Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBO - [2024] QCAT 179

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

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBO[2024] QCAT 179

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBO[2024] QCAT 179

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBO [2024] QCAT 179

PARTIES:

queensland college of teachers

(applicant)

v

teacher gbo

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR305-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 April 2024

HEARING DATE:

22 January 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Olding, Member Burson, Member Grigg

ORDERS:

  1. A ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
  2. The teacher is reprimanded.
  3. Suspension of the respondent’s teacher registration is lifted upon the respondent providing to the applicant:
    1. proof of completion of the Behaviour Management course conducted by the Teacher Professional Development Services;
    2. a learning reflection satisfactory to the applicant in relation to the behaviour management course and the conduct that was the subject of these proceedings;
    3. an independent report satisfactory to the applicant from a psychologist or psychiatrist providing an assessment as to whether the psychologist or psychiatrist is satisfied that the respondent has addressed and understood the following matters:
      1. (i)
        awareness of what are and what are not proper ways to engage with students;
      2. (ii)
        awareness and understanding of appropriate behaviour management techniques;
      3. (iii)
        an in-depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, colleague, parent, and community trust and power inherently invested in a teacher;
      4. (iv)
        awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
      5. (v)
        the need to protect students and children from physical, psychological and emotional harm;
      6. (vi)
        risk assessment identification of and early potentially problematic situations;
      7. (vii)
        how to achieve realistic solutions to avoid the risk of harm to students;
      8. (viii)
        the identification and awareness of the respondent’s own triggers and strategies the respondent intends to utilise to ensure there is no future occurrence of the incidents of concern;
      9. (ix)
        the importance of full adherence to the applicant’s Code of Ethics.

The report must indicate that the psychologist or psychiatrist was provided with a copy of the Tribunal’s decision and reasons and the applicant’s referral under section 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).

  1. The respondent must bear all costs of and associated with compliance with the Tribunal’s orders.
  2. Publication is prohibited, pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding, of information that may identify the respondent, any child or witness, or the relevant school, other than to the extent necessary to enable the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations and as provided under the Act. The parties may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory body or employer in compliance with any disclosure obligations.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where engaged in inappropriate physical contact with students, including physically restraining students on several occasions – where teacher acquitted of assault charges – whether conduct of standard generally expected of teachers – appropriate sanction

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

Queensland College of Teachers v David Geoffrey Mears [2012] QCAT 327

Queensland College of Teachers v Lisa Gay Carroll [2012] QCAT 395

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)

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Holding Redlich, Solicitors

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this case about?

  1. [1]
    The Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) suspended the respondent teacher’s registration on 29 January 2019 following allegations that the teacher assaulted three students. That suspension was continued by the Tribunal on 25 March 2019.
  2. [2]
    These reasons concern QCT’s referral of the matter to the Tribunal for determination of whether there is a ground for disciplinary action and, if so, the appropriate sanction.
  3. [3]
    The teacher conceded, and we are satisfied, that the following ground for disciplinary action is established: that the teacher has behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.[1]
  4. [4]
    The main focus of our deliberations therefore concerned the appropriate sanction, although the teacher contested some particulars of the allegations.

The allegations and our findings

  1. [5]
    The allegations and particulars of each allegation are set out below.
  2. [6]
    Although the teacher conceded that the ground for disciplinary action was established, it was necessary for us to seek further submissions from the teacher regarding which particulars of each allegation were conceded and a response from the QCT.
  3. [7]
    The teacher was charged with four counts of assault but acquitted of the charges. In respect of the contested items in particular, we have considered the magistrate’s findings as well as findings in litigation concerning the termination of the teacher’s employment.
  4. [8]
    The following discussion starts with each allegation and the particulars of the allegation (anonymised for the protection of the students involved). The contested allegations are identified below. The teacher accepts the remaining particulars occurred. Having examined the evidence, we are satisfied those concessions are appropriate and find accordingly. We then set out our findings in respect of the contested particulars of each allegation.

Allegation 1

On 28 November 2018, the respondent engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Student A:

  1. Student A and Student B were playfighting, ‘tackling each other and wrestling’ in the classroom.
  2. The respondent stated words to the effect of ‘You two want to fight, then come and fight in front of me.’
  3. Student A stated words to the respondent to the effect of ‘You must be stupid to tell us to fight.’
  4. The respondent grabbed Student A by the arm and led him outside the classroom.
  5. Once outside the classroom, the respondent continued holding tightly to Student A’s arm and forcibly took him to the principal’s office.
  6. On arriving at the principal’s office, the respondent repeatedly forced Student A to sit on the floor, using her hands and arms to push him towards the floor. (Emphasis added.)
  7. Student A was resisting and swearing and screaming.
  8. The respondent kept telling Student A to ‘sit down’ and/or ‘sit there’.
  9. In trying to get Student A to sit on the floor, respondent used such force that Student A fell backwards and hit his head on the desk.
  1. [9]
    The teacher contests that the altercation between Student A and Student B was mere ‘playfighting’. The QCT concedes that a finding that ‘the altercation was real and not conducted in jest’ is open on the evidence. In that regard, the magistrate found there was ‘fighting – or play fighting’ and referred to ‘serious physical fights’ involving Student A on other occasions. In those circumstances, we are not satisfied the altercation was mere play fighting.
  2. [10]
    The teacher also denies that she stated words to the effect of ‘You two want to fight, then come and fight in front of me.’ The QCT concedes the teacher did not make this statement and, as it follows, Student A did not respond as set out in particular (3). We are satisfied that concession is properly made on the evidence.
  3. [11]
    While accepting that she forced Student A to the floor, the teacher denies that she ‘repeatedly’ did so. We accept this submission. There is no evidence of the teacher repeatedly forcing Student A to the floor.
  4. [12]
    The teacher also denies that Student A hit his head. The QCT concedes the evidence does not support a finding to that effect. We are satisfied this concession was appropriate.
  5. [13]
    Accordingly, we find the particulars of this allegation occurred except for particulars (2) and (3), where we have found that the fighting was real and not mere play fighting; the teacher did not ‘repeatedly’ force Student A to the floor; and Student A did not hit his head.

Allegation 2

On an unknown date in Term 3 of 2018 (between 16 July 2018 and 21 September 2018),[2] the respondent engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Student A:

  1. Student A had been misbehaving in class and the respondent had warned him that she intended to talk to his father about his behaviour.
  2. Student A then left the classroom.
  3. The respondent telephoned Student A’s father about his behaviour, who said he would attend the school.
  4. The respondent then followed Student A through the school grounds.
  5. Near the tuckshop, the respondent attempted to persuade Student A to return to class.
  6. Student A refused to return to class.
  7. The respondent grabbed Student A with one arm around his shoulder/upper torso and one around “his guts” (stomach).
  8. Student A resisted the respondent’s physical restraint and struggled against her.
  9. As Student A resisted the physical restraint, the respondent’s arm moved around and/or Student A’s body moved, he was placed in a headlock.
  10. While Student A was in a headlock, he had trouble breathing.
  11. The respondent told Student A if he stopped moving, she would let him go.
  12. As Student A was angry/frustrated he kept resisting the physical restraint and the respondent maintained the physical restraint.
  13. When Student A’s father arrived at the scene, the respondent released the physical restraint on Student A.
  14. The respondent physically restrained Student A for approximately 5 minutes.
  1. [14]
    In relation to particular (1), the teacher submitted:

This is partially accepted. Student A had been misbehaving in class and although the Respondent text (sic) his father, the content of the text was not as alleged.

  1. [15]
    In response, the QCT pointed out the teacher did not disclose what she asserts to be the content of the text message. The teacher’s reply did not respond to the QCT’s submission in this regard. In any case, the particular refers to a telephone call, not a text message.
  2. [16]
    This issue does not appear to be significant to an assessment of the appropriateness or otherwise of the teacher’s conduct. We find that the teacher warned Student A that she would communicate with his father and duly did so in a way that prompted the father to attend the school.
  3. [17]
    Particulars (7), (8) and (9) are conveniently considered together. The teacher accepted that she restrained Student A around his upper torso, but not his shoulders, by the use of her arms. She denies placing the student in a headlock and that he had difficulty breathing as a result of the restraint. The QCT did not take issue with these submissions and, in particular, accepts that the teacher did not cause the student to have breathing difficulties. We accept these concessions, which are consistent with the evidence and conclusions of the court in the criminal trial, were appropriately made.
  4. [18]
    Accordingly, we accept this allegation is generally made out. However, we are not satisfied that the teacher put the student in a headlock, causing the student to have difficulty breathing.

Allegation 3

On an unknown date in Term 3 of 2018 (between 16 July 2018 and 16 August 2018), the respondent engaged in inappropriate contact with Student B:

  1. Student B was misbehaving, he had slammed, punched, and broken a box in the classroom.
  2. Student B went to leave the classroom.
  3. The respondent attempted to stop Student B from leaving the classroom by grabbing Student B.
  4. Student B resisted the respondent’s physical restraint.
  5. The respondent place (sic) Student B in a headlock.
  6. Student B had trouble breathing and felt like he was ‘blacking out’.
  1. [19]
    Unfortunately, the submissions filed on behalf of the teacher, in response to our request for advice on which particulars were accepted, did not address this allegation, other than to accept particular (1). However, in a separate document filed on 3 February 2023, the teacher accepted that she restrained Student B.
  2. [20]
    The teacher denied she put Student B in a headlock or that he had trouble breathing. This is supported by the magistrate’s conclusions which included no finding that the teacher sought to put the student in a headlock.
  3. [21]
    Accordingly, we are satisfied the teacher physically restrained the student. We are not satisfied the teacher put the student in a headlock.

Allegation 4

On an unknown date in Term 4 of 2018, (between 8 October 2018 and 27 November 2018), the respondent engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Student C.

  1. Student C had been misbehaving and was sent out of the classroom to the veranda.
  2. The respondent went out to speak to Student C on the classroom veranda.
  3. Student C dropped the pen or pencil he was holding, as he reached to pick it up, the respondent placed her right hand on Student C’s face, squeezed his cheeks and/or jaw and forcibly turned his head to face her.
  1. [22]
    The submissions filed on behalf of the teacher, in response to our request for advice on which particulars were accepted, did not address this allegation. In the separate document filed on 3 February 2023, the teacher stated that when she attempted to engage with the student he refused to listen. After refusing her requests to stop tapping his pencil, she said, the student deliberately dropped it on the floor and kicked it out of her reach.
  2. [23]
    The teacher says she then asked the student several times to turn and look at her to discuss his behaviour and he refused. She then ‘held the bottom of his face and gestured for him to turn and look at me, he pulled away from me and went to dummy punch me’.
  3. [24]
    This version of events is broadly supported by the comments of the magistrate who noted that the student in evidence confirmed the dummy punch. The magistrate concluded:

I have no doubt, the defendant tried to focus his [Student C’s] attention by taking the child by the chin or jaw and seeking his face – and seeking to turn his face towards her. I have no doubt the child resisted. I cannot accept [Student C’s] evidence that his mouth was forced open.

  1. [25]
    Accordingly, we are satisfied the particulars of allegation 4 occurred.

Summary of proven allegations

  1. [26]
    The allegations we have accepted may be summarised as follows:
    1. Allegation 1 – The teacher forcibly took Student A to the office, forced him to the floor and physically restrained him.
    2. Allegation 2 – The teacher physically restrained Student A until his father arrived at the school (but not with a headlock).
    3. Allegation 3 – The teacher physically restrained Student B from leaving the classroom (but not with a headlock).
    4. Allegation 4 – The teacher forcibly turned Student C’s face towards her.
  2. [27]
    As the magistrate determined, each of these actions constituted an assault. The magistrate acquitted the teacher on the basis that a defence of reasonable force for the purposes of discipline, correction and management applied and also observed that the teacher had been subject to vile language.
  3. [28]
    However, it is a community expectation that teachers will resist such provocation and that teachers will desist from physical restraints other than to prevent harm occurring. Accordingly, as the teacher accepts, the ground for disciplinary action is established.

Sanction

  1. [29]
    The QCT submitted that the appropriate sanction would be cancellation of the teacher’s registration with a four-year prohibition period before the teacher could re-apply for registration, along with a requirement for completion of professional development, a learning reflection and a psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s report.
  2. [30]
    However, that submission was made on the basis of the particulars set out in the four allegations. As noted above, the QCT has since conceded a number of significant aspects of those particulars did not occur. The teacher’s conduct, although unacceptable according to community standards, is less serious than the particulars alleged.
  3. [31]
    The teacher has been registered as a teacher since 1 December 2006 without, so far as the evidence indicates, any previous incidents of this kind. Her referees speak to her professionalism. Although not excusing the conduct, the incidents occurred in trying circumstances.
  4. [32]
    On the other hand, it is not a case of an isolated incident, but four separate occasions on which the teacher engaged in inappropriate physical contact with students. Further, while the teacher has now expressed her unqualified remorse, insight into the inappropriate nature of the contact was not clearly demonstrated in the teacher’s earlier submissions.
  5. [33]
    We also note that, in view of the time that has elapsed, the teacher’s registration has now been suspended for over five years. That is a substantial period of suspension relative to other cases of teachers assaulting students involving, arguably, more egregious conduct.[3]
  6. [34]
    Having regard to these considerations, we conclude the appropriate order is that the teacher is reprimanded, and that suspension of her teacher registration is lifted upon completion of a behaviour management course and learning reflection, and provision of an independent psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s report satisfactory to the QCT as detailed in the Tribunal’s orders.

Confidentiality

  1. [35]
    Both parties submitted, and we agree, that a confidentiality order is necessary and appropriate for the protection of the vulnerable students involved.

Footnotes

[1] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 92(1)(h).

[2]  The QCT advised that dates appearing in the original statement of allegations were incorrect. These are the corrected dates as advised by the QCT.

[3] Queensland College of Teachers v David Geoffrey Mears [2012] QCAT 327; Queensland College of Teachers v Lisa Gay Carroll [2012] QCAT 395 (noting those decisions were handed down when, unlike the current provisions, the legislation specified a maximum suspension period of five years).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBO

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBO

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 179

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Olding, Member Burson, Member Grigg

  • Date:

    26 Apr 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 Carroll [2012] QCAT 395
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 395
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 395
Queensland College of Teachers v Mears [2012] QCAT 327
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 327
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 327

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.