Queensland College of Teachers v JBJ
[2024] QCAT 500
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 JBJ[2024] QCAT 500
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v JBJ[2024] QCAT 500
Queensland College of Teachers v JBJ[2024] QCAT 500
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v JBJ [2024] QCAT 500 |
PARTIES: | queensland college of teachers (applicant) v jbj (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO: | OCR153-23 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 12 November 2024 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Lumb, Presiding Member Robyn Oliver Member Olding |
ORDERS: |
is prohibited to that extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the Respondent or the complainant. |
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where teacher charged with serious offences but acquitted of all charges – whether suspension of teacher registration should be ended ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether non-publication order should be made – where order necessary in the interests of justice Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), 66 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), 92 Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 15 Merlo v Queensland Law Society Inc (No 2) [2023] QCAT 459 Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709 |
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
What is this case about?
- [1]The Respondent, a teacher, was charged with ‘serious offences’ as defined in s 15 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
- [2]Consequently, as required by s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (QCT Act), the Applicant (QCT) suspended his teacher registration and referred the suspension to the Tribunal for review.
- [3]Following a jury trial, the Respondent was acquitted of the offences.
- [4]Having regard to the evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the charges, the parties submit, and we agree, that there are no grounds for disciplinary action against the Respondent. The suspension of the Applicant’s teacher registration therefore must be ended. We also consider a non-publication order is necessary in the interests of justice.
- [5]Our reasons follow.
No ground for disciplinary action
- [6]The potential ground for disciplinary action that arises for consideration is found in s 92(1)(h) of the QCT Act applies where a teacher ‘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’.
- [7]Whether this ground is established requires consideration of community and professional expectations and standards. The welfare and best interests of children are the primary considerations.[1]
- [8]The circumstances leading to the charges in this case are known only to the Respondent and the complainant; they occurred in private.
- [9]The Respondent was acquitted of all the charges. We have examined the transcript of the criminal trial. The transcript reveals that, although not required to do so, the Respondent gave evidence in his defence and was cross-examined. The complainant also gave evidence which was the subject of submissions as to credit.
- [10]We are mindful that our consideration should not be limited to whether the charges were upheld in the criminal justice system. We must have regard to the circumstances of the alleged conduct.
- [11]For there to be a ground for disciplinary action, we must be satisfied that conduct warranting a conclusion that the Respondent behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher occurred. In that respect, we have had regard to the Respondent’s denial under oath that the alleged conduct occurred; the complainant’s evidence; and, importantly, that the jury’s verdict was given after the Respondent subjected himself to cross-examination.
- [12]Taking into account those factors, we are not satisfied the alleged conduct, or other conduct relating to the allegations that would warrant a conclusion that the Respondent behaved in a way that would satisfy the ground for disciplinary action, occurred. It follows that we are not satisfied a ground for disciplinary action is established.
A non-publication order is necessary in the interests of justice
- [13]Ordinarily, proceedings of the Tribunal are conducted in public and its decisions are published, in accordance with principles of open justice.
- [14]However, under s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), a non-publication order may be made where that course is necessary for stipulated reasons including ‘in the interests of justice’.
- [15]The importance of the principles of open justice provides the starting point for consideration of whether a non-publication order should be made. Nevertheless, s 66 provides a broad discretion, which Parliament may be taken to have intended to be exercised ‘more broadly and with some greater sensitivity than might occur in courts’.[2]
- [16]The Respondent has been subjected to a public trial in which he was acquitted of all charges. The QCT does not contest, in fact positively submits, that no ground for disciplinary action against the Respondent exists. If the Respondent’s name were to be published, it is likely the matter would attract further attention in circumstances where the Respondent has not been found to have engaged in any wrongdoing or behaved in a way contrary to community expectations of teachers. That would not be a just outcome for the Respondent. We also consider that it is in the interests of justice that the non-publication order should extend to the complainant the subject of the charges that were brought against the Respondent.
- [17]Accordingly, we are satisfied that a non-publication order, in the terms of Order number 3 of the orders set out above, is necessary in the interests of justice. The QCT did not submit that a non-publication order should not be made.