Queensland College of Teachers v PTV
[2025] QCAT 313
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 PTV[2025] QCAT 313
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v PTV[2025] QCAT 313
Queensland College of Teachers v PTV[2025] QCAT 313
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v PTV [2025] QCAT 313 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of teachers (applicant) v PTV (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR146-25 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 12 August 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 – whether non-publication order should be granted Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 49, s 50, s 53, s 54, s 55, s 223, s 285, s 285AA, s 285B, s 287 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 66 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EDC [2019] QCAT 144 Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT 482 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher LNT [2022] QCAT 434 |
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]PTV has been registered in Queensland as a teacher since 2014. On 27 June 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 PTV 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 PTV 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 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 7 August 2025 and the notice of suspension set out the College’s reasons for forming the view that PTV poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. It is alleged that PTV: first taught the relevant student (the Student’) when she was 14 years of age; to his knowledge, the Student was vulnerable because of the breakdown of her parent’s relationship; when the Student was 17 years of age and a year 11 student, engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or a sexual relationship with the Student, until she was 24 years of age; engaged in grooming behaviour with the Student from when she was in year 11, showing her favouritism and special attention, promoting secrecy in the relationship, and initiating escalating intimate physical contact; and took steps to conceal his behaviour, including discussing the consequences for himself and the Student should the relationship be discovered and encouraging her not to disclose the relationship.
- [6]The material filed by the College includes a certificate issued under section 223 of the Act, the notice of suspension, transcript of interviews, statements, mobile data, photographs, screenshots of communications and public number database records.
- [7]As required by section 54(1) of the Act, directions were issued by the Tribunal on 1 July 2025, inviting submissions from PTV by 5 August 2025 as to why he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
- [8]PTV filed submissions on 1 August 2025. In those submissions he states that he denies all allegations referred to by the College in the notice of suspension. He states that the notice of suspension issued by the College was based on allegations made by a person with whom he had been in a ‘personal adult relationship’. PTV further states that he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm, that the evidence of the College is ‘weak, circumstantial, and prejudicial’ and that the allegations arise from an ‘estranged adult relationship’ and are ‘uncorroborated’, ‘exaggerated’, and ‘vexatious and retaliatory’.
- [9]PTV further submits that he has been denied procedural fairness, in that he has been denied access to full transcripts and summaries of interviews conducted, other than those conducted with the Student and an exchange student, who, at the time, was staying with PTV. Section 50(3)(b) of the Act provides that the notice of suspension must state ‘the reasons for the college’s decision and the evidence or other material on which the decision was based’. It is noted that the present notice of suspension relies only on the alleged conduct in relation to the Student, as outlined at [5], above. The decision of the Tribunal is also confined to a consideration of that material. Other than by broad reference to ‘full transcripts and summaries of interviews conducted with current and former colleagues, students and school leaders’ which are said to have been withheld, PTV does not say what that other evidence is or might be or how it might be relevant to a decision of the Tribunal pursuant to sections 53 and 55 of the Act.
- [10]PTV also states that because of his suspension he does not have access to departmental systems, such as OneSchool, emails and school records, which includes data that demonstrates his ‘long-standing commitment to child safety, professional integrity, and compliance with mandatory reporting obligations’. He further states that he has been expressly directed not to discuss the allegations with any person likely to have relevant information. Attached to PTV’s submissions is a letter of 18 June 2025 referring to investigations being undertaken and which states that to ‘safeguard the integrity of the process’ PTV must not discuss the matter with others, ‘other than your union, legal representative, or support person’. He submits that this has further denied him ‘the ability to gather evidence, identify witnesses, or to respond to the allegations in a meaningful way’. On the other hand, PTV did file in the Tribunal affidavits signed by a high school principal and a retired teacher, who speak of his integrity, professionalism and student-centred approach to teaching.
- [11]However, as noted in Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BDN,[3] when considering the question of whether a suspension should be continued the capacity of the Tribunal to resolve any evidential conflict is constrained. That is because of the terms of s 55(3) of the Act, which provide (highlight added):
QCAT’s decision must be made not later than 14 days after the earlier of the following to happen—
- QCAT receives the approved teacher’s submission under s 54;
- the stated time under s 54 ends.
- [12]As to the ‘stated time’, by s 54(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must give the teacher a notice inviting the teacher to show, within the ‘stated time’, that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to students. By s 54(2) of the Act, the stated time must not be less than 28 days after the notice is given.
- [13]
Given the statutory time constraints, it is evident that it was not intended that there be a full hearing to determine contested factual issues as part of the suspension process. Presumably that is because, by s 55A of the Act, where the Tribunal continues the suspension, the College must ‘as soon as practicable’ either initiate disciplinary proceedings, where it reasonably believes that a ground for disciplinary action exists, or authorise an investigation, where it reasonably believes that a ground for disciplinary action may exist. Any consequent disciplinary proceedings are the appropriate vehicle for determining contested factual issues.
- [14]Nevertheless, there was an opportunity, at least in part, to test the evidence provided and/or to provide oral submissions, even though that opportunity is very much limited by the statutory time provisions. In the directions issued on 1 July 2025, it was directed that either PTV or the College could, within 14 days, ask the Tribunal to conduct an oral hearing. No such request was made by either party.
- [15]The material filed by the College includes a record of interview with the Student. She states that the relationship started when she was in year 11 and by the end of that year or early in her year 12 it involved a sexual relationship, including at PTV’s house, and before she turned 18 years of age. In a separate interview, the exchange student, who was staying with PTV as her ‘host Dad’, states that in her exchange year at the Student’s school she became friends with the Student. Her exchange year was during the second half of the Student’s year 11 and the first half of the Student’s year 12. She states that the Student stayed at PTV’s home ‘a few times’ and also ‘came over a few times’ and that on one morning she saw the Student come out of PTV’s room. Also, at times she saw that the Student was texting PTV, which to her ‘seemed weird’.
- [16]The material provided by the College includes Snapchat screenshots. One screenshot is of a message from PTV concerning their relationship, which refers to ‘four years’ being ‘a long time’. From the date of the message, the four years would have commenced at the beginning of the Student’s year 12. Another message was provided dated in January at the beginning of the Student’s year 12 asking ‘Where do you want me to pick you up’.
- [17]Further, while PTV refers to having an ‘adult relationship’ with the Student, he does not say when the relationship commenced. It is noted that the Student turned 18 early in her year 12 studies at school. From when she was 14 years of age he had directly taught her from time to time. Clearly a power imbalance existed, arising from PTV’s position, relative age and experience.
- [18]Consistent with the decision in Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EDC,[5] it is not productive to approach the question of whether there is the requisite satisfaction that a teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children by reference to the concepts of onus and standard of proof. However, it remains that if a party asserts that he or she does not pose an unacceptable risk it behoves that party to point to some evidence or material that would allow the Tribunal to be so satisfied.
- [19]While PTV refers to the quality of his teaching and his professionalism, including through his referees, it is noted that he offers only a bare denial of the allegations made. Further, while he admits to an ‘adult relationship’ with the Student, he does not say when the ‘adult relationship’ commenced. As noted above, the Student turned 18 early in her year 12 at school. On the other hand, there is the evidence not only of the Student but also of the exchange student and the text messages. There are also other allegations of grooming, including through showing favouritism to the Student from when she was 14 years of age.
- [20]On the material before me, I am not satisfied that PTV does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. I therefore order that the suspension of PTV’s registration as a teacher is to continue.
- [21]Under section 55(6) of the Act, Teacher PTV may apply within 28 days of the notice of this decision to QCAT for review of this decision. He may at that time file any additional applications and provide any additional material that may support a submission that he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
Non-publication order
- [22]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.[6] The College has made submissions in support of a non-publication order.
- [23]It is submitted that identification of PTV, the relevant school, any student, former student, or witnesses could lead to identification of the Student, which may have a negative impact on her health.
- [24]I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that may identify PTV, or any relevant student, former student, witness 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.
- [25]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] [2023] QCAT 352, [12]; see also Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher LPD [2024] QCAT 457, [11]-[12].
[4] [2022] QCAT 434, [9].
[5] [2019] QCAT 144, [10]-[15].
[6] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66(3).