Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v ATB - [2025] QCAT 181

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Queensland College of Teachers v ATB[2025] QCAT 181

Queensland College of Teachers v ATB[2025] QCAT 181

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v ATB [2025] QCAT 181

PARTIES:

Queensland college of teachers

(applicant)

v

atb

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR182-23

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2025

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Deane, Presiding; Member English; Member Poteri

ORDERS:

  1. The ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(b) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
  2. The ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
  3. The respondent’s registration or permission to teach is cancelled pursuant to s 160(2)(d) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
  4. Pursuant to s 160(2)(j) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), the respondent is prohibited from re-applying for registration or permission to teach until the date of this decision.
  5. Pursuant to s 160(2)(k) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld):
    1. Prior to any re-application for registration or permission to teach, the respondent must provide to the Queensland College of Teachers (‘the College’) a psychologist’s report, satisfactory to the College, providing an assessment as to whether the psychologist is satisfied that the respondent has adequate awareness and understanding of the following matters:
      1. the need to protect  children and young people from physical, psychological, and emotional harm;
      2. the identification  of his own triggers and strategies he intends to utilise to ensure there is no future recurrence of the incidents of concern;
      3. how to achieve realistic solutions to avoid the risk of harm to children and young people;
      4. the extent and nature of trust and power invested in teachers by students, colleagues, parents and the wider community;
      5. behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
      6. the importance of full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
    2. The report must include the psychologist’s professional opinion regarding the likelihood, if any, of the respondent engaging in conduct that would be contrary to the need to protect children and young people from physical, psychological or emotional harm.
    3. The report must indicate that the psychologist was provided with a copy of the Tribunal’s decision and reasons, and the College’s referral under s 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
    4. The report must include the duration and frequency of attendance, such attendance must take place not more than six months prior to the respondent making an application for re-registration and details of any testing that was undertaken.
  6. The respondent must bear all costs of, and associated with, compliance with these orders.
  7. Pursuant to s 160(2)(i) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) a notation of these orders regarding the respondent will be entered into the register.
  8. Other than the parties to this proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent, and any complainant, or any relevant school, other than to the extent necessary to enable the College to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
  9. The respondent may provide a copy of this decision to:
    1. Any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements, in particular to address any concerns raised by those who were notified of the suspension of his teacher registration following laying of the serious offence charges;
    2. His legal advisors, medical practitioners and psychologist for the purposes of seeking advice, treatment or assistance.
  10. There is no order as to the costs of this proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – GENERALLY – Where a teacher allegedly engaged in inappropriate behaviour – where the teacher was involved in a common assault of the teacher’s partner – where the teacher was charged with possession of dangerous drugs – where the teacher was subject of court orders regarding the assault and possession of dangerous drugs – whether a ground for disciplinary action is established – whether the teacher’s conduct satisfies the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – whether a sanction is appropriate – whether costs should be awarded

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 315A, s 335

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 159

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 9

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3, s 48, s 75, s 92, s 94, s 96, s 97, s 111A, s 147,     s 158, s 159, s 160, s 233, Schedule 3

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 5, s 9, s 11, s 13, s 15, s 25, s 26, s 31, s 34, s 48

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 47

Medicines and Poisons Act 2019 (Qld), s 34

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12, s 12A

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 66, s 100, s 102

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 15, Schedule 2, Schedule 3

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BYJ [2018] QCAT 107

Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD [2020] QCAT 469

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MXQ [2025] QCAT 60

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher QNL [2021] QCAT 100

Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186

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. [1]
    On 25 January 2022, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘the College’) suspended the respondent’s registration as a teacher pursuant to s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) as a consequence of allegations against ATB being referred to the College.[1] On 10 March 2022, the Tribunal ordered that the suspension of the respondent’s registration should be continued.
  2. [2]
    On 1 August 2023, the College referred the disciplinary proceeding (‘the Referral’) to the Tribunal to decide whether a ground for disciplinary action was established or whether the suspension must end.[2] The Tribunal is the practice and conduct body for general matters.[3]

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

  1. [3]
    Section 92 of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action in practice and conduct matters against a relevant teacher. The College particularly relies upon section 92(1)(h), which provides:

‘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’.

  1. [4]
    ‘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.[4]

  1. [5]
    The Tribunal has accepted that ‘the standard is a fluid one and informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave.’[5]
  2. [6]
    The issues for determination by the Tribunal in the current matter are:
    1. whether a ground for disciplinary action against ATB has been established;
    2. 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 including whether a costs order should be made; and
    3. whether a non-publication order should be made.
  3. [7]
    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.[6] 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.
  4. [8]
    At paragraph 41 in the matter of Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ,[7] 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

  1. [9]
    The Referral relates to events that occurred on 23 January 2022. The events relate to allegations of domestic violence and misuse of dangerous drugs in and around ATB’s residence.
  2. [10]
    ATB was charged with:
    1. Choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting, an offence contained in s 315A(1)(a) and (1)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (‘Criminal Code’) and s 47(9) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) (‘Justices Act’); and
    2. Possession of dangerous drugs pursuant to s 9(1) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld); and
    3. Buying or possessing S 4 or S 8 medicines or hazardous poisons pursuant to s 34 of the Medicines and Poisons Act 2019 (Qld).
  3. [11]
    We are satisfied that the charge at [10](a)above is a serious offence.[8]
  4. [12]
    On 27 June 2022, the above charges were dealt with in the Brisbane Magistrates Court as follows:
    1. Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) offered no evidence regarding charge at [10](a) above.
    2. ATB pleaded guilty to the charge of common assault - domestic violence offence, s 335 of the Criminal Code, which on the evidence before us was substituted for the charge outlined at [10](a) above, and to the relevant drugs charges at [10](b) and [10](c) above.
    3. ATB was convicted of the three charges to which he pleaded guilty, no conviction was recorded. In respect of the common assault charge, an order for probation for a period of 10 months was made, which required him to submit to medical, psychiatric and psychological assessment and treatment as directed by an authorised corrective services officer.
  5. [13]
    A copy of the Verdict and Judgment Record is before us.[9] The evidence is that this document was provided by ATB’s legal representative to the College. The Tribunal may receive in evidence a transcript, or part of a transcript taken in a proceeding before a court 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 court that maybe relevant to the hearing.[10] 
  6. [14]
    The particulars of the events are contained in the statement of facts, Exhibit G annexed to the affidavit of H E Rantala affirmed on 20 July 2023 and filed in the Tribunal on 1 August 2023, read to the court by the QPS on 27 June 2022. In summary:
    1. A verbal altercation occurred between ATB and his partner near the lift of their unit. This resulted in physical contact in the lift which stopped when other people entered the lift. The physical contact resumed after the people exited the lift.
    2. The physical contact with the partner includes allegations of pushing and grabbing of the face/mouth with force to prevent screaming. The allegations also include grabbing of the neck. The partner did not suffer any lasting physical injuries from the incident.
    3. The QPS were called by other residents of the units who heard the altercation.
    4. By the time the QPS arrived ATB had left the unit but QPS officers spoke to his partner. She did not wish to proceed with any action and placed some blame on herself for the incident occurring.
    5. During questioning of the partner by the QPS officers they noticed medication which was steroids and other tablets. Both drugs were obtained illegally by ATB to assist him in bodybuilding.
  7. [15]
    ‘Relevant teacher’ is defined to include an approved teacher or a former approved teacher.[11] ‘Approved teacher’ means a person who is a registered teacher or holds a permission to teach.[12] ATB is middle aged and was first granted teacher registration on 26 February 2019. As set out earlier, his registration has been suspended since 25 January 2022. 
  8. [16]
    ATB is both a relevant teacher and an approved teacher under Schedule 3 of the Act.
  9. [17]
    Section 97(4)(b) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must conduct a hearing and make decisions about the disciplinary matter referred to the Tribunal with regard to the information provided by the College. Further, the College must inform the Tribunal about the grounds of the matter and the circumstances forming the basis for the grounds.
  10. [18]
    ATB agrees with the College regarding the facts and jurisdiction of the Tribunal and that disciplinary grounds exist.
  11. [19]
    As referred to earlier, the ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Act is established when ‘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’.
  12. [20]
    Section 92 of the Act relevantly provides:
  1. 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—
  1. the teacher has been charged with a serious offence and the charge has been dealt with;
  1. the teacher has been charged with a serious offence and the teacher is convicted of an offence other than an indictable offence;
  1. the teacher is or becomes subject to a temporary offender prohibition order or interim sexual offender order.
  1. The object of subsection (2) is to ensure the circumstances of the change are examined by a practice and conduct body.
  1. Subsection (2) does not limit the application of subsection (1)(h).
  1. In this section—

dealt with, in relation to a charge against a relevant teacher for a serious offence, means any of the following—

  1. the relevant teacher is acquitted of the charge;
  1. the charge has been withdrawn or dismissed;
  1. a nolle prosequi or no true bill is presented in relation to the charge.
  1. [21]
    We are satisfied that ATB was charged with a serious offence and the charge has been dealt with. 
  2. [22]
    Section 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (‘PSA’) provides:
  1. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this or another Act—
  1. a conviction without recording the conviction is taken not to be a conviction for any purpose; and
  1. the conviction must not be entered in any records except—
  1. in the records of the court before which the offender was convicted; and
  1. in the offender’s criminal history but only for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).
  1. [23]
    The charge for the serious offence and the substituted charge are both charges for an offence which states the offence is also a domestic violence offence. Where no conviction is recorded in relation to such an offence, the offence is required to be entered into the offender’s criminal history as a domestic violence offence.[13]
  2. [24]
    The Act defines ‘conviction’ as a finding of guilt by a court, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court, whether or not conviction is recorded.[14]
  3. [25]
    In view of the express terms of section 92(2) and (3) of the Act, the definition of conviction in the Act and the entering of the common assault – domestic violence offence into ATB’s criminal history we are satisfied that it is appropriate to have regard to ATB’s criminal history and to ATB’s conduct which lead to the charges although convictions were not recorded. Having regard to the evidence of ATB’s conduct we are comfortably satisfied  that ATB behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher both in respect of the common assault – domestic violence offence and the drug offences.
  4. [26]
    The examination of this conduct happens through the lens of the legislative framework that prioritises the safety, welfare and best interests of the children and students.[15]
  5. [27]
    In considering the applicable standard expected of a teacher it is important to bear in mind the objects of the Act as set out in s 3 of the Act which are:
  1. to uphold the standards of the teaching profession;
  1. to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and
  1. to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.
  1. [28]
    Teachers are bestowed with a high level of trust by students, parents and the wider community, and with that trust comes an expectation that it will not be breached. In Queensland College of Teachers v DGM,[16] the Tribunal said:

Teachers hold a special position of trust arising from the nature of their work. In particular, teachers exercise powers that have a significant impact on the lives of students. How teachers behave towards a student may influence that student for life. Consequently, the community expects these powers to be exercised appropriately.

  1. [29]
    The College also submits that a ground for disciplinary action arises under section 92(1)(b) of the Act, which provides that a ground for disciplinary action includes where the relevant teacher has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence. The College point to ATB’s conviction on a plea of guilty of Common Assault[17]and possessing dangerous drugs.[18] We are satisfied that ATB has been convicted of indictable offences[19] that are not serious offences.[20] We are comfortably satisfied that a further ground for disciplinary action arises.

SUBMISSIONS FROM ATB

  1. [30]
    ATB has raised some issues in his submissions, which we consider below.
  2. [31]
    ATB relies upon some testimonials which are supportive of ATB’s endeavours and refer to his work history. These testimonials are personal references and are not formal references from ATB’s former work places. 
  3. [32]
    ATB has not provided full details of his previous endeavours or personal history. However, the evidence is that he had no criminal history prior to the events that occurred in January 2022.
  4. [33]
    ATB served his probation period of 10 months satisfactorily. The Queensland Corrective Services benchmark assessment is annexed to the Affidavit of Henri Elias Rantala affirmed on 28 November 2023 and filed in the Tribunal on 6 December 2023.[21] Concerning are observations made on pages QCS 6 of 61, QCS 9 of 61, QCS 10 of 61, QCS 11 of 61 and QCS 13 of 61 where there are observations that ATB has “minimal insight into his own behaviour”, “took no responsibility for his DV behaviours” and “often minimis[es] his own behaviours and hold[s] the aggrieved accountable for her own mental health conditions”. These observations were made in or about July or August 2022 after ATB had been regularly attending psychotheraphy from in or about February to June 2022[22] and had completed the Men’s Behavioural Change Program on or about 27 May 2022.[23] Similar observations are made on subsequent dates, including in Queensland Corrective Services records on 31 January 2023 which noted that ATB ‘appears to displace the majority of responsibility onto his partner.’[24] The evidence demonstrates a continuing lack of insight despite participating in therapy and completing a domestic violence programme. 
  5. [34]
    ATB contends that his two references referred to at [31] above demonstrate remorse and insight in January and February 2024, the date of the references. One of the references contains limited information as to the context of the referees’ relationship with ATB. The other describes them as being close friends.  These references are some evidence of remorse and insight but the references provide limited information as to when and in what context such insight and remorse was demonstrated to these witnesses. A recent report from a relevant health professional would have been more persuasive that ATB now has appropriate insight and awareness.  We are not satisfied on the evidence before us that there is no longer a requirement to protect the public. 
  6. [35]
    ATB’s partner when the events occurred in January 2022 provided material which shows she is supportive of ATB and blames herself for the events of January 2022. However, it is of great concern to us that the incident occurred at all, given that the parties were living together, ATB is physically much bigger than his partner and the incident took place in a public place. Further, the incident is exacerbated by the fact that neighbours of ATB were so concerned by the aggressive sound of the interaction between ATB and his partner that the police were called. ATB explains this aggressive behaviour as possible side effects of the steroids that he was taking at the time for his body building.
  7. [36]
    ATB has submitted reports dated 7 April 2022 and 8 June 2022 from a medical practitioner who confirms that he referred ATB to a clinical psychologist and psychiatrist. ATB has also submitted a report from a clinical psychotherapist dated 27 May 2022. These reports are annexed to the affidavit of Henri Elias Rantala affirmed on 28 November 2023 and filed in the Tribunal on 6 December 2023.
  8. [37]
    These reports are referred to in detail in paragraphs 28 to 39 of ATB’s submissions dated and filed 25 March 2024.
  9. [38]
    We accept that ATB has taken positive steps to improve his mental health and that he is genuinely remorseful for his actions on the relevant evening in January 2022.
  10. [39]
    ATB also submits that he refrains from taking the substances that may have been a trigger to his behaviour of the events of January 2022. To support this submission ATB has produced the results of pathology tests over a period from early December 2023 to January 2024. This is evidence that he has refrained from taking such substances over  this relatively short period but is not particularly persuasive evidence that he has refrained from use over an extended period. Evidence of testing over a longer period would have been more persuasive in supporting ATB’s submission.
  11. [40]
    ATB’s aggression can be construed as two separate  assaults on his partner who was smaller than ATB and was a vulnerable person. The assault occurred in a confined space and stopped when other people entered the lift. However, the assault recommenced when these people exited the lift. This does not indicate a momentary lack of judgement and control.
  12. [41]
    The Tribunal has previously accepted that the purpose of disciplinary action is not to punish but to further the objects of the Act and that deterrence is a relevant consideration both as a general deterrence but also a specific deterrence to the teacher the subject of the disciplinary action.[25]
  13. [42]
    ATB submits that the decisions in Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BYJ [26] (‘BYJ’) and Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD[27] (‘ETD’) are of assistance in determining an appropriate sanction.
  14. [43]
    BYJ involved conduct that was external to the workplace and occurred whilst BYJ was under the influence of alcohol. BYJ had alcohol issues and had been involved in some very unruly and anti-social behaviour. The Tribunal determined that BYJ could not demonstrate that BYJ would not have alcohol issues in the future. Notwithstanding this finding the Tribunal ordered a suspension of two years of BYJ’s registration.
  15. [44]
    ETD involved a confrontation involving ETD’s sister who was involved in a family dispute with her partner. The confrontation did not occur at any school and was considered a one-off occurrence. We accept that ETD is at the lower end for the purposes of assessing an appropriate sanction. In ETD the teacher was suspended for a period of 12 months.
  16. [45]
    Another matter that is more instructive is the matter of Queensland College of Teachers v VRR[28] (‘VRR’). VRR involved a quite 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.
  17. [46]
    In these proceedings the assault by ATB  occurred in a public area, involved two separate incidents on a vulnerable person and as a consequence when the police investigated ATB’s unit prohibited drugs were discovered. The taking of the drugs may have triggered the incident and the incident resulted in criminal charges.
  18. [47]
    ATB submits that he is no longer using these prohibited drugs and he has received appropriate treatment for his mental health. ATB also has undertaken appropriate workshops with his psychologist. Notwithstanding this has occurred we are  concerned with the observations of his probation officer that ATB is not accepting accountability for the incident. The evidence before us demonstrates limited insight.
  19. [48]
    Teachers are in a special position where there is a high level of trust from all stakeholders such as students, parents and the community as a whole. There is an expectation that the teachers will not breach this trust. The offending involved domestic violence towards his partner. The domestic violence order imposed upon ATB continues to 27 June 2027.[29] We consider that the seriousness with which the community views such behaviour should be reflected in the sanction.
  20. [49]
    Taking all the circumstances of ATB’s actions into account, we find that a suspension for a period of a little over three years is appropriate in these proceedings.
  21. [50]
    ATB has also raised issues of delay and fairness in the way the College has referred the matter to the Tribunal. Given that the sanction is proposed to be a little over a three-year suspension we are of the view that there has been no relevant delay giving rise to unfairness in resolving the Referral from the College.
  22. [51]
    The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘the HR Act’) commenced on 1 January 2020. All individuals in Queensland have human rights.[30] A human right may only be subjected to reasonable limitations.[31] 
  23. [52]
    In deciding this application:
    1. We are not acting as a public entity because we are not acting in an administrative capacity.[32] This a referral to determine whether a ground for disciplinary action is established and if so determine the appropriate sanction.  This is not a review of a decision made by the College.
    2. The HR Act applies to the extent the Tribunal has functions under part 2 and part 3, division 3 of the HR Act;[33]
    3. We have interpreted statutory provisions, to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, in a way that is compatible with human rights.[34]
  24. [53]
    We accept that this proceeding and the determination of it potentially impacts ATB’s rights to recognition and equality before the law,[35] and a fair hearing[36] and we considered them. In coming to our decision, we have considered the documents filed by both parties and previously decided cases. While there was some delay between the charges being dealt with and the Referral being filed, we are not satisfied that there has been any prejudice suffered by ATB, given our findings of the duration of an appropriate sanction, which takes into account the period of suspension to the date of this decision.
  25. [54]
    We accept that these proceedings and our decision potentially impacts other rights, in particular the right to privacy and reputation[37] and the right not to be punished more than once.[38] We have considered ATB’s human rights and are satisfied that the decision is compatible with his human rights as any limitations on those rights are reasonable and justifiable. We have also considered a competing right, namely every child has the right, without discrimination, to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child.[39] Any limitation of ATB’s human rights is consistent with the objects of the Act,[40] the legislative framework that prioritises the safety, welfare and best interests of the children and students[41] and the objects of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act’).[42]

FINDINGS

  1. [55]
    The grounds for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(b) and s 92(1)(h) of the Act are established.
  2. [56]
    ATB submits that his registration should not be cancelled and he should not be required to provide a further psychological assessment report.
  3. [57]
    Given our concern as to ATB’s limited insight as to his accountability for the offending behaviour and the limited evidence that he is refraining from using the illegal substances, that may have triggered his offending behaviour, we consider it appropriate that ATB’s registration or permission to teach is cancelled pursuant to s 160(2)(d) of the Act, that he is required to provide further evidence to the College upon any re-application and that the evidence be obtained within a relatively short period prior to re-application so that it is a current assessment of ATB.
  4. [58]
    Pursuant to s 160(2)(j) of the Act, ATB is prohibited from re-applying for registration or permission to teach for a period of a little over three (3) years. As ATB’s registration has been suspended since 25 January 2022, ATB will be eligible to reapply for teacher registration from the date of this decision subject to meeting all requirements in these orders. 
  5. [59]
    Pursuant to s 160(2)(k) of the Act:
    1. Prior to any re-application for registration or permission to teach, ATB must provide to the College a psychologist’s report, satisfactory to the College, providing an assessment as to whether the psychologist is satisfied that the respondent has adequate awareness and understanding of the following matters:
      1. the need to protect  children and young people from physical, psychological, and emotional harm;
      2. the identification  of his own triggers and strategies he intends to utilise to ensure there is no future recurrence of the incidents of concern;
      3. how to achieve realistic solutions to avoid the risk of harm to children and young people;
      4. the extent and nature of trust and power invested in teachers by students, colleagues, parents and the wider community;
      5. behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
      6. the importance of full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
    2. The report must include the psychologist’s professional opinion regarding the likelihood, if any, of ATB engaging in conduct that would be contrary to the need to protect children and young people from physical, psychological or emotional harm.
    3. The report must indicate that the psychologist was provided with a copy of the Tribunal’s decision and reasons, and the College’s referral under s 97 of the Act.
    4. The report must include the duration and frequency of attendance, such attendance must take place not more than six months prior to ATB making an application for re-registration and details of any testing that was undertaken.
  6. [60]
    Further ATB must bear all costs of, and associated with, compliance with these orders.
  7. [61]
    The College seeks an order that ATB pay its costs of the proceedings in the amount of $5,258.50. 
  8. [62]
    The QCAT Act provides, ‘[o]ther than as provided under this Act or an enabling Act, each party to a proceeding must bear the party’s own costs for the proceeding.’[43]
  9. [63]
    The Act, the relevant enabling Act, provides that if a ground for disciplinary action is established the Tribunal may make an order requiring the teacher to pay the College by way of costs an amount the Tribunal considers appropriate having regard to the expenses incurred by the College in the proceeings.[44]
  10. [64]
    On balance, in the circumstances of this proceeding, we are not satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to award costs against ATB.
  11. [65]
    The Tribunal in exercising its general discretion to award costs under the Act, may consider the matters referred to in section 102(3) of the QCAT Act. Neither party expressly addressed these considerations in their submissions. We have considered the factors in section 102(3) of the QCAT Act and we set out our reasons in relation to the most relevant factors below.

Whether a party acts in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party to the proceedings[45]

  1. [66]
    We are not satisfied that this is a factor in favour of an award of costs. ATB conceded that a disciplinary ground is established and has not required an oral hearing, thereby limiting costs incurred. ATB submits that the College’s delay in filing the Referral is a matter which militates against an award of costs. While there was some delay between the charges being dealt with and the Referral being filed we are not satisfied that the delay was unreasonable, given the limited resources of the College. 

The nature and complexity of the dispute[46]

  1. [67]
    We are not satisfied that this is a factor in favour of an award of costs. These disciplinary proceedings were not particularly complex either factually or legally.

The relative strengths of the claims[47]

  1. [68]
    The Tribunal was satisfied that disciplinary grounds were established, however this is not determinative.

The financial circumstances of the parties[48]

  1. [69]
    We are not satisfied that this is a factor in favour of an award of costs.
  2. [70]
    The College submits, and we accept, that it is funded by registration fees of approved teachers and not from consolidated revenue for the State of Queensland.
  3. [71]
    The evidence before us is that ATB has suffered financially as a result of his conduct and the consequential suspension of his registration. Also ATB will likely have to expend substantial funds in satisfying all the conditions of re-registration.
  4. [72]
    We are not satisfied that the factors clearly support the award of costs against ATB.  On this basis it is reasonable that each party to these proceedings bear their own costs. 
  5. [73]
    Pursuant to s 160(2)(i) a notation of these orders regarding ATB will be entered into the register.

Non-Publication Order

  1. [74]
    In these proceedings we are satisfied that it is appropriate to make a non-publication order pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act as follows:

Other than to the parties to this proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the teacher, and the complainant, or any relevant school, other than to the extent necessary to enable the College to meet its statutory obligations.

  1. [75]
    We accept that such an order is necessary to avoid endangering the physical or mental health of ATB’s partner, the subject of the common assault and to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice given that a current domestic violence order is in place.[49]
  2. [76]
    Further the non-publication order should permit ATB to provide a copy of the Tribunal’s decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements in particular to address any concerns raised by those who were notified of the suspension of his teacher registration following the serious offence charges being laid.

Footnotes

[1] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) s 75.

[2]  Ibid s 159.

[3]  Ibid ss 96, 97.

[4] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD [2020] QCAT 469, [11] citing Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709, [33].

[5] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MXQ [2025] QCAT 60, [13] citing Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59.

[6]  (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[7]  [2019] QCAT 283.

[8]  The Act sch 3 (definition of “serious offence” refers to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘WWC Act’) s 15); s 15 of the WWC Act refers to sch 2 column 1, which includes Choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting, an offence contained in s 315A of the Criminal Code.

[9]  Affidavit of Henri Elias Rantala filed 1 August 2023, exhibit F.

[10]  The Act s 147.

[11]  The Act sch 3 (definition of “relevant teacher”).

[12]  Ibid (definition of “approved teacher”).

[13] Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (‘PSA’) s 12A.

[14]  The Act sch 3.

[15]  Ibid s 233.

[16]  [2018] QCAT 194.

[17]  Criminal Code s 335 and the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 47 (9).

[18] Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) s 9.

[19]  ATB concedes these were indictable offences in submissions filed 13 February 2024, [10].

[20]  Neither offences are serious offences for the purposes of the WWC Act s 15, sch 2 or 3.

[21]  Exhibit M.

[22]  Ibid QCS 23 of 61- QCS 28 of 61.

[23]  Ibid QCS 30 of 61.

[24]  Ibid QCS 39 of 61.

[25] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher QNL [2021] QCAT 100, [34]; Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186.

[26]  [2018] QCAT 107.

[27]  [2020] QCAT 469.

[28]  [2024] QCAT 47.

[29]  Filed 20 March 2024.

[30]  HR Act s 11.

[31]  Ibid s 13.

[32]  Ibid s 9(4)(b).

[33]  Ibid s 5(2)(a).

[34]  Ibid s 48.

[35]  Ibid s 15.

[36]  Ibid s 31.

[37]  Ibid s 25.

[38]  Ibid s 34.

[39]  Ibid s 26(2).

[40]  The Act s 3.

[41]  Ibid s 233.

[42]  QCAT Act s 3.

[43]  Ibid s 100.

[44]  The Act, s 160(2)(f)(ii).

[45]  QCAT Act s 102(3)(a).

[46]  Ibid s 102(3)(b).

[47]  Ibid s 102(3)(c).

[48]  Ibid s 102(3)(e).

[49] Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) s 159(1)(b).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v ATB

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v ATB

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 181

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Deane, Presiding Member English, Member Poteri

  • Date:

    24 Apr 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 709
Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 194
Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 194
Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 59
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BYJ [2018] QCAT 107
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 107
Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 107
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ETD [2020] QCAT 469
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 469
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 469
Cite 3 - [2020] QCAT 469
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MXQ [2025] QCAT 60
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QCAT 60
Cite 2 - [2025] QCAT 60
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher QNL [2021] QCAT 100
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 100
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 100
Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 186
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 186
Queensland College of Teachers v VRR [2024] QCAT 47
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QCAT 47
Cite 2 - [2024] QCAT 47
Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ [2019] QCAT 283
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 283
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 283

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.