Queensland College of Teachers v DJR

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v DJR [2014] QCAT 642

PARTIES:	Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant)
v
DJR (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR206-14

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Acting Senior Member Howard

DELIVERED ON:

28 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The suspension of the registration of DJR as a teacher is continued.

2. Publication is prohibited of any identifying information about the teacher the subject of this application until further order.

CATCHWORDS:

Occupational regulation – suspension of teacher – whether exceptional case – whether suspension should continue

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 48, s 53, s 54, s 55
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s66

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 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Queensland College of Teachers suspended DJR’s teacher’s registration on 16 September 2014 pursuant to s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘QCT’) on the grounds that he had been charged on 5 September 2014 with three counts of indecent treatment of children under 16 lineal descendent/guardian/carer pursuant to s 210(1)(a)&(4) of the Criminal Code.
In accordance with s 50(5) the QCT has referred the continuation of the suspension to QCAT for review. QCAT must decide whether to continue the suspension or whether it is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children will not be harmed if the suspension were ended.[1]
[1]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) s 53(1) and (3).
Directions were made by QCAT inviting DJR to file submissions as to why this is an exceptional case for ending the suspension of his teachers registration. No submissions have been received from DJR.
Accordingly, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that this is an exceptional case for ending the suspension of the teacher registration of DJR. I am not satisfied that it is an exceptional case in which the bests interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were to be ended before the criminal charges had been finalised.
Therefore, I order that the suspension of DJR’s teacher registration continue.
Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) prohibits publication of identifying information about a complainant or person charged with certain prescribed sexual offences including offences under s 210 of the Criminal Code before the alleged offender is committed for trial or sentenced upon the charge.
Pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) the Tribunal can make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal to be identified.
At this stage I consider that DJR is entitled to have his identity protected. Also his identification may lead to identification of the complainant.
I have initiated an application under s 66 and consider it appropriate to order until further order the publication of identifying information about DJR is prohibited.

The Queensland College of Teachers sought to continue the suspension of DJR's registration as a teacher, with the application being heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether DJR's registration should remain suspended due to allegations of professional misconduct, specifically involving the dissemination of false and defamatory information about a colleague. The College argued that the suspension was necessary to protect the reputation of the teaching profession and the public interest.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether DJR's actions constituted an exceptional case warranting continued suspension, and whether the public interest and the reputation of the teaching profession necessitated ongoing suspension. The Tribunal considered the gravity of the allegations, the potential harm to the profession's reputation, and the impact on the public's trust in teachers. It also evaluated the balance between the College's duty to protect the profession and DJR's right to be heard and to maintain his professional status.

The Tribunal determined that DJR's actions warranted continued suspension. The false and defamatory statements about a colleague not only harmed that individual but also undermined the integrity of the teaching profession. The Tribunal found that the public interest and the reputation of the teaching profession were best served by maintaining the suspension, as it deterred similar conduct and preserved public confidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the suspension of DJR's registration, while also imposing a publication ban on any identifying information about DJR until further order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established