Queensland College of Teachers v PDE - [2025] QCAT 393

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS V PDE [2025] QCAT 393

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

PDE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR183-25

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

ORDERS:

1. The suspension of the registration of PDE as a teacher is continued.

2. Other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify PDE, any relevant complainant or school, or any other witness associated with the matter, other than to the extent necessary to enable the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – SUSPENSION OF TEACHER REGISTRATION – continuation of suspension – whether exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended – whether suspension should continue – whether non-publication order should be granted

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 48, s 50, s 53, s 54, s 55, s 75, s 223, s 285, s 285AA, s 285B, s 287

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

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) s 16, Schedule 4

Baker v the Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513
DA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2017] QCAT 392
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BDN [2023] QCAT 352
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EDC [2019] QCAT 144
QCAT 434
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher LPD [2024] QCAT 457
Queensland College of Teachers v PPL [2019] QCAT 278
Queensland College of Teachers v PTV [2025] QCAT 313
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher S [2013] QCAT 361
R v Kelly (Edward) [2000] QB 198
Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions [1983] 1 VR 1

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

The Queensland College of Teachers (‘the College’) suspended the teacher registration of PDE on 1 September 2025, pursuant to s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’), on the grounds that PDE has been charged with a ‘disqualifying offence’[1], namely an offence under s 349(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (‘Criminal Code’).
[1]As to the meaning of the term ‘disqualifying offence’, see the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (Qld) (‘the WWC Act’) at s 16 and schedule 4.
By s 48 of the Act, the College must suspend the registration of an ‘approved teacher’ immediately after becoming aware that the registered teacher is charged with a ‘disqualifying offence’.[2] Notice of the suspension is given to the teacher pursuant to s 50(1) of the Act. The notice must include a statement that the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘QCAT’) will review the continuation of the suspension 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]
[2]As to the meaning of the term ‘approved teacher’, see the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) at Schedule 3.
[3]See s 50(2)(c) of the Act; the review is conducted in the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal: see s 53(2) of the Act.
The material filed by the College includes a certificate issued under s 223 of the Act, notification from Queensland Police Service pursuant to s 75 of the Act and a copy of the notice of the suspension issued pursuant to s 50 of the Act.
In accordance with s 50(5) of the Act, the College has referred the continuation of the suspension to QCAT for review pursuant to s 53 of the Act. By s 53(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must decide whether to continue the suspension, while s 53(3)(a) of the Act requires the Tribunal to continue the suspension unless satisfied that ‘the matter is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended’.
In Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher S,[4] it was noted that the term ‘exceptional case’ is not defined in the Act and that there are no generally applicable rules as to what constitutes an exceptional case.
[4][2013] QCAT 361 [3] citing Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions [1983] 1 VR 1.
However, as stated in Queensland College of Teachers v PPL,[5] terms such as ‘exceptional case’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ are commonly used in legislative provisions. While terms must be construed in the context of the applicable legislation, as noted in R v Kelly (Edward),[6] in the context of sentencing legislation:
We must construe 'exceptional' as an ordinary, familiar English adjective, and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered.
[5][2019] QCAT 278 [8].
[6][2000] QB 198, 208 referred to in Baker v the Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513, 573 (Callinan J); see also DA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2017] QCAT 392 [25].
The context of the present provision is whether it is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended.[7]
[7]The Act s 55(1)(a).
By s 55(2) of the Act, the Tribunal must order the suspension be ended if satisfied it is an exceptional case. Conversely, by s 53(3)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal ‘must’ decide to continue the suspension unless satisfied that the matter is an exceptional case.
As required by s 54(1)(a) of the Act, directions were made by the Tribunal inviting PDE to show why the matter is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension of the registration or permission to teach were ended.[8] While, consistent with the decision in Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EDC,[9] it is not productive to approach the question of whether it is an exceptional case by reference to the concepts of onus and standard of proof, it remains that if a party asserts that this is an exceptional case it behoves that party to point to some evidence or material that would allow the Tribunal to reach the requisite satisfaction.
[8]The Tribunal Directions were made on 1 September 2025, requiring any submissions to be made by 6 October 2025.
[9][2019] QCAT 144 [10]-[15].
In his submissions, PDE denies the allegations and says that he intends to defend the charge in court. He submits that the suspension is disproportionate and unfair, given the presumption of innocence, his right to work and support his family and the potential impact on his mental health and financial wellbeing. He also submits that his professional record is unblemished and there is no evidence to suggest any risk to students or the school community. While he states that he is willing to accept conditions if reinstated, referring generally to regular reporting or supervision, he does not elaborate on how that might militate against any relevant risk.
As noted above, the question is whether it is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended. As to any potential impact on the teacher, the Explanatory note to the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Bill 2005 (Qld) states:[10]
…It is acknowledged that the suspension of a person’s registration could have an impact on a person’s livelihood, given that they are not permitted to teach while their registration is suspended. However, because of a teacher’s close role with children, it is considered that some offences… are serious enough to warrant non-discretionary suspension upon a charge, or cancellation upon a conviction, of registration or ‘Permission to Teach’…
[10]See pages 4-5.
In relation to PDE’s submission that there is no evidence to suggest any risk to students or the school community, by s 48(3) of the Act the College ‘must’ suspend the teacher’s registration after it becomes aware that the teacher is charged, as in the present case, with a ‘disqualifying offence’. In that context, there must be material or evidence before the Tribunal to enable it to be satisfied that it is an exceptional case; that is, that it is ‘out of the ordinary’, or ‘unusual’ or special’, such that the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended’.
It is not unusual, indeed it will generally be the case, that the charges have not yet been heard at the time of the Tribunal’s decision. Also, it is not unusual that the suspension has a personal and financial impact on the teacher. Further, the Tribunal is not in a position to assess the merits of the charges in question. As noted in Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher PTV:[11]
[11][2025] QCAT 313 [11]-[13]; see also Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher LPD [2024] QCAT 457 [11]-[12]; Queensland College of Teachers v BDN [2023] QCAT 352 [12].
[11] …when considering the question of whether a suspension should be continued the capacity of the Tribunal to resolve any evidential conflict is constrained. That is because of the terms of s 55(3) of the Act, which provide (highlight added):
QCAT’s decision must be made not later than 14 days after the earlier of the following to happen—
(a) QCAT receives the approved teacher’s submission under s 54;
(b) the stated time under s 54 ends.
[12] As to the ‘stated time’, by s 54(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must give the teacher a notice inviting the teacher to show, within the ‘stated time’, that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to students. By s 54(2) of the Act, the stated time must not be less than 28 days after the notice is given.
[13] In relation to those provisions, as noted in Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher LNT:[12]
Given the statutory time constraints, it is evident that it was not intended that there be a full hearing to determine contested factual issues as part of the suspension process. Presumably that is because, by s 55A of the Act, where the Tribunal continues the suspension, the College must ‘as soon as practicable’ either initiate disciplinary proceedings, where it reasonably believes that a ground for disciplinary action exists, or authorise an investigation, where it reasonably believes that a ground for disciplinary action may exist. Any consequent disciplinary proceedings are the appropriate vehicle for determining contested factual issues.
[12][2022] QCAT 434 [9].
As stated in Queensland College of Teachers v PTV,[13] while there is an opportunity, at least in part, in the present proceedings to test the evidence provided and/or to provide oral submissions, that opportunity is very much limited by the statutory time constraints. Also, in the present case, in the directions issued on 1 September 2025 it was directed that either the teacher or the College could, within 14 days, ask the Tribunal to conduct an oral hearing. No such request was made by either party.
[13][2025] QCAT 313 [14].
On the material before me, I am not satisfied that it is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended. Accordingly, the suspension of PDE as a teacher is continued.
I note that under s 55(6) of the Act, PDE may apply within 28 days of the notice of this decision to QCAT for review of this decision. He may at that point provide any additional material in support of any submission that he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
Non-publication order
Pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified. The Tribunal may do so on the application of a party or on its own initiative.[14] The College has filed submissions in support of a non-publication order.
[14]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66(3).
A non-publication order is appropriate in the circumstances of the present matter, where identification of PDE or any relevant school or witness may lead to the identification of a relevant complainant. I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that may identify PDE, any relevant complainant or school or any other witness associated with the matter, other than to the extent necessary to enable the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under ss 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). This non-publication order can be revisited in any subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
I make orders pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of that information.