NST v Queensland College of Teachers

[2025] QCAT 59

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

NST v Queensland College of Teachers [2025] QCAT 59

PARTIES:

NST

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR276-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 February 2025

HEARING DATE:

17 September 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Olding, Presiding
Member English

Member Cartwright

ORDERS:

The decision under review is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – GENERALLY – where teacher, in the context of a counselling practice, twice engaged in sexual relations with vulnerable clients – where no expert evidence supporting applicant’s assertion of greater insight into professional boundaries – whether sufficient evidence to be satisfied applicant is suitable to teach

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 9

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	N Morrison of Counsel instructed by D Silvester, Queensland College of Teachers

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant, who for confidentiality reasons we continue to refer to as ‘NST’, has applied for review of the decision of the Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) to refuse his application for provisional registration as a teacher.

2. Having regard to the limited relevant evidence before the Tribunal, we have decided we must confirm that decision. Our reasons follow.

Background

1. NST previously qualified as both a teacher and a psychologist. The current proceeding follows four other tribunal proceedings, two concerning his registration as a psychologist and two concerning his registration as a teacher.

2. In 2004, NST was the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the former Health Practitioners Tribunal (‘HPT’) concerning allegations, which were accepted, relating to sexually exploiting his professional relationship with a client. The HPT suspended NST’s registration as a psychologist for 12 months and imposed supervision and other conditions upon his registration.

3. In 2016, NST was again subject to disciplinary proceedings brought by the Psychology Board of Australia concerning a sexual relationship engaged in during a therapeutic relationship with a vulnerable client. In review proceedings, this Tribunal cancelled NST’s registration as a psychologist, with a four-year prohibition on re-applying for registration. The Tribunal took into account the extent of NST’s boundary violations and the absence of any genuine remorse or insight into his conduct. The Tribunal also noted a head injury sustained by NST in a motorcycle accident in 1980 and noted the acceptance in medical evidence that NST sustained frontal lobe dysfunction resulting in significant impairment of a number of executive functions.

4. When these earlier decisions came to its attention, the QCT suspended NST’s registration as a teacher. Having regard to the boundary violation issues and absence of insight, a senior member of this Tribunal, being unsatisfied that NST did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to students, continued the suspension. Following an application for review of that decision, another member of the Tribunal confirmed the decision to continue the suspension.

The evidence in this review

1. NST did not deny the conduct the subject of the earlier proceedings. However, he gave evidence that he has gained insight into his conduct and would not again breach professional boundaries.

2. In that regard, NST referenced various courses he has completed since the subject conduct occurred. He also stated, which we accept, that he has read widely regarding professional boundaries.

3. NST also gave evidence, which we accept, that he has never been accused of or charged in relation to conduct relating to children.

4. NST also referred to a decision of the Office of the Health Ombudsman revoking an Interim Protection Order (‘IPO’) and put various references and reports before the Tribunal as outlined below.

5. The most favourable report for NST, and on which he primarily relied, was provided by Dr Kneebone, as discussed below.

6. The other references and reports before the Tribunal were provided long ago; and/or did not address the question of NST’s suitability to teach; or did not assist NST’s case. Thus, although carefully considered by the Tribunal, these documents were able to be afforded little weight. We mention, in particular, the following:

   (a)A report dated 29 May 2008 by a psychologist, Mr Greg Farrugia, followed the first instance of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a client. Mr Farrugia noted that NST “showed insight into both his behaviour and approach”. Yet this report preceded the second instance of unprofessional conduct outlined above.  In any case, the report was provided over 15 years ago.

   (b)An undated letter by Iain Moore, a rector of the Anglican Church, who stated he is a former teacher of 19 years experience and that he had at that time known NST for two years and spoke favourably of NST’s caring nature. The report expressed no opinion regarding NST’s suitability to teach.

   (c)A letter dated 19 February 2016 from Frances Fairhall, Minister of Religion, recounting NST’s expressions of regret for past actions. Ms Fairhall expressed a favourable view regarding NST’s practice as a counsellor, but acknowledged she is not a professional in this area.

   (d)A reference dated 29 September 2023 by Reverend Richard James who attested that he has been the Priest in Charge at the Parish at Kangaroo Point Anglican Parish for 14 months and in that position observed NST to be a kind person who is happy to help in the parish and is a valued and respected community member. We have no reason to doubt the contents of this reference. However, there is no evidence that Reverend James is qualified to express an expert opinion on NST’s suitability to teach and he does not do so.

7. Some of the other references and the like before the Tribunal dated back to before the turn of the century. Others were from former counselling clients or other persons, such as a physiotherapist, who did not purport to be qualified to express an expert opinion on the likelihood of NST again breaching professional boundaries.

Courses undertaken

1. NST completed a Master of Education (Cognitive Science) degree in 2018; a Postgraduate Diploma in Disability Studies in 2019; and a Professional Boundaries – A Health Professional’s Guide certificate course in 2020, receiving a 90% pass mark. He has also obtained a Graduate Certificate in Divinity.

2. NST says that through these courses he has learned more about the need for professional distance, professional ethics and maintaining professional boundaries. We accept that, as would be expected, at least the professional courses would have addressed issues relating to professional boundaries. However, completion of such courses is not evidence that NST assimilated the course information in a way that gave him greater insight into his conduct and nor, more particularly, does it provide assurance that he would not again breach professional boundaries. In relation to that matter, as discussed below, we only have NST’s assertions.

Decision of the Office of the Health Ombudsman

1. By letter dated 13 November 2020, the Office of the Health Ombudsman revoked an IPO issued to NST on 11 April 2016. As NST pointed out, the letter stated:

   Based on your submission and the documents before me I have decided to revoke the IPO of 11 April 2016 as there is insufficient evidence to form a reasonable belief that you currently pose a serious risk to persons.

2. However, the letter went on to state:

   The primary reasons (sic) I hold this view is that you are currently subject to an order from QCAT that prohibits you from using the title ‘counsellor’ or ‘therapist’ and from providing counselling or any such related services. You are thereby prevented from working in these areas.

   (Emphasis in original.)

3. It is clear that a primary reason for the decision to revoke the IPO was not an assessment of NST’s insight but rather a determination that any risk to persons was mitigated by the prohibition imposed by the 2016 QCAT decision.

Dr Kneebone’s reports

1. Dr Kneebone, a clinical neuropsychologist, provided reports dated 14 May 2021 and 1 July 2021. The second report references earlier reports provided by a Dr Varghese in 2013 and a Dr Ewing in 2014.

2. Dr Kneebone’s report stated that:

   (a)The three professionals were in agreement that NST has suffered a “permanent neurological impairment secondary to an old traumatic brain injury.”

   (b)Dr Kneebone’s opinion was the least restrictive of the three reports. Dr Ewing had opined that all steps should be taken to ensure NST would not be able to continue to work in any form of counselling. Dr Varghese also considered NST should not be working in counselling but might be able to undertake some work in a team setting or under supervision.

   (c)Dr Kneebone identified some residual deficits, but not at the level of severity identified by the other two reports, leading to a conclusion by Dr Kneebone that NST had obtained improvement in many aspects of his neurocognitive functioning.

3. Importantly, Dr Kneebone stated:

   “I do not feel that I have the necessary expertise to formulate an opinion on the likelihood of [NST] again behaving with inappropriate conduct”. 

4. Dr Kneebone’s ultimate conclusion regarding NST’s suitability for re-registration as a psychologist – he was apparently not asked for an opinion regarding NST’s suitability to teach – was:

   Thus, without deeming [NST] completely unsuitable for re-registration on the basis of his neurocognitive functioning, I indicated re-registration would be appropriate only with the safeguard of the highest level of professional supervision available.

Consideration

1. The task for the Tribunal is to determine whether NST is suitable to teach.[1] The Tribunal can only carry out that task and reach a conclusion based on the evidence before it.

   [1]           Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 9.

2. Although occurring in a different context, NST’s clear, and extremely serious, breaches of professional boundaries give rise to a concern regarding whether he might also breach professional boundaries in a teaching context.

3. We accept that NST genuinely believes that he is suitable to teach and, in particular, that he has obtained insight into his earlier conduct and would not pose a danger of breaching professional boundaries with students.

4. Examination of the reasons for the earlier tribunal decisions referenced above and NST’s earlier submissions to this Tribunal, indicates that, if such insight has been obtained, it was slow coming. The earlier decisions and submissions indicated a propensity to attribute blame to his patients or miscommunication for NST’s conduct. In those circumstances and having regard to the gravity of the earlier conduct, we are not prepared to act upon the assertions of NST alone, without an independent professional assessment.

5. As indicated above, Dr Kneebone’s report is the most favourable of the three medical reports but it is in the most guarded terms. Dr Kneebone specifically eschews expressing any opinion on the prospect of NST again breaching professional boundaries.

6. Given the absence of any independent professional evidence supporting NST’s assertions of greater insight, we find ourselves, on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, unable to be satisfied that NST would not again breach professional boundaries and would not do so in a teaching contest.

7. We have taken into account that NST’s previous conduct involved adults, rather than children and that he has undertaken some teaching without apparent incident. However, again, we have no professional evidence that could form a foundation for concluding that there is no reasonable risk of NST breaching professional boundaries in a teaching context. To be clear, we do not say NST would do so. We are simply unable to form a view that he would not on the evidence before the Tribunal. It follows that the decision under review must be confirmed.

8. To be clear, we note that the Tribunal is not saying NST may never again obtain registration as a teacher. He may choose to make another application, at some point in the future, supported by current and relevant medical evidence which may satisfy QCT regarding his suitability. But that is a matter for the future and for QCT.

Confidentiality

1. The Tribunal made a non-publication order on 17 November 2020. Neither party argued that order should be lifted. Having regard to the possibility of the applicant obtaining registration as a teacher in the future, and the absence of any contrary submissions, we will not disturb the current confidentiality order.