Queensland College of Teachers v CLS
[2024] QCAT 524
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 CLS[2024] QCAT 524
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v CLS[2024] QCAT 524
Queensland College of Teachers v CLS[2024] QCAT 524
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v CLS [2024] QCAT 524 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of teachers (applicant) v CLS (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR051-19 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 November 2024 |
HEARING DATE: | On the Papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Paratz AM (Presiding) Member Jensen Member Robyn Oliver |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where the teacher was charged with attempted murder of her own child – where the Mental Health Court found that she was of unsound mind at the time of the offence, and made an order to discontinue the criminal proceedings, and made a forensic order for her – whether a ground for disciplinary action was established – whether a teacher is required to have intent, or an awareness of their behaviour, in finding that a teacher has behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) – where, by majority, it was ordered that the registration of the teacher be cancelled and notations be made to the register – where a non-publication order was made Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 48(3), s 75, s 92(1)(h), s 147, s 160(2)(d) Queensland College of Teachers v DLJ [2015] QCAT 413 Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186 |
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
MEMBER PARATZ AM:
MEMBER JENSEN:
- [1]CLS (‘the teacher’) was registered to teach in Queensland.
- [2]On 21 April 2017, the Queensland College of Teachers (the College) was informed by the Queensland Police Service pursuant to Section 75 of the Education (College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) that she had been charged with the offence of ‘Attempt to murder’ under section 306(1)(a) of The Criminal Code (Qld).[1]
- [3]That offence is defined as a ‘serious offence’ in Schedule 3 of the Act.
- [4]Her registration to teach was suspended on 21 April 2017 by the College in accordance with Section 48(3) of the Act which provides that, when an approved teacher is charged with a serious offence, the College must immediately after it becomes aware of the charge, suspend the teacher’s registration.[2]
- [5]The College referred the continuation of the suspension to the Tribunal for review. Solicitors acting for CLS advised the Tribunal that she did not have any submission in response to the suspension.[3] The suspension was continued by the Tribunal on 7 June 2017, at which time CLS was an involuntary resident of The Park High Security Programme Authorised Mental Health Service.
- [6]Directions were given by the Tribunal on 12 March 2024 that the college was to file its written submissions in relation to disciplinary grounds, sanction and non-publication order by 17 May 2024; for the teacher to file any written submissions in Response by 14 June 2024; and for the disciplinary proceeding to be heard and determined by the Tribunal on the papers.
- [7]The College filed its submissions as directed, but the teacher did not file any submissions in response.
- [8]These are our Reasons in the matter.
Criminal and Mental Health Court proceedings
- [9]The teacher called Police on 26 March 2017 after attempting to smother her son with a pillow at a home in South-East Queensland.
- [10]She was arrested and charged on 20 April 2017.
- [11]Section 147 of the Act provides that the Tribunal may receive or adopt findings in other proceedings as follows:
147Receiving or adopting findings etc. in other proceedings
During the hearing, QCAT may –
- Receive in evidence a transcript, or part of a transcript, of evidence taken in a proceeding before a disciplinary body or a court, tribunal or other entity established under the law of the State, the Commonwealth, another State or a foreign country, and draw conclusions of fact from the evidence it considers appropriate; or
- adopt as it considers appropriate, decisions, findings, judgements, or reasons for judgement, of a disciplinary body, court, tribunal or other entity that may be relevant to the hearing.
- [12]
- [13]The Forensic Order provided that The Park High Security Program Authorised Mental Health Service was responsible for the teacher while she was subject to it, in the category of inpatient.[6]
- [14]A condition of the Forensic Order was that she may have supervised contact with her children if permitted to do so by her treating psychiatrist.
- [15]A partial transcript of the Mental Health Court proceedings on 13 November 2018 were obtained by the College for the purpose of these proceedings.
- [16]The events constituting the offence were described by the Presiding Judge as follows:[7]
The victim of the defendant’s actions is her five-year-old son. On 26 March 2017, the defendant was staying at her ex-partner’s address with her four children. At 9.10am, her husband left the residence with all four children in order to take two of the children to work. The defendant remained at the residence, sleeping. At about 10.20am, her husband returned home with the two youngest children. He asked the defendant to look after the children as he needed some time to go to the movies.
At approximately 11am, the defendant decided she wanted to end her life but thought that she could not leave her young son behind. She asked her son to come upstairs and led him to the master bedroom. (Description of what then occurred is given, and that after approximately one minute she let him go). She felt sorry for him. The child walked away into his bedroom, crying. She followed the child and tried to talk to him and said ‘I’m sorry, mate’.
The defendant then immediately returned to the master bedroom and called 000, asking for police at 11.15 a.m. She told police that she was not well mentally and suffered from schizophrenia and had taken medication. She further stated that she had two small children with her and had just tried to smother one of her children. The defendant waited for police and did not try to take her life at any stage.
- [17]Dr Dodemaide, a forensic psychiatrist, provided reports and gave evidence to the Mental Health Court. He advised that he is a forensic psychiatrist primarily working at the High Secure Service at The Park. and had been the treating psychiatrist for the teacher since being admitted to the High Secure Inpatient Service on 24 April 2017.[8]
- [18]He advised that his diagnosis was that the teacher had a schizoaffective disorder of bipolar type, and was suffering from the condition at the time of the alleged offence of attempted murder on 26 March 2017.[9]
- [19]He noted that the teacher had a history of admissions to hospitals prior to the offence, and had suffered what sounded like manic episodes in previous episodes at the Belmont Hospital where he believes she had been an inpatient just a week prior.[10]
- [20]He commented that depression can follow a manic episode:[11]
It is a recognised phenomenon that sometimes people experiencing a manic episode, when that resolves, can sometimes become quite depressed afterwards, so that may have been the underlying biological process behind why she became so depressed at the time on top of all of the other psychological social stressors that had sort of been building over a number of years.
- [21]He described how she began to develop increasingly severe depressive symptoms which altered her thinking and was unable to think with a moderate degree of sense and composure about the rightness and wrongness of what she was doing, and was deprived of the capacity to know that she ought not to do the act.[12] His report was quoted in further detail by Flanagan J. in his reasons as follows:
CLS knew that the act of suffocation could result in death and this had been her intention. She was not suffering from symptoms of major mental illness such as passivity phenomena or command hallucinations that would have deprived her of the capacity to control her actions. However, she was deprived of the capacity to know that she ought not do the act at the material time due to the effect of her symptoms of schizoaffective disorder.
She had become gradually more impaired by mood and psychotic symptoms over a number of years and her distress levels increased after her evolving belief system started to be challenged by others as a sign of mental illness. Feeling helpless against persistent intrusive thoughts about potential catastrophes befalling her children, perceived persecution of her religious beliefs and being compelled to take a sedating medication, she began to develop increasingly severe depressive symptoms.
This eventually altered her thinking beyond a moderate degree of sense and composure such that she believed herself to be justified in her actions and altered her ability to consider the morality of her actions in a way that was incongruous with her usual character. She believed the only solution was to end her life and the life of her two younger children in order to prevent any harm from coming to them in her absence.[13]
- [22]Evidence was given by another forensic psychiatrist, Dr Phillips. Her diagnostic opinion was that the teacher’s history of presentation was consistent with schizoaffective disorder, bi-polar type which she explained as follows:[14]
The diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder is based not just on (CLS) self-report to myself but also on all of the collateral information, including the comprehensive mental health assessments prior to the alleged offence and subsequent to and collateral information from the family which is documented within the police materials and also within her medical records.
Schizoaffective disorder is a chronic major mental illness which is characterised by psychotic symptoms and also mood symptoms. (CLS) has got a clear history of episodes of manic symptoms, also depressive symptoms and psychotic symptoms which persist even in the absence of the mood symptoms, which is what distinguishes it from a bipolar affective disorder.
Proceedings under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld)
- [23]The Tribunal, in its jurisdiction under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) made Orders on 3 September 2018 appointing persons as Guardians for the teacher for the personal matters of legal matters not relating to her financial property matters; and as to employment, which were to come to an end one month after the Queensland Department of Education accepted her resignation.[15]
- [24]On the same day, 3 September 2018, the Tribunal appointed the teacher’s husband as Administrator for her for all financial matters. That appointment was reviewable and was to be reviewed in five years.
- [25]The Tribunal made a declaration on 31 January 2022 that the Teacher had Capacity for personal matters and for executing an Enduring Power of Attorney to appoint an Attorney for health and personal decisions.
- [26]The Tribunal made a declaration on 18 January 2024 that the Teacher had capacity for simple and day-to-day financial matters, but not for complex financial matters, and revoked the appointment of an Administrator.
The teacher’s work history since the offence
- [27]A letter from the Department of Education dated 14 September 2018 notes that the teacher’s employment with the Department came to an end on that date by operation of law, as her employment was frustrated.[16]
- [28]In material filed on 7 May 2023 for a Review of the appointment of an administrator, the teacher noted her income as a superannuation related pension, and advised that she was no longer a patient of the Park Centre for Mental Health, and was in her own home.
Grounds for disciplinary action
- [29]Section 92 of the Act provides for grounds for disciplinary action, Section 92(1)(h) provides as to standards of behaviour as follows:
92 Grounds for disciplinary action
- Each of the following is a ground for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher–
- 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.
- [30]In Queensland College of Teachers v DLJ[17] (‘DLJ’) the teacher stopped teaching in July 2010 when he went on sick leave. Whilst on sick leave he had a psychotic episode which resulted in an incident on 18 January 2011 when he stabbed his de facto wife in the stomach and in the leg with a kitchen knife. She needed surgical treatment in hospital to repair a laceration to the liver. He also stabbed his step-daughter then aged 19 in the shoulder when she tried to intervene, and she also required treatment in hospital but was not detained.[18]
- [31]As a result of the incident the teacher was charged with attempted murder of both his wife and step-daughter. Those charges were discontinued, however, after the Mental Health Court decided on 7 October 2011 that he was of unsound mind when the incident happened and a Forensic Order was made.[19]
- [32]The Tribunal described the test to apply as follows:[20]
[13] In this decision we have to decide whether DLJ is suitable to teach. This must be tested at the time we make our decision.
[14] Sections 11, 12 and 12A of the 2005 Act set out the matters we must consider when deciding whether a person is suitable to teach. By section 12(1)(b) we must consider whether the person is suitable to work in a child-related field. By section 12A(1) we must consider whether the person poses a risk of harm to children. ‘Harm’ is any detrimental effect of a significant nature on the child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing.
[15] In cases such as this, the Tribunal has asked itself whether the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children when considering whether the teacher is suitable to teach and suitable to work in a child related field.
[16] If DLJ is not suitable to teach then it means that there are grounds for disciplinary action to be taken against him (as has been done in these proceedings) under section 92 of the Act. Under section 158(1), we have to decide whether or not this is the case as soon as practicable after finishing the hearing. We would then have a range of orders we could make as set out in section 160 of the Act.
- [33]The Tribunal went on to consider DLJ’s condition and concluded that the evidence tended to demonstrate a failure to engage in the process required for him to return to teaching and suggested that he was not yet ready to do so, and cancelled his registration as a teacher and ordered that the register be endorsed with notations as to medical reports and training to be required with any application for re-registration.[21]
- [34]DLJ considered section 92(1)(h) of the Act as it stood prior to the enactment of the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (Qld) on 8 September 2016. That section, prior to the enactment, read as follows:
- the teacher is not suitable to teach
- [35]The Tribunal in DLJ went on to consider the old version of section 92(1)(h) in context of section 12A(1) which provides as follows:
- In considering whether a person is suitable to work in a child-related field as mentioned in section 12(1)(b), the College must consider whether the person poses a risk of harm to children.
- [36]Section 92(1)(h) was amended by the Amendment Act in 2016 to read as follows:
- 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
- [37]The Explanatory Notes to the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 (Qld) refers to the change as follows:[22]
The clause amends section 92(1)(h) to clarify what is meant by ‘not suitable to teach’ as a ground for disciplinary action. The revised definition covers lower end behaviour (for example that may warrant a reprimand) through to significant misconduct (for example that may lead to suspension or cancellation).
- [38]The effect of the change to section 92(1)(h) is to make that section refer specifically to behaviour. Consequently, it is the behaviour of the teacher that is to be considered as the test.
Submissions of the College
- [39]The College submitted that the conduct of CLS,was at a similar level of seriousness to DLJ, noting that in DLJ the teacher’s level of insight and understanding of the chronic condition raised concerns about the potential for relapse and the risk of harm to children.[23]
- [40]The College sought orders that a ground for disciplinary action had been established pursuant to section 92(1)(h) of the Act, and that her registration be cancelled pursuant to section 160(2)(b) of the Act.
- [41]The College further sought Orders in relation to the Register as follows:
3. That the register be endorsed with a notation that any application by the respondent for re-registration be accompanied by a report from a consultant psychiatrist or a registered psychologist, which includes an assessment of:
- In relation to any relevant mental illness, condition or disorder of the respondent
- Any history of any condition or disorder, including any diagnosis and treatment.
- The significance, if any, of any mental illness, condition or disability in relation to suitability to work in a child-related field/suitability to teach.
- Any likely change in the risk of harm to children as a result of any therapeutic treatment or other treatment.
- Any recommended treatment relevant to reducing or alleviating any risk of harm to children.
- Assessment of her suitability to teach and work in a child-related field.
- Assessment of the level of risk of harm to children that she presents.
- Assessment as to any likely change of her risk of harm to children as a result of exposure to relevant stressors likely to be experienced in performance of duties as a teacher.
- Any strategies that would be appropriate to address any risk of harm to children, particularly in the context of teaching.
- Whether there are any teaching arrangements, strategies or environments which would increase or decrease any risk of harm to children which she presents.
- Any other consideration relevant to her suitability to work in a child-related field and/or her suitability to teach.
- [42]The College also sought orders as to reports and costs as follows:
4. Any such report/assessment should include a reference to the report writer being provided with copies of:
- Reports of Dr Julian Dodemaide dated 23 August 2017 and 6 November 2018.
- Report of Dr Jane Phillips, Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 30 September 2018.
- A copy of this decision.
- The register must be endorsed with a notation that the respondent shall not be permitted to teach unless she has undertaken training offered through the relevant employing authority on workplace and educational expectations, policies, and procedures.
- The respondent must bear all costs associated with compliance with sections 3 and 4 of the required reports.
- [43]The College submitted that a non-publication order was necessary for the reasons stated in section 66(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), including ‘for any other reason in the interests of justice’, noting that the conduct in question does involve the teacher’s child, and that identifying her would indirectly lead to the identification of the child which is undesirable.
- [44]The College submitted that the non-publication order should include exceptions allowing appropriate notifications as follows:
Other than to the parties to this proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent other than to the extent necessary for the QCT to meet its statutory obligations and as provided under the education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005. The respondent may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.
Submissions of the teacher
- [45]The teacher did not file any submissions in response to either the proceedings to continue the initial suspension, or in these proceedings.
- [46]An email was sent by the teacher’s mother to the Tribunal on 12 May 2024 in reply to an email enclosing the directions made by the Tribunal on 12 March 2024 as to the teacher’s filing any further materials and any written submissions in response. In that email her mother said as follows:[24]
(CLS) asks (as her appeal) that she would like to stay on the Teachers Register although she is not teaching at present as she is still under a forensic order and is being looked after by Qld Gov mental health.
Discussion
- [47]The behaviour of the teacher in conducting an act of violence against a child on 26 March 2017 was of such seriousness that it led to her being charged with ’Attempt to murder’, which is by definition a serious offence.
- [48]Section 92(1)(h) refers to actual behaviour – it does not refer to an element of intent. Notwithstanding that the criminal proceedings were ordered to be discontinued by the Mental Health Court, that does not mean that the behaviour of the teacher is not still to be considered in terms of their registration.
- [49]Whilst section 92 of the Act is headed ‘grounds for disciplinary action’, that heading is informative only, and does not have the effect that orders are made under it only if a ‘disciplinary’ response is required. That section also acts in a regulatory way.
- [50]It is well established that disciplinary proceedings under the Act are not intended to be punitive in nature, but are to further the objects of the Act, as submitted by the College, and as described in Queensland College of Teachers v TSV[25] as follows:
The purpose…is not to punish the teacher. Instead, it is to further the objects of (the Act). These include upholding the standards of the teaching profession, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and protecting the public by ensuring that education is provided in a professional way. It is essential the persons registered as teachers do not pose a risk of harm to children. Although punishment is not the aim, deterrence is a relevant consideration. The sanction imposed must provide ‘general deterrence to the members of the teaching profession and specific deterrence to further irresponsible conduct by the teacher in question’.
- [51]The observations of Dr Phillipson, who was assisting Flanagan J in the proceedings in the Mental Health Court on 13 November 2018, are relevant in assessing CLS’s behaviour, as follows:
Thank you, your Honour. Clearly this is a very serious matter which could have had tragic consequences. The court has been assisted by reports from two very experienced psychiatrists, each of whom have outlined the longitudinal history of this lady’s condition, which probably started in 2012, if not sooner, and has resulted in several admissions to hospital prior to the index event.
Your Honour, each of the reporting psychiatrists have come to the view that at the index time, the defendant was suffering from a psychotic illness manifesting as profound depression, and both opine that she was deprived of the capacity to know that she ought not do the act. They both opine that intoxication is not a factor, that there is no significant dispute of fact, and that she is fit for trial.
My advice, your Honour, is to accept the opinion of both the reporting psychiatrists that the defendant was of unsound mind at the time. Given the severity of the alleged offence, I would advise your Honour that a forensic order in patient is very appropriate, with the condition that – as outlined by Counsel that supervised contact with the children should be permitted.[26]
- [52]We consider that a ground for disciplinary action is made out under Section 92(1)(h), in that CLS 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.
- [53]Limited information has been provided to the Tribunal by the teacher as to her current medical or personal situation; or as to whether she has any intention or desire to resume teaching, other than the email from her mother on 12 May 2024 indicating that she wished to stay on the register.
- [54]The material available to the Tribunal indicates that CLS is now living in her own premises in South-East Queensland, is in receipt of a life-time pension, and whilst she is able to make personal decisions, is still not able to make complex financial decisions.
- [55]Whilst no specific material has been provided to the Tribunal as to the period of time that CLS was an inpatient at The Park under the Forensic Order made by the Mental Health Court, it appears that this was for an extensive period from November 2018 until some time prior to May 2023 when she advised the Tribunal (in Guardianship proceedings) that she was no longer a patient at The Park.
- [56]The Tribunal notes that there is no material indicating whether CLS is yet able to have unsupervised contact with her children pursuant to the Forensic Order.
- [57]It could not be said with confidence that CLS no longer poses a risk to children in the absence of material indicating that her very serious and long-standing mental health issues have resolved to that extent.
- [58]The range of sanctions that the Tribunal may order if it decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established is set out in section 160 of the Act, and section 160(2)(d) provides that the tribunal may cancel the teacher’s registration.
- [59]We accept the submission of the College that the conduct of CLS is on a level similar to that in DLJ. In that matter the registration of the teacher was cancelled and orders were made that the Register be endorsed with notations as to medical reports and training to be required with any application for re-registration.
- [60]We consider that the appropriate orders are that CLS’s registration be cancelled, and notations be made to the register, as submitted by the College.
- [61]The Tribunal orders that:
- A ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
- The registration of CLS as a teacher is cancelled under section 160(2)(d) of the Act.
- The register be endorsed with a notation that any application by the respondent for re-registration be accompanied by a report from a consultant psychiatrist or a registered psychologist, which includes an assessment of:
- In relation to any relevant mental illness, condition or disorder of the respondent
- Any history of any condition or disorder, including any diagnosis and treatment.
- The significance, if any, of any mental illness, condition or disability in relation to suitability to work in a child-related field/suitability to teach.
- Any likely change in the risk of harm to children as a result of any therapeutic treatment or other treatment.
- Any recommended treatment relevant to reducing or alleviating any risk of harm to children.
- Assessment of her suitability to teach and work in a child -related field.
- Assessment of the level of risk of harm to children that she presents.
- Assessment as to any likely change of her risk of harm to children as a result of exposure to relevant stress always likely to be experienced in performance of duties as a teacher.
- Any strategies that would be appropriate to address any risk of harm to children, particularly in the context of teaching.
- Whether there are any teaching arrangements, strategies or environments which would increase or decrease any risk of harm to children which she presents.
- Any other consideration relevant to her suitability to work in a child-related field and/or her suitability to teach.
- Any such report/assessment should include a reference to the report writer been provided with copies of:
- Reports of Dr Julian Dodemaide dated 23 August 2017 and 6 November 2018.
- Report of Dr Jane Phillips, Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 30 September 2018.
- A copy of this decision.
- The register must be endorsed with a notation that the respondent shall not be permitted to teach unless she has undertaken training offered through the relevant employing authority on workplace and educational expectations, policies, and procedures.
- CLS must bear all costs associated with compliance with sections 3 and 4 of the required reports.
Non-publication order
- [62]A non-publication order was made by the Tribunal at the time of extending the suspension of the registration on 7 June 2017 as follows:
Other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information which may identify CLS or any relevant child.
- [63]We accept the submissions of the College as to the need for the making of a non-publication order, and make an order in terms as proposed by the College, extending it to protect the identity of her family and the school she was teaching at.
MEMBER ROBYN OLIVER:
- [64]I agree with the historical background to the determination of this disciplinary hearing referred to by the majority up to and including paragraph [28] of their reasons.
- [65]However, unlike the majority, I am not satisfied that a ground for disciplinary action has been established for the following reasons.
- [66]Firstly, this is a disciplinary hearing to determine if the CLS has engaged in any conduct which renders her unsuitable to teach, Section 158 of the Act provides that:
As soon as practicable after finishing the hearing, QCAT must decide whether a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established.
- [67]Therefore, the first task of the Tribunal is to determine if a ‘ground’ for taking disciplinary action can be established. The Act, in s 92(1)(h), sets out a variety of grounds for taking disciplinary action. They include specific behaviour which does not meet the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
Grounds for disciplinary action
- Each of the following is a ground for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher–
- 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;
- [68]The particulars of the behaviour relied upon by the College are that on 26 March 2017 CLS attempted to smother her son with a pillow at her home. She was arrested and charged with attempted murder. Clearly, this behaviour falls short of the relevant standard.
- [69]However, the difficulty with relying on this behaviour as a ground is that, at the time of the behaviour, it was conclusively found by the Mental Health Court, in reliance on the psychiatric evidence referred to in the joint reasons, that CLS was of unsound mind. This finding resulted in the charges of attempted murder being withdrawn and instead a forensic order was made by the Mental Health Court.
- [70]Even though ‘intent’ is not specifically referred to in subsection 1(h) and is therefore not an ‘element’ of the behaviour, it is difficult to see how a person can be held responsible for their behaviour when they are of unsound mind. It is the behaviour that is the focus of subsection 1(h) against which the ‘standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’ is measured. This is not a case where the standard of proof varies according to the seriousness of conduct in question. There is no doubt that the conduct occurred but it was clearly unintentional because of CLS’s mental state.
- [71]Therefore, under both ss 158 and 92, the College is submitting that the Tribunal should discipline CLS for behaviour over which she had no conscious control because of her state of mind. The submission lacks substance and is entirely inconsistent with the College’s submission to Dalton J (Mental Health Court) in responding to her query about whether if the College was given the expert reports, they would need the witness statements as well. The College’s reply was as follows:
Look, potentially not. I think it is pretty certain the tribunal will ultimately dismiss the matter… The effect of the order will be the tribunal will examine the circumstances, they will say, “We’ve discharged our duty under the Act.” We will ask for the matter to be discontinued because essentially the – at the moment, she’s suspended on the basis that she was charged with a serious offence, but the reality is that charge actually no longer exists because she has been found of unsound mind. So, from a disciplinary perspective, really, the suspension doesn’t really exist any more because there is no charge to form the suspension. However, there’s a subsection under the Act which basically says the tribunal must examine the circumstances. Once the tribunal has done that, they can say, “Yes, we’ve done that.” We will then ask for the matter to be withdrawn, in which case we will then deal with it as a health impairment matter. So I think, in response to your question, I mean, essentially, if we get a copy of the decision, reasons for the decision, a copy of the expert reports, there’s probably going to be enough information in there for the tribunal to be able to satisfy themselves and examine the circumstances of the incident. …[27]
- [72]Although that is not decisive of the task to be undertaken by the Tribunal to determine if disciplinary action should be taken against CLS, it does demonstrate the College itself at that time was of the opinion that proceedings in the circumstances would be futile.
- [73]The only case where some similar circumstances arose is Queensland College of Teachers v DLJ.[28] This case is referred to in the reasons of the majority. Importantly in that case the question for determination was the teacher’s suitability to work in a child-related field and a consideration of the risk of harm to children. The ground relied on in DLJ is entirely different to this case which is focused on the behaviour of the teacher, which might warrant disciplinary action. There must be a finding about the particular behaviour and in my view the teacher must have an awareness of that behaviour, and that it does not meet the ‘standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’.
Current suitability to teach
- [74]A determination of suitability to teach, in the absence of a finding by the Tribunal of a ground for disciplinary conduct is a matter for the College. It is the College that must be satisfied that a teacher is suitable to teach. Assessing suitability to teach includes considering a number of factors. These nine factors are listed on the QCT website and would provide the College with the necessary safeguards and protections for children.[29]
- [75]It may well be that CLS is not suitable to teach at this time. This is not the issue to be determined by the Tribunal in this matter.
- [76]The only psychiatric evidence provided to the Tribunal to make its determination has come from the extracts from reports referred to in the transcripts of the Mental Health Court, dated 23 August 2017, 6 November 2018 and 30 September 2018. There have been no complete reports from treating psychiatrists provided to the Tribunal despite in excess of five different treating psychiatrists being involved in assessments and opinions on CLS. The College may have access to other information from the teacher’s former employer about aspects of her teaching which caused the previous employer to take action to get CLS medical treatment prior to the incident,[30] but this information, if it exists, has not been made available to us.
- [77]Until such time as CLS has her forensic order lifted, and has been given permission by her treating psychiatrists to have unsupervised contact with her own children, then it is my view that there is no threat to the safety of children. In addition, there is no suggestion that CLS is currently indicating a desire to return to teaching.
- [78]I agree with both paragraphs [62] and [63] regarding the non-publication order.
Footnotes
[1] College of Teachers submissions on grounds, sanction and non-publication order, dated 17 May 2024, [15] (‘College of Teachers submissions’).
[2] Ibid, [20].
[3] Email from Holding Redlich, Solicitors, to the Tribunal, 25 May 2017.
[4] Exhibit ‘K’ to the affidavit of Henri Rantala, 19 March 2024, will1p.
[5] College of Teachers submissions, [24].
[6] Ibid.
[7] Transcript of Proceedings, Mental Health Court,13 November 2018, Reasons p 2, Lines 12-34.
[8] Ibid, 13 November 2018,1-2, Lines 30-40.
[9] Ibid, 1-3, Lines 18-26.
[10] Ibid, 1-7, Lines 5-8.
[11] Ibid, 1-7, Lines 15-19.
[12] Ibid, 1-7, Line 36-43; and 1-7 Line 44 to 1-8 Line 3.
[13] Transcript of Reasons for finding, 13 November 2018, P 4, Lines 1-20.
[14] Ibid, 1-13, Lines 36-46.
[15] Tribunal Customer Code G38084.
[16] Guardianship file.
[17] [2015] QCAT 413.
[18] Ibid [2], [3].
[19] Ibid [4].
[20] Ibid [13]-[16].
[21] Ibid [37].
[22] Explanatory Notes to the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 (Qld), p. 18.
[23] Submissions of the College, dated 17 May 2024, [52].
[24] Email CLS’s mother to the Tribunal, 12 May 2024.
[25] [2015] QCAT 186 at [25].
[26] Transcript of 13 November 2018, 1-20, Lines 1-16.
[27] Transcript of Mental Health Court, 6 August 2019, 1-4 Lines 5-26.
[28] Queensland College of Teachers v DLJ [2015] QCAT 413.
[29] Queensland College of Teachers, ‘Registration/ Professional Conduct for Renewal/ Suitability to teach/ What is Suitability?’ (website) <https://www.qct.edu.au/registration/professional-conduct>.
[30] Transcript from the Mental Health Court, 13 November 2018, 1-15 Lines 3-6.