Leigh v State of Queensland (Department of Education)
[2025] QIRC 23
•28 January 2025
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Leigh v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 023 |
PARTIES: | Leigh, Nicholas v State of Queensland (Department of Education) |
CASE NO: | PSA/2024/182 |
PROCEEDING: | Public Sector Appeal – Fair Treatment |
DELIVERED ON: | 28 January 2025 |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | O'Neill IC On the papers |
ORDERS: | The Orders contained in paragraph [200] of these reasons for decision. |
| CATCHWORDS: | PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – where the Appellant is employed by the respondent as a high school teacher – allegations of inappropriate conduct made against the appellant – findings made by decision-maker to substantiate certain allegations – fair treatment appeal against a disciplinary finding – where disciplinary action yet to be taken – whether disciplinary finding action was fair and reasonable decision – finding that allegation 1 was substantiated not fair and reasonable – decision-maker's disciplinary finding with regard to allegation 1 set aside – disciplinary finding that allegations 2 and 3 were substantiated confirmed – decision returned to decision-maker to issue a fresh disciplinary findings decision and notice to show cause on disciplinary action that reflects the orders made in this decision |
LEGISLATION: CASES: | Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B, s 562C Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 91, s 92 Discipline Directive 05/23, cl 8 and cl 9 Code of Conduct for Queensland Public Service 2011 Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 16 Gilmour v Waddell & Ors [2019] QSC 170 Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 060 Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018) J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1993] QCA 012; [1995] 2 Qd R 10 Kavanagh v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall [1974] QB 624 Kemp v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 164 O'Hearn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2023] QIRC 283 Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252 Polizzi v Commissioner of Police [No 2] [2017] WASC 166 R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore [1965] 1 QB 456 Re Barbaro and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) 3 ALD 1 Re Poochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 26 ALR 247 Secretary to Department of Human Services v Sanding [2011] VSC 42 Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 296 Subramaniam –v- The Public Prosecutor [1956] WLR 965 |
Reasons for Decision
Mr Nicholas Leigh ('the Appellant') has been employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Education) as a Secondary School Teacher since 2019.
On 30 January 2023, the Appellant received correspondence from Ms Rachel Borger, Assistant Director General, Human Resources ('the Decision maker'), advising the Appellant that he would be placed on suspension with remuneration until 27 July 2023.
A disciplinary process ensued. By correspondence dated 25 June 2024 ('the First Show Cause Notice') from Mr Ralph Montepaone, then Acting Executive Director, Integrity and Employee Relations, the Appellant was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary findings should not be made against him in relation to three (3) separate allegations excerpted below:
1. On unknown dates in 2021, [Mr Leigh] engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct by:
a.Residing with a Year 12 student, XY.
b.Having a sexualised relationship with Year 12 student, XY.
2. In the period 1 October 2020 to 16 June 2023 while [Mr Leigh] [was] employed at [his] former school or current school, [he] engaged in inappropriate conduct and/or communications with students via social media.
3. On unknown dates in 2021, [Mr Leigh] engaged in inappropriate communication with students during mathematics lessons at the former school.[1]
[1] The Respondent filed an application seeking suppression of the names of student witnesses and the schools involved. This application was allowed and is addressed at the end of these reasons. Hence the names have been anonymised.
On 7 August 2024, the Appellant's representative provided a response to the First Show Cause Notice. The Response was limited to Allegation 1 only.
By letter to the Appellant on 18 October 2024 ('the decision'), the decision-maker advised that each of the Allegations were substantiated and informed the Appellant that he was guilty of misconduct in relation to Allegation 1 and 2 and contravened the Code of Conduct in relation to Allegation 3.
The decision maker sets out her findings on each Allegation in a 13-page enclosure attached to the decision. The decision relevantly provides as follows in relation to each of the allegations:
…On the basis of my findings in relation to Allegation 1, I have determined that pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the PS Act you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of section 91(5) of the PS Act, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in a private capacity that reflects seriously and adversely on the public sector in which you are employed.
…
On the basis of my findings in relation to Allegation 2, I have determined that pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the PS Act you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of section 91(5) of the PS Act, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in a private capacity that reflects seriously and adversely on the public sector in which you are employed.
…
On the basis of my findings in relation to Allegation 3, I have determined that pursuant to section 91(1)(h) of the PS Act you have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a relevant standard of conduct, in a way that is serious enough to warrant disciplinary action, namely clause 3.1 of the Code of Conduct for Queensland Public Service (2011).[2]
[2] Second Show Cause Notice dated 18 October 2024, Enclosure One.
As a consequence of those substantiated allegations, the decision-maker requested that the Appellant show cause with regard to the proposed disciplinary action of terminating his employment.
No decision has been made with respect to the imposition of the proposed disciplinary action.
These reasons will only address the disciplinary findings and will not touch upon the proposed disciplinary penalty of termination of the Appellant's employment.
The Appellant filed his appeal against the decision on 7 November 2024.
For the reasons that follow I am not satisfied that the decision to find Allegation 1 to be substantiated was fair and reasonable. I allow the appeal in part, set aside the decision and in lieu thereof substitute a decision that Allegation 1 is not substantiated; however, I confirm the decision to substantiate Allegations 2 and 3.
Application for suppression
On 2 December 2024,[3] the Respondent submitted an application requesting the suppression of the names of students, witnesses, support persons and schools. Further the Respondent requested that the file be withheld from search and copy.
[3] As Attachment 1 to the Respondent's submissions filed on 2 December 2024.
The Respondent's application is not opposed by the Appellant.
Relevant legislation and authorities
Section 451 of the IR Act bestows general powers on the commission, and relevantly provides:
451 General powers
(1)The commission has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions.
(2)Without limiting subsection (1), the commission in proceedings may—
…
(c) make an order it considers appropriate.
Section 580 of the IR Act provides for the directions the commission may give in respect of confidential material and is set out in the following relevant terms:
580 Confidential material tendered in evidence
…
(5) The court, commission or registrar may direct—
(a)a report, or part of a report, of proceedings in an industrial cause not be published; or
(b)evidence given, records tendered or things exhibited in proceedings for an industrial cause be withheld from release or search.
…
(7) The direction may be given if the court, commission or registrar considers —
(a)disclosure of the matter would not be in the public interest; or
(b)persons, other than parties to the cause, do not have a sufficient legitimate interest in being informed of the matter.
…
Rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the IR Rules') provides the Commission with a power to de-identify judgements and redact information for judgements if there is good reason to do so. Rule 97 relevantly provides as follows:
97 Publishing decisions etc.
(1)The registrar may publish on the QIRC website –
(a)a decision of the court, commission, or registrar; and
(b)the notice of the making or the amended of a bargaining instrument
(2)The registrar must, if the commission directs, publish an amendment of an instrument on the QIRC website.
Note -
For other documents the registrar must publish on the QIRC website, see sections 160, 215, 230 and 459 of the Act.
(3)The court, commission or registrar may, in the public interest or for another reason the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate –
(a)withhold publication of a document; or
(b)modify a document, before publication, in a way that does not affect the essence of the document.
…
The Queensland Court of Appeal in the case of J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2),[4] ('J v L& A Services Pty Ltd') established six principles governing the exercise of discretion to issue suppression orders which are as follows:
[4] [1993] QCA 012; [1995] 2 Qd R 10.
1. Although there is a public interest in avoiding and minimising disadvantages to private citizens from public activities, paramount public interest in the due administration of justice, freedom of speech, a free media and an open society require that court proceedings are able to be reported and discussed publicly.
2. The public may be excluded and publicity prohibited when public access or publicity would frustrate the purpose of a court proceeding by preventing the effective enforcement of some substantive law and depriving the court's decision of practical utility…
3. The permitted exceptions to the requirement of open justice are not based upon the premise that parties would be reasonably deterred from bringing court proceedings by an apprehension that public access or publicity would deprive the proceeding of practical utility, but upon the actual loss of utility which would occur, and the exceptions do not extend to proceedings which parties would be reasonably deterred from bringing if the utility of the proceedings would not be affected. Courts do not have access to the information needed to determine whether or not parties are reasonably deterred by openness or publicity from bringing particular kinds of proceedings; for example, sexual complaints. Legislatures are better equipped than courts to make informed decisions on such matters.
4. No unnecessary restriction upon public access or publicity in respect of court proceedings is permissible.
5. Different degrees of restraint are permissible for different purposes. Although the categories tend to coalesce, they are broadly as follows:
(a) Exclusion of the public or a substantive restraint upon publicity is not permissible unless abstractly essential to the practical utility of a proceeding; for example, prosecutions for blackmail or proceedings for the legitimate protection of confidential information…
(b) A limited exclusion or restraint is permissible if necessary to ensure that a proceeding is fair; for example, witnesses may be required to absent themselves from hearings, parts of jury trials may take place in the absence of the jury and limited or temporary restrictions on publicity may be imposed during the course of jury proceedings.
(c) An incidental, procedural restriction is permissible if necessary in the interests of a party or witness in a particular proceeding; for example, identities of witnesses or details of particular activities which are not directly material such as engaging in covert law enforcement operations or providing information to police may be suppressed.
6. ... information may not be withheld from the public merely to save a party or witness from loss of privacy, embarrassment, distress, financial harm, or other 'collateral disadvantage', to use the expression adopted in R. v. Tait. Additionally, when it is the interests of a party or a witness which is relied on as the basis for a proposed restraint, those considerations must be balanced against other factors, including the interests of others involved in the proceeding and others who may be affected. Open justice is non-discriminatory, whereas exceptions to the principle of open justice deny equal rights to the disputing litigants and provide a benefit to some litigants which is unavailable to members of the general public…
In Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd[5] ('Aurizon') the respondent sought to have the names of the individual workers who were involved in the dispute to be de-identified. The application was supported by the applicant union. His Honour, O'Connor VP relevantly held as follows:
[5] [2021] QIRC 263 [40] – [46].
[40] The starting point in considering an application to suppress or to withhold names of witnesses or parties is a fundamental principle of open justice; 'that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done'. This is a central feature of the administration of justice under the common law.
[41] The open justice principle operates not only as an overarching principle guiding judicial decision-making and various aspects of procedure, it also gives rise to a number of substantive open justice rules that, in the usual course of events, a court must follow. Such rules include: first, that judicial proceedings are conducted, and decisions pronounced, in 'open court'; second, that evidence is communicated publicly to those present in the court; and third, that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, including by the media.
[42] However, the rules to which the open justice principle gives rise are not absolute. Whilst the principles of open justice will usually require the publication of the names of those involved in the proceedings, there are numerous statutory exceptions.
[43] The Commission has the power to de-identify judgments and redact information from judgments if there is a good reason to do so. Rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) recognises that power.
…
[44] It is accepted that the discretion to anonymise a decision might be exercised in favour of not identifying persons who are the victim of sexual assault or discrimination, children, or persons whose private financial affairs are relevant to a decision. It is also accepted that the discretion may be exercised in circumstances where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice in particular proceedings or to avoid some other relevant harm.
[45] In my opinion, the application to withhold the names of the two workers can be best explained on the basis that in the absence of a restriction on publicity, damage will be caused to the individuals to such an extent and of such a kind as requiring some relief, in the interests of justice
[46] As was observed by Mahoney J in John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v The Local Court of New South Wales, these are the 'unacceptable' consequences that sometimes arise in litigation. Of course, as observed by Pincus JA in J v L A Services Pty Ltd (No 2), 'there is a balancing exercise involved, with an initial heavy weighting in favour of publicity – an exercise involving considerations of fairness'. (citations omitted)
The Respondent submits that whilst the fundamental principles of open justice will usually require the publication of the names of those involved in the proceedings, there are numerous statutory exceptions.[6]
[6] Citing Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263 [42].
The Respondent contends that it is accepted that the discretion to anonymise a decision might be exercised in favour of not identifying persons who are the victim of sexual assault or discrimination, children ... or to avoid some other relevant harm.[7]
[7] Ibid, [44].
The Respondent contends that the present decision should be modified before publication and has brought this to the attention of the Commission as required by Practice Direction Number 3 of 2023.
In relation to why the decision should be modified before publication to suppress the names of the students, witnesses, support persons and schools involved, and to withhold the contents of the file held in the QIRC Registry from release or search, the Respondent provided the following submissions:
a) The Commission has sufficient power under the IR Act and the IR Tribunal Rules to make the orders sought;
b) The requested orders are in line with the statutory exceptions to the principle of open justice and the guidance provided in PD 4 of 2023;
c) The requested suppression order is limited in scope relating only to the names of the students, witnesses, support persons and schools. It is otherwise in the public interest to publish all other details of the matter, including the name of the Appellant, given the primacy given to the principle of open justice;
d) The identification of the names of the students, witnesses, support persons and schools are not directly material to the proper determination of the Appeal before the QIRC;
e) In the event the names of the students, witnesses, support persons and schools were to be published there is a risk that persons may, in the future, be discouraged from reporting such suspected misconduct and/or participating in workplace investigations;
f) If the names of the students, witnesses, support persons were de-identified, but not the schools, the knowledge of the schools might act to negate the utility of de-identifying the names of the students, witnesses, support persons who attended the school or had children who attended the school; and
g) the recent jurisprudence of the Commission includes Industrial Commissioner Power's suppression of the identities of school students and school names on the basis that it is not in the public interest, doing so had no impact on the essence of the decision and the documents filed ought to be withheld from release or search.[8]
[8] Kemp v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 164, [169].
There has been no application by the Appellant to suppress his identity. In light of the primacy of the principles of open justice discussed by his Honour, O'Connor VP in Aurizon, I consider it is appropriate that the identity of the Appellant remains public.
In relation to the identities of the each of the students and the two schools involved, I consider that there is a risk that if the schools are identified, this could lead to a chain of enquiry which could identify one or more of the student witnesses or the student that is the subject of Allegation 1.
I agree with the observations of Power IC in Kemp v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[9] that it would not be in the public interest for information to be published which would allow the identity of any of the students involved in this matter, or the schools that they relevantly attended to be identified. The identifying information is not directly relevant or material to the decision.
[9] [2022] QIRC 164, [169].
As a consequence, I consider that the identity of each of the student witnesses and the two Schools should be de-identified pursuant to s 451(2)(c) of the IR Act and r 97(3) of the IR Rules.
I also consider that it is appropriate that the appeal file and the submissions provided by the parties should be withheld from release or search given that the material identifies the names of the various students, and the schools involved.
The decision letter
As noted above the decision-maker's findings were contained in a lengthy enclosure attached to the decision letter. The decision letter followed an extensive investigation which resulted in a lengthy investigation report.
I refer to the following extracts from the enclosure with respect to each of the allegations. To properly examine the decision-maker's analysis of the relevant evidence it will be necessary to excerpt lengthy extracts from the decision letter.
To aid in the comprehension of those excerpts I note as follows:
·The 'former School' refers to the school that the Appellant was teaching at from January 2019 to January 2022.
·The 'current School' refers to the school that the Appellant was teaching at from January 2022 until his suspension in 2023.
·'Student XY' is a former student of the former School and is the subject of Allegation 1.
·'UV' is a close relative of Student XY who provided evidence as a witness in the course of the investigation.
·'AB' is a former student of the former School who left school part way through Grade 12 in 2021 and was a witness who provided evidence in relation to Allegations 1 and 2.
·Students 'C' and 'D' are former students of the former School who were Grade 11 students in 2021 and graduated at the end of 2022.
·Students 'M' and 'N' were former students of the former School who graduated from Grade 12 at the end of 2021.
·Students 'R', 'S' and 'T' were students at the Appellant's current School at the time of the investigation.
I note that the excerpts that follow have been modified from the original to anonymise the names of witnesses and the schools involved and as a consequence, are not a word for word reproduction of the enclosure to the decision letter. In relation to Allegation 1, the decision-maker recorded the following analysis of the evidence available from the investigation report:
…
4. I am satisfied that you were aware, or ought to have been aware, of your obligations under the Code of Conduct, the Standard of Practice and the Department's procedures and guidelines including your obligations with respect to student protection.
5. In addition to this, as a teacher registered with the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) you are also required to comply with the QCT Professional Boundaries:
A Guideline for Queensland Teachers (Guideline). The Guideline provides that teachers are responsible for establishing and maintaining appropriate professional boundaries with students (including acting professionally at all times). When interacting with students you are required to use good judgement and think carefully of the implications and potential consequences of engaging in certain behaviours with students.
6. As a preliminary matter, I have considered your solicitors' submissions in relation to the standard of proof required for me to establish a disciplinary finding, namely being on the balance of probabilities in accordance with the Briginshaw Principle. In this respect I acknowledge that I am required to take into account the seriousness of the consequences of the finding, the seriousness of the allegation, the quality of evidence and other relevant circumstances. However, as your legal representatives have acknowledged, it is not necessary that facts in dispute be proved by direct evidence, but rather they may be provided by circumstantial evidence alone, by direct evidence alone or by a combination of direct and circumstantial: that is, both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable proof of facts. I am then required to consider the credibility and reliability of the evidence (and which I have done so below).
7. It is uncontentious that:
a. In 2019 Student XY was a student in Year 10 at the former School and you were XY's maths teacher; and
b. at the relevant time (2021) Student XY was in Year 12 at the former School and aged 17 years old.
8. I have also had regard to your interview with the investigator on 5 December 2023 in which you give evidence that in 2021, when Student XY was in Year 12, XY was in the 'home room' class next to yours. 'Home room' teachers also taught a subject called 'Careers and Wellbeing' once per week. You told the investigator that your 'Careers and Wellbeing' class would combine with the class next to yours every few weeks, during which you would be responsible for teaching Student XY for part of this class.
9. In your interview on 5 December 2023, you relevantly stated that:
…
c. While Student XY was at the former School, your contact with XY was friendly and professional. Sometimes when you were on playground duty, you would chat with XY. There was a group of four or them including Student XY, (and three other students).
d. After Student XY graduated Year 12, XY added you on Facebook and you accepted the friend request. [The decision-maker noted that as of 8 July 2023 the Appellant remained friends with XY on Facebook].
e. You admitted that since XY left school, maybe once every few months XY would send you a message to tell you how XY was going with things. You would respond to these messages.
f. You denied allowing Student XY to reside with you while XY was a student at the former School. You also denied that Student XY ever attended or stayed over at your place of residence.
g. While you were employed at the former School, you lived by yourself in a two-bedroom duplex. Family and friends would come and stay with you throughout 2021 however you lived alone.
h. You denied engaging in sexual conduct with Student XY. You denied having sexual intercourse or any physical contact with Student XY.
10. Student XY did not participate an interview with QCT or the Department. As a result, there is no direct evidence from XY in relation to your alleged conduct towards them. In XY's email to QCT in September 2023 they stated that 'due to some health complications and other personal contributing factors I will be unable to be a part of the investigation, and do not wish to be further contacted about this in the future. I am sorry for the inconvenience this may cause.' However, at no time does XY simply deny your conduct or refuse to participate as the allegations are baseless.
11. Notwithstanding Student XY's decision not to participate in an interview, I have taken into account the email trail dated 2 November 2022 to 3 November 2022 in which the Principal of the former School referred information concerning your alleged conduct to Integrity & Employee Relations. More specifically, the Principal advised that two students at the former School, Student C and Student D, had notified her that, among other things, a couple of former students had told them that Student XY was not living at home in 2021 (while XY was in Year 12) and that during the time that XY was not living at home, XY lived with you and had sex with you.
The Principal of the former School sought clarification about the former student/s who had disclosed this information to them and was advised that it was another former student, AB, who informed them that Student XY had lived with you when not living at home.
12. I have carefully reviewed the transcripts of the interviews with Student C, Student D and AB. In particular I note that:
a.AB told the QCT investigator during their interview on 8 March 2023 that AB was told by the former School students, student M and student N, that Student XY was living with you throughout grade 11 and 12, because XY's family had 'kicked XY out'. They (the former students) also told AB that you and Student XY were sleeping together at the time.
b. During the interview with the departmental investigator on 7 July 2023, AB stated that during grade 12, Student XY was living with you and having a relationship with you whilst XY was 'struggling with stuff' at home. AB maintained that AB was told this by former student M and former student N when they had gone out drinking socially on 2 October 2022. During the conversation with former student M and former student N, AB disclosed to them that you had screenshotted a Snapchat photo of AB in lingerie. AB told the departmental investigator that former student M and former student N had told AB that when Student XY was in grade 12, XY had been kicked out of home by XY's parents and you had let XY move in. AB stated AB was aware you had a girlfriend (living elsewhere) at the time, however, was also told you were having sex with Student XY.
c. Student C told QCT on 16 March 2023 that you used to be a teacher at the former School, and you were C's Year 11 Maths teacher. After you had left the former School at the end of 2021, there was a party and all of the girls in Year 12 who had just graduated, were talking about you, and saying that you had slept with Student XY while XY was still a student. Student C told the investigator that C didn't think Student XY had lived with you for long and referred to your girlfriend (whom you spoke about in class). C also recalled AB coming to the former School looking for Student C to ask whether you had been viewing Student C's stories on social media. Student C also made a comment about you sleeping with Student XY.
d. On 17 July 2023 Student C gave evidence to the departmental investigator that in or around November 2022 C had been told through some girls in the grade above (i.e. Year 12), who graduated the year before, that you had been sleeping with a former student (Student XY) while XY was a student at the former School. C was aware that Student XY had been staying at your house when XY wasn't 'welcome' at home. C told the investigator that former student M and former student N had told AB about what had happened between you and Student XY.
e. During D's interview with QCT on 16 March 2023, student D gave evidence that AB, a former student at the former School, had told a number of students in October 2022 about you sleeping with Student XY. Student D recalled that student C had told Student D that AB had been looking for them to talk about you viewing their Instagram stories, and AB told Student D what happened with Student XY.
Student D further gave evidence that D recalled another occasion where a comment was made that Student XY was sleeping with you, and D indicated that it was 'really just everywhere'.
13. As detailed in your Response, I acknowledge that the evidence given by AB, Student D and Student C is hearsay evidence. Further, it is not suggested that Student XY directly disclosed the information about your alleged conduct to any of these witnesses. Relevantly, AB gave evidence that AB was told by former student M and former student N, that Student XY was living with you while XY was not living at home and was having sex with you while XY was still a student at the former School.
Neither former student M and former student N were interviewed as part of the investigation, and it is therefore unclear whether Student XY told them this information directly or it was disclosed to them by a different source.
14. Significantly however, I have reviewed the case note of the investigator in which they recorded the contents of a telephone call on 24 January 2023 with Student XY's close relative UV. UV was advised that the purpose of contacting UV was due to the Department receiving concerns about the alleged conduct of a departmental employee towards Student XY whilst XY was a student. The investigator did not advise UV of the name of the alleged employee responsible or the alleged conduct. During this call UV volunteered the following relevant information (my underlining):
XY was shaking. … [Student XY] had confided information to UV last year [2022] that was very concerning.
XY asked UV to promise not to tell anyone. XY believed the conduct was appropriate as XY had nearly graduated.
XY disclosed to UV that towards graduation XY had a fight with XY's parents and left. XY briefly stayed with XY's teacher. The teacher was young and had ginger coloured hair. The teacher would drive XY to school. XY also disclosed that XY had had sex with the teacher. XY had sexual intercourse with the teacher whilst XY was still attending school.
UV told XY that the teacher's conduct was inappropriate. UV was not aware of the teacher' name, however, UV knew that XY was friends with the teacher on Facebook.
Whilst talking to the investigator, UV looked up Facebook and identified the teacher as Nick Leigh.
UV believed XY would not talk to the Department about the matter as XY did not want to get the teacher into trouble. XY believed that the conduct was okay as XY had nearly graduated.
15. It is significant that UV, being a close relative of Student XY, identified you as the departmental employee as having engaged in inappropriate conduct towards XY (notwithstanding the investigator did not disclose your identity or name). UV further provided information (similar to the accounts provided by AB, Student D and Student C) including that XY had a fight with XY's parents, left home and briefly stayed with you, and during that time had sexual intercourse with you whilst XY was still a student. Further, and significantly, UV's evidence is that XY disclosed this information to UV directly.
16. I note that UV also participated in an interview with the QCT on 13 March 2023, with XY's mother present as the support person. During this interview UV gave evidence that:
a. UV was told by XY towards the end of 2022 that XY was going to go see an ex-teacher when XY was in Brisbane for a holiday.
b. XY told UV that towards the end of Year 12 (in 2021), XY had been 'seeing' (which UV understood to mean Student XY was a romantically involved and/or in a relationship with) that same teacher.
c. XY has told UV that there was a week where XY had left home and had told XY's parents that XY was staying at a friend's house but, in fact, XY stayed at your house.
d. Student XY further told UV that you had driven XY to school and dropped XY off before the school and then you and Student XY would go home and cook dinner together.
e. XY had described it as essentially a relationship to UV.
f. Student XY told UV that you and XY had slept together on numerous occasions and were also talking about continuing the relationship, after XY had graduated.
g. Student XY did not end up seeing you in Brisbane as XY had stayed with UV the whole time.
17. In your Response, your legal representatives submit that there is no direct evidence from Student XY as to the alleged conduct occurring (which I accept). I also note that the only direct evidence is your denial of the conduct. However, while your legal representatives have made submissions that no weight should be placed on any of the other witnesses' evidence, I do not agree their evidence should be disregarded entirely.
In this respect:
a. I accept the former Principal, Student D, Student C, and AB provide no direct evidence and that their evidence is hearsay evidence. While this affects the weight I can place on their evidence, in my view it is significant that their evidence to a large extent corroborates and is very similar to the version of events given by UV.
b. Your legal representatives further accept that while UV may be credible, their assertion as to what Student XY said to them cannot be relied on as the truth of the contents of Student XY's statement as it cannot be tested. However, in my view it is significant that UV independently identified you in UV's initial phone call with the investigator as the teacher with whom Student XY had lived and had sex with. This was without any prompting. Further UV's evidence about the circumstances in which Student XY lived with you, namely that XY had an argument with XY's parents and left home for approximately one week in 2021, is consistent with the information provided to AB, Student C and Student D.
This supports a conclusion that the evidence is reliable. Further in my view the evidence of UV is credible and must be afforded weight, particularly in circumstances where UV has no motivation to fabricate the allegations against you.
c. In relation to Student XY's refusal to participate in the investigation, your legal representatives have submitted it is a reasonable hypothesis that the alleged disclosures by Student XY to UV are not true. However, as detailed above, I find it significant that in XY's emails with QCT Student XY did not deny the conduct.
18. Further, and significantly, I hold concerns in relation to your credibility. In this respect I note that in relation to Allegation 2, during your interview with the investigator, your evidence changed from initially denying the conduct in its entirety. However, once you were shown the documentary evidence your evidence changed to a lack of recollection, to eventually a possibility that it was you/could have been you. In your Response, you also now accept that it is open to me to make findings in relation to Allegation 3 (despite your evidence to the investigator that you did not make certain comments).
19. In your Response your legal representatives have submitted that your admissions in relation to 'Allegations 2 and 3', goes towards your credibility, and therefore your response in relation to Allegation 1 should be accepted as truthful. I do not agree and consider this to be disingenuous. Relevantly, you changed your evidence in relation to Allegations 2 and 3 to make admissions in response to documentary evidence which supported the allegations. You were initially less than frank. This suggests to me that you only made the admissions because you were faced with evidence which mean you could no longer maintain your denials. I also consider that you have a motivation to fabricate your evidence and to deny the conduct of Allegation 1, noting that the consequences of engaging in the conduct the subject of this allegation will have a serious impact on you.
20. For the reasons detailed above, on balance, I prefer the evidence given by UV (and consider it to be supported by the hearsay evidence of the former Principal, Student D, Student C, and AB) over yours to the extent that it differs.
Summary
21. On the basis of my findings above and having considered the totality of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that you engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct by allowing Student XY to reside with you for a short period of time (approximately a week) whilst XY was in Year 12 at the former School. I am also satisfied that during this time you engaged in a sexual relationship with XY.
22. In my view your conduct in allowing Student XY to reside with you and engaging in a sexual relationship with XY was highly inappropriate and unprofessional. This constituted a complete failure by you to maintain appropriate boundaries with students. I also consider your conduct amounts to sexual misconduct with a student.
23. I note that there is a high threshold to be met before I can find conduct amounts to misconduct. Misconduct, compared to other inappropriate or improper conduct, requires a deliberate departure from accepted standards, serious negligence to the point of indifference or an abuse of the privilege and confidence enjoyed by a public service employee.
24. I consider your conduct the subject of this Allegation 1 was extremely serious and constituted a deliberate and repeated pattern of disregard for the boundaries that exist in your professional relationship with students. On this basis, I find that your behaviour the subject of this Allegation 1 meets the definition of misconduct. I further consider that the community, particularly parents and students expect a teacher to maintain professional teacher/student boundaries, including not allowing a student to reside with them and/or engage in a sexual relationship with them (even if they are older than 16-year-old). I am therefore satisfied that your conduct reflects seriously and adversely on the Department.[10]
[10] Second Show Cause Notice, Enclosure One, Allegation 1, [4]-[24].
In relation to Allegation 2, the decision-maker in Enclosure One to the decision letter provided the following analysis of the evidence:
…
5. You do not dispute that at the relevant times:
a. AB, Student C and Student D were students at the former School; and
b. Student R, Student S and Student T were students at the current School (you taught these students Year 11 Maths in 2022 and Year 12 maths in 2023 until you were suspended from duty).
6. I have carefully considered your interview with the departmental investigator and your Response. Significantly, in your Response, unlike your interview with the investigator on 5 December 2023, you do not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence in relation to Allegation 2 and further accept that it is open to me to make findings in relation to Allegation 2. Notwithstanding the submissions in your Response, I have reviewed the relevant evidence, as detailed below, when determining whether to substantiate each of the alleged incidents that comprise the allegation.
7. In particular, I have had regard to interview conducted by QCT with AB, a former student of the former School on 8 March 2023 in which AB stated that:
a. You were a teacher at the former School in 2021 however you didn't directly teach AB, other than some tutoring.
b. AB believed you added AB to SnapChat while AB was still a student.
c. Snapchat notifies the owner of an image, when their photo has been 'screen shotted' or screen recorded. AB received a notification in approximately July 2022 saying that you had screen shotted AB's photos. The photos were of AB and two co-workers in their work uniforms, which is lingerie.
d. AB confronted you with a message about the screen shot and then blocked you.
e. It made AB feel pretty uncomfortable because AB was a former student.
f. AB reported it because AB had spoken to some other young women AB had known from school, and they also told AB that they were aware that you were also doing this to two younger female students.
8. AB also participated in an interview with the departmental investigator on 7 July 2023. AB told the investigator that:
a. AB was aware that 'Nick' on Snapchat was you because AB looked at your profile the day you added AB to Snapchat. AB could no longer find your username on Snapchat and was therefore unable to confirm the date you added AB. However, AB was in Year 11 when you added AB to Snapchat. At this time, you added multiple Year 11 students. AB recalled that you did this at the former School during the Year 12 send-off parade.
b. AB posted a photograph of AB in lingerie to AB's Snapchat.
c. On 19 August 2022 (AB was no longer a student at this time) you took a screenshot of this photograph from AB's Snapchat. In response, AB messaged you telling you AB could tell that you took a screenshot of AB's photograph. You replied to AB, ''sorry, I probably should not have done that. I'll delete it. '' AB also provided a copy of the message to the investigator.
9. I have carefully considered your interview with the investigator on 5 December 2023 and your Response. You told the investigator that:
a. After AB graduated Year 12, AB sent you a friend request on Facebook and you accepted the request.
b. You engaged in limited interaction with AB on Facebook. You may have liked one of AB's photos, and engaged in messaging with AB.
c. You did not have contact with AB on any other social media platforms other than Facebook. You denied having any contact with AB via Snapchat, Instagram or Twitter.
d. It was untrue that you added AB to your Snapchat or that you took a screenshot of AB's photograph on Snapchat. It was false that AB contacted you via Snapchat advising you AB could tell that you had taken a screenshot of AB's photograph or that you responded to AB.
e. You could not recall your Snapchat username.
10. The investigator then showed you a screenshot of a conversation between AB and ''Nick'' on Snapchat. When you were advised that AB's evidence was that this conversation was between you and AB, you told the investigator that you could not recall. You also stated you doubted it was you as you had not added AB to your Snapchat. However, you then admitted to the investigator that at that time [approximately mid 2022], your emoji picture on Snapchat probably did look like the one in the conversation thread shown to you. You then stated that it could be you [in the conversation thread], and that you could not be sure.
11. I also note that during your interview you complied with the investigator's request to show your Snapchat account. The investigator observed your name on Snapchat was Nick and your emoji was similar, however it had slightly darker red coloured hair.
12. With respect to the credibility of AB, there is no available evidence to indicate AB was not telling the truth. AB was able to provide documentary evidence to support AB's evidence (in so far as the conversation that took place via Snapchat in 2022). You also provided no legitimate basis or reason for me to believe that AB would have fabricated the evidence against you. Further, during your interview with the investigator your evidence changed from initially denying the conduct in its entirety. However, once you were shown the documentary evidence your evidence changed to a lack of recollection, to eventually a possibility that it was you/ could have been you. I do not consider your evidence in relation to this allegation to be credible.
13. On the basis of the material before me and taking into account your Response in which you now do not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence, I prefer AB's evidence over yours to the extent that it differs. I am therefore satisfied that you added AB to your Snapchat account whilst AB was a student in Year 11 at the former School.
14. I have further had regard to the interview conducted by QCT with Student D, a former student of the former School on 16 March 2023. Student D was in Year 12 at the former School in 2022. D told the QCT that:
a. You had been D's Maths teacher when D was in Years 10 and 11 at the former School.
b. In approximately mid-2022, D became aware that you were viewing D's stories on Instagram.
c. D knew it was you who viewed D's stories because your profile photo is of you, and it has your name.
d. You had never made comments on D's social media and did not follow D on Instagram or Facebook. D had also never invited you to be D's friend on any social media platform.
e. D felt it was 'weird' you were looking at D's social media stories.
15. In your interview with the departmental investigator, you initially denied searching for and viewing Student D's Instagram content whilst D was a student, instead stating you did so after D had graduated. However, during your interview you later contradicted yourself by stating that during a class in 2021, in which you taught both Student C and Student D, you searched for and viewed one of these student's posts on social media.
Further, when provided the interview evidence of Student D that D became aware
you viewed D's Instagram stories as early as mid-2022 and continued to view them
through to March 2023, you told the investigator that 'potentially' you could have done
that. Again, the inconsistency or change in your evidence causes me to doubt your
credibility with respect to this allegation.
16. On the basis of the material before me and taking into account your Response in which you now do not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence, I prefer Student D's evidence over yours to the extent that it differs. While D's evidence is that D had spoken with a number of other former students about your conduct towards them, including Student C, you have given me no basis or reason for me to believe that Student D would have fabricated and/or colluded with Student C when making allegations against you.
17. I am therefore satisfied that in mid-2022, while Student D was a student in Year 12 at the former School, and you were working as a Teacher at the current School, you searched for D on social media platform, Instagram and viewed D's 'stories' on a number of occasions.
18. I have also carefully considered the evidence given by Student C, a former student at the former School including during the interview conducted by QCT on 16 March 2023 and with the departmental investigator on 17 July 2023. In summary, Student C gave evidence that:
a. You were C's Year 11 maths teacher at the former School. At the end of 2021, you transferred to a school in another location. C finished Year 12 at the former School in November 2022.
b. In approximately mid 2022 you started viewing C's Instagram stories.
c. C recognised that you were viewing C's Instagram as you had a selfie photograph against your name.
d. C's Instagram stories were public. However, if someone is not following C, in order to view C's Instagram stories, they would need to search for C and then view the story. You did not follow C on Instagram, so you would have had to search for C to then view C's story.
e. From approximately October 2022 through to November 2022, C noticed that you watched C's Instagram stories about five times (as C went through C's views (on Instagram) and saw that you had viewed C's stories). C then made C's profile private and blocked you from viewing C's profile.
f. During a conversation with Student D C told D you had viewed C's stories, and Student D told C that you had also viewed D's Instagram stories.
g. C took screenshots to show you had viewed C's stories, however C could no longer find these photos.
19. Relevantly, during your interview, you told the departmental investigator that you did not have any contact with Student C's social media in 2022. You further gave evidence that Student C graduated end of 2022, and after C graduated, you typed C's name into Instagram to search for C and then viewed C's photos. However, when advised that Student C had provided information that you had viewed C's Instagram stories between October 2022 and November 2022 approximately five times, you then told the investigator that you probably did. This is another example of your evidence changing during your interview.
20. On the basis of the material before me, I prefer Student C's evidence over yours to the extent that it differs. You have given me no basis or reason for me to believe that Student D would have fabricated and/or colluded with Student C when making allegations against you.
21. I am therefore satisfied that in late 2022 while Student C was still in Year 12 at the former School, and you were a teacher at the current School, you searched for C on social media platform, Instagram and viewed C's 'stories' on a number of occasions.
22. It is also uncontentious that on around 30 January 2023, you were issued with a letter dated 30 January 2023 from me as then Executive Director, Integrity & Employee Relations which suspended you from duty, and further directed you to 'continue to follow the provisions of the Code of Conduct, the Department's Standard of Practice and other policies' during your period of suspension.
23. I have considered the evidence of Student R, Student S and Student T who were all students at the current School in 2023. All three witnesses told the departmental investigator that you viewed their Instagram stories in 2023, after you would have received the suspension letter. More specifically:
a. Student R told the investigator that during term two 2023 R was a student at the current School. R noticed that you (being R's former maths Teacher) had looked at a story on R's Instagram account. R's Instagram story that you viewed was only up for 24 hours. R did not take a screenshot confirming that you had viewed R's story.
b. Student S gave evidence that you taught S maths in Year 11 and for the first part of Term 1, 2023. S wanted to know who had viewed the Instagram story so looked up S's views. S noticed that you were a person who had viewed S's story however you do not follow S on Instagram. Student S identified you from your profile photo. Student S had uploaded a photo to S's Instagram reel on 10 June 2023. On 11 June 2023, S took a screenshot showing that you had viewed S's Instagram story. S has S's full name displayed on S's Instagram profile. It was public at the time, but S has since made it private.
c. Student T told the investigator that towards the end of Term 2, 2023, T's friend Student S told T that you had viewed S's Instagram story. T then checked T's own Instagram and saw that you had also viewed T's Instagram story. At the time you viewed T's story, T's profile was public. T has since changed T's profile to private. You have never followed T on Instagram, and therefore in order for you to view T's story, you would have searched for T by name and then clicked on the story to view it.
24. In addition to the above, I find it significant that:
a. On 18 July 2023, Student S emailed the investigator and provided two screenshots including the screenshot of S's Instagram story taken on 11 June 2023. This screenshot of S jumping in a car park shows several persons who viewed the story, including a 'Nick Leigh'.
b. During T's interview Student T provided the investigator with several screenshots from T's phone, including one depicting a list of some of the persons who viewed T's Instagram story whereby T was lifting T's body up on a shopping trolley. The screenshot identifies 'Nick Leigh' viewed the story. T also provided a screen shot of the 'Nick Leigh' that viewed T's story which clearly shows the profile picture being you.
25. I have also reviewed the transcript of your interview with the investigator on 5 December 2023, during which you gave evidence that:
a. After you were suspended you looked up social media accounts of students to see what they were up to.
b. You searched for Student R by name on Instagram and then viewed content R had posted. You did so on more than one occasion.
c. You searched for Student S by name on Instagram and then viewed the content S had posted. You did this to see what S was doing.
d. You confirmed it was you in the screenshots of persons who had viewed Student T's Instagram account depicting a photo of Student S.
e. You searched Instagram for Student T and looked at T's Instagram a handful of times.
f. You confirmed it was your Instagram account (de-identified xxxxx.xx) with name 'Nick Leigh' that viewed Student T's Instagram story which T uploaded on or around 10 June 2023.
26. On the basis of the material before me, including your admissions to the Investigator and your Response, I am satisfied that in early/mid 2023 you searched for Student R, Student S and Student T on Instagram, and viewed stories they had posted. I am particularly concerned that you did so after you had been suspended from duty, and after you were specifically reminded of your obligations to continue to follow the provisions of the Code of Conduct, the Department's Standard of Practice and other policies during your period of suspension.
Summary
27. On the basis of my findings above and having considered the totality of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that in the period 1 October 2020 to 16 June 2023, while you were employed at the former School and/or the current School, you engaged in inappropriate conduct and/or communications with students via social media (as detailed above).
…[11]
[11] Second Show Cause Notice, Enclosure One, Allegation 2, [5]-[27].
In relation to Allegation 3, the decision-maker in Enclosure One to the decision letter provided the following analysis of the evidence:
2. It is not in dispute that in 2021, Student C and Student D were students in Year 11 at the former School.
3. I have had regard to Student C's evidence given during the interview with QCT on 16 March 2023. Relevantly Student C told the investigator that you made 'weird' comments to female students. Student C recalled that during a Year 11 maths lessons with you in 2021, a female student had made the comment 'oh its hot in here' to which you responded, 'no that's just you.'
4. Further during Student C's interview with the departmental investigator on 17 July 2023 Student C also gave evidence that on one occasion during a maths lesson in 2021, you explained to the class how babies were born, including that sperm goes into the egg. You then asked the students if they had any questions. C recalled that one student then asked you if it was awkward during sex and you replied, 'it was if there was blood'.
5. Further, I have also taken into account Student D's interview with QCT on 16 March 2023 in which Student D also recalled that the class had gone to a conference at (located de-identified). When the students returned, they started their maths class with you late. This class then turned into a sex talk. Someone asked a question about sex, and you answered. Student D thought it was 'awkward'.
6. I have also given careful consideration to your interview with the departmental investigator on 5 December 2023 and your Response. In your interview you gave evidence that:
a. During class, Student D made a comment that it was hot in here. You responded with words to the effect 'no, that's just C [Student C]'. You told the investigator that you were joking when you said this. You further stated that you 'often make a humorous response to students.'
b. You told the investigator that you could understand how the comment could be perceived inappropriately. You then said that "I made that comment 'cos I have a good working relationship with those students, and it was, you know, I don't make comments about kid's haircuts or stuff like that, it was I often joke around with kids but never, well would not have said it if I knew it was going to offend or upset somebody or something like that or, or be taken in any way other than a joke."
c. You told the investigator that you did not remember making the comment that sex was awkward if there was blood. However, you stated that in 2021, you recall teaching a Year 10 Science class where you had reproductive organs on the PowerPoint.
You remember your Year 11 students walking past your classroom, seeing the PowerPoint and thinking it was funny. Later in your maths class the Year 11 male students joked about the PowerPoint they had seen you teaching earlier.
d. It was probably the Year 11 male students who 'steered' the conversation, however you do not remember the students asking you questions.
e. You can't remember exactly the comments, but you remember the conversation was getting worse and worse about topics, the more that they were feeding off each other and making the joke (but don't remember specifics).
f. You are pretty sure you were trying to start your lesson and trying to quieten them down and get them off-topic.
7. In addition to the above, in your Response you do not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence in relation to Allegation 3 and further accept that it is open to me to make findings in relation to Allegation 3.
8. On the basis of the material before me, and taking into account your admissions and Response, I am satisfied that:
a. in response to a comment made by a female student 'oh its hot in here' you responded, 'no that's just you;' and
b. during a Year 11 Maths class you discussed sex including in response to a question from a student as to whether it was awkward during sex, and you replied it was if there was blood.
9. I do not accept that the comment you made in reference to a female student being 'hot' was acceptable and/or an appropriate joke for you to make in an attempt to build rapport.
I also do not consider that there was any reasonable or justifiable educational purpose for you to discuss sex with students in a Maths class.
10. The Department is committed to providing a safe and supportive learning environment for students and requires its employees to model and encourage behaviour that upholds the welfare and best interests of students. Relevantly, the Guidelines for Implementing 'Allegations against Employees in the Area of Student Protection' provides that 'when employees communicate with students it should be respectful and appropriate for the situation. It should not contain sexual references or innuendo.'
11. In my view your conduct, namely the comments made by you about or in the presence of female Year 11 students was not appropriate and as such failed to comply with the requirements as detailed in the Guidelines for Implementing 'Allegations against Employees in the Area of Student Protection'. I am therefore satisfied that it constituted a contravention of the Code of Conduct and a failure by you to maintain appropriate boundaries with students as required by the Guidelines for Implementing 'Allegations against Employees in the Area of Student Protection'. Having regard to the nature of the conduct, in my view it is also a contravention of the Code of Conduct sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action.[12]
[12] Second Show Cause Notice, Enclosure One, Allegation 3, [2]-[11].
The Appeal Notice
In relation to the sex education discussion, C provided a similar version to that provided at the first investigation.[160]
[160] Ibid, 110-112.
C also informed the investigators that the class participated in a practice lockdown and that the Appellant had pulled up videos of horrific school shootings and played them on the projector.[161]
[161] Ibid, 130-164.
D participated in an interview with the QCT investigators on 16 March 2023.[162] D provided similar evidence to C regarding the incident involving a sex education talk during a maths lesson in 2021.[163]
[162] Investigation Report, Attachment 29.
[163] Ibid, 111-120.
In the Appellant's interview with the investigators on 5 December 2023,[164] in relation to Allegation 3, the Appellant:
·Said that Student D had made a comment about it being hot in here, and the Appellant responded, no, that's just Student C sitting next to you. The Appellant alleged that this was said as a joke and to have a humorous rapport with his students. The Appellant confirmed that he understood that it may be perceived inappropriately.[165]
·Could not recall a maths lesson where a sex education talk occurred as alleged by Students C and D, however, he provided evidence of a maths lesson where Grade 11 boys were making comments about Power Point photos of reproductive organs that the Appellant had on display during an earlier Grade 10 science class. The Appellant alleged that this gave rise to the Grade 11 boys making comments and the conversation getting worse.[166]
[164] Investigation Report, Attachment 20.
[165] Ibid, 426-447.
[166] Ibid, 449-469.
The Appellant in effect has made an admission during his interview in relation to the comment made to Students C and D. It was open to the decision-maker in light of this to accept the evidence of Students C and D, and to act on the Appellant's admission.
The evidence of C and D regarding the sex education talk during a math's lesson was consistent about what occurred and what was said by the Appellant in response to a question from a student. The allegation was not denied by the Appellant, he simply said he could not recall the incident, but then provided evidence of a maths lesson where there does appear to have been some discussion of a sexual nature.
I find on the balance of probabilities that it was open to the decision-maker to find on the evidence available to her that Allegation 3 had been sufficiently substantiated.
I am therefore satisfied that the disciplinary finding in relation to Allegation 3 was fair and reasonable.
Orders
I make the following Orders:
1. Pursuant to s 562C(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is set aside and, in lieu thereof, is substituted with a decision that allegation 1 is not substantiated and that the disciplinary findings in relation to allegations 2 and 3 are confirmed.
2. That Mr Leigh be issued with a new disciplinary findings decision and notice to show cause on disciplinary action that reflects the orders made in this decision.
3. Pursuant to s 566(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the stay of the disciplinary findings' decision appealed against made on 14 November 2024 be revoked.
4. Pursuant to s 451(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) and r 97(3)(a) of Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), that any reference to the School and the former students, the subject of these proceedings be de-identified.
5.Pursuant to s 451(2)(c) and s 580(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), I direct that all documents relevant to this matter be withheld from release, search or copy absolutely, or until further order of the Commission
2
0