Queensland College of Teachers v Chambers
[2012] QCAT 491
•11 October 2012
| CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Chambers [2012] QCAT 491 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Scott James Chambers (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR031-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 14 September 2012 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Michelle Howard, Acting Senior Member Pam Goodman, Member Robyn Oliver, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 11 October 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Mr Scott James Chambers’ teacher registration is cancelled and he is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach until 14 December 2012. 2. The register be endorsed with a notation that any application of Mr Chambers for re-registration must be accompanied by a psychologist’s report which includes an assessment of the following: (a) Differentiating between personal and professional relationships; (b) The legal obligations of teachers and tutors; (c) Development and maintenance of professional standards when working with young people and actively determining and implementing professional boundaries with individual students; (d) Risk assessment and early issue identification of potentially problematic situations and venue as well as initiating realistic solutions for avoiding the risk of harm to students; (e) An in-depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, college, parental and community trust inherently invested in a teacher or tutor; (f) Personal and social behaviour that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching; (g) What constitutes in appropriate communication; (h) Understanding the effect of inappropriate relationships with students; (i) The awareness of the trust and power granted to a teacher; (j) Understanding and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics; (k) An assessment of the likelihood of Mr Chambers engaging in similar type behaviour in the future. The psychologist’s report to include: (a) An indication from the psychologist about whether the psychologist is satisfied that Scott James Chambers has adequately understood and addressed the above points. (b) Reference to the psychologist being provided with copies of · The QCAT disciplinary decision; · The QCT referral. 3. The non-publication order made on 13 March 2012 is varied in accordance with order 4 of these orders. 4. Publication of any information that may enable identification of the complainant, or any other students who have provided information or the school concerned in the proceedings is prohibited. |
| CATCHWORDS: | TEACHER – fitness to teach – where inappropriate Facebook and personal contact with former student – where teacher failed to report suspected harm to student NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – where contrary to the public interest to identify students and school Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, ss 12(3), 92(1)(h), 160 QCT v MA [2011] QCAT 500 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) made a referral to the Tribunal for a determination whether a disciplinary ground is established regarding Scott James Chambers, an experienced teacher, who had held teacher registration for some ten years at the time of the hearing.
QCT alleges that under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (the Act), Mr Chambers is not suitable to teach, in essence, because he engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a former student and did not report suspected harm to her. Mr Chambers’ employment was terminated in August 2011 following the events.
QCT submits that Mr Chambers’ teacher registration should be cancelled; that he should be prohibited from applying for re-registration for two years; and that any application for re-registration should be accompanied by an independent psychological report addressing issues about his understanding of matters relating to the maintenance of appropriate boundaries and other issues concerning the role of a teacher.
Mr Chambers makes some admissions about the situation which occurred. However, he opposes the sanction sought by QCT, submitting that he is a dedicated teacher who has already been out of his teaching role for over a year and that his reputation has suffered as a result.
Is Mr Chambers unsuitable to teach?
Mr Chambers admits the allegations made against him.
In essence, he accepts that he engaged in an unprofessional and/or an overly familiar relationship over the period of December 2010 to January 2011 with a 12 year old former student who had recently completed Year 7, and failed to report suspected harm to her arising from disclosures made to him by the former student.
In particular, Mr Chambers accepts that he established Facebook contact with the student in school holidays, exchanging a significant number of messages with her discussing with her deeply personal issues including sexual abuse and pregnancy; feeling close to her; arranging to meet her during the holidays and the possibility of losing his employment if anyone found out about the Facebook exchanges.
He picked the student up in his vehicle down the street from where she was staying and took her to his home without parental consent where he hugged her several times and gave her a pregnancy test kit. Finally, he failed to report suspected harm to the former student after she told him she had been sexually abused by her cousin and that she may be pregnant.
Although he admits these allegations, it is clear that Mr Chambers does not accept that all of the statements made by the former student are correct. Importantly, the admissions made are consistent with the evidence.
On the basis of the admissions made, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Chambers behaved in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.[1] Teachers have obligations to report suspected harm. Further, it is expected that teachers will maintain proper professional boundaries between themselves and their students. The relationship between Mr Chambers and the former student was overly familiar and was conducted in a manner intended to deceive her family. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Chambers is not suitable to teach and that therefore there are grounds for disciplinary action.[2]
[1]Under section 12(3)(a) of the Act, a person is not suitable to teach if they behaviour does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
[2] The Act, section 92(1)(h).
What sanction is appropriate in the circumstances?
Mr Chambers is currently an approved teacher. Therefore, the action which may be taken by the Tribunal is set out in section 160 of the Act.
He is an experienced teacher who had some eight years experience at the time of the events described. He had, at that time, had recent training in student protection and had, some months before the incidents referred to the Tribunal occurred, been cautioned about inappropriate physical contact with Year 7 students. QCT refers to a history of other allegations. However, only the one which resulted in a caution was substantiated. We have placed no weight on the history of unsubstantiated allegations in reaching our decision.
The Tribunal considers that it is relevant that the actions taken by Mr Chambers did not occur on the spur of the moment. They occurred over the duration of the school holidays, a period when he had time to reflect upon his actions. This suggests either a lack of insight into the inappropriate nature of the interactions and his reporting obligations, or a disregard for his obligations.
On the other hand, it is apparent that Mr Chambers has co-operated in the course of the investigation and disciplinary proceedings. In keeping with this, he has been prepared to make admissions. He does accept that he has made mistakes and needs to improve his professional standards.
Also, there is nothing to suggest that he sought to gain anything personally from the events. It appears he did what he did, although misguidedly, for reasons he perceived to be for the former student’s benefit, namely to support her through an extremely traumatic situation about which she had confided in him.
Further, we note that when Mr Chambers was cautioned in relation to the previous substantiated incident referred to above, he was advised that he would receive counselling from his Principal about his interactions with students and also that he was to undertake some further Student Protection Policy Training which was to be arranged for him. However, the counselling and the further training were not provided to him.
The Tribunal considers that the events which occurred are of a serious nature. The interactions with the former student herself involve significant and obvious transgressions of the boundaries of the teacher/ student relationship. Of further concern, his actions also involve significant breaches of the relationship of trust which is reposed in a teacher by parents and the community.
That said, in the decided cases, there are many examples of more serious behaviour by teachers towards their students or former students.[3]
[3]For example, see QCT v A Teacher [2010] QCAT 225; QCT v Stark [2010] QCAT 592; and QCT v Borchardt [2010] QCAT 432.
QCT v MA,[4] involved an experienced teacher, aged 55 years, who communicated inappropriately throughout 2008-2009 with a year 10/11 student via telephone or text messaging and failed to report concerns of risk of harm to the student. The teacher did not co-operate with the investigation or the disciplinary proceedings. His registration was cancelled and he was prohibited from reapplying for 12 months, and was required to provide with any application for re-registration, a psychologist’s report addressing specified issues concerning the student teacher relationship.
[4] [2011] QCAT 500.
Mr Chamber’s behaviour is for a briefer period, and although he is an experienced teacher, he did not have the considerably more lengthy experience of MA. That said, he had been recently cautioned about inappropriate physical contact with students. Significantly, Mr Chambers has co-operated with the disciplinary process. However, the former student concerned was only 12 years old and by taking her back to his home, he placed her in a very vulnerable position.
QCT v Rudd[5] involved a first year, inexperienced teacher and her behaviour towards a Year 9 student, most of which occurred after the student had left the school at the end of term 1. The teacher offered to become the student’s guardian, met the student at a shopping centre during school holidays, gave the student mobile phone credit, and communicated through text messaging, email, and social networking sites. Ms Rudd did not participate in the proceeding. QCT had suspended the teacher’s registration and her registration had lapsed some 9 months later and before the Tribunal’s hearing.
[5] [2011] QCAT 367.
In Rudd, the Tribunal’s decision was made about 13 months after the suspension. No period of prohibition was imposed before Ms Rudd could seek re-registration, but she was also required to provide a psychologist’s report with any application for re-registration. Mr Chamber’s behaviour is less extensive and for a brief period by comparison, but he is a much more experienced teacher and his actions did involve a younger child. Also, he has received some child protection training during his career and had received a recent caution. However, Mr Chambers has co-operated in the disciplinary process.
We note that recently, the Appeal Tribunal[6] considered the sanction imposed on an experienced teacher who had exchanged some 1,000 text messages, some of them ‘mutually erotic’ with a 16 year old student, whom he kissed and touched, although no actual sexual intercourse occurred, was too harsh. The Appeal Tribunal’s decision effectively imposed a period of disqualification of one year and 8 months for what was significantly more serious behaviour than that engaged in by Mr Chambers, although it was at pains to say that it considered there were ‘exceptionally persuasive mitigating factors.’[7]
[6] Teacher J v QCT [2012] QCATA 115.
[7] Teacher J v QCT [2012] QCATA 115, [47].
In this case, we consider that it is relevant that Mr Chambers has already effectively been out of his teaching role now for some 14 months, although it appears that is because he has not sought nor gained teaching employment. On the evidence before us, the QCT did not suspend his teacher registration at any time. However, it appears that the termination of Mr Chambers’ employment following the events has led to him being out of teaching. It would be unreasonable for the QCT’s lack of imposition of a suspension to work against Mr Chambers, in circumstances when the events have led him to be out of teaching for a significant period.
However, we consider that Mr Chambers’ teacher registration must be cancelled in recognition of the serious transgressions made. However, we consider that Mr Chambers should be able to reapply for registration from 14 December 2012. Although this is a brief period of 3 months from the date of the hearing, this recognises that he has effectively been out of teaching following his termination, albeit of his own volition.
We further consider that he should be required to provide an independent psychological report with his application for re-registration which addresses the issues as identified by QCT, which will assist him to ensure that he has a clear understanding of his role and obligations as a teacher.
We make orders accordingly.
Non-publication order
We note that an order was made on 13 March 2012 prohibiting the publication of the names and schools of students involved in the matters with which the proceeding is concerned.
Under section 66 of the QCAT Act, we have on our own initiative initiated a variation of that order to extend it to include a prohibition on the publication of any information that may enable the complainant, other students who have provided information relevant to the proceedings or the school involved to be identified. We are satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the students or the school to be identified.
6
6
0