Queensland College of Teachers v NSP
[2024] QCAT 513
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 NSP[2024] QCAT 513
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v NSP[2024] QCAT 513
Queensland College of Teachers v NSP[2024] QCAT 513
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v NSP [2024] QCAT 513 |
PARTIES: | queensland college of teachers (applicant) v NSP (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO: | OCR282-23 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 20 November 2024 |
HEARING DATE: | 27 August 2024 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Kanowski, Presiding Member Robyn Oliver Member Olding |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – where teacher convicted of contravention of domestic violence orders – whether suspension of teacher registration should be ended upon obtaining satisfactory psychologist’s report ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether non-publication order should be made – where offending included violence against respondent’s child – where domestic violence orders in place Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(2) Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 92(1)(h) 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). The respondent was represented by Holding Redlich, Solicitors. |
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this case about?
- [1]The respondent, a teacher, pleaded guilty to two charges of Contravention of a Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence). The Court sentenced the respondent to 12 months’ probation with a condition that the respondent attend one-on-one domestic violence counselling.
- [2]As a consequence, the respondent’s teacher registration was suspended.
- [3]The parties submit, and we agree, that the suspension of the applicant’s teacher registration should not be ended until the respondent provides a detailed psychologist’s report in the terms we have ordered. We also consider a non-publication order is necessary in the circumstances.
- [4]Our reasons follow.
Agreed facts
- [5]The parties filed a statement of agreed facts which we summarise as follows:
- The respondent pushed and punched the respondent’s young teenage daughter who was attempting to intervene in an altercation between the respondent and another of the respondent’s children.
- That action contravened a domestic violence order made about four years earlier.
- Some months after the altercation referred to above, the respondent was at home consuming alcohol with the respondent’s partner when an argument ensued and the respondent pushed the respondent’s partner.
- That action also contravened a domestic violence order.
- As a consequence of these breaches, the respondent was convicted in March 2023 of two counts of Contravention of a Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence).
- The respondent pleaded guilty to both charges. The Court sentenced the respondent to 12 months’ probation, with a condition that the respondent attend domestic violence counselling, but did not record a conviction.
- [6]In addition to these agreed facts, we take into account the respondent’s disciplinary history. The respondent was disciplined by the applicant, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’), in 2018 following an earlier breach of domestic violence orders, also involving physical violence against her then partner.
Ground for disciplinary action
- [7]The only potential ground for disciplinary action raised by the QCT is found in s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) and 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’.
- [8]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] We accept this ground is satisfied: community expectations of the behaviour of teachers would, in our view, include that teachers do not engage in violent behaviour, especially violence involving children.
- [9]The respondent submits that the appropriate ground is that found in s 92(1)(b) which applies where a teacher is convicted of an indictable offence that is not a ‘serious offence’ as defined. This ground was also included in the QCT referral but not in its final submissions. In our view, nothing turns on whether the ground for disciplinary action is founded in s 92(1)(b) or s 92(1)(h), or both. In any case, determination of the appropriate sanction will depend upon consideration of the circumstances of the offending.
Sanction
- [10]As noted, the parties agree the appropriate sanction is for suspension of the respondent’s teacher registration to continue until the respondent obtains a psychologist’s report acceptable to the QCT. We agree that is an appropriate sanction.
Non-publication order
- [11]Under s 66(2) 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 to avoid endangering a person’s mental health or to avoid the publication of confidential information.
- [12]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(2) 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] Additionally, the confidential nature of domestic violence proceedings plays a role in this matter.
- [13]We are satisfied a non-publication order is necessary for the protection of the mental health of persons associated with the proceedings, particularly the children who may suffer mental health impacts if the offending behaviour were to be publicised, and to protect the confidentiality of the domestic violence proceedings. The QCT did not submit otherwise.