Queensland College of Teachers v DS
[2014] QCAT 373
•23 June 2014
| CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v DS [2014] QCAT 373 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant) |
| v | |
| DS (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR169-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member O’Callaghan Member Ford Member Oliver |
| DELIVERED ON: | 23 June 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The respondent’s registration is cancelled, and she is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach until 1 October 2014. 2. The following notation is to be entered into the register of approved teachers: Should after the expiry of the prohibition period, the respondent reapply for registration as a teacher, that such application include a detailed psychological report addressing the following: a. Her general suitability to teach and work in a child related field; b. Current and historic issues with drug use and/or drug addiction; c. Awareness of behaviour, including behaviour in the private sphere which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching; d. An in-depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, parental and community trust invested in a teacher; e. Understanding of and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics; f. Any recommendations whether any further conditions of registration relevant to suitability should be imposed. 3. The psychological report is to include reference to the report writer being provided with a copy of the disciplinary decision and reasons. |
| CATCHWORDS: | OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION – TEACHER – where teacher convicted of indictable offences – possession and supply of methylamphetamine and fraud – whether disciplinary grounds established whether suitable to teach – where mitigating factors – where teacher found not suitable to teach Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 11, s 12, s 92 |
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
The Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) has referred this disciplinary proceeding to QCAT to determine whether grounds for disciplinary action against the respondent, DS, are established.
DS was first registered as a teacher in 2006 at the age of 35. In 2010 she faced difficult personal circumstances and she concedes that she responded to these circumstances by making ‘a series of poor decisions which ultimately resulted in criminal convictions’.[1]
[1]Respondent’s submissions 6 February 2014.
DS admits the following facts in the amended referral:
· In August 2011 she was charged with possessing (in excess of 2 grams) and supplying a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine.
· She was further charged with possession of a thing used in the commission of a crime – namely a coffee grinder used to grind cannabis.
· She was convicted in the Supreme Court of these offences in April 2013.
· As a result she was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with immediate parole (for the supply), and 6 months with immediate parole (for the possession). In relation to the offence of possession of a thing she was convicted but not further punished.
· In September 2012 she was charged with attempted fraud and stealing. The circumstances of the offence were that she and another person went to Bunnings Warehouse ‘in Maroochydore’ where they purchased tools for $1,702 and stole identical items. She then fraudulently attempted to obtain a refund for the stolen items using the receipt for the purchased items.
· She was convicted in February 2013 of these indictable offences. The conviction was not recorded. A recognisance of $350 was imposed together with an order to be of good behaviour for 18 months.
Are there grounds for disciplinary action?
QCT allege there are two grounds for disciplinary action against DS:
a) She has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence;[2] and
b) She is not suitable to teach.[3]
[2]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) s 92(1)(b).
[3]Ibid s 92(1)(h).
Convicted of an indictable offence
The fact of the convictions is not contested. As such this ground for disciplinary action is made out.
Not suitable to teach
Sections 11 and 12 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) identify considerations to be taken into account when determining whether a person is suitable to teach. Those considerations relevantly include:
· A persons criminal history[4] having regard to:
a)When the offence was committed.
b)The nature of the offence and its relevance to the duties of a teacher.
c)Anything else relevant to deciding whether a person is suitable to teach.[5]
· Whether a person is suitable to work in a child related field.
· Whether the person has behaved in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.[6]
· Whether the person otherwise behaves in a disgraceful or improper way that shows the person is unfit to be granted permission to teach.[7]
[4]Ibid s 11(3).
[5]Ibid s 11(3)(a)-(c).
[6]Ibid s 12(3)(a).
[7]Ibid s 12(3)(b).
QCT say that the Tribunal must consider the significance of the criminal conduct in the context of suitability to teach.
The Tribunal accepts that DS’ conduct in the possession and supply of methylamphetamine amounts to conduct that falls short of what is expected of a teacher. A teacher is in the position of a role model to their students. As noted by the QCT the destructive role of methylamphetamine in the community is well known.
It appears from the sentencing remarks of the Supreme Court Judge that after DS was charged with the drug offences she was placed on the QMERIT program. This is the Queensland Magistrates early referral into treatment program. It is noted that she was employed to teach during this time (November/December 2011) but also continued to drink and take drugs.[8]
[8]Transcript page 1-7.
The Tribunal also accepts that DS’ conduct in engaging in fraudulent behaviour falls short of the level of integrity and honesty expected of a professional in the teaching role.
These offences occurred in 2011/2012. The Tribunal must decide whether DS is unsuitable to teach now.
DS provided written submissions for the Tribunal’s consideration. She said the submission provided context to her actions. She explains:
· Her first husband and father of her two daughters died suddenly and unexpectedly 15 years ago.
· Since then, she has been vulnerable to acute episodes of depression and anxiety in response to stresses in the workplace and her personal life.
· At the end of 2010 her partner of 10 years and the father of her son was charged with sexually assaulting her 13 year old daughter.
· She responded to these circumstances by making a serious of poor choices.
The transcript of the sentencing judge’s remarks provides further details of these ‘poor choices’ as follows:
· In early 2011 DS became involved with an acquaintance of her ex-partner who was a drug dealer. She started to use cocaine and amphetamines.
· She handed over significant sums of money to this acquaintance and was tempted to make the money back by becoming involved in his drug activities.
· She was charged in August 2011 and commenced on the QMERIT program in October 2011.
· She was drinking and taking drugs during this period whilst on the QMERIT program.
· DS says in her submissions that during this period she was on leave from teaching.[9]
· DS began teaching again in February 2012 and in September 2012 she was charged with fraud.
· DS then admitted herself to hospital following attempted suicide.
· She recommenced the QMERIT program in October 2012. The sentencing Judge notes that the QMERIT report indicates that DS had undergone urine drug testing in October 2012 and January 2013 and the tests were clear.[10]
[9]Submissions [5].
[10]Transcript page 1-7.
DS in her submission says that since completion of the QMERIT program in February 2013 she has sought further treatment and continued counselling.
She also provided the Tribunal with a copy of a letter from her parole officer dated 4 February 2014.[11] The parole officer noted that DS had reported punctually as directed on all occasions and that her compliance suggested she had made positive changes in her life and was motivated to regain employment within her desired occupation.
[11]Attached to submissions.
The QCT submit that given DS has recent convictions for drug offences involving commerciality and subsequent dishonesty offences, her conduct establishes the ‘ground for disciplinary action’ ‘not suitable to teach’.
It is apparent from DS’ submissions and the supporting letter from the parole officer that she is remorseful for her conduct in 2011/2012 and that she has taken significant steps to rehabilitate herself to ensure she does not relapse.
DS does not urge the Tribunal to find that she is currently suitable to teach. Instead she acknowledges the likelihood of a suspension.[12]
[12]Submissions [14].
The Tribunal finds that given the seriousness and recency of the unsatisfactory conduct the subject of the criminal convictions she is currently unsuitable to teach.
What sanction is appropriate
Having found that the two grounds for disciplinary action are established the next issue for the Tribunal to consider is what disciplinary action should be taken.
QCT in their submissions of October 2013 submit that DS’ teacher’s registration should be cancelled and she be prohibited for reapplying to teach for 18 months in conjunction with a notation requiring any reapplication to include a psychological report addressing drug usage and addiction.
They refer the Tribunal to two disciplinary decisions involving nurses who had been convicted of drug offences: Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Brereton[13] and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Mundy.[14]
[13][2011] QCAT 578; [2011] QCAT 579.
[14][2012] SAHPT 5.
In Brereton the nurse had been convicted of producing and possession of methylamphetamine and was sentenced to three years with parole after one year. She was prohibited from applying for registration for four years (11 months prospective of a disciplinary decision). In Mundy the nurse was convicted of trafficking in amphetamines and was suspended from registration for three months.
The QCT acknowledges the different disciplinary action in these two cases is difficult to reconcile but say that Brereton is more useful because it is a recent decision of this Tribunal and more appropriately reflects denunciation principles.
DS says that Mundy is more comparable.
Neither decision is particularly comparable to DS’ case. The Tribunal accepts that the nature of the drug offence that is the misuse of methylamphetamine is repugnant to the role model that teachers should represent particularly given the notoriety of the destructiveness of that drug.
In those circumstances denunciation of such conduct should be reflected in the sanction.
It is also of concern that DS was employed as a teacher during a period that she was apparently engaged in criminal activity. There are however mitigating factors in her favour.
As noted by the sentencing judge the offending conduct appeared to be an aberration during a period of intense stress in her life in 2011. DS in her submissions confirmed her remorse and motivation to remain sober and drug free.
It would appear that DS has not been teaching since she was charged in 2012 despite her registration not being suspended.
We consider that because of the gravity of the offences that her registration should be cancelled but that she should be entitled to reapply after 30 September 2014.
We also agree with the QCT that any reapplication should include a psychological report addressing drug use and addiction. Accordingly it is ordered that:
1. The respondent’s registration is cancelled, and she is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach until 1 October 2014.
2. The following notation is to be entered into the register of approved teachers:
Should after the expiry of the prohibition period, the respondent reapply for registration as a teacher, that such application include a detailed psychological report addressing the following:
a.Her general suitability to teach and work in a child related field;
b.Current and historic issues with drug use and/or drug addiction;
c.Awareness of behaviour, including behaviour in the private sphere which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
d.An in-depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, parental and community trust invested in a teacher;
e.Understanding of and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics;
f.Any recommendations whether any further conditions of registration relevant to suitability should be imposed.
3. The psychological report is to include reference to the report writer being provided with a copy of the disciplinary decision and reasons.
3
2
0