DA v Director-General Department of Justice and Attorney-General

[2017] QCAT 292

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v AE [2017] QCAT 292

PARTIES:

Queensland College of Teachers
(Applicant)

v

AE

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR147-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Acting Deputy President O’Callaghan

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.   The suspension of the registration of AE as a teacher is ended.

2.  Other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information which may identify AE.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – suspension of teacher – where charged with serious offence – whether exceptional case – whether suspension should continue

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 48, 50(5)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 419(4)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher S [2013] QCAT 361

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 24 August 2017 I made orders ending the suspension of AE’s teachers registration, and prohibiting publication of his identity, with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

2. AE’s teachers registration was suspended by the Queensland College of Teachers (the College) on 30 June 2017 pursuant to s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (the Act) on the basis that he had been charged with a serious offence. The charge was burglary and commit an indictable offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 419(4).

3. Pursuant to s 50(5) of the Act, the College has referred the continuation of the suspension to the Tribunal for review. The Tribunal must decide to end the suspension if it is satisfied that the matter is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension ended.[1]

   [1]The Act, s 55(2)(a).

4. AE says his is such an exceptional case and the College agrees.

5. AE has filed an affidavit which sets out the circumstances giving raise to the charge.[2]

   [2]Respondent’s submissions, filed 8 August 2017, Annexure AE 2.

6. He lives in a villa in a residential complex. The dividing wall between his and his neighbour’s villa is not sound proof.  He had experienced prolonged excessive noise from his neighbour’s home entertainment system. He had a strained relationship with his neighbour and they met to discuss his concerns on many occasions.

7. On one occasion he went into his neighbour’s villa (as had happened on previous occasions) to discuss the noise. He grabbed the neighbour by the lapels of his bathrobe, there was a scuffle and he left.

8. He regretted his actions and was remorseful and ashamed. He cooperated fully with the police. His affidavit discloses his long and successful teaching career for over more than 30 years. He has an unblemished record. He also provided a number of references which attested to his good character, integrity and professionalism.[3]

   [3]Respondent’s submissions, filed 8 August 2017, Annexure AE 3.

9. Exceptional case is not defined in the Act. The Tribunal has previously commented:

   There are no generally applicable rules about what constitutes an exceptional case.  An exceptional case has been variously described as one that is not “regularly, or routinely or normally encountered” or an unusual instance or extraordinary. Determining whether there is an exceptional case is an exercise of discretion, having regard to the merits of the individual case concerned.[4]

   [4]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher S [2013] QCAT 361, [3].

10. The College agrees that AE’s circumstances do constitute an exceptional case where the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended.

11. I accepted the parties submissions. In circumstances where:

    a)The conduct giving rise to the offence was at the low end of seriousness. As the College points out, summary offences could have been preferred by the Queensland Police Service (QPS);

    b)The offence was a neighbourhood dispute and in no way child related;

    c)AE has no criminal record;

    d)AE’s evidence illustrates his regret and remorse;

    e)AE has provided references from work colleagues and members of the body corporate committee who were aware of the charges. They have given testimony to his distinguished teaching career, his professionalism, the benefit of his teaching to students and as a mentor to other teachers and as to his general good character.

12. In the context of all of these circumstances, I was satisfied that AE’s is an exceptional case in which in the best interests of children would not be harmed and I ordered accordingly.

Non-publication order

1. AE seeks an order pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act that any information that could identify himself or the school at which he is employed is prohibited from publication.

2. His says his charges are the subject of ongoing negotiations with prosecutors in order to possibly have the serious charge withdrawn. He says media reports may exaggerate the gravity of his conduct and any online report has the potential for him to be forever characterised as a violent home invader.

3. The College supports the appropriateness of a non-publication order.

4. I accepted that it is in the interest of justice in this case to make the non-publication order and I ordered accordingly.