Queensland College of Teachers v Segger

[2013] QCAT 690

CITATION: Queensland College of Teachers v Segger [2013] QCAT 690

PARTIES:	Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant)
v
Mr Peter Terence Segger (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR193-13

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member O’Callaghan
Member Lindgren
Member Kanowski

DELIVERED ON: 25 October 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDER MADE: 1.    Mr Segger is reprimanded for committing the offence of fraud in the course of his employment as a teacher between 1 January 2007 and 1 January 2008.

CATCHWORDS:

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – TEACHERS – where teacher committed fraud in the course of his employment as a teacher – where the teacher has since rehabilitated himself – whether the teacher is suitable to teach

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ss 3(1), 11(3), 12(3)(b), 92(1), 160(2)

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Thomas [2011] QCAT 637, considered
Queensland College of Teachers v Osborne [2013 QCAT 471], considered

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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Queensland College of Teachers. The College contends that grounds exist for disciplinary action against Mr Segger, because he committed the offence of fraud some years ago. Mr Segger concedes that grounds exist for disciplinary action.

2. QCAT is a disciplinary body under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).[1] We must firstly decide whether grounds exist (or at least one ground exists) for disciplinary action. If it does, we must go on to decide what disciplinary action (if any) should be taken.

   [1]        Under Chapter 6, Part 2 of the Act.

Do grounds exist for disciplinary action?

Criminal conviction

1. On 15 January 2013 Mr Segger pleaded guilty in the Caloundra Magistrates Court to the offence of fraud committed between 1 January 2007 and 1 January 2008. The Court recorded a conviction, and sentenced Mr Segger to three years’ imprisonment suspended for three years.

2. Fraud, under section 408C of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) is an indictable offence.[2] It is not, however, a ‘serious offence’ as defined in the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).[3]

   [2]        Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 3(3) and 408C.

   [3]        Schedule 3 to the Act.

3. Accordingly, we find that Mr Segger has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence.  Being convicted of such an offence is a ground for disciplinary action against a teacher.[4] Accordingly, we find that a ground exists for disciplinary action.

   [4]        Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) s 92(1)(b).

Suitability to teach

1. The College submits that a further ground exists for disciplinary action: that Mr Segger is not suitable to teach,[5] having regard to the circumstances of the offence. Mr Segger does not argue with the submission, but we must make our own assessment. It is Mr Segger’s current suitability or otherwise that must be assessed, rather than his suitability at the time of the offence.[6]

   [5] Ibid s 92(1)(h).

   [6]        Queensland College of Teachers v Osborne [2013] QCAT 471 at [8].

2. The fraud was unusual. It was committed in the course of Mr Segger’s employment as a teacher. He was the ‘Academic Coordinator Sports Activities’ at a school. In 2007 he told the Principal he had secured a grant of $10,000 from Queensland Rugby Union to fund a school rugby trip to New Zealand, and that the Australian Rugby Union would also provide a grant to cover other costs. The family of each participating student would be required to contribute only $550. The Principal allowed Mr Segger to organise the trip, and it went ahead in September 2007.

3. In fact, there were no grants. Mr Segger had not even applied for one. He deceived the travel agent who was organising the transport. He did this by falsifying a copy of a bank transfer form to make it appear that $21,000 had been transferred by the school to the travel agency, when in fact only $210 had been transferred. The travel agent approached the school in late December 2007 after discovering the discrepancy. The school questioned Mr Segger about the matter. He admitted the fraud and then resigned.

4. Mr Segger did not obtain any money from the fraud, but the school was put out of pocket by $49,591. Mr Segger has since made restitution for this amount.

5. The criminal proceeding was commenced some years after the event. The police charged Segger in late May 2012. 

6. After resigning from the school in January 2008, Mr Segger sought psychiatric assistance. He was treated for a month in hospital in early 2008. A report from a clinical psychologist, Dr Fiona Dann, indicates that Mr Segger was diagnosed with adjustment disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. He had long-standing self esteem issues, and had ‘developed a pathological need for others’ approval and respect’. According to Dr Dann, Mr Segger set unachievably high goals, and his offending was ‘aimed at achieving approval in order to try and build his very fragile self esteem’. Since being discharged from hospital, Mr Segger has had 27 outpatient treatment sessions with Dr Dann ‘with very positive results’. It seems that most of the sessions were in the period following the discharge, and that treatment then resumed after Mr Segger was charged in 2012.

7. Dr Dann considers that the risk of re-offending is negligibly low. She says that Mr Segger has successfully addressed his psychological problems through therapy. There has been a significant change in his personality structure. He no longer seeks external approval for his actions. He is more resilient to stress, and more able to manage interpersonal relationships. In contrast to 2007, he now has a settled and happy family life. He has remarried, and he and his wife have a young child. Mr Segger works in a family business.

8. We accept Dr Dann’s evidence that Mr Segger has successfully undergone treatment, and her opinion that there is little risk that he will re-offend.

9. Dr Dann’s report was tendered in the Magistrates Court, along with a number of references from friends describing Mr Segger’s character and remorse, as well as the circumstances of the offence. For example Adam Roberts wrote that Mr Segger:

   … was simply trying to impress his then wife, friends, work colleagues and his students by attempting to “deliver” outcomes which were never necessary to maintain his professional and social standing.

10. Mr Segger’s lawyer told the Court that Mr Segger had thought he might be able to secure grants, but he did not follow through. Having initially told the school that grants would be forthcoming, Mr Segger could not back out later without a major loss of face.

11. The Magistrate found that Mr Segger thought he was ‘ultimately achieving a good thing for the benefit of others’ and that he had ‘sought a form of approval of others’. He accepted that Mr Segger had a psychological condition at the time of the offence and had not been thinking rationally. He observed that Mr Segger had since successfully sought rehabilitation.

12. We respectfully adopt the Magistrate’s view of the matter.

13. At the time of committing the offence, Mr Segger was clearly not suitable to teach. He behaved, in the language of the Act, in a ‘disgraceful [and] improper way’.[7]

    [7]        Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) s 12(3)(b).

14. In assessing the current suitability to teach of a teacher who has committed an offence, we are required to consider when the offence was committed, the nature of the offence, and the relevance of the offence to the duties of a teacher.[8]

    [8] Ibid s 11(3).

15. The offence was committed by Mr Segger over a period of about a year. Although it was not committed for financial gain, it involved sustained dishonesty and it put the school out of pocket by almost $50,000. It was committed in the course of Mr Segger’s duties as a teacher. It would have set a very bad example to the students had it been known to them. We agree with the College’s submission that integrity and honesty are fundamental aspects of professionalism and professional ethics.

16. On the other hand, Mr Segger was affected by a psychological impairment when he committed the offence. The impairment was serious enough to warrant a month’s inpatient treatment, soon after the offence, and then a long period of outpatient treatment. Mr Segger has participated in therapy voluntarily over an extended period. He has responded well to therapy. He no longer poses a risk of re-offending. He has expressed remorse and made full restitution to the school.

17. Despite the gravity of the offence, we consider on balance that Mr Segger is now suitable to teach, having regard to the circumstances in which the offence were committed, the passage of time since then, and the steps taken by Mr Segger to rehabilitate himself.

18. Accordingly, we find that a ground for disciplinary action does not exist under s 92(1)(h). However, we need to consider whether disciplinary action should be taken because of the criminal conviction.

What disciplinary action (if any) should be taken?

1. Mr Segger is now 36 years of age. He has been registered as a teacher for almost ten years, though he has not taught since resigning from his teaching position in January 2008.

2. There is a range of disciplinary action that can be taken by QCAT, including taking no further action, reprimanding the teacher, suspending or cancelling the teacher’s registration, and imposing conditions upon registration.[9] The College submits that the appropriate action is for QCAT to suspend Mr Segger’s registration for 12 months, and require him to complete a course in professional ethics. Mr Segger does not disagree with the College’s submission, except to the extent that he argues that the suspension should itself be suspended.

   [9] Ibid s 160(2).

3. The College has referred us to the case of Pharmacy Board of Australia v Thomas.[10] That case involved a pharmacist who had stolen $93,000 from his employer’s takings over a period of time. QCAT suspended Mr Thomas’ registration for 12 months, with the suspension suspended after three months. The tribunal also imposed conditions including completion of an ethics course. The College has also referred us to the recent case of Queensland College of Teachers v Osborne,[11] where the teacher had committed a $29,000 Centrelink fraud. QCAT suspended the teacher’s registration for six months. The suspension was itself suspended on conditions, and Ms Osborne was required to complete an ethics course.

   [10] [2011] QCAT 637.

   [11] [2013] QCAT 471.

4. The College submits that Mr Segger’s case is broadly comparable with the Thomas case. Mr Thomas had been depressed and affected by personal pressures at the time of his offences. He participated in counselling over an extended period after the offences, and made full restitution. He had continued to work as a pharmacist for six years since the last offence, without incident.

5. The College notes that Mr Thomas was charged with a less serious offence, and was sentenced to community service only. However, we note that Mr Thomas was prosecuted for only $3,000 of a much larger fraud, presumably because of evidentiary problems. We expect that had he been prosecuted for the entire fraud, he would have received a substantially heavier sentence than Mr Segger.   

6. We consider that there are some significant differences between the Thomas case and Mr Segger’s case. Mr Thomas stole the money for the benefit of himself and his relatives. He must have stolen money on numerous occasions. In contrast, we accept that the episode of fraud by Mr Segger snowballed out of an initial lie which he had thought was fairly harmless. Mr Segger’s fraud was committed to enhance his reputation as a high-achieving teacher, but not for any direct financial gain. We consider that the criminality of Mr Thomas was markedly greater.

7. In relation to the Osborne case, the College acknowledges that the offending spanned seven years, a much longer period than in Mr Segger’s case, and with the last offence being more recent. The College submits, though, that Mr Segger’s behaviour was more serious because it related directly to teaching and involved a greater amount of money.

8. In the Osborne case, though, Ms Osborne lacked remorse and insight. She grossly downplayed her wrongdoing. QCAT found that she was not suitable to teach at the time of the hearing, and that she needed to complete a course in ethics to help her gain insight. In contrast, we have found that Mr Segger is now suitable to teach.

9. Studies in ethics will be useful in many cases where teachers have committed an offence of dishonesty, particularly where there is a lack of insight or when there was some subtlety about whether particular conduct was right or wrong. But Mr Segger’s is not such a case. Deceiving a school and a travel agency about financial matters is obviously wrong. This would have been apparent to Mr Segger when he committed the offence. He does not need an ethics course to teach him that fraud is unethical.

10. As noted by QCAT in Thomas, disciplinary proceedings are ‘intended to protect the community not to punish the professional for their misconduct’.[12] Further:

    Professional discipline is not an adjunct to or intended to supplement other processes, such as the criminal justice system. Its purpose and focus is to maintain professional standards and confidence in the profession and to protect the public.

    [12]        Pharmacy Board of Australia v Thomas [2011] QCAT 637 at [27] – [28].

11. Had this matter come before QCAT soon after the offence was committed, we would probably have imposed a substantial sanction in order to maintain public confidence, protect students, and uphold standards. However, given the passage of time, Mr Segger’s rehabilitation, and his present suitability to teach, we consider that no disciplinary action is now warranted beyond a reprimand.