Queensland College of Teachers v Jones
[2010] QCAT 543
•2 November 2010
| CITATION: | Queensland College of Teachers v Jones [2010] QCAT 543 |
| PARTIES: | Queensland College of Teachers |
| V | |
| Mr Steven Paul Jones |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR085-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 1 November 2010 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Peta Stilgoe (presiding), Beverley Day, Ron Joachim |
| DELIVERED ON: | 2 November 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | a) The respondent’s registration as a teacher is cancelled and he is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach for a period of twelve months from the date of hearing. b) Should Mr Jones apply for registration as a teacher at the expiry of the prohibition period, any application will include evidence of: i) Awareness of what is and what is not appropriate language and communication with students. ii) Awareness of what are and what are not appropriate instances in which a teacher may physically touch a student. iii) Awareness of appropriate discipline techniques with students. iv) Awareness of appropriate strategies for achieving student compliance. v) An in depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, colleague, parent and community trust inherently invested in a teacher. vi) Awareness of power and trust granted to a teacher. vii) Awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching. viii)Understanding of, and full adherence to, the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics. |
| CATCHWORDS : | TEACHERS – fitness to teach – where teacher subject to disciplinary action – where teacher made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature – where no insight or remorse Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 ss 12(3)(a), 92(1)(h), 158(1), 160(2) |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | M Pollock, Principal Legal Officer of the applicant |
| RESPONDENT: | No appearance |
REASONS FOR DECISION
The teacher in these proceedings is Steven Paul Jones, an approved teacher whose registration certificate expires on 1 December 2010.
He was first registered to teach in Queensland on 7 February 1975 and at the time of this hearing was 59 years old.
By letters dated 18 July 2007 and 3 September 2007 the Queensland College of Teachers (“QCT”) received notice of an investigation from the Department of Education. On 1 June 2009, the QCT received notice that Mr Jones’ employment had been terminated on 1 May 2009. On 2 December 2009, 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 Mr Jones, whilst a teacher:
a)Made inappropriate comments to female students, then in Years 5 and 7, that were of a sexual nature including, but not limited to:
i) “Come here baby, I love you, I want to have sex with you, give me a kiss.”
ii) “Come here, my lovely wife. Give me a kiss. Hi my wives. I like to pretend. How is my darling wife? Where is my kissy wissy?”
It appears that these comments were made in or about June 2007.
b)Ignored directions from the school by continuing to make inappropriate and offensive comments to students.
c)Breached policies of the employing authority and the QCT that are aimed to protect the welfare and best interests of children and to uphold the standards of the teaching profession.
Mr Jones did not attend the hearing.
The Evidence
Inappropriate comments of a sexual nature
In relation to the allegations of inappropriate comments of a sexual nature, the tribunal received:
a)Hand written statements from four female students written on or about 30 August 2007;
b)Copies of transcripts of records of interview between the Queensland Police Service and two female students conducted on 29 July 2007;
c)Copies of transcripts of records of interview between the ethical standards’ investigator and five female students conducted in April 2008.
In an interview with a senior investigator from the ethical standards unit on 30 April 2008, Mr Jones admitted that he used certain terms and words:
a)Come here baby;
b)Hello baby;
c)If you’re going to be my wife, come here and give me a kiss;
d)Oh well, let’s have 25 children;
e)Oh hello baby, come here baby, do you want to give me a kiss;
but says that most of the time he was responding to words spoken by the students and that he is always joking around with them. Mr Jones denied stating that he wanted to have sex with any of the students.
The tribunal is not impressed with the statements obtained by the ethical standards unit. The questions of the students are leading, there is limited evidence of independent recollection and some evidence of fabrication. If this had been the only evidence available to it in relation to these allegations, the tribunal would have been reluctant to find them proven. However, based upon the more contemporaneous statements, and his admissions, the tribunal is satisfied that Mr Jones did make comments that were inappropriate and of a mildly sexual nature.
That Mr Jones ignored directions from the school by continuing to make inappropriate and offensive comments to students
By letter of 13 June 2006, the deputy director general of the Department of Education invited Mr Jones to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. By letter of 9 August 2006, Mr Jones was advised that he was liable to disciplinary action and invited to make submissions on penalty. In a letter dated 29 August 2006, the Department of Education:
a)Advised Mr Jones that he had contravened the Departmental Code of Conduct and was liable to disciplinary action.
b)Reduced his classification level from Senior Teacher to Band 4 (Step 4) Teacher for a period of two years.
c)Directed Mr Jones to attend Code of Conduct and Student Protection Policy training and engage in a mentoring program and professional development.
d)Warned Mr Jones against similar contraventions in the future.
QCT provided material in relation to the allegations that gave rise to that disciplinary action. It is not necessary to canvass it in these reasons.
10. QCT provided evidence of inappropriate behaviour other than the comments detailed in paragraph 3(a) of these reasons:
a)Notes of a conversation between the school principal and student teachers in which the students teachers complaint about “very inappropriate language”.
b)Notes of three complaints from parents to the principal about Mr Jones’ interaction with the students.
11. These complaints are hearsay. There is no detail to the nature of the language used, the complainants are not named and the tribunal has no way to test the veracity of the evidence. Of themselves, the evidence in relation to these matters would be insufficient to allow the tribunal to find that Mr Jones had ignored directions from his school.
12. However, the tribunal has found that the comments the subject of the letters of 18 July 2007 and 3 September 2007 were inappropriate. They were obviously made after Mr Jones received the letter of 29 August 2006 and in the face of existing disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal is satisfied that Mr Jones ignored directions from the school by continuing to make inappropriate and offensive comments to students.
That Mr Jones breached the policies of the employing authority and the QCT
13. QCT say that the relevant policies are:
a)Those communicating with students have a special responsibility to provide an appropriate role model for those students.
b)The obligation to treat people with dignity, courtesy, honesty, fairness and respect at all times and to avoid offensive, abusive and discriminatory language and behaviour.
c)To protect students from harm. “Harm” includes psychological or emotional abuse.
14. The tribunal notes Mr Jones’ comments in his record of interview with the ethical standards investigator, and in correspondence, that he challenged and engaged his students and that he did not consider his language inappropriate or offensive. While the tribunal acknowledges Mr Jones’ motives, and the references of support, the test must be an objective one. Given the tribunal’s findings that Mr Jones did make inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature, and that he did so whilst subject to disciplinary action, the tribunal considers that Mr Jones did not:
a)Provide an appropriate role model for all students.
b)Did not treat people with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect at all times.
c)Avoid offensive language and behaviour.
d)Did not protect students from harm.
Penalty
15. QCT submitted the appropriate penalty is that Mr Jones’ registration as a teacher be cancelled and that he be prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach for a period of twelve months on these grounds:
a)The conduct was of a sexual nature, although not as explicit as other cases that have come to the tribunal’s attention;
b)Mr Jones continued inappropriate behaviour even though he had already come to the attention of the Department of Education.
c)There was some evidence of harm in that the children had been made to feel uncomfortable.
d)Mr Jones showed no insight or appreciation that his behaviour was inappropriate.
16. QCT referred the tribunal to Faulkner, a decision of the Teachers’ Disciplinary Committee on 19 November 2008. Mr Faulkner had made comments of a similar nature to older students. He had admitted his conduct to the extent that the parties had agreed a statement of facts. Mr Faulkner also offered undertakings to participate in further training. The Committee accepted the undertaking and did not record any other penalty.
17. The tribunal considers that the behaviour of Mr Jones is inappropriate and warrants a penalty. Of more concern to the tribunal is that Mr Jones engaged in this behaviour while already under disciplinary action and shows no insight or remorse. In the circumstances, the tribunal accepts QCT’s submission that Mr Jones’ registration as a teacher be cancelled and that he be prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach for a period of twelve months with conditions on his return.
Conclusion
18. The tribunal is satisfied that, pursuant to section 12(3)(a) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act, Mr Jones has behaved in a way that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. The tribunal is further satisfied that, prima facie, Mr Jones is “not suitable to teach” within the meaning of section 92(1)(h) of the Act and that grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to section 160(2) of the Act exist within the meaning of section 158(1) of the Act.
19. The orders of the tribunal are:
a)The respondent’s registration as a teacher is cancelled and he is prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach for a period of twelve months from the date of hearing.
b)Should Mr Jones apply for registration as a teacher at the expiry of the prohibition period, any application will include evidence of:
i) Awareness of what is and what is not appropriate language and communication with students.
ii) Awareness of what are and what are not appropriate instances in which a teacher may physically touch a student.
iii) Awareness of appropriate discipline techniques with students.
iv) Awareness of appropriate strategies for achieving student compliance.
v) An in depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, colleague, parent and community trust inherently invested in a teacher.
vi) Awareness of power and trust granted to a teacher.
vii) Awareness of behaviour which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching.
viii)Understanding of, and full adherence to, the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
3
0
1