Queensland College of Teachers v Grisedale

[2011] QCAT 539

CITATION:		Queensland College of Teachers v Grisedale [2011] QCAT 539
PARTIES:	Queensland College of Teachers
v
Ms Lesa Louise Grisedale

APPLICATION NUMBER:   OCR126-11

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:     13 October 2011

HEARD AT:  Brisbane 

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Member
Stuart MacDonald, Member
Christine Trueman, Member

DELIVERED ON: 7 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.  Lesa Louise Grisedale is prohibited from applying for permission to teach for a period of 5 years from the date of this order

2.  Pursuant to s 161(2)(d) of the Act, the following notation is entered into the register of approved teachers:

i)    Should Lesa Louise Grisedale reapply for registration as a teacher after the expiry of the prohibition period, the application must include psychological report addressing the following:

a)    Ms Grisedale’s general suitability to teach;

b)   Her awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching; and

c)    Understanding of, and full adherence to, the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.

3.  Any psychological report referred to in clause i) must also include a reference to the fact that the report writer was provided with copies of: the statement of agreed matters dated 5 August 2011; and a copy of this decision.

CATCHWORDS: TEACHERS – PENALTY – where teacher commenced personal relationship with student – inappropriate conduct of teacher commenced cohabitation and sexual relationship with student – vulnerable student – whether teacher not suitable to teach – appropriate sanction

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Lesa Louise Grisedale is a former approved teacher whose name was removed from the register at her request on 11 February 2010.

1. She was first registered to teach in Queensland on 28 February 2002 and at the time of this hearing was 33 years old.

1. In December 2008, the Queensland College of Teachers (“QCT”) received information from the Director, Ethical Standards, Department of Education and Training (DET) notifying QCT about an investigation.  Throughout 2008 and 2009 the QCT monitored the status of the investigation and were advised by DET in February 2009 that Ms Grisedale’s employment was suspended on 18 February 2009.

1. QCT authorised an investigation into a disciplinary matter and on 17 June 2010 the Professional Practice and Conduct Committee referred the matter to QCAT under section 115(1) (b) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.  The particulars of the application are that, Ms Grisedale, whilst a teacher:

a)    Between 15 September 2008 and 20 November 2009 failed to maintain professional detachments, and engaged in a special relationship with a student.

b)    Between 15 September 2008 and 20 November 2008 engaged in romantic and or affectionate conduct with a student.

c)    Between 20 November 2008 and 25 December 2008 engaged in a physical and or sexual relationship with a former student.

The Evidence

1. The parties have provided the tribunal with an agreed statement of facts.  The statement acknowledges that although Ms Grisedale did not teach the student any subjects, she was involved with the student in the capacity as a teacher through the Arts Faculty activities.  The student regularly attended the Music block to participate in music activities with other students.

1. It is agreed that:

a)    Ms Grisedale, without a valid educational purpose, gave her mobile phone number to the student.  Ms Grisedale discussed with the student her personal difficulties and invited the student to contact her on the mobile phone about personal matters.

b)    Without a valid educational purpose, Ms Grisedale often exchanged text messages and/or phone calls the contents of which involved discussions about the student’s personal matters.

c)    During the September school holidays in 2008 the student arranged to meet Ms Grisedale to meet at a coffee shop with other students from the school.  The meeting at the coffee shop did not relate to any educational activity and was social in nature.

d)    Ms Grisedale drove the student to and from school without a valid educational purpose during the times of 5pm and 9pm at night.  On occasions Ms Grisedale drove the student home from school following rehearsals and or performances.

e)    Ms Grisedale offered to and did drive the student to Brisbane to visit a family member.  Ms Grisedale and the student attended a McDonalds Family Restaurant where they met the student’s family member and friend.  

f)    When the student graduated from school Ms Grisedale gave the student and her sister graduation gifts, namely bracelets.  Ms Grisedale did not give any graduation present to any other students.

g)    During the occasion referred to in paragraph (e) Ms Grisedale engaged in romantic and or affectionate conduct with the student by displaying physically affection by holding the student’s hand

h)    Ms Grisedale engaged in a physical and or sexual relationship with the student after she had graduated by arranging for the student to move into her unit on an unknown date between 20 November 2008 and 11 December 2008 and upon cohabitation engaged in a physical romantic relationship.  The relationship was sexual in nature.  On an unknown date shortly before 25 December 2008 Ms Grisedale requested the student move out of the unit and the romantic relationship ceased at this time.

1. Grounds for disciplinary action are outlined in section 92 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005. Section 92(1)(h) contains the ground that “the teacher is not suitable to teach”.

1. The concept of “suitability to teach” is specifically dealt with in section 12 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005. It requires the consideration of a number of factors, including whether the person is suitable to work in a child related field (section 12(1)(b)). Further, section 12(3) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 provides that a person is not suitable to teach if that person:

(a) behaves in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher; or

(b) otherwise behaves in a disgraceful or improper way that shows the person is unfit to be granted registration or permission to teach.

1. The tribunal considers that the relevant standard should be that of community expectation.  This view is supported by reference to the main objects of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 which refer to maintaining public confidence in and upholding the standards of the teaching profession as well as protection of the public through ensuring education is delivered in a professional and competent way.

1. The relevant standard for determining whether grounds for disciplinary action have been established is the reasonable satisfaction of the decision-maker, but having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, in accordance with the well established standard described in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.

1. The tribunal considers that the behaviour of Ms Grisedale was very serious in that she engaged in a physical and sexual relationship with a vulnerable student.  Such conduct is not expected nor tolerated from a teacher.  The conduct does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher and as such Ms Grisedale is not suitable to teach.

Penalty

1. The parties agree that the grounds for disciplinary action that Ms Grisedale is not suitable to teach within the meaning of s 92(1)(h) of the Act are established. They also agree the appropriate penalty should be that:

a)    Ms Grisedale is prohibited from applying for permission to teach for a period of 5 years from the date of this order.

b)    Pursuant to s 161(2)(d) of the Act, the following notation is entered into the register of approved teachers:

i)Should, after the expiry of the probation period, Lesa Louise Grisedale reapply for registration as a teacher, it is recommended that such include psychological report addressing the following:

(1)  Ms Grisedale’s general suitability to teach;

(2)  Her awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching; and

(3)  Understanding of, and full adherence to, the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics;

(4)  Any psychological report referred to in clause i) include a reference to the report writer being provided with copies of: the facts and circumstances; and the disciplinary decision.

1. QCT referred the tribunal to the following comparative cases:

a)    Queensland College of Teachers v Bruce William David Walters[1];

b)    Queensland College of Teachers v Borchardt[2]; and

c)    Queensland college of Teachers v Grasso[3].

QCT submits that this case is comparable to Walters.  Both cases involve a romantic relationship which developed while the student was at school followed by a sexual relationship developing very shortly after the student finished school.  The penalty imposed in Walters was five years.

[1]        OCR152-10.

[2] [2010] QCAT 432.

[3] [2011] QCAT 292.

1. The QCT submits that this case is more serious than Borchardt due to the development of a relationship while the student was at school, the short period after the conclusion of school before the commencement of a sexual relationship, and the aggravating feature of cohabitation.  The tribunal agrees that Ms Grisedale’s conduct was more serious than that of Borchardt and, therefore, merits a more serious penalty.

1. This matter can be distinguished from Grasso in that:

a)    In Grasso, the student was 18 years of age at the time of sexual relationship;

b)    The mitigating circumstances in Grasso were strong, including:

(i)A youthful and inexperienced teacher in second year of teaching;

(ii)The teacher’s extensive and voluntary engagement in psychological counselling prior to determination of matter.

c)    Grasso involved a teacher engaging in a sexual relationship with the student while still at school.  Here, the sexual relationship commenced within a week of the student leaving school and the tribunal is of the view that it is so proximate that the distinction is technical rather than substantial in nature.

1. The mitigating factors are that: Ms Grisedale took steps to end the relationship independent of the intervention of the relevant authorities; she was experiencing substantial personal and emotional stress at the time of the conduct; and the absence of any other complaints against her in the eight years of her teaching career.

1. The gravity of the conduct by Ms Grisedale in this case, however, is such that a prohibition for a period of five years is appropriate.  Further, the additional imposition of a requirement for any reapplication to include a comprehensive psychological report is appropriate.

1. The orders of the tribunal are:

a)    Lesa Louise Grisedale is prohibited from applying for permission to teach for a period of 5 years from the date of this order.  Pursuant to s 161(2)(d) of the Act, the following notation is entered into the register of approved teachers:

i)Should Lesa Louise Grisedale reapply for registration as a teacher after the expiry of the prohibition period, the application must include psychological report addressing the following:

(1)  Ms Grisedale’s general suitability to teach;

(2)  Her awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching; and

(3)  Understanding of, and full adherence to, the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.

ii)Any psychological report referred to in clause i) must also include a reference to the fact that the report writer was provided with copies of: the statement of agreed matters dated 5 August 2011 and a copy of this decision.

Non-publication order

1. The tribunal notes that to protect the identity of the complainant an order was made by the tribunal on 23 August 2011 that the names, address and school of the complainant are subject to a non-publication order pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.