Queensland College of Teachers v HAC

[2013] QCAT 470

CITATION: Queensland College of Teachers v HAC [2013] QCAT 470

PARTIES:	Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant)
V
HAC (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR018-12

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 25 June 2013

HEARD AT: On the papers

DECISION OF: Jim Allen, Acting Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 30 August 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The application by Queensland College of Teachers for leave to withdraw is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION - application for leave to withdraw-original application having been heard and decided - leave refused - discussion of suspension provisions for teachers charged with serious offences

Queensland and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 46.
Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 ss 48 - 56

Queensland College of Teachers v Klemm (No.2) [2011] QCAT 276

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

1. Queensland College of Teachers has brought an application to withdraw[1] an original application for disciplinary proceedings against HAC. The original application had been filed on 23 January 2012. That application resulted from HAC’s suspension as a teacher under s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (E(QCT) Act) as a result of him being charged with a “serious offence”. The original application sought the following order “s 55(1)-suspension to continue”.

   [1]        Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 46.

2. The College is required to refer the continuation of a suspension to the Tribunal under ss 50(5) of the E(QCT) Act for review under s 53 of that Act. The Tribunals jurisdiction under s 53 of the E(QCT) Act is to decide whether to continue the suspension of an approved teacher with the purpose of the decision being to decide whether it is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended.

3. As required under s 54 of the E(QCT) Act the Tribunal gave HAC notice inviting him to show why the matter is an exceptional case but no submissions were received from him.

4. The Tribunal made a decision on 8 March 2012 under s 55 of the E(QCT) Act that the suspension of HAC as a teacher is continued and prohibiting the publication of identifying information.

5. The College’s application for leave to withdraw confirms that HAC has been convicted of a serious offence and that the college has determined that he is an excluded person under the E(QCT) Act. The College refers to the decision in Queensland College of Teachers v Klemm (No.2) [2011] QCAT 276. Where in similar circumstances the Tribunal recommended that the College make application to withdraw the disciplinary proceedings. This was on the basis that the original application requested the Tribunal “to conduct disciplinary proceedings to decide whether a disciplinary ground is established”.

6. In this case the generic application did state that “The applicant applies to the tribunal to conduct a proceeding to decide whether a disciplinary ground is established”. The material provided though related solely to the question of whether to extend the suspension of HAC as a teacher under s 48 of the E(QCT) Act and the orders sought were only in regard to whether or not the suspension should be continued.

7. The Tribunals decision of 8 March 2012 dealt with that question and the Tribunal then closed its file. This would have been on the basis that the original application had been finally determined and there was no disciplinary proceeding to be further considered by the Tribunal.

8. If the Tribunal gives leave an applicant may withdraw an application before the matter is heard and decided[2]. In this case the application has been heard and decided and so there can be no grant of leave to withdraw. The application for leave to withdraw is then refused on the basis that there is no current application before the Tribunal.

   [2] Ibid ss 46(1).