Queensland College of Teachers v AJP
[2011] QCAT 75
•7 February 2011
| CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v AJP [2011] QCAT 75 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers |
| v | |
| AJP |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR171-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 31 January 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Ms Patricia Hanly, Member Mr Ron Joachim, Member Ms Rosemary Kybruz, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 7 February 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Application is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Teacher charged with disqualifying offence – charge withdrawn by Crown – College of Teachers acknowledging no ground for disciplinary action Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Queensland College of Teachers represented by Mr J Gormley, Principal Legal Officer, for the applicant |
| RESPONDENT: | AJP represented by Ms M A Steen, Solicitor, Varro Clarke & Co, for the respondent. AJP was also present in person. |
REASONS FOR DECISION
AJP is an approved teacher[1]. AJP was first granted registration to teach in Queensland on 25 July 1974.[2]
[1] Section 8 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.
[2]Section 223(e) Certificate – Exhibit A to Affidavit of Jon Gormley sworn 30 December 2010.
At the time of the hearing AJP was 57 years of age.
On 20 June 2010 AJP was served with a Charge and Summons issued out of the Magistrates Court at Geelong Victoria alleging that he had taken part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16 years to whom he was not married whilst that child was under his care, supervision or authority. The charge was equivalent to a disqualifying offence[3] in Queensland.
[3]Section 168(1)(f) Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000.
On 24 June 2010 AJP signed a Disclosure of Change in Teacher’s Criminal History under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (the Act) notifying the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) of the charge.
On 28 June 2010 QCT suspended[4] AJP’s teacher registration. That suspension was subsequently continued by this Tribunal on 30 July 2010.
[4] Section 48 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.
On 23 September 2010 the Director of Public Prosecutions in Victoria discontinued the proceedings against AJP. AJP’s solicitors were notified of this action under cover of letter dated 4 October 2010 from the Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria.
On 10 November 2010 the Tribunal revoked the order made on 30 July 2010 suspending AJP’s teacher registration. At the same time, the Tribunal made a non-publication order in relation to AJP’s identity and that of the complainant child.
Having had the opportunity to peruse the material provided by the Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria, QCT did not oppose the revocation of the suspension.
In its submission, lodged in the Tribunal on 17 January 2011, QCT provided a comprehensive analysis of the relevant law, the facts and circumstances of the charge, an overview of the allegations and the evidence and concluded with a discussion as to whether the ‘circumstances of the charge’ established the ‘ground for disciplinary action’.
In its concluding discussion, QCT identified various difficulties from the evidence which was before the Court in Victoria. Those difficulties included suggestive questioning of the complainant child; inconsistency in the complainant child’s evidence about the location of the incident giving rise to the charge; the inherent improbability of conduct in the alleged circumstances and the unexplained absence of a statement from the complainant child’s stepfather about fresh complaint.
On the basis of these identified difficulties QCT stated that it does not hold ‘a reasonable belief … that a ground for disciplinary action against AJP exists’.
A submission was lodged by AJP’s solicitors on 28 January 2011. It was noted that the Tribunal must decide the matter on the balance of probabilities[5].
[5] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) HCA 34.
It was further noted that the case of WK & SR[6] establishes that the Tribunal must be satisfied towards the strictest end of the spectrum. It was submitted that it was inherently improbable the alleged offence occurred in the circumstances variously described by the complainant child, and that on that basis the Tribunal should find that there were no grounds for disciplinary action against AJP.
[6] (1997) FLC 92-787.
The QCT noted in its submission that the Tribunal is required to examine the circumstances of the charge[7] laid against AJP. In doing so, the QCT observed that the Tribunal is entitled to make any determination open and established on the evidence. The QCT stated that the establishment of a serious allegation involving sexual abuse requires cogent evidence. The Tribunal is satisfied that such cogent evidence is absent in this matter.
[7] Sections 92(2)(a) & (3) Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.
Having considered all of the evidence available to it the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that a ground exists for disciplinary action against AJP. Accordingly the Tribunal dismisses the application.
0