Queensland College of Teachers v Amundsen
[2013] QCAT 174
| CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Amundsen [2013] QCAT 174 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) |
| v | |
| John Howard Amundsen (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR011-09 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 15 March 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Kerrie O’Callaghan, Senior Member Paul Kanowski, Member Robyn Oliver, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 15 April 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Mr Amundsen is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for the period of five years from the date of this order. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Former approved teacher – criminal offences –not suitable to teach – disciplinary action Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 Queensland College of Teachers v GHI [2012] QCAT 182 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:
| APPLICANT: | Mr John Gormley, Principal Legal Officer, Queensland College of Teachers |
| RESPONDENT: | Self represented |
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Mr Amundsen was a high school teacher when he was arrested and charged with a number of offences in May 2006. He was then held in custody on remand for a lengthy period. In February 2008 he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The longest sentence was six years for the offence of using a carriage service to make a threat to kill. This offence involved the sending of emails. The various sentences ran from the date of arrest, and there was a three year non-parole period, so Mr Amundsen was released from prison in May 2009 after three years in custody.
QCAT is a disciplinary body under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005. We must decide whether a ground for disciplinary action against Mr Amundsen is established. If it is, we must then decide what disciplinary action should be taken.
Mr Amundsen was first registered as a teacher in 2003. The College suspended his registration in May 2006, following his arrest. His registration expired in 2007. This means that Mr Amundsen is a ‘former approved teacher’ for the purposes of the Act.[1]
[1] ‘Former approved teacher’ is defined in Schedule 3 to the Act.
The College submits that Mr Amundsen should be prohibited from reapplying for teacher registration for the maximum period of five years. Mr Amundsen submits that he should be allowed back into the profession immediately, subject if necessary to some initial supervisory conditions.
IS A GROUND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION ESTABLISHED?
The College says there are two grounds for taking disciplinary action against Mr Amundsen:
·he has been convicted of an indictable offence; and
·he is not suitable to teach.
A ground for disciplinary action is that the teacher has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a ‘serious offence’.[2] Using a carriage service to make a threat to kill is an indictable offence.[3] It is not a ‘serious offence’, as defined.[4] Mr Amundsen was convicted of the offence in 2008, in the District Court, on his own plea of guilty. A ground for disciplinary action is therefore established.
[2] Section 92(1)(b) of the Act.
[3]See s 474.15(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and s 4G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
[4]Schedule 3 of the Act adopts the definition in s 167 of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000.
THE NATURE OF THE OFFENCES
Mr Amundsen has been convicted of a number of offences. In October 1995 he was sentenced in the District Court for offences committed in 1993:
·forgery (nine months imprisonment);
·attempting to pervert the course of justice (nine months imprisonment); and
·perjury (18 months imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after six months).
In February 2008, Mr Amundsen was sentenced in the District Court for the email offence, together with other offences committed at around the same time namely April/May 2006:
·fraud (two years and six months imprisonment);
·possession of dangerous goods in a vehicle (three years imprisonment);
·two charges of possession of a weapon (three years imprisonment);
·three charges of possessing explosives (convictions recorded but no further punishment imposed);
·three charges of failing to correctly store explosives (convictions recorded but no further punishment imposed);
·beginning to make counterfeit money (six months imprisonment); and
·possession of another person’s foreign travel document (six months imprisonment).
At the same time, he was sentenced for offences committed in December 2006, while in custody on remand:
·two charges of forgery (18 months imprisonment); and
·two charges of uttering (18 months imprisonment).
Whether it is open to us, in any way, to ‘go behind’ the convictions is a legal question of a little complexity. The College has addressed the question in its written submissions, and there was argument about it at the hearing. It is not necessary to discuss the question because we see no reason to suppose that Mr Amundsen is other than guilty of all of the offences of which he has been convicted, or that the offending behaviour was somehow less serious than how the sentencing judges viewed it.
Mr Amundsen pleaded guilty to all of the offences for which he was sentenced in February 2008. He was represented at the sentence proceeding by defence counsel, but the transcript shows that he also addressed the sentencing judge personally at length on various matters. We do not have a transcript of the 1995 sentence proceeding, but the nature of those offences was explained by the prosecutor in the 2008 proceeding.
From the 2008 transcript, it can be seen that the 1993 offences arose out of Court proceedings. The forgery involved Mr Amundsen fabricating a document purporting to be a record of vehicle use issued by Leach Motors. The attempt to pervert the course of justice involved Mr Amundsen seeking a false affidavit from an employee of Leach Motors. The perjury involved Mr Amundsen giving false evidence about why certain witnesses were not being called.
Mr Amundsen told us that the 1993 fraud offence involved him printing a true engine management system report on an inauthentic piece of paper. This was done ‘to meet a deadline’. It was a ‘stupid mistake’, not ‘major fraud’. It was, Mr Amundsen emphasised, not a case of obtaining a large amount of money from a corporation.
Clearly, though, and not surprisingly, the Court saw the fraud and the other offences as serious. (Here, and later in these reasons, we are using ‘serious’ in the everyday sense. We are not referring to ‘serious offence’ as defined in the legislation). The Court imposed terms of imprisonment of up to 18 months, despite the lack of previous offending.
From the 2008 transcript it can be seen that the April/May 2006 offences arose out of a scheme Mr Amundsen devised to scare the parents of a woman, Ms Kropp, with whom he had been in a long-term relationship. The parents opposed the relationship and were obstructing contact between Mr Amundsen and Ms Kropp. Mr Amundsen purchased a quantity of power gel and took it home. He had obtained by deception another person’s explosives licence, and then altered it in order to make the purchase. He began assembling remote-controlled improvised explosive devices with five inch nails embedded in them. Mr Amundsen initially told police that the devices were for use in a film production. He later admitted that in fact he had planned to set off explosions: one near Ms Kropp’s mother, and another near Ms Kropp’s father. He said the intention was not to injure them, or anyone else, but to soften the attitude of Ms Kropp’s parents to the relationship.
Further, in an attempt to divert suspicion, Mr Amundsen sent two emails to the Counter Terrorism Unit of the Queensland Police Service. The emails purported to be from an Al Qaeda operative. One spoke of a plan to conduct terrorist attacks in Brisbane using explosives, rocket propelled grenade launchers, and AK47s. The other contained an image of an explosive device assembled by Mr Amundsen. The emails were sent from an internet café. The police managed to identify Mr Amundsen from security camera footage. They searched his home and found power gel and explosive devices. The devices were not fully assembled. Mr Amundsen emphasised to the sentencing judge that the devices were not functional. The sentencing judge, though, was satisfied that ‘without too much more effort, they could have been turned into very dangerous objects’.
Although Mr Amundsen was originally charged with a terrorism offence or offences, the ultimate charges relating to the explosives scheme were the ones outlined earlier. At the sentence hearing, the prosecution did not suggest that Mr Amundsen was actually associated with Al Qaeda or that there was any plan to use weapons beyond the plan involving Ms Kropp’s parents.
The counterfeit money charge was brought because the police found at Mr Amundsen’s home a number of images of $50 notes. The prosecutor submitted that they represented experimentation with the production of counterfeit money. Mr Amundsen told the judge that they were merely produced when he was practising with software for creating decals for a model railroad. The foreign travel document charge was laid because the police found in Mr Amundsen’s car a passport belonging to a New Zealand citizen. The passport had gone missing from the owner’s shopping trolley.
The December 2006 offences involved Mr Amundsen altering medical reports, to make them more favourable, with the intention of using them in a Supreme Court bail application.
In passing sentence the District Court judge commented that Mr Amundsen had pleaded guilty to a number of very serious criminal offences. The judge acknowledged that Mr Amundsen’s judgment had been impaired by stress when he committed the offences. On the other hand, there was the potential for great property damage and serious injury to a lot of people.
Mr Amundsen told us that prior to pleading guilty he had been detained in solitary confinement for 22 months. The conditions were horrendous, he said, and he agreed to a plea deal so that he could be moved to a low security classification and so that he could obtain a parole date.
Mr Amundsen told us that he did not participate in any police interviews. We note, though, that in the sentence proceeding, the prosecutor told the Court that Mr Amundsen was interviewed over three days soon after his arrest. There was a preliminary interview on 10 May 2006, a long interview on 11 May 2006, and a further interview on 12 May 2006 at the request of Mr Amundsen. The last interview must also have been a long interview because the prosecutor quoted several passages including one from page 16 of the interview transcript. Neither Mr Amundsen nor defence counsel suggested to the Court that these interviews had not taken place. They would, surely, have done so if the prosecutor had misled the Court. We find that Mr Amundsen did participate in police interviews.
Mr Amundsen referred us to passages in the committal hearing transcript which he argues establish that:
·no traces of explosive material were found in his car or home, as per the evidence of police forensics officer Rowan;
·there was no evidence that he was targeting any persons or buildings, as per the evidence of several police including officers D’Ath, Fitzgibbon and Shea;
·that a Jacob’s Ladder circuit board found in his home was a mass-produced electronic hobby kit, not a bomb, as per the evidence of Mr Skubis; and
·the alleged counterfeit money was nothing of the sort.
We would need to be careful in reaching conclusions from a small selection of evidence from a lengthy committal hearing. We have only the excerpts selected by Mr Amundsen. The prosecution is not a party before us, and is therefore not available to draw our attention to other aspects of the evidence.
In any event, we do not consider that the passages highlighted by Mr Amundsen establish anything of significance. Taking firstly the evidence of officer Rowan, the excerpt indicates that no traces of explosives were found in the car. Officer Rowan said in his evidence that traces of power gel would not necessarily be left in a car in which it had been transported. It would depend on the packaging and the materials within the car. In our view, the fact that traces of power gel were not found in Mr Amundsen’s car is immaterial. The District Court transcript shows that the prosecutor tendered photographs of a container or containers of power gel located by police in Mr Amundsen’s home. Neither Mr Amundsen nor his defence counsel challenged the veracity of this evidence at the sentence hearing. We have no reason to doubt that power gel was located by police at Mr Amundsen’s house.
Taking secondly the police evidence about whether Mr Amundsen was targeting people or buildings, the nature of the evidence of the officers in question was that the police did not locate any physical evidence (such as documents or computer files) of such a plan. Nor were there any witnesses who told the police of such a plan. This does not, however, detract from Mr Amundsen’s own admissions to police that he was intending to explode devices near Ms Kropp’s parents. There was therefore evidence, in the form of Mr Amundsen’s own admissions, that he was targeting persons. We note that the admissions were made within a few days of Mr Amundsen’s arrest, so they cannot be dismissed as part of an effort to be moved out of prolonged solitary confinement.
Taking thirdly the evidence about the Jacob’s Ladder kit, we note that Mr Skubis was the assistant manager of the electronics shop where Mr Amundsen bought the kit. Mr Skubis gave evidence that it was a mass-produced kit, not a bomb. Its amperage was far too weak to fire detonators. We note, though, that the prosecutor at the sentence hearing did not contend that the Jacob’s Ladder kit was itself a bomb, or even a functional component of a bomb. The prosecutor pointed to the existence of a second circuit. Mr Amundsen addressed the judge at length about the Jacob’s Ladder kit, and the second circuit. He told the judge that the second circuit had been tampered with and enhanced by the police after his arrest. Having heard these submissions, the judge nonetheless found that the devices ‘without too much more effort … could have been turned into very dangerous objects’. We have no reason to doubt this finding.
Taking finally the evidence relating to the counterfeit money charge, as we have already noted, Mr Amundsen told the sentencing judge that the images were produced in connection with the model railroad. The sentencing judge nonetheless saw fit to impose a six month sentence.
Mr Amundsen also told us that what he did was ‘seriously and gravely wrong’ and that he is ‘extremely remorseful’. He added, though, that it is hard to have a deep sense of remorse for conduct caused by provocation. The provocation, according to Mr Amundsen, involved the unwarranted obstruction of the relationship by Ms Kropp’s parents, and appalling mistreatment of Ms Kropp over many years including forced abortions and threats to disinherit.
It is far from clear what exactly Mr Amundsen admits having done wrong. He used the hearing to highlight evidence that he feels points to innocence of some of the charges. He (falsely) denied having been interviewed by police, in an effort no doubt to distance himself from the admissions he had made to police. He referred several times to the ‘alleged charges’, ‘alleged perjury’ and so on, as if the convictions were mere unsubstantiated allegations. We asked Mr Amundsen to tell us what he says he did wrong. He declined to do so, ‘for legal reasons’. Presumably Mr Amundsen meant that he did not want to incriminate himself in case his convictions are overturned on appeal. We note that in applying for adjournments of this disciplinary proceeding in 2009 and 2010, Mr Amundsen spoke of wanting to appeal the convictions (relating to the April/May 2006 incidents, at least). However, now five years after the sentence hearing, no appeal has been lodged. The prospects of an appeal being launched with any prospects of success would have to be extremely low. In these circumstances, the Tribunal attaches no weight to the notion that Mr Amundsen would be prejudiced by discussing his wrongdoings. In our view his reluctance to detail his wrongdoing indicates, rather, unwillingness to accept true responsibility for the criminal conduct.
We are not persuaded that Mr Amundsen is genuinely remorseful. He used the hearing as an extended opportunity to downplay and excuse the offending, and to highlight evidence suggestive (in his mind at least) of innocence of some of the charges. We find that he lacks genuine remorse.
In 2008 Mr Amundsen may well have felt under pressure to have the matter resolved, so that he could get out of solitary confinement and obtain a release date, but this is not inconsistent with guilt of the offences to which he pleaded guilty.
IS THERE A RISK THAT MR AMUNDSEN WOULD PHYSICALLY HARM STUDENTS?
This question arises because of the potential for violence in several of the April/May 2006 offences.
The College points to the findings of a psychologist Ms Perkins, as discussed by defence counsel during the 2008 sentence hearing. Ms Perkins considered that Mr Amundsen was suffering from an autistic spectrum disorder; and that a person with such a condition may not think rationally about matters.
Mr Amundsen is critical of Ms Perkins’ opinion, partly because it was based on a single consultation. He has provided a report from Dr Wilkie, psychiatrist, dated 13 March 2013. Dr Wilkie also gave oral evidence before us. Dr Wilkie has a special interest in stress breakdown and post traumatic stress disorder. He has seen Mr Amundsen 32 times since 2007, treating him with psychotherapy for post traumatic stress disorder ‘caused by a period of 20 months solitary confinement’. Dr Wilkie told us that Mr Amundsen has shown considerable improvement. Dr Wilkie does not agree with Ms Perkins’ diagnosis.
Dr Wilkie told us that he does not regard post traumatic stress disorder as a mental illness, and nor do most psychiatrists. He does not consider Mr Amundsen to have an inherently violent or anti-social nature, or to have a personality disorder. He believes that Mr Amundsen would resort to a ‘violent endeavour’ only under major provocation. Mr Amundsen’s account of his behaviour in 2006 is consistent with a response to a major, third stage stress breakdown. He has observed Mr Amundsen to be stable and reliable. He considers that Mr Amundsen would not pose any threat to children as a teacher.
Dr Wilkie told us that he does not have detailed knowledge of the offences. He understands that Mr Amundsen’s pleas of guilty in 2008 were extracted by a form of what he regards as torture, namely prolonged solitary confinement. So he does not think that anyone should assume that Mr Amundsen is guilty of the offences charged.
It is apparent therefore that Dr Wilkie does not assume that Mr Amundsen committed the offences. We are satisfied that he did. However, we do not dismiss Dr Wilkie’s risk assessment. Dr Wilkie has had ample opportunity to interact with and observe Mr Amundsen. Dr Wilkie is an experienced psychiatrist. His evidence was thoughtful and measured. We accept his assessment of Mr Amundsen’s mental state. We are satisfied that Mr Amundsen does not pose a risk of physically harming students.
IS MR AMUNDSEN CURRENTLY SUITABLE TO TEACH?
The College submits that the second ground for facing disciplinary action is that Mr Amundsen is not suitable to teach.[5]
[5] Section 92(1)(h) of the Act.
Suitability to teach is, of course, a fundamental requirement for teacher registration and permission to teach.[6] A number of factors are relevant.[7] These include the nature of any offences committed by the teacher, and the relevance of those offences to the duties of a teacher. The person’s suitability to work in a child-related field is relevant. A person is not suitable to teach if the person behaves in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. In considering such expectations, we note that the main objects of the Act are to uphold the standards of the teaching profession, to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession, and to protect the public by ensuring that education is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.[8]
[6] Sections 8 to 10 of the Act.
[7] Under sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
[8] Section 3(1) of the Act.
Mr Amundsen submits that he is suitable to teach. He told us, in summary:
·He is a capable and inspiring teacher. His background in film and television has given him industry knowledge that is particularly valuable to students.
·He accepts that he has made mistakes in the past, resulting in convictions, but his conduct at those times was atypical. He was reacting to highly stressful situations.
·The 1993 matters arose out of proceedings for alleged breaches of a domestic violence order, but ultimately he was totally vindicated of those alleged breaches. He disclosed the offences to the Board of Teacher’s Registration when he applied for registration. The Board considered the matter and decided to grant registration.
·In April/May 2006 he snapped after prolonged stress. He acted under extreme provocation, as would have any rational and compassionate person in the same situation.
·The offending was uncharacteristic and isolated. It occurred over short periods. There is no likelihood of further offending. His usual temperament is peaceful and calm.
·He comes from a decent and honourable family. He has been involved in community service of various sorts over the years. He is actively involved in his Catholic parish.
·He has a good employment history in roles such as public relations management, community consultation and film and television production. He served as an Army Reserve media officer in Iraq in 1990 and East Timor in 1998.
·He taught at a number of schools between 2003 and 2006. The dishonesty offences did not involve financial greed. There is no reason to suppose that he would misappropriate school resources.
·He is now working on an animatronics project. He does not wish to return to teaching on a full-time basis, but he would like to be able to give guest lectures, if invited. He would also like to salvage his reputation.
·He has much to contribute. Students would be disadvantaged if he was to be further excluded from teaching roles.
Mr Amundsen called evidence from Mr Baden Kimlin and Mr Wayne Chapman.
Mr Kimlin is a retired teacher, now aged 88, who taught Mr Amundsen in high school. They have remained in regular contact. Mr Kimlin is aware that Mr Amundsen has been imprisoned. Mr Kimlin considers Mr Amundsen to be calm, rational, compassionate, gentle and honest, and an effective communicator. He believes that Mr Amundsen would pose no risk to children as a teacher.
Asked about his knowledge of Mr Amundsen’s offences, Mr Kimlin indicated that he was in Court when Mr Amundsen was sentenced in 1995. His recollection is that there was ‘some technicality’ which was called perjury. In relation to the 2008 sentences, Mr Kimlin said he recalls that the major charges were thrown out, and Mr Amundsen was sentenced for possession of explosives and some other offences. He cannot recall the other offences but they were minor. Asked if he was aware of the 2008 convictions for forging and uttering medical reports for use in a bail application, Mr Kimlin said he had not been aware of them. He added that they do not alter his opinion of Mr Amundsen’s suitability to teach.
We accept that Mr Kimlin has never observed Mr Amundsen to act irrationally or dishonestly. Mr Kimlin, though, has an incomplete knowledge of the offences, and consequently a rather benign view of them. He seems to regard them as minor or technical, but many of them are far from minor.
In committing offences, Mr Amundsen has at times acted irrationally and dishonestly. In light of Mr Kimlin’s limited awareness of the gravity of the offending, we treat with reservation his opinion that Mr Amundsen is suitable to teach.
Mr Chapman is the deputy principal of a Catholic high school. He has also served on a film and television syllabus committee. He met Mr Amundsen in the early 2000s when he supervised Mr Amundsen on a teacher training placement. They have remained in contact, and Mr Chapman gave evidence in the committal proceeding in 2007.
In a statement Mr Chapman noted that the principal responsibility of his position centres on the physical and moral safety of children and staff. He spoke positively of Mr Amundsen’s teaching performance during the placement. He has found Mr Amundsen to be stable, of good character, and calm under pressure in the classroom and elsewhere. Mr Amundsen has his professional and personal support.
In his evidence-in-chief, Mr Chapman said the terrorism charge did not reflect the person he knew, and it was eventually dropped. He does not consider that Mr Amundsen would harm students. Mr Amundsen had been a good role model for students during the placement. Mr Amundsen’s views were those of a conservative Catholic. There is nothing in what Mr Chapman observed of Mr Amundsen during the placement that would suggest unsuitability to teach.
In cross-examination, Mr Chapman said he was aware that Mr Amundsen was convicted of some offences, despite the dropping of the terrorism charge, but he was not aware of the details. After being informed by Mr Gormley of the types of offences, Mr Chapman said he would have to reconsider his opinion in light of the convictions. In re-examination, during which Mr Amundsen outlined the circumstances of some of the offences from his point of view, Mr Chapman said he would not employ a teacher who had a conviction. He went on, though, to confirm his positive evaluation of Mr Amundsen’s performance in the classroom.
We found Mr Chapman to be a thoughtful, impressive witness. His evidence supports Mr Amundsen’s claim to be competent in the classroom. Indeed, there is no suggestion that Mr Amundsen is other than competent. We accept that he is.
As for the other claims Mr Amundsen made about his background, there is some other evidence in support of some of them. For example, there is a 1991 employment reference by Mr Stephen Collins of the Federal Airports Corporation. We accept the evidence given by Mr Amundsen about his background and his usual temperament.
Mr Amundsen contends that any rational and compassionate person would have responded to extreme stress in the way he did in April/May 2006. We do not accept that. The behaviour was bizarre and irrational. Mr Amundsen had embarked on a very dangerous scheme that was well-advanced by the time the police learned of it.
As we have mentioned, we are not satisfied that Mr Amundsen has genuine remorse for any of his offending. On the contrary, Mr Amundsen used the hearing to minimise and justify his criminal behaviour. This points to a profound lack of insight on the part of Mr Amundsen into the seriousness of his offending and the effects of his behaviour.
Had Mr Amundsen carried the explosives scheme to fulfilment, the potential victims included not only Ms Kropp’s parents but possibly bystanders. Even though the plan was not to physically harm people, there was no guarantee that all would go according to plan. The potential for severe psychological harm to immediate victims, family members and other secondary victims, even in the absence of physical harm, is obvious. The emails could have caused widespread fear and anxiety in the community. As the sentencing judge commented, ‘there was the potential, one way or another, to cause great damage and serious injury to a lot of people’.
Mr Amundsen also sought to minimise his dishonesty offences, pointing out that there was no element of financial gain. The offences did, however, involve misleading or attempting to mislead Courts, and the abuse of a licensing system designed to protect public safety. This indicates a very troubling lack of respect for the rule of law and for some key institutions in our society.
Mr Amundsen’s offending does not satisfy standards of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. While Mr Amundsen’s offending was not in the classroom, it is relevant to the duties of a teacher. Teachers are not expected to be free of all faults but they are expected to model appropriate, lawful behaviour in and out of the classroom. The community expects teachers to have sound judgement and to exhibit propriety so far as basic community values such as respect for the law is concerned. We agree with comments made in an earlier case that ‘honesty, integrity and respect for the law … are attributes which are fundamental requirements in the teaching profession and for the maintenance of community confidence in the profession’.[9]
[9] Queensland College of Teachers v Neilson [2012] QCAT 693 at [39].
Mr Amundsen’s offending behaviour exhibited the opposite of these expected qualities.
A person with such a serious criminal history, especially a person such as Mr Amundsen who lacks genuine remorse, insight, and acceptance of responsibility for his past wrongs, is not suitable to teach. Such a person is a very inappropriate role model for students. In our view, it is probable that most if not all parents and colleagues, if they knew of Mr Amundsen’s offending history, would regard him as a most inappropriate person to teach children, despite the skills and other positive attributes he would bring to the classroom. Permitting Mr Amundsen to re-enter the teaching profession would undermine the standards of, and erode public confidence in, the profession.
WHAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS APPROPRIATE?
The options in respect of a former approved teacher are to take no further action, to require the teacher to pay costs, to prohibit the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for up to five years, and to make a notation or endorsement about the teacher in the register.[10]
[10]Section 161 of the Act. As the referral to QCAT was made prior to 16 January 2012, s 161 as in force before that date applies. It contained a five year limit on prohibition, unlike the current s 161 which allows indefinite prohibition.
The College submits that we should impose a five year prohibition. The prohibition option is available only if, had the teacher still been an approved teacher, we would have made an order cancelling the teacher’s registration or permission to teach.[11]
[11] Section 161(2)(c).
Mr Amundsen submits as follows. He has already been punished for the offences. He has served a term of imprisonment, much of it under horrendous conditions. His reputation has been destroyed. His teacher registration has been, in effect, suspended for almost seven years. A five year prohibition would constitute underserved additional punishment for offences that did not involve murder, rape or indeed any type of assault. He is now 47. A five year prohibition would effectively cut him out of the profession for the rest of his working life. It would deprive students of the benefit of his teaching skills. Everyone deserves a second chance. QCAT could consider a period of provisional registration for up to six months, with reports to be provided by senior teaching staff.
Our role is not to punish Mr Amundsen, but to further the objects of the Act such as upholding standards and maintaining public confidence in the teaching profession.[12]
[12] See for example Queensland College of Teachers v GHI [2012] QCAT 182 at [12].
If Mr Amundsen were an approved teacher, rather than a former approved teacher, we would have made an order cancelling his registration or permission to teach. We consider that the maximum period of prohibition upon reapplying for registration or permission to teach is appropriate in Mr Amundsen’s case. His offending behaviour is so grave that if a longer period of prohibition were available, we would have applied it. Mr Amundsen’s unsuitability to teach is profound. He lacks genuine remorse, insight, and acceptance of responsibility. There is nothing to indicate that this is likely to change within the next five years.
0
2
0