Queensland College of Teachers v EFG
[2024] QCAT 79
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 EFG[2024] QCAT 79
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v EFG[2024] QCAT 79
Queensland College of Teachers v EFG[2024] QCAT 79
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v EFG [2024] QCAT 79 |
PARTIES: | QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS (applicant) v EFG (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR091-22 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 February 2024 |
HEARING DATE: | 22 January 2024 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member King-Scott, Presiding Member Member Burson Member Grigg |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – former approved teacher – appropriateness of professional boundaries – on the papers hearing on agreed facts – reprimand. Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464 Queensland College of Teachers v Lobo [2019] QCAT 26 Queensland College of Teachers v Saunders [2013] QCAT 478 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBJ [2018] QCAT 135 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) |
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
- [1]This matter arises from a mandatory referral in relation to by the Queensland College of Teachers to the Tribunal under ss. 92(1)(h) and 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’).
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5]The serious offences[6] under the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) were:
- Using internet to procure children under 16 and intentionally meeting or going to meet child pursuant to ss. 218A(1) & (2)(b);
- 2 counts of grooming child under 16 years with intent to procure engagement in a sexual act pursuant to s. 218B(1)(a);
- 2 counts of indecent treatment of children under 16 pursuant to s. 210 (1)(a);
- Using internet to procure children under 16 and intentionally meeting or going to meet child pursuant to ss. 218A(1) & (2)(b);
- [6]The serious offence charges were heard in the District Court at Brisbane during the months of February and June 2019. After, several mistrials and after the jury failed to reach a decision on two occasions the Director of Public Prosecutions entered a nolle prosequi on 28 June 2019.
- [7]EFG, at all times, denied the particulars of the charges brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
- [8]A perusal of the transcripts reveals many discrepancies in the complainant’s evidence. EFG disputes the allegations of criminal misconduct. As this matter is being considered on the papers it would be inappropriate to consider the evidence relating to the serious offences in any detail without hearing from the parties involved. We do not consider, based on all the facts and circumstances of this case, that hearing further from the parties is warranted. The applicant and EFG have agreed facts, and we propose to make our decision based on those agreed facts.
Relevant legislation
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;
…
- The ground for disciplinary action mentioned in subsection (1)(h) is taken to apply to a relevant teacher whose registration or permission to teach is suspended under section 48 if any of the following applies—
- the teacher has been charged with a serious offence and the charge has been dealt with.
…
- The object of subsection (2) is to ensure the circumstances of the change are examined by a practice and conduct body.
- Subsection (2) does not limit the application of subsection (1)(h).
- In this section—
dealt with, in relation to a charge against a relevant teacher for a serious offence, means any of the following—
…
- a nolle prosequi or no true bill is presented in relation to the charge.
Agreed facts
- [9]The Amended Agreed Statement of Facts are as follows:
10 Between 2008 and 2018, the respondent:1
- was involved with the Church, with activities such as Church Services, Youth and Young adult programs;
- was employed part-time with (Church) Youth and Community Services; and
- volunteered regularly for the (Youth) Camp in a leadership role.
11 As a pastor, the respondent held a special position of trust and authority, as a mentor and guide to young people within the Church's parish and in the (Youth) Camps, where children and young people were often without their parent or guardian.
12 The respondent first met (the complainant) on the Easter (Youth) Camp in 2013.
13 The complainant occasionally attended the Church for youth group on Friday nights and Sunday church services.
14 The respondent discussed pornography with the complainant after the complainant disclosed his addiction to pornography to the respondent. The respondent encouraged the complainant to speak with his parents.
15 The respondent baptised the complainant in October 2016.
16 The respondent met the complainant’s parents prior to the baptism and met the complainant 's father once when the complainant was dropped off at the church for youth group.
17 The respondent used social media to communicate with the complainant, including Facebook and iMessage.
18 The respondent first activated Snapchat on 9 February 2016 to enable youth engagement and communication within the youth group. He deleted or deactivated it on 15 March 2018 after being notified of the police investigation.
19 Commencing on 14 April 2017 the respondent engaged in a FacebookMessenger exchange with the complainant:
- The messaging between the respondent and the student included:
14 April 2017
The Complainant: Hey Jon[7] (at 18:52)
I love you
Jon: I see (at 18:52)
The Complainant: idk if this is weird to say (at 19:00)
But your faith makes you really attractive
Jon: You sent a photo from GIPHY (at 19:02)
15 April 2017
The Complainant: wish you would put me in ur dorm (at 21:58)
Jon: Who was in your dorm?
The Complainant: Love you (at 22:15)
24 April 2017
Jon: Hi (21:31)
The Complainant Hey
I love you (21:31)
Jon: Yeah right (at 21:32)
The Complainant: Are you ok?
Jon: Why wouldn’t I be ok? (at 21:33)
The Complainant: I’m just wondering
Jon: Why are you wondering? (at 21:34)
The Complainant: Cause I care about you
Are you ok? (at 21:36)
I’m here to talk if you ever want to talk (at 21:44)
25 November 2017
The Complainant: Happy birthday you legend, hope you have a
great day.😊 ❤️
20 The respondent engaged in social media, texting and playng online games with the complainant.
21 The lateness of the evening of some messages and the overfamiliarity of the conversations are inconsistent with the maintenance of appropriate boundaries.
22 The conduct does not meet the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, from both the teaching profession and the community.
23 Although the complainant was never a student of the respondent, nor was he known to the respondent within the context of teaching, the respondent held full teacher registration at the time of the conduct. The professional ethics and boundaries applied regardless of the conduct occurring outside a school setting.
24 Registered teachers have a duty to always maintain professional boundaries in their interactions with children and young people, whether in a professional or personal capacity.
Respondent’s case
- [10]In submissions[8] in response to the Tribunal’s directions of 29 September 2023 the respondent stated:
I want to make it clear that, I do not agree with or accept any insinuation or suggestion of criminal activity with respect to my conduct. However, in a spirit of cooperation with the QCT, I am willing to accept a reprimand from the QCT on the basis that my communication with the complainant was overfamiliar and crossed the professional boundaries generally expected of a teacher. I accept responsibility for this behaviour.
- [11]We should interpolate here that EFG is a married man with children. The trials destroyed his career and caused him public humiliation. The numerous criminal trials and mistrials, none of which resulted in a verdict caused him to exhaust all of his family’s life savings on legal fees. His health has suffered. His church has abandoned him. He is now employed in a field completely unassociated with teaching or pastoral work or working with children or young adults. He had not taught in the classroom for a number of years prior to the alleged occurrence of the events the subject of the charges. He has no desire to return to teaching. He has surrendered his teacher’s registration which has now been cancelled.
Resolution
- [12]The issues to be decided by the Tribunal are:
- whether the grounds for disciplinary action are established, namely that ‘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, and
- if so, the appropriate disciplinary action to be applied.
- [13]
- [14]In arriving at an appropriate order, we have also had regard to other like decisions of the Tribunal concerning s 161.
- [15]In determining this matter, the Tribunal must be reasonably satisfied to the required civil standard, that the allegations have been proven, taking into account the seriousness of the matter.[11] In this case we base our decision solely on the agreed facts and the concession made by EFG.
- [16]It is our opinion the conduct contained in the agreed facts does not meet the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher and the professional ethics and boundaries should apply regardless of the conduct occurring outside a school setting.
Orders
- [17]The disciplinary options available to the tribunal are addressed in section 160 (2) of the Act which provides that if QCAT decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established QCAT may do one or more of the actions listed from (a) to (l).
- [18]The Tribunal is satisfied, for the reasons stated above, that the ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) is established.
- [19]The Tribunal orders that a reprimand be issued to EFG.
- [20]The applicant submits that it is appropriate to order a notation on the register to ensure that should EFG reapply for registration after the period of prohibition, then he must provide a psychological report which addresses a number of issues, to the satisfaction of the Applicant. Those issues were as follows:
- Differentiation between personal and professional relationships;
- The respondent’s awareness of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate communication and behaviour with children and young people;
- The impact of inappropriate communication conduct and relationships upon children and young people, families, and the profession;
- The respondent's awareness of what constitutes appropriate an inappropriate use of social media and electronic communications with children and young people;
- The concept and importance of professional boundaries;
- The development and maintenance of professional standards and professional boundaries when working with children and young people;
- The need to protect children and young people from physical, psychological and emotional harm;
- Risk assessment and early identification of potentially problematic situations;
- How to achieve realistic solutions to avoid the risk of harm to children and young people;
- The legal obligations of teachers and tutors;
- The extent and nature of the trust and power invested in a teacher by students, colleagues, parents and the community; conduct;
- Conduct that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the teaching profession; gnu line the importance of full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
- [21]The suitability of a psychological report would depend upon concern by the applicant that EFG does not have insight or fully appreciate the inappropriateness of his behaviour.[12] We are satisfied on the material provided by ERG that he is well aware that his behaviour was inappropriate and why it was inappropriate. We do not consider that it is necessary to impose such conditions, particularly when EFG has indicated that he has no intention of returning to the teaching profession and his registration is currently cancelled.
Non-publication order
- [22]Pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified. The Tribunal may do so on the application of a party or on its own initiative.[13]
- [23]We are satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that would identify EFG or the complainant or any relevant third party, other than to the extent necessary for the College to meet its statutory obligations, including those arising under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Act.
- [24]We make orders pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of that information.
Footnotes
[1] Paragraph 7 of Amended statement of agreed facts filed 27 November 2023.
[2] Ibid. footnote 1
[3] Ibid paragraph 8.
[4] Ibid paragraph 9.
[5] Exhibit D Affidavit of Megan Louise Girvan filed 3 May 2022
[6] As defined in the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)
[7] Not his true name
[8] Filed on 6 November 2023
[9] Queensland College of Teachers v Brady [2011] QCAT 464 at [54] & [55].
[10] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3(3)(b).
[11] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
[12] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBJ [2018] QCAT 135
[13] Section 66(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).