Queensland College of Teachers v JBJ

[2024] QCAT 500

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v JBJ [2024] QCAT 500

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

JBJ

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR153-23

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

12 November 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb, Presiding
Member Robyn Oliver
Member Olding

ORDERS:

1.     There is no ground for disciplinary action against the Respondent.

2.     Suspension of the Respondent’s teacher registration is ended from the date of this Decision.

3.     Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), subject to further order of the Tribunal, other than to the parties to this proceeding and other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) or other legislation, the publication of:

(a)     the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;

(b)     any decision or order made or reasons given by the Tribunal,

is prohibited to that extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the Respondent or the complainant.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where teacher charged with serious offences but acquitted of all charges – whether suspension of teacher registration should be ended


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether non-publication order should be made – where order necessary in the interests of justice

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), 66

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), 92

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 15

Merlo v Queensland Law Society Inc (No 2) [2023] QCAT 459

Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this case about?

1. The Respondent, a teacher, was charged with ‘serious offences’ as defined in s 15 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

2. Consequently, as required by s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (QCT Act), the Applicant (QCT) suspended his teacher registration and referred the suspension to the Tribunal for review.

3. Following a jury trial, the Respondent was acquitted of the offences.

4. Having regard to the evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the charges, the parties submit, and we agree, that there are no grounds for disciplinary action against the Respondent. The suspension of the Applicant’s teacher registration therefore must be ended. We also consider a non-publication order is necessary in the interests of justice.

5. Our reasons follow.

No ground for disciplinary action

1. The potential ground for disciplinary action that arises for consideration is found in s 92(1)(h) of the QCT Act applies where a teacher ‘behaves in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’.

2. Whether this ground is established requires consideration of community and professional expectations and standards. The welfare and best interests of children are the primary considerations.[1]

   [1]Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709, [33]-[36].

3. The circumstances leading to the charges in this case are known only to the Respondent and the complainant; they occurred in private.

4. The Respondent was acquitted of all the charges. We have examined the transcript of the criminal trial. The transcript reveals that, although not required to do so, the Respondent gave evidence in his defence and was cross-examined. The complainant also gave evidence which was the subject of submissions as to credit.

5. We are mindful that our consideration should not be limited to whether the charges were upheld in the criminal justice system. We must have regard to the circumstances of the alleged conduct.

6. For there to be a ground for disciplinary action, we must be satisfied that conduct warranting a conclusion that the Respondent behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher occurred. In that respect, we have had regard to the Respondent’s denial under oath that the alleged conduct occurred; the complainant’s evidence; and, importantly, that the jury’s verdict was given after the Respondent subjected himself to cross-examination.

7. Taking into account those factors, we are not satisfied the alleged conduct, or other conduct relating to the allegations that would warrant a conclusion that the Respondent behaved in a way that would satisfy the ground for disciplinary action, occurred.  It follows that we are not satisfied a ground for disciplinary action is established.

A non-publication order is necessary in the interests of justice

1. Ordinarily, proceedings of the Tribunal are conducted in public and its decisions are published, in accordance with principles of open justice.

2. However, under s 66of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), a non-publication order may be made where that course is necessary for stipulated reasons including ‘in the interests of justice’.

3. The importance of the principles of open justice provides the starting point for consideration of whether a non-publication order should be made. Nevertheless,

   
   

   s 66 provides a broad discretion, which Parliament may be taken to have intended to be exercised ‘more broadly and with some greater sensitivity than might occur in courts’.[2]

   [2]Merlo v Queensland Law Society Inc (No 2) [2023] QCAT 459, [13].

4. The Respondent has been subjected to a public trial in which he was acquitted of all charges. The QCT does not contest, in fact positively submits, that no ground for disciplinary action against the Respondent exists. If the Respondent’s name were to be published, it is likely the matter would attract further attention in circumstances where the Respondent has not been found to have engaged in any wrongdoing or behaved in a way contrary to community expectations of teachers. That would not be a just outcome for the Respondent. We also consider that it is in the interests of justice that the non-publication order should extend to the complainant the subject of the charges that were brought against the Respondent.

5. Accordingly, we are satisfied that a non-publication order, in the terms of Order number 3 of the orders set out above, is necessary in the interests of justice.  The QCT did not submit that a non-publication order should not be made.