Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ADQ
[2025] QCAT 31
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 ADQ[2025] QCAT 31
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ADQ[2025] QCAT 31
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ADQ[2025] QCAT 31
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ADQ [2025] QCAT 31 |
PARTIES: | QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS (applicant) v TEACHER ADQ (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR 276-24 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 20 January 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Aughterson |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – training and registration of teachers – suspension of teacher – where Queensland College of Teachers suspended the teacher’s registration after becoming aware the teacher is charged with an offence – whether the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children – whether suspension should continue – whether a non-publication order should be made Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 7, s 49, s 50, s 53, s 54, s 55 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66 Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT 48 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 ADQ has been registered in Queensland as a teacher since 2008. On 14 November 2024, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘the College’) suspended her 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), 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) the Tribunal must decide whether to continue the suspension, while section 53(3) requires the Tribunal to continue the suspension unless satisfied that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [5]The notice of suspension sets out the College’s reasons for forming the view that Teacher ADQ poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children, which, in essence, involves charges of stalking, obstructing a police officer and breach of bail conditions. The alleged conduct occurred between 2015 and 2022.
- [6]The material filed by the College includes Teacher ADQ’s certificate under s 223 of the Act, the notice of suspension, correspondence from the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) outlining the details of the charges laid and the QPS Court Brief. While Teacher ADQ does not deny the substance of the allegations made, the charges against her were discontinued following a finding by the Mental Health Court of unsoundness of mind.
- [7]As required by section 54(1) of the Act, directions were issued by the Tribunal on 22 November 2024, inviting submissions from Teacher ADQ by 10 January 2025 as to why she does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. On 9 January 2025, Teacher ADQ filed submissions in which it is submitted that she does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. She has also provided letters from her treating psychiatrist dated 12 July 2024 and a letter from a Forensic Liaison Officer/Senior Social Worker dated 19 December 2024.
- [8]In her submissions, Teacher ADQ states that she is under treatment for Bipolar disorder. At the time of the alleged offences she was not receiving treatment. She submits that careful management of her condition ensures that her symptoms do not interfere with her ability to provide a safe, stable and nurturing environment for children. She also states that on occasions when she feels unwell or recognises early signs of an episode she seeks support and professional help and adds that this ‘proactive approach helps mitigate any potential risks to children’. She further states that her mood swings, while challenging, do not involve violent outbursts. Teacher ADQ submits that she is fully committed to her mental health treatment plan and understands the importance of providing a stable and secure environment for children.
- [9]The letter from the treating psychiatrist in Canberra was written in July 2024, prior to Teacher ADQ’s appearance before the Mental Health Court. She had been in his care since November 2023. The psychiatrist states: ‘The primary diagnosis is bipolar 1 disorder, though there remains a differential diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder’. Reference is made to her periodic appointments, the medication received and to the ongoing monitoring ‘to ensure that her illness remains in remission’. It is then stated:
Should there be any evidence of a deterioration in mental state, her treatment would be adjusted accordingly, and may include increasing medication dosages, or consideration of hospital admission if necessary.
- [10]It is added: ‘She does not have any family supports in Canberra who can be recruited to assist with safety planning and monitoring for early warning signs of relapse’.
- [11]Teacher ADQ has not provided any updated report from her psychiatrist. It is noted that the report provided does not indicate the potential risk of relapse or the circumstances in which it might arise. There is no reference to any potential risk of harm to children.
- [12]The letter from the Forensic Liaison Officer/Senior Social Worker is brief. It is stated that while the Mental Health Court made Gold Coast Health responsible for Teacher ADQ while she is subject to the Forensic Order, she resides in Canberra and ‘managing and treating consumers who are interstate is inherently problematic and from a risk perspective difficult to assess’. It is then stated:
What can be said is in the time (Teacher ADQ) has been subject to the FO there have been no breaches of the conditions that we are aware of, she has engaged appropriately and appeared stable in her mental state during the videoconference reviews. Moreover, there have been no issues of concern arising from the Canberra team. As far as Gold Coast Health are aware (Teacher ADQ) is compliant with her treatment
- [13]Again, there is no reference to any risk of relapse or potential risk of harm to children.
- [14]The College submits that the submissions and reports provided by Teacher ADQ do not establish that she does not pose an ‘unacceptable risk of herm to children’. It is submitted that she does not deny the alleged conduct and is currently on a Forensic Order. It is also submitted that the report of the psychiatrist was written some months ago and was prepared for another purpose. It is further submitted that Teacher ADQ has not produced nay recent medical reports which address issues such as adherence to her treatment plan, measures of effectiveness and compliance with the management plan, establishment of a crisis plan including warning signs, and demonstrated ability to handle stress.
- [15]Certainly, it is difficult to assess risk in the present case, mindful that s 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. That difficulty arises because of the matters raised by the College and, more generally, because of the lack of clear evidence as to the risk of relapse, or as to the occasion or circumstances in which it might arise, or as to the potential nature of any relapse. While Teacher ADQ suggests that there is no risk, there is no reference in either of the letters provided by the medical professionals to the likelihood of any relapse or to the implications of any relapse in the context of the protection provided by the Act.
- [16]While, consistent with the decision in Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EDC,[3] it is not productive to approach the question of whether there is the requisite satisfaction that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children by reference to the concepts of onus and standard of proof, it remains that if a party asserts that he or she does not pose an unacceptable risk it behoves that party to point to appropriate evidence or material that would allow the Tribunal to be so satisfied. Where a medical condition impacts that determination, such evidence or material should include current medical reports that throw some light on any relevant risks involved and the measure of those risks.
- [17]On the material before me, I am not satisfied that Teacher ADQ does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. I therefore order that the suspension of Teacher ADQ’s registration as a teacher is to continue.
- [18]I note that under section 55(6) of the Act, Teacher ADQ may apply within 28 days of the notice of this decision to QCAT for review of this decision. She may at that time provide any additional material that may support a submission that she does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
Non-publication order
- [19]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]
- [20]A non-publication order is appropriate in the circumstances of the present matter, where identification of Teacher ADQ may have mental health implications and may lead to the identification of a relevant complainant. The College supports the making of a non-publication order. I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that may identify Teacher ADQ and any relevant complainant, other than to the extent necessary for the College to meet its statutory obligations and as provided under the Act. The respondent may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements. This non-publication order can be revisited in any subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
- [21]I make orders pursuant to section 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of that information.