurring in July and August 2019 with students and  teachers/supervisors. 
  4. [10]
    In August 2019 the Applicant communicated a notice of suspension to the Respondent.  Section 49 of the Act states: 

College’s power to suspend if approved teacher poses unacceptable risk of harm to children

The college may suspend an approved teacher’s registration or permission to teach if the college reasonably believes the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.

  1. [11]
    Section 50(5) of the Act states: “The college must refer the continuation of the suspension of an approved teacher to QCAT for review under section 53.”
  2. [12]
    Section 53 of the Act states that QCAT must decide to continue the suspension, unless satisfied that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
  3. [13]
    On 8 October 2019 the Tribunal ordered that the suspension of the registration of the Respondent be continued.   

Ground

Statutory framework

  1. [14]
    The Applicant submits that the only ground for taking disciplinary action against the Respondent is section 92(1)(h) of the Act.  Section 92 relevantly states:

Grounds for disciplinary action

  1. Each of the following is a "ground for disciplinary action" against a relevant teacher— …
  1. 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. [15]
    The affidavit filed with the application form stated that the Respondent was a relevant teacher under the Act. The definition in the Schedule to the Act for a relevant teacher refers to an ‘approved teacher’. An ‘approved teacher’ in the Act is defined as a ‘registered teacher’ and with the affidavit there is a certificate under the Act as to the Respondent being registered as a teacher in Queensland in 2019. 
  2. [16]
    Section 158 of the Act states:

Decision about whether ground for disciplinary action is established

  1. As soon as practicable after finishing the hearing, QCAT must decide whether a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established.
  1. In making its decision, QCAT must have regard to any relevant previous decision by a practice and conduct body of which QCAT is aware.
  1. Subsection (2) does not limit the matters QCAT may consider in making its decision.
  1. In this section—

former PP&C committee means the PP&C committee under the Act as in force before the commencement.

former Teachers Disciplinary Committee means the Teachers Disciplinary Committee established under this Act before its abolition by the QCAT Act.

practice and conduct body includes the former Teachers Disciplinary Committee and the former PP&C committee.

The allegations

  1. [17]
    The annexures to the application filed 2 February 2021 state: 

The facts and circumstances forming the basis of the ground for disciplinary action are set out in annexure “A” “Particulars of ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h)” …

It is alleged that whilst employed as a teacher at [a] School … and/or a registered teacher, [the Respondent]:

  1. 1.
    In December … sent grade 9 … student … a Christmas card to [a] home address.
  2. 2.
    On one occasion … engaged in an inappropriate and/or overfamiliar conversation with grade 11/12 … student … including asking student… if she was in a relationship and was sexually active.
  3. 3.
    … Made inappropriate physical contact with grade 12 … student … by grabbing … on the upper arm.
  4. 4.
    On one occasion … engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar conversation with grade 11 … student … including: 
  1. a.
    Asking her if she drank alcohol and took drugs;
  1. b.
    Asking her if she had a boyfriend.
  1. 5.
    On … made inappropriate physical contact with grade 12 … student … by pushing … in the back.
  2. 6.
    On one occasion … engaged in an inappropriate and/or overfamiliar conversation with grade 12 … student … by asking her if she had a spray tan under her bikini.
  3. 7.
    On an unknown date … engaged in inappropriate behaviour by viewing grade 12 … student … Instagram account and capturing an image from it for a presentation without first seeking her approval.
  4. 8.
    On more than one occasion … engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar behaviour in relation to grade 12 … student … including:
  1. a.
    Engaging in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar conversation including:
  1. i.
    Asking her if she had a boyfriend and asking to see a photograph of her boyfriend;
  1. ii.
    Asking her if she had had sexual intercourse;
  1. iii.
    Asking her if she drank alcohol and took drugs.
  1. b.
    Searching for and viewing student … Facebook profile. 
  1. 9.
    On … which was the last day of a school term, in tutor group class, engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar conversation with grade 11/12 students including:
  1. a.
    Asking if they took drugs and drank alcohol;
  1. b.
    Questioning students about their sex lives;
  1. c.
    Asking students what they thought the age of consent should be.
  1. 10.
    On more than one occasion … engaged in inappropriate behaviour with grade 9/10 student … including:
  1. a.
    Engaging in inappropriate conversation with student … including: 
  1. i.
    Discussing menstruation with student … ;
  1. ii.
    Asking student … if she was sexually active;
  1. iii.
    Telling student … that her body was like that of a 21 year old;
  1. iv.
    Telling student … that she didn’t need to wear makeup and that she was beautiful without it;
  1. v.
    Asking student … if she had sent explicit photographs or had received them;
  1. vi.
    Showing student … how he could locate her address by internet searches.
  1. b.
    Showing student … images that he had obtained from her Facebook and Instagram profiles including, but not limited to photographs of her in swimwear.

Factual findings and conclusions regarding alleged grounds

  1. [18]
    So far as the alleged facts are agreed, the Tribunal is satisfied it is appropriate to find those facts. We set out below, in respect of each allegation, the agreed facts and our findings on the disputed facts.
  2. [19]
    Thereafter, we consider whether the facts as found constitute a ground for disciplinary action; that is, whether the facts establish the Respondent behaved in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.  In addressing that question, we take into account the objects of the Act and considerations set out in earlier decisions of the Tribunal.
  3. [20]
    The objects of the Act, set out in s 3, are:
    1. to uphold the standards of the teaching profession;
    2. to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession;
    3. to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.
  4. [21]
    Relevant considerations identified in earlier cases emphasise that teachers must not be overly familiar with students. For example, it has been said:

As far as interaction with students is concerned, teachers are expected to be empathetic and to build rapport with students. However, it is important that they maintain professional boundaries with students, who of course are young and impressionable.[1]

And:

Teachers are expected to maintain a professional relationship with, and keep a professional distance from, students.  This is necessary to maintain good teacher-student relationships.[2]

  1. [22]
    We accept these considerations require teachers to strive to achieve a balance in which communications with students are effective – in which empathetic discussions may play an important role - but remain professional at all times. And also that, as the Applicant submits, above all teachers must not engage in conduct that harms or has the potential to harm students.

Allegation 1

  1. [23]
    The Respondent:
    1. accepts that he sent a Christmas card to the student;
    2. says the card was one of several he had left over and, while it was in the form of a Christmas card, he used it as a ‘thank you’ to the student for her assistance with a school event;
    3. says the card was sent in an envelope addressed to the student, care of her parents;
    4. says it was one of several thank-you cards he sent via students’ parents.
  2. [24]
    There is no evidence to contradict the Respondent’s assertions and it was not put to him in cross-examination that he was untruthful in his account. His assertion that the card was sent in an envelope addressed to the student’s parents is supported by his diary entry. We accept the facts are as the Respondent asserts.
  3. [25]
    While it would have been preferable for communications to pass through regular school channels so that an official record would be maintained, there is no suggestion of harm to the student and we note in particular that the card was sent via the student’s parents. In those circumstances, we do not consider the Respondent’s conduct amounted to behaviour that is not of a standard generally expected of a teacher.

Allegation 2

  1. [26]
    The Respondent:
    1. agrees that he would have asked the student if she had a boyfriend but says this was in the context of his role as tutor master in which he was responsible for overseeing the pastoral care of the students;
    2. states that the question was not inappropriate in the context of his role as tutor master for the student;
    3. disputes that he asked whether the student was sexually active, stating that he would never ask such a question of a student in the normal course and that since this student did not have a boyfriend the question would never have arisen.
  2. [27]
    On the critical question of whether the Respondent asked the student if she was sexually active, there is conflicting evidence. In a recorded interview, the student stated that the Respondent asked questions about her home life, what sport she played and ‘if I was in a relationship and if I was sexually active’. On the other hand, the Respondent maintained detailed contemporaneous notes of conversations with students and also readily admitted to asking a question of a personal nature relating to sexual matters where he considered it appropriate.[3]
  3. [28]
    The interview with this student took place some 18 months after the meeting in which it is alleged the question was asked and following the agitated exchange between the Respondent and the student that is the subject of Allegation 3. The student was not called to give evidence. It seems unlikely the Respondent had a general practice of asking students for whom he was tutor master if they were sexually active – which he strongly denies – as that could be expected to have given rise to complaints from parents.
  4. [29]
    In those circumstances, having regard to the seriousness of the allegation, we are not satisfied the evidence is sufficient for us to make a positive finding that the Respondent’s conversation with this student included asking if she was sexually active.
  5. [30]
    The question is therefore whether the significant remaining conduct – asking whether the student had a boyfriend – is not behaviour of a standard generally expected of a teacher.
  6. [31]
    We accept the Respondent had reasons he considered appropriate relating to his pastoral care role for asking this question. However, a teacher asking a student questions of a personal nature of this kind, in a one-on-one setting, could leave a student confused and anxious and, as such, is potentially harmful behaviour. We consider this conduct ‘crosses the boundary’ into communication that is of a personal nature and, as such, is not communication of the professional nature generally expected of teachers.

Allegation 3

  1. [32]
    The Respondent accepts that he grabbed the student by the arm. Whether on the upper arm or forearm is, in our view, immaterial. In any case, the Respondent agrees the conduct was inappropriate and not of the standard expected of a teacher. It exhibited a loss of control and impermissible touching of a student.
  2. [33]
    The context in which the conduct arose was that the student, who had accepted a leadership role, was asked to speak to another group with a view to motivating them to become involved in a service program. She did so briefly then left the room. The Respondent considered this inappropriate and, grabbing her by the arm, strongly urged her to return. A verbal altercation ensued.
  3. [34]
    We agree that the behaviour was not of a standard expected of teachers.

Allegation 4

  1. [35]
    The Respondent:
    1. agrees that he asked the student if she drank alcohol and if she had a boyfriend;
    2. denies that he would have asked if she took drugs; and
    3. states that the conduct was not inappropriate in the context of his responsibility for pastoral oversight in his role as a tutor master.
  2. [36]
    The Respondent says he would not have asked about drugs as there was not a significant drug issue at the school. That is supported by his diary entry, but is contrary to the student’s recollection. While we accept the Respondnet’s evidence, we consider that little turns on whether the Respondent asked whether the student drank alcohol or drank alcohol and took drugs. Either question might be regarded as not inappropriate in the context of the Respondent’s tutor master role and well-known issues concerning teenage drug and alcohol abuse.
  3. [37]
    However, we have already indicated in relation to Allegation 2 why we consider asking a student whether she has a boyfriend strays from the professional communication with students required of teachers and is therefore not behaviour of the standard generally expected of teachers.

Allegation 5

  1. [38]
    The Respondent accepts this allegation which is related to the incident described in Allegation 3. The Respondent, as the record of interview with the student indicates and the Respondent accepts, nudged the second student towards the classroom. The student stated ‘it wasn’t hard like I didn’t stumble or anything’.
  2. [39]
    We agree that the behaviour, although at the lower end of inappropriate contact, is not of the standard expected of a teacher.

Allegation 6

  1. [40]
    The Respondent accepts that he asked the student if she used spray tan under her underwear. He explained he had a concern, based on scientific reading, that applying spray tan on skin not exposed to sunlight is more susceptible to harm from absorption chemicals. As such, the Respondent maintains the question was not inappropriate in the context of his pastoral care responsibilities as tutor master.
  2. [41]
    Again, we consider a teacher asking a student a question of this kind could leave a student confused and anxious and, as such, is potentially harmful behaviour. Regardless of the reason put forward by the Respondent, we consider this communication did not maintain the professional boundary generally expected of teachers.

Allegation 7

  1. [42]
    The Respondent:
    1. agrees that he captured an image from a student’s Instagram account for a school PowerPoint presentation without her permission;
    2. states that the Instagram account was publicly accessible and he obtained the student’s consent before using the image in the presentation; and
    3. denies the conduct was inappropriate.
  2. [43]
    The conduct occurred in a context in which the student was an accomplished athlete but had inadvertently missed a significant competition day. In that context, the Respondent wished to highlight the student’s athletic achievements in the presentation.[4]
  3. [44]
    The facts of this allegation are essentially undisputed. Given that the Instagram site was publicly accessible as acknowledged by the student, and the education-related purpose for which the images were used with the student’s permission, we are not persuaded that a ground for disciplinary action is made out for this allegation.

Allegation 8

  1. [45]
    The Respondent:
    1. accepts that he asked the student if she had a boyfriend but denies asking her if she had had sexual intercourse;
    2. recalls seeing an image of the student’s boyfriend and cannot recall or dispute that he asked to see the image;
    3. agrees that he asked if the student drank alcohol or took drugs;
    4. did search for and view the student’s Facebook profile which he states was publicly accessible.
  2. [46]
    The Respondent gave evidence that this student came from another school which had a drug issue. It was for that reason, he says, that, contrary to his usual practice, he did ask this student whether she took drugs.[5]
  3. [47]
    The Respondent also gave evidence that this student had an older boyfriend, who had already left school. She referred to the boyfriend being ‘unfaithful’ from which the Respondent deduced that the student had been sexually active. In that context, he asked her whether she was practising safe sex. We have no reason to doubt the Respondent’s evidence in this regard, which we accept.
  4. [48]
    In the Respondent’s submission, these communications were not inappropriate in the context of his pastoral care responsibilities as tutor master.
  5. [49]
    Again, we consider a teacher asking a students questions relating to their sex life could leave a student confused and anxious and, as such, is potentially harmful behaviour. Regardless of the reason put forward by the Respondent, we consider this communication did not maintain the professional boundary generally expected of teachers.

Allegation 9

  1. [50]
    The Respondent says this was not a session with his tutor group but rather a group of about eight year 11 students he was allocated to supervise for the final 45 minutes of the school year.
  2. [51]
    To engage the students for this time, the Respondent conducted a general discussion with the students. He recalled talking about Australian laws and how unfortunately students tend to know more about some American laws than equivalent Australian legislation. In that context, he accepted the question of the age of consent may have arisen, by way of general discussion rather than a question directed to an individual student or students, along with topics such as driver licensing rules affecting young people. The age of consent was, the Respondent says, an explicit part of the pastoral care program at the school.
  3. [52]
    The Respondent denies asking students in this context if they used alcohol or drugs and in particular about their sex lives. As the Respondent noted, the accounts of the three students interviewed in relation to this session were inconsistent in relation to the alleged questioning about sex lives. Further, as the Respondent noted, if a teacher had, as one student alleged, said ‘[r]aise your hand if you’ve had sex’, it is to be expected there would be a strong response from parents. There is no evidence of any such response. We accept the Respondent’s evidence regarding these allegations.
  4. [53]
    Once the alleged questioning on sex lives is rejected, we consider the discussion was not such as would be regarded as outside the conduct generally expected of a teacher. A ground for disciplinary action is not made out in respect of this allegation.

Allegation 10

  1. [54]
    The Respondent:
    1. admits that he:
      1. told the student under-eating might affect her menstruation and sporting performance but disputes that he otherwise ‘discussed’ menstruation with the student;
      2. said to the student words to the effect that her body was like that of a 21 year old;
      3. told the student she did not need to wear make-up as she was attractive or good-looking;
      4. asked the student if she had sent or received explicit photographs;
      5. showed the student how he could locate her address by internet searches;
      6. showed the student images he had obtained from her Facebook page including one of the student in swimwear (but denies accessing her Instagram page);
    2. denies asking the student if she was sexually active; and
    3. maintains that, in context, none of this conduct was inappropriate.
  2. [55]
    The student suffered a severe panic attack, resulting in a brief hospitalisation. This occurred some months after the last of the alleged conduct when the student came to the view that she had been groomed by the Respondent, which the Respondent denies.
  3. [56]
    The Respondent gave evidence, by way of context to the reference to undereating, that his daughter suffered from a severe eating disorder. With this experience, he sought to assist the student to understand the dangers of undereating. We accept this evidence.
  4. [57]
    By way of context to the Facebook entries, internet searches and reference to the student’s body, the Respondent gave evidence of his concern that female students in particular would not necessarily respond positively to rules about internet posting but would be more likely to do so if shown the potential consequences. He was in the early stages of developing a presentation for this purpose.
  5. [58]
    We accept the Respondent held genuine concerns about these matters. However, we consider that the communications, particularly the reference to the student’s looks and body, ‘crossed the boundary’ into inappropriate communications which did not maintain a sufficient professional boundary. As noted above with other allegations, such comments have the potential to cause confusion and anxiety and may therefore be harmful to students. A ground for disciplinary action is made out in respect of this allegation.
  6. [59]
    In summary, as to allegations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10, the Tribunal finds that the ‘behaviour’ by the Respondent, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.  As to allegations 1, 7 and 9, the Tribunal finds that the conduct is not ‘behaviour’, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. 
  7. [60]
    As to allegations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10, the Tribunal therefore decides that a ground for disciplinary action, being the ground in s 92(1)(h) of the Act, has been established. 

Discipline

  1. [61]
    Section 160 of the Act relevantly states:

Decision about disciplinary action against approved teacher

  1. This section applies if the relevant teacher is an approved teacher.
  1. If QCAT decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established, QCAT may do 1 or more of the following—
  1. decide to take no further action in relation to the matter;
  2. if the teacher’s registration or permission to teach is suspended under section 48 or 49—end the suspension;
  3. issue a warning or reprimand to the teacher;
  1. cancel the teacher’s registration or permission to teach;
  1. suspend the teacher’s registration or permission to teach for a stated time;
  1. make an order requiring the teacher to pay to the college, by way of costs, an amount QCAT considers appropriate having regard to—
  1. any expenses incurred by the college in investigating the matter; and
  1. the expenses incurred by the college in the proceedings before QCAT;
  1. make an order requiring the teacher to pay to the college, by way of penalty, an amount fixed by QCAT but not more than the equivalent of 20 penalty units;
  1. impose conditions on, or amend or remove conditions on, the teacher’s registration or permission to teach;
  1. make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register;
  1. if QCAT cancels the teachers’ registration or permission to teach—make an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely; Note— See also section 350 (Decision about disciplinary action against approved teacher).
  1. make another order QCAT considers appropriate;
  1. accept an undertaking from the teacher.
  1. [62]
    The Respondent submitted at the hearing on 22 January 2024 that the following orders should be made: 
  1. The grounds for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Act is established in relation to Allegation 3 & 5.
  2. The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Act is/isn’t established in relation to Allegation 1, 2, 4, 6-10.
  3. The suspension of the respondent’s registration is ended immediately, subject to satisfactory completion of the Morrison Consulting and Advisory “Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries for Teachers” online course.
  4. 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, the school and any students, other than to the extent necessary to enable the College to meet its statutory obligations and as otherwise provided under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), particularly under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287.
  1. [63]
    As to that submission from the Respondent as to the form of the orders, the Applicant submitted that if the majority of the allegations were established, then a psychological report should be provided in the alternative to the Morrison Consulting course. 
  2. [64]
    In Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241, the Tribunal stated:

[26]  Sanctions in a disciplinary action are not a ‘punishment’ nor are sanctions 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. 

[27]  Factors that are relevant to sanction in this matter are as follows:

  1. … breach of professional boundaries;
  1. vulnerability of the students and risk of harm;
  1. experience as a teacher; and
  1. lack of insight into his behaviour.
  1. [65]
    The findings as to allegations 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 reveal a ‘breach of professional boundaries’. 
  2. [66]
    The evidence indicates that the particular students the subjects of allegations 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 were vulnerable and there was a risk of harm.
  3. [67]
    The Respondent has long experience as a teacher.
  4. [68]
    As to insight into the Respondent’s behaviour, the Respondent referred to the completion by the Respondent of professional practice and professional boundary courses since the Respondent has been suspended.  
  5. [69]
    As to mitigating factors, the Respondent referred to the illness of the Respondent’s daughter in relation to Allegation 10.  
  6. [70]
    There is no indication of previous findings as to inappropriate dealings or communications by the Respondent, unrelated to the allegations in this application. 
  7. [71]
    Since the Tribunal has decided that a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established as to allegations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10, the Tribunal may impose one or more of the disciplinary actions referred to in section 160(2) of the Act. The Respondent has been suspended since 28 August 2019, as referred to above. The Tribunal, in accordance with the submission of the parties, ends that suspension upon satisfactory completion of the Morrison Consulting and Advisory “Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries for Teachers” course.  Having regard to the limited findings as to allegations 2, 4, 6 and 8, the Tribunal will not also order that the Respondent provide a psychological report. The main issue identified by the Applicant is the breach of professional boundaries which is addressed by the requirement for the Morrison course to be undertaken.

Non-publication

  1. [72]
    On 16 February 2021 the Tribunal ordered that, other than to the parties to this proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information which may identify the Respondent, any of the relevant students or the relevant school until futher order of the Tribunal. 
  2. [73]
    It is considered by the Tribunal that a permanent order should now be made under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) to protect the former students. Any publication of the name of the Respondent might tend to identify the former students and the school. Any identification may have ramifications for the former students.

Footnotes

[1]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher VK [2014] QCAT 268, [12].

[2]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher Max [2013] QCAT 436, [11].

[3]See discussion of Allegation 8 below.

[4]Transcript, 1-15.

[5]Transcript, 1-14, lines 35-37.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ABC

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ABC

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 120

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member H. Katter (Presiding), Member Olding, Member English

  • Date:

    19 Mar 2024

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 IOP [2022] QCAT 241
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 241
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 241
Queensland College of Teachers v REC [2020] QCAT 178
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 178
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher Max [2013] QCAT 436
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 436
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 436
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher VK [2014] QCAT 268
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCAT 268
Cite 2 - [2014] QCAT 268

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.