Queensland College of Teachers v TLU
[2025] QCAT 146
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 TLU[2025] QCAT 146
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v TLU[2025] QCAT 146
Queensland College of Teachers v TLU[2025] QCAT 146
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v TLU [2025] QCAT 146 |
PARTIES: | queensland college of teachers (applicant) v TLU (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO: | OCR221-23 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 19 March 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | 31 January 2025 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Bishop, Presiding Member Poteri Member English |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – GENERALLY – where a teacher allegedly engaged in inappropriate behaviour – where the teacher was involved in an assault of the teacher’s partner – where criminal charges resulted in a term of prison – whether the teacher’s conduct satisfies the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – whether a sanction is appropriate Criminal Code of Queensland Act 1899 (Qld) s 335 of schedule 2, s 339 of schedule 2 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3, s 48, s 92, s 97, s 111A, s 158, s 160, s 161 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) s 177(2)(b) Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 58(2), s 60(1) Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD [2020] QCAT 469 Queensland College of Teachers v VRR [2024] QCAT 47 Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ [2019] QCAT 283 |
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]On 2 July 2020, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) suspended TLU’s registration as a teacher pursuant to s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’). On 2 July 2020 the suspension matter was referred (‘the Referral’) to the Tribunal to decide whether to continue the suspension (case number OCR199-20).
- [2]On 21 August 2020, the Tribunal ordered that the suspension of TLU’s registration should be continued.
- [3]On 19 September 2023 the QCT referred this matter to the Tribunal to determine the disciplinary proceedings against TLU.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
- [4]Section 92 of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action in practice and conduct matters. Numerous grounds are listed including: ‘the person behaves in such a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’.
- [5]‘Standard of behaviour’ is not defined in the Act but has been addressed by the Tribunal in a previous matter:
‘…the standard expected should be the standard ‘reasonably’ expected by the community at large, as the actions of a teacher may impact directly on the children of the community; and this in turn should reflect the standard that those in the teaching profession would expect of their colleagues and peers’.[1]
- [6]The issues for determination by the Tribunal in the current matter are:
- whether a ground for disciplinary action against TLU has been established; and
- the ground for disciplinary action to be considered if ‘the 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; and
- if the Tribunal decides a ground for disciplinary action against the respondent has been established, then the Tribunal must decide the disciplinary action to be taken.
- [7]Section 160 of the Act sets out the options available to QCAT after a decision about disciplinary action against a relevant teacher has been made.
- [8]The Tribunal’s task is to decide whether section 92(1)(h) of the Act applies to TLU. The standard of proof applicable to the Tribunal is the balance of probabilities on the Briginshaw standard which is set out in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336. Section 160 of the Act sets out the options available to QCAT after a decision about disciplinary action against a relevant teacher has been made.
- [9]At paragraph 41 in the matter of Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ [2019] QCAT 283, the Tribunal said:
The Briginshaw approach is based on the principal that a court in a civil action should not lightly find that a party has engaged in criminal conduct. The standard of proof does not vary – the civil standard remains the applicable standard. However, in applying the Briginshaw principles we must proceed cautiously in light of the gravity of the allegations made against the respondent and we must be satisfied that the relevant evidence has a high probative value, commensurate with the seriousness and the consequences of the alleged conduct.
THE REFERRAL
- [10]The Referral relates to events that occurred between 29 June 2020 and 1 July 2020. The events relate to an allegation of domestic violence and weapons offences at TLU’s residence at Holmview.
- [11]TLU was charged with:
- Count 1 – Assault occasioning bodily harm (Domestic Violence offence) – section 339 of schedule 2 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
- Counts 2 and 3 – Common Assault (Domestic Violence offence) – section 335 of schedule 2 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
- Count 4 – Dangerous conduct with weapon – section 58(2) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)
- Summary matter – Secure storage of weapons – licensee – section 60(1) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld).
- [12]On 8 September 2021 TLU appeared before the Beenleigh District Court for sentencing and received the following penalties:
- Dangerous conduct with a weapon – section 58(2) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). Imprisonment two years and six months
- Common assault x 2 – section 335 of schedule 2 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Imprisonment six months for each offence
- Assault occasioning bodily harm (Domestic Violence offence) – section 339 of schedule 2 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Imprisonment 12 months.
- [13]All sentences were to run concurrently. The Judge declared, at sentencing on 8 September 2021, that between 1 July 2020 and 7 September 2021 a total period of 434 days in custody on remand was time served and TLU was released on parole.
BACKGROUND
- [14]TLU was employed as a teacher at an independent college in Southeast Queensland until his registration was suspended on 02 July 2020. The suspension was in response to advice from the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) to the QCT that TLU had been charged with a “serious offence” as defined by schedule 2 of the Act namely: Torture (Domestic Violence Offence) – section 320A(1) of schedule 2 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).
- [15]The offending involved TLU threatening his partner with a loaded firearm. His actions included: aiming it at her threatening to kill her; putting it against the side of her head; following her around the house pointing the firearm at her; putting the firearm in her mouth.
- [16]TLU was born on 15 August 1969. He was 50 years of age at the time of offending and had been in a relationship with the victim for 20 years. The couple had three children. TLU was a competitive shooter and owned multiple firearms including a Glock handgun.
- [17]During the afternoon of 27 June 2020, TLU’s partner returned home after spending the night away from their home. The partner claimed to have been at her mother’s house overnight, but TLU later claimed that was a lie due to information from a tracking device that he had placed on her car.
- [18]During the following day, arguments took place over the partner’s whereabouts on that night, and she subsequently admitted to spending the night with a co-worker engaging in sexual activity. TLU became violent towards her with physical assault causing injury that required medical attention at a hospital, verbal abuse, detention, removal of phone access and firearm threats
- [19]During the afternoon of 1 July 2020, TLU directed his partner to telephone her mother and say that everything was fine. During this conversation an opportunity arose for her to discretely tell her mother to call the police. The QPS attended the residence shortly after and later that evening took TLU to the police station. TLU was charged the following day and remanded in custody.
- [20]While on remand at the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, TLU breached condition 6 of the Domestic Violence Order (‘DVO’) on 14 occasions. He was subsequently charged with 14 counts of contravening a DVO, pursuant to s 177(2)(b) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (‘the DVP Act’).
- [21]On 8 September 2021, TLU appeared in court for sentencing and was released on parole after time served.
Submissions
- [22]The QCT submitted:
- grounds for disciplinary action are established under s 92(1)(h) of the Act;
- TLU should be prohibited from reapplying for teacher registration or permission to teach for a period determined by the Tribunal;
- any future application for registration or permission to teach must be accompanied by a psychologist’s report that must include the psychologist’s professional opinion regarding the likelihood, if any, of TLU engaging in conduct contrary to the need to protect children and young people from physical or psychological harm. The QCT notes that TLU did not take up the opportunity to make submissions regarding this addition to the orders.
- [23]There were no formal submissions filed in the Tribunal by TLU. On 21 August TLU wrote a handwritten letter to the Tribunal. This note is referred to later.
Discussion
- [24]The Tribunal considered all the material and took into account the rights of TLU under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), including the right to a fair hearing. It was also noted that TLU had already served disciplinary time for his convictions.
- [25]Evidence considered by the Tribunal included: QCT’s statements, court briefings, documents and transcripts, formal statements from attending police and the victim, a handwritten letter by TLU to the presiding Judge, certificates and statements of TLU’s course completions while on remand, referee statements, various other transcripts and certificates. The affidavit of Chad Hill affirmed on 14 November 2023 and filed in the Tribunal on 17 November 2023 contained a number of exhibits that were considered by the Tribunal.
- [26]In reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal noted TLU’s age, and his family responsibilities given the special needs of some family members in the household. The previous clean record of TLU was also noted.
- [27]In the handwritten letter dated 21 August 2021 and directed to the then Presiding Judge, TLU expressed remorse for his actions and referred to steps taken to correct his behaviour.
- [28]Apart from the handwritten letter, TLU did not participate in the Tribunal’s proceedings and the Tribunal has no information about TLU’s current or recent employment situation or work history in the educational field or otherwise. No details have been provided by TLU regarding his current or recent personal relationships or living arrangements.
- [29]References from TLU’s work colleagues dated August 2020 attest to his capabilities as a teacher, employee, and in one case friend, but do not reference the charges. The statement dated 7 September 2021 (the day before his release on parole) by the Managing Director of Skypanel, Tim Molloy, certifies that TLU would be employed by the company upon release from detention. There is no subsequent information available to confirm that this occurred or for how long.
- [30]The Tribunal also considered the facts relating to TLU’s actions at the time of the initial offending along with the persistent breaches of the DVO through telephone calls from the correctional centre. The Tribunal noted that during this period of continued offending, he continued to blame his partner for his incarceration. The Tribunal also noted TLU’s behaviour towards the children during telephone calls from the detention centre as well as the presence of the children during the original offending.
- [31]Another matter that is more instructive is the matter of Queensland College of Teachers v VRR [2024] QCAT 47. The VRR matter involved a serious assault on a member of VRR’s family. This assault happened at the home of VRR, and criminal charges were brought against VRR. Eventually these charges were dropped. In this matter VRR was suspended for a period of five years.
- [32]The Tribunal considered the violent nature of TLU’s conduct put the case into the most serious of categories. Notwithstanding the sanction already served by TLU, the Tribunal considered that the safety of students, colleagues, parents and the wider community was of the highest importance. The professional standing of a teacher and the teaching profession must also be maintained.
- [33]The Tribunal concluded that:
- grounds for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(b) of the Act (conviction of indictable offences) and s 92(1)(h) (behaving in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher) are established;
- a prohibition on re-applying for registration or permission to teach should be applied. The Tribunal noted that TLU’s period of incarceration had excluded him from teaching. The Tribunal decided on a prohibition period of five years from the date of TLU’s release on parole, namely 8 September 2021; and
- any future application for registration or permission to teach must be accompanied by a psychologist’s report (further addressed below).
ORDERS
- [34]The Tribunal makes the following orders:
- TLU is prohibited from re-applying for registration or permission to teach for a period of five (5) years from the date of his release on parole, 8 September 2021.
-
The register of Teachers is to be endorsed with a notation under s 161(2)(d) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) as follows:
- Should TLU re-apply for registration or permission to teach, the application must be accompanied by:
-
An independent psychological report satisfactory to the QCT addressing and demonstrating that TLU has adequate awareness and understanding of the following matters:
- The need to protect children and young people from physical, psychological and emotional harm;
- Appropriate and inappropriate communication and behaviour with children and young people;
- The impact that inappropriate communication and behaviour has on children, young people, their families, schools, the community and the profession;
- How to identify own triggers;
- Strategies to prevent the recurrence of the conduct;
- How to achieve realistic solutions to avoid the risk of harm to children and young people;
- The extent and nature of the trust and power invested in teachers by students, colleagues, parents and the wider community;
- Behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
- The importance of adhering to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
- Confirmation that TLU has attended at least six (6) sessions over at least three (3) months with the psychologist. Such attendance must take place no more than six (6) months before TLU making an application for re-registration.
- Confirmation that the psychologist was provided with copies of the Tribunal’s orders and reasons for the decision and the referral by the Queensland College of Teachers under section 97 of the Act.
- TLU must bear the cost of obtaining the Report.
Footnotes
[1] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD [2020] QCAT 469 [11], citing Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709 [33].