Queensland College of Teachers v SHV - [2025] QCAT 439

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v SHV [2025] QCAT 439

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

v

SHV

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR017-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

Member Robyn Oliver

Member McLean Williams

ORDERS:

1. No ground for disciplinary action pursuant to s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ('the Act’) has been established.

2. Pursuant to s 159(2) of the Act, the suspension of SHV’s teacher registration or permission to teach is ended.

3. Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify SHV or any relevant complainant, student, former student, school or witness, 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 Act.

4. SHV may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority, or employer, or prospective future employer.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where teacher allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct with students of the relevant school where the teacher was then teaching – where teacher charged with serious offences, yet ultimately acquitted of all charges by a jury – consideration of whether grounds for disciplinary action existed – circumstances where Tribunal concluded no grounds and ordered end of suspension

Education (Queensland College of Teachers)Act2005 (Qld) s 3, s 48, s 75, s 80, s 92, s 97, s 158, s 161, s 285, s 285AA, s 285B, s 287

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

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
OP v Deputy Commissioner Gollschewski [2020] QCATA 163
Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709
Queensland College of Teachers v CMF [2016] QCAT 137
Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194
Queensland College of Teachers v HL [2013] QCAT 631
QueenslandCollege of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59

Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

The Respondent (‘SHV’) is a former approved teacher who held Queensland teacher registration from 28 June 2012 until 15 December 2023.
On 29 December 2021, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘College’) received notification from the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) pursuant to s 75 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) that SHV had been charged with four offences under ss 210(1)(a) and s 210(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (‘Criminal Code’) (indecent treatment of children under 16, child under 12).
Each of the alleged offences concerned classroom interactions between SHV and one particular student, MB, a female pupil aged ten years.
For the purposes of the Act, an offence under s 210 of the Criminal Code is a ‘serious offence’.[1]
[1]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) sch 3 (‘Act’); see also s 15 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2004 (Qld).
On 4 January 2022, the College suspended SHV’s teacher registration or permission to teach in the manner required by s 48 of the Act. On 17 February 2022, the Tribunal determined that the suspension should be continued.
On 10 March 2023, following a District Court trial, a jury acquitted SHV of all charges.
On 14 March 2023, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued a notice pursuant to s 80 of the Act, notifying the College that SHV had been acquitted. This was confirmed for the College when, on 26 April 2023, the College received a National Police Check Results Report from the QPS.
Section 92(2)(a) of the Act provides that the ground for disciplinary action mentioned in s 92(1)(h) of the Act is taken to apply to a teacher whose registration has been suspended under s 48 of the Act in circumstances where that teacher has been charged with a ‘serious offence’ and that charge has been ‘dealt with’. For the purposes of s 92, ‘dealt with’ includes circumstances in which a charge has been dismissed, upon a finding of not guilty.[2]
[2]Act (n 1) s 92(5)(a).
In accordance with s 97(2) of the Act, SHV’s circumstances must be referred to the Tribunal for its consideration, notwithstanding that SHV has already been found not guilty. The combined effect of ss 92(2) and (3) of the Act is that the Tribunal – as a practice and conduct body – must examine the circumstances of the serious offences. In this regard it is conceivable that, even in circumstances of an acquittal, the Tribunal may still conclude that there is a ground for disciplinary action.
Pursuant to s 97(4)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal must conduct a hearing and make a decision about the disciplinary matter referred. Pursuant to s 158(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must decide whether a ground for disciplinary action against SHV has been established,[3] and, if so, determine any sanction to be imposed.[4]
[3]Queensland College of Teachers v CMF [2016] QCAT 137 [14].
[4]Act (n 1) ss 158 and 161.
The standard of proof when deciding whether the ground for disciplinary action is established is the civil standard, informed by the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw.[5]
[5](1938) 60 CLR 336.
It has been said that the purpose of disciplinary action is not to punish the teacher but rather to further the objects of the Act. In Queensland College of Teachers v TSV the Tribunal stated (citations omitted):[6]
The purpose of disciplinary action is not to punish the teacher. Instead, it is to further the objects of the EQCT Act. These include upholding the standards of the teaching profession, maintaining public confidence in the profession, and protecting the public by ensuring that education is provided in a professional way. It is essential that persons registered as teachers do not pose a risk of harm to children. Although punishment is not the aim, deterrence is a relevant consideration. The sanction imposed must provide “general deterrence to the members of the teaching profession and specific deterrence to further irresponsible conduct by the teacher in question”.
[6][2015] QCAT 186 [25].
Grounds for disciplinary action
Section 92 of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action against a ‘relevant teacher’, which is defined in Schedule 3 of the Act to include an ‘approved teacher’ or a ‘former approved teacher’. The grounds for disciplinary action include those identified in s 92(1)(h) of the Act, which specifies:
the person 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;
The ‘standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’ is not specifically defined in the Act, such that an understanding of the meaning to be given to that expression requires consideration of community expectations and standards. In Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong the Tribunal stated:[7]
…the standard expected should be the standard ‘reasonably’ expected by the community at large, as the actions of a teacher may impact directly upon the children of the community; and this in turn should reflect the standard that those in the teaching profession would expect of their colleagues and peers.
[7][2010] QCAT 709 [33].
The standard has also been expressed in Queensland College of Teachers v PPK[8] as being ‘a fluid one’ and ‘informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave’.[9]
Teachers are bestowed with a special trust by parents and the community to act in the best interests of students and to protect them from harm and, with that trust, an expectation arises that it will not be breached.[10]
[8][2019] QCAT 59 (‘Queensland College of Teachers v PPK’).
[9]Ibid [36].
[10]Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194 [34].
When considering the scope and content of the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher it is necessary to bear in mind the objects the Act, which are to:[11]
(a)      uphold the standards of the teaching profession;
(b)     maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and
(c)     protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.
[11]Act (n 1) s 3.
In Queensland College of Teachers v DGM the Tribunal said:[12]
…Teachers hold a special position of trust arising from the nature of their work. In particular, teachers exercise powers that have a significant impact on the lives of students. How teachers behave towards a student may influence that student for life. Consequently, there is a community expectation that these powers will be exercised appropriately…
[12][2018] QCAT 194 [34].
In Queensland College of Teachers v PPK, the Tribunal siad (citations omitted):[13]
In our view there is a difference in power and authority between a teacher and student and generally a high level of trust placed by the student and their family in the teacher. There is also an expectation by the student and their family that the teacher will behave in a way generally expected of a teacher. This trust and expectation exists not only where the student is an immediate pupil of the teacher but more generally…by reason of the fact that the person holds the position of teacher. We are also of the view that the differences in power and authority which exist create an imbalance between the teacher and student…
[13]Queensland College of Teachers v PPK (n 8) [14].
Teachers must not be overfamiliar with students and always maintain appropriate professional boundaries. In Queensland College of Teachers v HL, the Tribunal said:[14]
The proper role of a teacher, though, does not include being the close friend of students. The community does not expect teachers to be aloof, but over-familiarity is to be avoided. Over-familiarity carries a real risk of favouritism, or at least the perception of favouritism, by the teacher toward a particular student, or toward the students within an inner clique. Favouritism is at odds with values required by the Queensland College of Teachers’ Code of Ethics, namely integrity (by acting with impartiality) and justice (by being fair). Teachers are expected to model appropriate language and conduct…
[14][2013] QCAT 631 [10].
The alleged conduct
The four allegations of improper conduct allegedly perpetrated by SHV each arose in a classroom context on 6 December 2021, involving the same female complainant, MB, who was aged 10 at the time. SHV had been working as a relief teacher with supervisory responsibility for the relevant class of which MB had been a student. A summary of the allegations, derived from the QP9 bench charge sheet is as follows:
Allegation One:
The Defendant told the victim child to step closer to him, which she did. The Defendant then put his hand on the top of the victim child’s leg, below her bottom. The Defendant then moved his hand up to the victim child’s bottom and slid his hand up and down once, before resting his hand on her bottom.
Allegation Two:
The Defendant grabbed the victim child and moved her away from the wall, pulling her towards him. The Defendant proceeded to rub/pat the victim child’s bottom a second time.
Allegation Three:
After swimming class, whilst putting her shoes and socks on, the Defendant asked the victim child to go to his desk again, which she did. The Defendant then proceeded to rub/pat the victim child’s bottom a third time, in the same manner as he had earlier.
Allegation Four:
After second lunch the victim child was doing a drawing when the Defendant asked her to come to his desk again and show him what she was drawing. The Defendant proceeded to rub/pat the victim child’s bottom a fourth time, before squeezing her buttock with his hand which the victim child described as having his whole hand cup her buttocks and squeeze.
SHV elected to give sworn evidence during his criminal trial, to the effect that there was no inappropriate touching, and if there was any touching, it had only been accidental.
As to the first allegation, SHV told the jury that MB had come to the front of the class to stand beside him, but there had been no physical contact. As to the second allegation, SHV told the jury that MB had come very close to him as he sat at the teacher’s desk and she had put her left arm on his right shoulder, and her left hip had come into physical contact with him. In response SHV had continued to converse with MB about her need to do mathematical equations, yet without his making any comment about her physical contact. As to the third and fourth allegation, SHV said that MB had approached him for further teaching assistance later in the morning, but he denied any further physical contact between them at that time. SHV also testified that there was no other physical contact between himself and MB, and he denied ever touching MB on either the thigh, back, or buttock at any time in any sexualised manner.
Under cross-examination, SHV was challenged regarding his contact, in particular, with MB’s left hip. SHV stated that his right elbow had come into contact with MB’s hip, solely in order for SHV to maintain MB’s proper attention.
Other witnesses were also called to give evidence during SHV’s criminal trial, including student F, and student S. Both recalled MB standing very close to SHV as he sat at the teacher’s desk at the front of the class, and facing towards the remainder of the class, yet neither student F nor student S observed any improper behaviour.
Mr P, the Deputy Principal at the school, was also called to give evidence. His evidence was that he had supervised SHV’s teaching at the school over the proceeding seven years and that SHV’s interactions with students had always been professional over the entirety of that period.
Given that SHV was ultimately acquitted on all charges, it is likely that his evidence was accepted by the jury in preference to the evidence of MB; or at the very least that MB’s evidence was unable to accepted by the jury.
Does the evidence establish the ground for disciplinary action?
Despite the fact of SHV’s acquittal on criminal charges referable to the same factual claims, the Tribunal is still required to consider whether the claims establish grounds for disciplinary action.[15]
[15]Act (n 1) s 92(5)(a).
In disciplinary proceedings such as these, the Tribunal need only be satisfied on the balance of probabilities on the question of whether SHV touched MB inappropriately, although a state of reasonable satisfaction must be informed by the principles identified in Briginshaw v Briginshaw, in which Dixon CJ observed (citations omitted):[16]
…The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer…In such matters ‘reasonable satisfaction’ should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences”…
[16](1938) 60 CLR 336, 361–362.
In the circumstances of this matter, the Tribunal needs to be reasonably satisfied as to the reliability of the evidence given by the child complainant. In OP v Deputy Commissioner Gollschewski,[17] the Appeal Tribunal observed that working out ‘which witness was more credible…is not the correct approach’ and rather, the ‘issue is whether the evidence supporting the allegation is sufficiently credible to satisfy the Tribunal, on the relevant standard, that the charge is proved’.[18]
[17][2020] QCATA 163.
[18]Ibid [16].
In this matter the alleged inappropriate touching by SHV of the child MB is claimed to have transpired in front of a classroom full of students. Despite that, none of the alleged conduct was observed by any other person in the classroom, in circumstances in which that might have been expected. The claims made against SHV are serious and are made by a ten-year-old child, with no prior history of any interaction with SHV, and in circumstances where the College had not received any prior complaints of unprofessional conduct by SHV at any time since the date of his first Queensland teacher registration in 2012.
Although the criminal charges necessitated proof at the more demanding criminal standard, the Tribunal is now required to deliberate on the question as to whether grounds for disciplinary action are made out in the shadow of the jury acquittal of SHV. That was a finding by community members looking at the same factual allegations and must be given due weight by the Tribunal in determining whether it can be reasonably satisfied that grounds for disciplinary action have been established.
In all the circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that there is evidence that is sufficiently reliable for the Tribunal to be able to conclude that grounds are established for the taking of disciplinary action against SHV. Accordingly, we are not satisfied that any ground for disciplinary action has been established under s.92(1)(h) of the Act. In these circumstances, pursuant to s.159(2) of the Act the suspension of SHV’s eligibility for teacher registration or permission to teach should end, with immediate effect.

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 upon its own initiative.[19]
[19]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66(3).
Both the College and SHV seek the making of a non-publication order.
We are satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that may identify SHV or any relevant complainant, student, former student, school or witness, 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 Act.
Counsel for SHV seeks a further order that a notation be placed on the teacher registration register outlining the outcome of the District Court criminal proceedings, and also the decision and reasons now given by this Tribunal.[20] In the Tribunal’s view, if so ordered, that notation would act in derogation of the putative benefit for SHV of a non-publication order made under s 66 of the QCAT Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal declines to make the requested order for an additional notation on the register, and will instead order that SHV be at liberty to provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory body, or employer, or prospective employer.
[20]Respondent’s submissions filed on 20 September 2024, paragraph 24(b).
The Tribunal orders that:
1.No ground for disciplinary action pursuant to s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) has been established.
2.Pursuant to s 159(2) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), the suspension of SHV’s teacher registration or permission to teach is ended.
3.Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify SHV or any relevant complainant, student, former student, school or witness, 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 Act.
4.SHV may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority, or employer, or prospective future employer.