Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher DTG
[2025] QCAT 203
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 Teacher DTG[2025] QCAT 203
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher DTG[2025] QCAT 203
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher DTG[2025] QCAT 203
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher DTG [2025] QCAT 203 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of teachers (applicant) v Teacher dtg (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR073-25 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 19 May 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Aughterson |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – SUSPENSION OF TEACHER REGISTRATION – continuation of suspension – whether teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children – whether suspension should continue Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), ss 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 223, 285, 285AA, 285B, 287 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66 Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT 48 2 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EDC [2019] QCAT 144 |
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]Teacher DTG has been registered in Queensland as a teacher since 2008. On 3 April 2025, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘the College’) suspended his registration pursuant to section 49 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’).
- [2]By section 49 of the Act, the College may suspend a teacher’s registration if it reasonably believes the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. By section 50(1) of the Act, the College must give notice of the suspension to the teacher and this notice must include a statement that the Tribunal will review the continuation of the suspension to decide whether the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[1]
- [3]While the Act does not define the term ‘unacceptable risk of harm’, by section 7 of the Act ‘harm’ to a child is ‘any detrimental effect of a significant nature on the child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing’. As to ‘unacceptable risk’, see Queensland College of Teachers v LDW:[2]
…this formulation directs the Tribunal to an assessment of the ‘chances’ of the risk occurring and the magnitude of potential harm if it did occur, and requires a balancing exercise of advantages and detriments.
- [4]In accordance with section 50(5) of the Act, the College has referred the continuation of the suspension to QCAT for review and seeks an order that the suspension continue. By section 53(1) of the Act the Tribunal must decide whether to continue the suspension, while section 53(3) of the Act requires the Tribunal to continue the suspension unless satisfied that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [5]The submissions by the College filed on 15 May 2025 and notice of suspension set out the College’s reasons for forming the view that Teacher DTG poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The allegations involve Teacher DTG using a school form, designed to advise parents or carers of conduct issues in relation to a student, to write a mock report in which his former partner is characterised as a student in his primary school class. The mock report was completed during school hours and graphically describes the sexual overtures made to him by the ‘student’ while she was sitting in the front row of the class. It then sets out the explicit sexual acts to be performed by her in relation to him, by way of ‘consequences’ for her conduct. A photograph of the report was sent to Teacher DTG’s former partner via a text message during a morning school break. Subsequently, during class time, there were further sexualised text communications sent between Teacher DTG and his former partner, which include reference to his sexual arousal while writing the messages.
- [6]The material filed by the College includes a certificate issued under section 223 of the Act, the notice of suspension, text message communications, email communications, social media posts, photographs, a school form, a transcript of interview and notes of the alleged incident.
- [7]As required by section 54(1) of the Act, directions were issued by the Tribunal on 23 April 2025, inviting submissions from Teacher DTG by 28 May 2025 as to why he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [8]Teacher DTG does not dispute the allegations made by the College. In submissions sent to the Tribunal, he states that while he accepts responsibility for what he refers to as ‘one error in judgment’, he submits that he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to students. He states that the messages were sent privately and were ‘not intended for any public or classroom setting’ and that at no time did he sexualise minors or fantasise about students. He further states that the mock report was addressed, jokingly, to an adult partner and that no child was mentioned or referenced. Teacher DTG also makes reference to his positive professional reputation and conduct and states that he remains committed to the safety, education and well-being of every student in his care.
- [9]In response, the College submits that Teacher DTG does pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children, also noting that he had a hard copy of the mock report in his possession on school grounds, where it could potentially be seen or found by a primary school student, and that the subsequent text messages were sent during scheduled class time. It is further submitted that the mock report ‘clearly pretends’ that his former partner was in his primary school class and his subsequent messages refer to his sexual arousal while writing them.
- [10]While Teacher DTG says that he has the support of his local community, parents and students, presumably they are not aware of the conduct the subject of the present proceedings. Teacher DTG’s attempts to minimise his behaviour reflects a lack of insight on his part. During school hours, he wrote the mock report envisaging his former partner in the role of one of his primary school students, engaged in graphic sexual acts with him. The listed disciplinary action, expressed as ‘consequences’, is also framed in terms of him as a teacher and his former partner as his student. Further, as noted by the College, at least in part the messages were composed and sent during class time and there was the potential risk, even if small, that the original copy of the mock report might have been seen by a student.
- [11]On the material before me I am not satisfied that Teacher DTG does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[3] I therefore order that the suspension of Teacher DTG’s registration as a teacher is to continue.
- [12]I note that under section 55(6) of the Act, Teacher DTG may apply within 28 days of the notice of this decision to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review of this decision. He may at that time provide any additional material that may support a submission that he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
Non-publication order
- [13]Pursuant to section 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘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.[4]
- [14]The College submits that a non-publication order should be made, as identification of Teacher DTG could lead to identification of the complainant, the relevant school and the primary school children he taught at the school. I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that may identify Teacher DTG, a complainant, or any relevant student or school, other than to the extent necessary for the College to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Act. This non-publication order can be revisited in any subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
- [15]I make orders pursuant to section 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of that information.
Footnotes
[1]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) s 50(3)(c); the ‘review’ is conducted in the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal: see s 53(2) of the Act.
[2][2017] QCAT 48, [10]-[11] (citations omitted).
[3]As to the required satisfaction, see Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EDC [2019] QCAT 144, [10]-[15].
[4]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66(3).