Queensland College of Teachers v Limpus
[2011] QCAT 99
•18 March 2011
| CITATION: | Qld College of Teachers v Limpus [2011] QCAT 99 |
| PARTIES: | Qld College of Teachers (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Shanyn Simone Limpus (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR108-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 4 August 2010 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Ms Lisa O’Neill, Presiding Member Ms Rosemary Kyburz, Member Ms Margaret McLennan, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 18 March 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | Ms Limpus’ registration be cancelled and that she be prevented from re-applying for a period of five years. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Teacher not suitable to teach – where year 9 student alleges sexual intercourse with teacher – where teacher denies allegations – teacher did not appear at hearing where Tribunal satisfied on the balance of probabilities – penalty – where very serious breach of trust occurred Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, ss 92(1)(h), 160 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr M D Pollock (Principal Legal Officer) for the Applicant |
| RESPONDENT: | No appearance for the Respondent |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Shanyn Limpus was born on 31 May 1984 and is presently aged 26 years. She was registered as a teacher in Queensland on 27 February 2006 and is currently an approved teacher.
In 2006 she was employed by the Department of Education and Training, Queensland, and taught at W State High School. One of her pupils was a boy called T who was born in mid 1991. He was taught by Ms Limpus in the Year 9 class.
On 30 April 2010 the Queensland College of Teachers made application to QCAT for disciplinary action against Ms Limpus. The grounds for disciplinary action were pursuant to s 92(1)(h) of the Act, that is, that Limpus was not suitable to teach.
The grounds for disciplinary action set out in the notice were:
It is alleged that whilst employed as a teacher at W State High School in 2006, Ms Limpus was (a) involved in an inappropriate relationship with a student, including but not limited to T, that included (1) on Friday 27 October 2006, engaging in sexual intercourse with T at her place of residence; (b) breached the policies of the Employing Authority and her Professional Registration body that are aimed to protect the welfare and best interests of children and to uphold the standards of the teaching profession.
Prior to today’s hearing, a Directions Hearing was convened by QCAT on 7 June 2010. The matter was listed for hearing today. Ms Limpus was represented prior to this hearing by Andrew Knott of Macrossans.
On 22 July 2010 he advised QCAT that Ms Limpus would not be filing any material, but that his firm would be available to accept service. Ms Limpus did not appear today.
The Tribunal also noted that, on her behalf, Mr Knott advised the Tribunal in a letter dated 18 May 2010 that Ms Limpus denied the allegations. The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Limpus had an opportunity to be heard and proceeded in her absence.
The events the subject of these proceedings were investigated by the Department of Education and Training, and the hearing book today contained a report and statements made by the relevant parties, including the student’s mother, his sister and other students. I will refer to that evidence again shortly.
At the interview with the Queensland College of Teachers on 30 November 2009, T admitted that he had had sexual intercourse with Ms Limpus whilst a student of the W State High School. He said that this occurred at her home on the night of the school dance, and that after it occurred he had had a shower and then proceeded to the dance.
[10] The Tribunal has had the difficult task of having to weigh the teacher’s denial with the contrary evidence contained in the hearing book. However, in doing so, the Tribunal took account of the fact that the teacher’s denial was scant and offered no explanation or commentary on the surrounding circumstances.
[11] The Tribunal has taken into account the more detailed statement of the student. He said that:
We got talking over a period of time. Sex came up in the conversation and we flirted for a bit, I’m not sure how long before her Mum came in. Nothing ever happened then.
Then the school dance night, I can’t really remember how it came about, but, like, who asked who, but I went to her house. I was there for a bit. I’m not sure, like, half an hour, and then one thing led to another and then we had sex and we went to the school dance, and it only happened once.
[12] Had that been the only statement, the Tribunal might not have been satisfied to the requisite standard set out in Briginshaw, that is, the civil standard on the balance of probabilities but at the higher end of the scale. However, T made a more detailed statement or elaborated on that statement within his initial statement, saying that when he got to her house he:
…. walked inside, ran around the house a bit being a clown, had a drink of lemonade and, I don’t know, we might have, she had some lollies. I had a few lollies and then walked into her bedroom and she followed me.
Laying on the bed, I think, jumping on the bed, yeah, I talked to her a bit, and then I think actually, no, I got out of the bed and she was just staring up at the wall. I started kissing her, and then we just carried on from there.
We went from there to over the bed, just sort of made out for a bit, and then just sort of undressed her and, yeah, that was about it, got naked and wrestled. That was about it.
[13] He then said that after he had sexual intercourse:
I think I just got up, I had a shower, and I went to the dance.
[14] He was able to describe the inside of the teacher’s home, and another teacher corroborated that there were lollies in the home, although said that they were in a different place. Given that there is the possibility that the lollies were in more than one place, or had been moved, the Tribunal does not place any significant weight on that discrepancy. It is a small detail that the student would not be expected to know had he not been inside the teacher’s home.
[15] T said he told his friend L about what happened about six months later, and apparently gossip developed in the school that T had had a sexual relationship with the teacher.
[16] The Tribunal has taken account of the age of the student. He was under 16 at the time of the act. He was therefore unable to consent to the act of intercourse. The allegations were investigated by the Police Service and, had the facts been proven to the requisite standard, would have resulted in a conviction for carnal knowledge.
[17] Ultimately the Police did not charge Ms Limpus because the student decided not to proceed with the complaint. When his mother learned of the allegations in 2009 they came as a shock to her. She was unaware of the allegations but put them to the student and he denied them.
[18] The Police Report indicates that his parents were reluctant for T to continue with the complaint because they were worried that he would suffer embarrassment. The Tribunal notes that no significant weight should be placed on the failure of the student to pursue the allegations in a criminal context.
[19] It is not uncommon for child victims of sexual offences to be embarrassed and reluctant to pursue these matters in a criminal context, and for their families to also take that approach of wanting to spare the child from the ordeal of a trial and nothing significant turned on that.
[20] However, in view of the seriousness of the offence, what is significant is that because of the age of the student, he was unable to consent to the sexual intercourse. It is not disputed that he was an active participant or in fact an enthusiastic one. He said that he was keen to engage in sexual activity, saying, “Yeah, I was a deviant. Yeah, it was on my mind”.
[21] However, given his age, that is not a mitigating factor. The position of teacher is one of trust and the community deposes a great deal of trust in our teachers to act appropriately with the students. The breach of that trust by having a sexual relationship with a student even on one occasion is a very serious breach of that trust, and for those reasons the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Limpus is not suitable to teach within the meaning of s 92(1)(h) of the Act.
[22] With respect to the penalty, the Tribunal has taken into account the age of the teacher at the time of the offence. She was a young teacher and working in a remote community. Unfortunately, however, she presented no evidence today which would mitigate the seriousness of the act, and that is unfortunate.
[23] The Tribunal has got no doubt that, working in a remote location, she was probably lonely and socially isolated. However, that said, given the seriousness of the breach of trust, the Tribunal is satisfied that this is at the more serious end of the spectrum, and that it is appropriate for her registration to be cancelled for a period of five years, which is the maximum period in the Act.
[24] So the Tribunal therefore, pursuant to s 160 of the Act, orders that Ms Limpus’ registration be cancelled and that she be prevented from re-applying for a period of five years.
7
0
1