Queensland College of Teachers v LGZ
[2025] QCAT 323
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 LGZ[2025] QCAT 323
- Add to List
Queensland College of Teachers v LGZ[2025] QCAT 323
Queensland College of Teachers v LGZ[2025] QCAT 323
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v LGZ [2025] QCAT 323 |
PARTIES: | Queensland College of teachers v lGZ |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR178-24 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 20 August 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Senior Member Aughterson Member Robyn Oliver Member Willey |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – GENERALLY – where teacher engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar behaviour with students and inappropriate conversations – where other incidents of misconduct – where teacher aware of vulnerability of student – whether teacher’s conduct satisfies the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – whether non-publication order appropriate – determination of appropriate sanction Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) s 3, s 49, s 53, s 92, s 111A, s 158, s 161, s 233, s 285, s 285AA, s 285B, S 287 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66, s 32 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709 Queensland College of Teachers v BAM [2012] QCAT 186 Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194 Queensland College of Teachers v FPD [2023] QCAT 240 Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241 Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59 Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 18 Queensland College of Teachers v WAS [2015] QCAT 61 |
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]Following allegations of sexualised and inappropriate communications with students, the Respondent (‘LGZ’) was suspended from teaching on 19 October 2021 pursuant to s 49 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’). On 8 December 2021, the suspension was continued by the Tribunal pursuant to s 53 of the Act.
- [2]LGZ held registration as a teacher until 31 December 2024, when his registration was cancelled by the Queensland College of Teachers (‘the QCT’) due to non-payment of the annual fee.
- [3]On 9 September 2021, prior to LGZ’s suspension, the QCT commenced an investigation into allegations that LGZ had engaged in misconduct in relation to Student 1 and Student 2. Following the conclusion of the investigation on 8 July 2022, the matter was referred to the Professional Capacity and Teacher Conduct Committee (PC & TCC), the internal disciplinary body of the QCT, which, in turn, referred the matter on to The Tribunal for disciplinary action, without hearing the matter.[1]
- [4]The Tribunal is now to decide whether the alleged ground for disciplinary action is established and, if so, to determine any sanction to be imposed.[2]
- [5]The standard of proof in deciding whether the ground for disciplinary action is established is the civil standard, mindful of the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw.[3]
Grounds for disciplinary action
- [6]Section 92 of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action against a ‘relevant teacher’, which term is defined in Schedule 3 of the Act to include an approved teacher or a former approved teacher. The grounds include, at s 92(1)(h) of the Act:
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;
- [7]The specified standard is not set out in the Act. However, the objects of the Act, at s 3, are:
- to uphold the standards of the teaching profession;
- to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and
- to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.
- [8]Also, relevantly, s 233 of the Act provides:
In performing its functions under this Act, the welfare and best interests of children are to be the primary considerations of the college.
- [9]
…the standard expected should be the standard ‘reasonably’ expected by the community at large, as the actions of a teacher may impact directly upon 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.
- [10]The standard expected of a teacher is fluid and informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave[5].
- [11]Teachers are bestowed with a special trust by parents and the community to act in the best interests of students and to protect them from harm and, with that trust, an expectation that it will not be breached.[6]
- [12]LGZ elected not to provide a response to the allegations set out and filed in the Tribunal on 24 July 2024. However, in submissions filed by his legal representative it is stated that he does not oppose the orders sought by the QCT; that is, that the ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act is established and that he is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely, pursuant to s 161(2)(c) of the Act.
- [13]Section 161 of the Act provides:
- This section applies if the relevant teacher is a former approved teacher.
- If QCAT decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established, QCAT may do 1 or more of the following —
- decide to take no further action in relation to the matter;
- make an order requiring the teacher to pay the college, by way of costs, an amount QCAT considers appropriate having regard to –
- any expenses incurred by the college in investigating the matter; and
- the expenses incurred by the college in the proceeding before QCAT;
- if QCAT would have made an order cancelling the teacher’s registration or permission to teach if the teacher had been an approved teacher – make an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely.
Note –
See also section 352 (Decision about disciplinary action against former approved teacher).
- make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
The relevant conduct
- [14]At relevant times, Students 1 and 2 were approximately 14 and 13 years of age, respectively, and attended a Queensland high school.
- [15]LGZ was in a relationship with the Students’ late mother in late 2012/early 2013, after meeting her on an online dating app. On or about 9 February 2013, he moved into the home (‘the home’) where the Students resided. He began employment as a relief teacher on or about 19 February 2013 and, on occasions, taught Student 1.
- [16]The QCT submits that on his first visit to the home on or around January 2013, LGZ:
- asked Student 1 if she was a virgin, and when Student 1 attempted to walk away LGZ told her about the type of sexual activity she should engage in with boys her age if she wanted to be popular;
- described in detail to Student 1 a lewd sexual experience he had in the past with a sex worker;
- told Student 1 that he was ‘accused of being alone with a student at night time, like at a party’ which was why he could no longer teach at his previous school, but his family has ‘lots of money and they paid a lawyer to make it like, go away’[7].
- [17]There are several other allegations made by QCT as related below.
- [18]On an early visit to the home, uncertain as to whether it was the first visit, Student 2 reported that LGZ went into Student 2’s bedroom, closed the door behind him and told her about the type of sexual activity that would make boys her age happy. In addition, he discussed the size of his penis and his sexual activity with the Students’ mother.
- [19]A student friend of Student 2, who had visited the home for sleepovers on 7 or 8 occasions when both Students were around 13 or 14 years of age, recalled that Student 2 would ‘cry about (LGZ) and how he made her feel uncomfortable and how he would say inappropriate things to her … and that she was scared at the house and she was uncomfortable in her own home’.[8]
- [20]LGZ continued to engage in sexualised conversations with Student 1, discussing the sexual activity of students he had taught at previous schools, including making a moaning, grunting kind of sound whilst describing the teenage daughter of a past partner as having ‘a body made for sin’.[9]
- [21]Further inappropriate and/or overfamiliar conduct occurred on unknown dates in 2013, after LGZ moved into the home.
- [22]On multiple occasions, LGZ entered Student 1’s bedroom unannounced and without permission and, whilst talking to Student 1, searched through her clothes drawers whilst touching his crotch area on the outside of his clothing. On one occasion, he placed Student 1’s underwear on his head while joking with the family.
- [23]Student 1 kept a personal diary that was read by LGZ without permission. Student 2 reported that this caused an argument between LGZ and the Students’ mother because LGZ had read the passages Student 1 had written about him in the diary.
- [24]Both Student 1 and Student 2 recalled an incident when LGZ drove them home from school, at times speeding while covering the speedometer of the car and asking them to guess the speed at which he was travelling. On one occasion, Student 1 recalls LGZ driving at 120 kph around the outskirts of the town where they lived.
- [25]On one occasion, LGZ offered to help Student 1 ‘stretch her muscles’. While she was lying on her back on the lounge room floor, LGZ positioned himself on top of Student 1, holding himself up on his hands, placing Student 1’s ‘left leg on his shoulder and then he pushed…and he kind of pushed his crotch against (student 1) and moved himself up and down’, thrusting his hips vigorously for about two minutes.[10] Student 1 was wearing her school sports uniform and believed LGZ was wearing sports shorts and no shirt.
- [26]While attending a wedding reception, LGZ reached his hand under Student 1’s dress and touched her bottom. Student 2 recalls Student 1 saying ‘don’t do that’ and LGZ laughing.[11]
- [27]Following that incident, a consultation was arranged between Student 1’s psychologist, her mother and LGZ. It was unclear at that time as to whether Student 2 would be part of the consultation process. Student 2 stated that prior to this meeting she was manipulated by her mother and LGZ into ‘not saying anything’ because it would ‘get (LGZ) into trouble’ and he would ‘lose his job and it will ruin his life’.[12]
- [28]On a separate occasion, whilst at the home of her mother’s friend, LGZ slapped Student 1 on the bottom ‘hard, then his hand kind of lingered’.[13]
- [29]Both Students reported being hit with a rolled-up tea towel, on or close to their bottoms by LGZ ‘in a way that wasn’t fun but was painful’ and he would continue to do so after the Students would tell him to stop.[14]
- [30]It is evident that Student 1 experienced significant vulnerabilities, including anxiety and depression in 2013 following the then recent divorce of her parents. It is also evident that these vulnerabilities were well known to LGZ.[15] In that context, evident actions engaged in by LGZ included:
- saying that Student 1 ‘needed her skull caved in’ or ‘he was going to cave [her] skull in’;[16]
- saying that Student 1 ‘made her mother want to kill herself’, and that Student 1 ‘should be put in an institution’;[17]
- saying that Student 1 ‘can’t be around people like us’ to the Students’ mother;[18] and
- laughing at Student 1 along with another student who was teasing her at the time and in a classroom setting.[19]
- [31]In written reply submissions of counsel for LGZ of 14 March 2025, it is stated that the position of LGZ is, first, that the proceedings are oppressive due to the significant lapse of time, the lack of documentary records and the inability to obtain evidence from the mother of the Students, who is now deceased; second, the case rests on matters that occurred 12 years ago; and, third, the respondent on the balance of probabilities would not be able to obtain a fair hearing. It is not said why a fair hearing could not be obtained, though it may be inferred to be the delay and consequences of that delay. There is no specific reference to the allegations made, though in his affidavit of 13 December 2024, at [27](e), LGZ refers to the acknowledgement of QCT that he made no admissions and denied ‘the allegations in their entirety’.
- [32]On the other hand, in the submissions it is stated that LGZ does not oppose the orders sought by the QCT.
- [33]In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conduct as alleged did occur. In that context, it is noted that Student 1 kept a diary which was provided to the QCT during the investigation. Medical related entries in Student 1’s diary were corroborated by independent medical records.
Submissions and Discussion
- [34]In deciding whether a case has breached the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, s 158(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decisions by a practice and conduct body of which it is aware. In that regard, in particular, the Tribunal has taken into the following two matters in which a ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act was established:
- Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241 (‘IOP’). Over a period of approximately 4 months, IOP engaged in sexualised conversations with two year 12/former year 12 students, saying to one of them that he would go to his car after seeing her at school and masturbate. He also asked that student to attend his home and give him a ‘blow job’. IOP asked another student for a naked photograph of that student’s boyfriend and sent sexually explicit images of his erect penis. The Tribunal found that IOP’s behaviour did not satisfy the standard generally expected of a teacher and ordered that IOP be prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.
- Queensland College of Teachers v FPD [2023] QCAT 240 (‘FPD’). FPD engaged in an ongoing and intimate relationship with a recently graduated year 12 student. Despite being put on notice regarding his inappropriate conduct and being warned of the seriousness of breaching boundaries, FPD engaged in a further relationship with another year 12 student/former student. FPD engaged in overfamiliar email communications, met with the student outside school hours and engaged in sexualised behaviour and sexual intercourse with the student. FPD took no steps to change his behaviour and hid his relationships from his fiancé. The Tribunal found that FPD’s behaviour did not satisfy the standard generally expected of a teacher and ordered that FPD be prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.
- [35]Each case will turn on its own facts, which makes ranking matters in order of seriousness a difficult exercise.[20] Nevertheless, comparisons can be made and conclusions drawn from those comparisons.
- [36]In relation to IOP, in its submissions the QCT accepts that that matter involved the sending and receiving of sexually explicit photographs/video and that some of the language used by IOP was quite sexual. Nevertheless, the QCT submits that in some respects the conduct in the present matter is more serious. Unlike in IOP, LGZ has not shown any insight into his behaviour, other than consenting to the orders sought by the QCT. IOP was 27 years of age with around 3 years of teaching experience, whereas LGZ was 44 years of age and a far more experienced teacher. In addition, the students involved in the present matter were years younger than the students in IOP. Also, unlike in IOP, LGZ had inappropriate physical contact with students. Further, LGZ had prior disciplinary action taken against him and persisted with his behaviour in the knowledge that it was inappropriate.
- [37]In relation to FPD, the QCT accepts that FPD engaged in sexual intercourse whereas LGZ did not. A similarity is that in both FPD and the present case, there had been prior disciplinary action taken against the teachers. The QCT submits that in some respects the conduct in the present case is more serious. LGZ was a more experienced teacher than FPD. The students involved in the present matter were younger and were not readily able to distance themselves from LGZ, given that he had moved into their home. That fact, and his relationship with their mother, placed him in an additional position of power over the Students. Also, while FPD breached his professional boundaries, the students involved were receptive to the conduct.
- [38]It is evident that LGZ has behaved in a way well below the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. The conduct outlined speaks for itself. It is exacerbated by the fact of his relationship with the mother of the Students, giving him not only added authority over them, but also giving them little opportunity to avoid him and, potentially, denying them access to their mother for support and guidance.
- [39]We are satisfied that that the ground for disciplinary action has been established under s 92(1)(h) of the Act.
Sanction
- [40]The available sanctions are set out at s 161(2) of the Act: see [13], above.
- [41]We consider that the appropriate sanction is that set out at s 162(2)(c) of the Act. If the teacher were an approved teacher, rather than a former approved teacher, we would have made an order cancelling LGZ’s registration and permission to teach. Further, we consider that the appropriate order is to prohibit LGZ from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.
- [42]The purpose of disciplinary action is not punitive but to impose a sanction that will serve as a ‘general deterrence to the members of the teaching profession and as a specific deterrence to further irresponsible conduct by the teacher in question’.[21]
- [43]In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal may consider many factors, including but not limited to:[22]
- the teacher’s antecedents and experience;
- the nature of the conduct;
- the level of insight of the teacher;
- the impact the behaviour may have on students; and
- whether any remedial action has been taken by the teacher.
- [44]LGZ was approximately 44 years of age at the time of the conduct in question. He worked at various schools as a relief teacher, with his most recent record of experience as a senior teacher at a Queensland high school from 25 March 2019 until he was suspended.
- [45]In relation to earlier disciplinary proceedings, on 10 August 2010 the Tribunal cancelled LGZ’s registration and prohibited him from reapplying for registration for a period of 12 months. He was required to attend a minimum of 6 counselling sessions with a registered psychologist or psychiatrist within 12 months, with a progress report to be provided to the QCT.
- [46]The alleged conduct associated with the August 2010 disciplinary proceedings included attending a student poker party at a student’s residence and participating in gambling and inappropriate language; commenting on a female student’s short shorts; allowing a female student to drive him home from the party, touching her on the leg and asking why she didn’t lie to her mother; inviting a student to stay with him for the night; and touching a female student on the bottom.
- [47]In 2021, further disciplinary action was taken in respect of LGZ, in relation to conduct occurring in 2018-2109. That also involved inappropriate communications with and toughing of a student, again in circumstances where LGZ was in a relationship with the mother of the student in question. The PC&TCC found that a ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act had been established. A reprimand was issued and a condition imposed in relation to the completion of mandatory training.
- [48]The instances of misconduct by LGZ over a number of years demonstrates a complete disregard of the Code of Ethics for Teachers in Queensland and reflects a pattern of inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or sexual conduct and communication with students.
- [49]In both the 2018-2019 matter and the current matter, LGZ was in a unique position of power, being both the teacher of the relevant students and the partner of their mother at the time of the misconduct. In the present matter, the power position was exploited by LGZ despite his being aware of the vulnerability of Student 1.
- [50]The detrimental levels of impact this misconduct may have had on Student 1 was clearly expressed in her personal diary, when she spoke of how her mental health spiralled downwards after LGZ moved into their home: ‘I can just remember the feelings and how uncomfortable he made me, and how everything was sexual’.[23] ‘Not long after (LGZ) moved in, my mental health got really, really bad. It got progressively bad and I just feel sick talking about it, because at the time like I was just a kid and no one was protecting me.’[24]. At that time, Student 1 began to self-harm.
- [51]Student 2, Student 1’s younger sister, also suffered from the exploitation of the power position of LGZ, knowing that she was being manipulated into not saying anything in an appointment with Student 1’s psychologist because he would ‘lose his job and it [would] ruin his life’ if she did speak up.[25] Student 2’s friend gave a number of examples of LGZ’s behaviour that made her feel uncomfortable on the sleepovers she had at the home.
- [52]LGZ’s legal representative advised that he had declined to make any submissions in response to the allegations set out as part of the investigation. This makes it difficult for the Tribunal to determine any level of insight that the teacher may have in relation to his conduct.
- [53]The QCT has not been made aware of any remedial action taken by LGZ, other than the psychological treatments undertaken in 2010/2011 in compliance with the 10 August 2010 orders of the Tribunal.
- [54]The QCT submits that the present case warrants an order prohibiting LGZ from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely. Through his legal representative, LGZ does not oppose the making of that order, though, as noted below, seeks a non-publication order.
- [55]The Tribunal is satisfied that such an order is appropriate. Accordingly, it is ordered that:
- the ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act is established; and
- Pursuant to s 161(2)(c) of the Act, LGZ is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.
Non-publication order
- [56]Pursuant to s 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.[26]
- [57]LGZ seeks a non-publication order and the QCT agrees that such an order is appropriate. A non-publication order is appropriate in the circumstances of the present matter, where identification of Teacher LGZ or the relevant school may lead to the identification of a relevant complainant, witness, student or former student. We are satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that may identify Teacher LGZ, or any relevant complainant, witness, student, former student or school, other than to the extent necessary for the QCT’s to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under ss 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Act.
- [58]We make orders pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of that information.
Footnotes
[1]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 111A(2).
[2] Ibid, ss 158 and 161.
[3] (1938) 60 CLR 336.
[4]Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709, [33].
[5]Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2010] 59, [36].
[6]Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194, [34].
[7] QCT Documents, p 9, p 93.
[8] Ibid, p 13, p 156.
[9] Ibid, p 9, p 100.
[10] Ibid, p 25, p 102, p 103.
[11] Ibid, p 140.
[12] Ibid, p 130.
[13] Ibid, p 27, p 28, p 110, p 111.
[14] Ibid, p 28, p 29, p 117, p 144.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid, p 38, p 120, p 130, p 131.
[17] Ibid, p 46, p 94, p 118.
[18]Ibid, p 121.
[19] Ibid, p 46, p 114.
[20]Queensland College of Teachers v WAS [2015] QCAT 61, [38].
[21]Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] 186, [25].
[22]Queensland College of Teachers v BAM [2012] QCAT 694, [41].
[23] Ibid, p 8, p 92.
[24] Ibid, p 9, p 94.
[25] Ibid, p 130.
[26]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(3).