Queensland College of Teachers v SWL
[2025] QCAT 468
•12 November 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Queensland College of Teachers v SWL [2025] QCAT 468
PARTIES:
QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
(applicant)
v
SWL
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR055-24
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
12 November 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Senior Member Aughterson (Presiding)
Member English
Member Mott
ORDERS:
1. The disciplinary ground in section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is not established.
2. Pursuant to s 159(2) of the Act, the suspension of the SWL’s teacher registration is ended.
3. Publication is prohibited of any information that may identify SWL, the complainant, any other student or former student, child, witness or school, other than to the extent necessary to allow QCT to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under ss 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Act.
4. SWL may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.
CATCHWORDS:
EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – training and registration of teachers – where teacher allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct with a student in his class – where teacher charged with serious offence and acquitted by a jury - whether teacher’s conduct satisfies standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – whether grounds for disciplinary action have been established
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where publication might lead to identification of child or former student – whether non-publication order should be made – whether in the interests of justice – whether exception needed
Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act2024 (Qld), s 103
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act1978 (Qld)
Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005
(Qld), s 48, s 92, s 95, s 96, s 97, s 98, s 147, s 158, s 161, s 167, s 285, s 285AA, s 285B, s 287, sch 3
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009(Qld), s 28, s 32, 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 DGM [2018] QCAT 194
Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ [2019] QCAT 283
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
Background
SWL was registered as a teacher in Queensland from 25 February 1988 until his registration expired on 5 April 2022. On 21 May 2021, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) received a notification from the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) that SWL had been charged with a sexual assault pursuant to s 352(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (‘Criminal Code’). The alleged offence concerned an interaction between SWL and a 16-year-old student in one of his classes.
On the same day, the QCT suspended SWL’s registration under s 48 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’). The suspension was referred to the Tribunal for a decision about whether it should be continued. On 29 June 2021, the Tribunal continued the suspension.
SWL stood trial in the District Court in Brisbane and was acquitted by a jury.
The matter has been referred to the Tribunal under s 97 of the Act to conduct a hearing and decide whether a ground for disciplinary action against SWL has been established.[1] If the Tribunal is satisfied a ground for disciplinary action is established, it must decide the disciplinary action to be taken.[2]
[1]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) s 158(1) (‘Act’).
[2]Ibid s 161.
Jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide practice and conduct matters referred to it by the QCT.[3] The QCT must refer a practice and conduct matter to the Tribunal if they reasonably believe:
(a)one or more grounds for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher exist, and
(b)the matter is a general matter.
[3]Act (n 1) ss 97 (2), 97(4); Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 9 (‘QCAT Act’).
A general matter is a practice and conduct matter that is not a PC&TC matter.[4] A practice and conduct matter cannot be a PC&TC matter if the relevant teacher has been charged with a serious offence.[5]
[4]Act (n 1) s 96.
[5]Ibid s 95(1)(b).
The grounds for disciplinary action are set out in s 92(1) of the Act. Section 92(2) of the Act provides that the ground for disciplinary action in s 92(1)(h) is taken to apply to a relevant teacher whose registration is suspended under s 48 of the Act because they were charged with a serious offence, and the charge has been dealt with. Dealt with includes circumstances in which the teacher is acquitted.[6]
[6]Ibid ss 92(2), 92(5).
The term ‘serious offence’ is defined by reference to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘Working with Children Act’). ‘Serious offence’ includes a charge of sexual assault pursuant to s 352 of the Criminal Code.
The ground for disciplinary action set out in s 92(1)(h) of the Act is:
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;
A relevant teacher is an approved teacher or a former approved teacher. A former approved teacher is a former registered teacher.[7]
[7]Ibid sch 3.
The Tribunal is satisfied:
(a)SWL is a relevant teacher;
(b)SWL has been charged with a serious offence that has been dealt with;
(c)the ground for disciplinary action in s 92(1)(h) is taken to apply to SWL; and
(d)the practice and conduct matter is a general matter.
The QCT must and has referred the practice and conduct matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal must conduct a hearing and make decisions about the matter in accordance with Chapter 6, Part 2 of the Act.
The legislative scheme
The main objects of the Act are, to:[8]
(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.
[8]Ibid s 3.
A way those objects are achieved is by establishing and conferring upon the QCT functions and powers to, among other things, take disciplinary action against approved teachers and, monitor compliance with and enforce the Act.[9]
[9]Ibid s 3(2).
If the QCT becomes aware that a teacher has been charged with a serious offence, it must immediately suspend their registration.[10] In these circumstances, the ground for disciplinary action set out in s 92(1)(h) of the Act is taken to apply and the matter is referred to the Tribunal to decide whether it is established.[11]
[10]Ibid s 48.
[11]Ibid s 158(1).
The purpose of considering whether a ground for disciplinary action exists where a relevant teacher had been charged with a serious offence and acquitted is to ensure the circumstances of the charge are examined by a practice and conduct body, in this case, the Tribunal.[12]
[12]Ibid s 92(3).
When the QCT refers a matter to the Tribunal, it must inform the Tribunal about the grounds for the practice and conduct matter and the facts and circumstances forming the basis of it. The Tribunal must have regard to the information provided by the QCT in making its decision.[13]
[13]Ibid s 97(4).
The Tribunal may receive in evidence a transcript or part of a transcript of evidence taken in a proceeding before a court and draw conclusions of fact that it considers appropriate from that evidence.[14]
[14]Ibid s 147.
The Tribunal must also consider relevant previous decisions of practice conduct bodies that it is aware of.[15]
[15]Ibid s 158(2).
If the Tribunal decides a ground for disciplinary action is established against a former approved teacher, it may make several orders including an order requiring the teacher to pay costs and, an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration for a stated period or indefinitely.[16]
[16]Ibid s 161.
The Tribunal’s decision is binding on the QCT and the relevant teacher.[17]
[17]Ibid s 167.
The facts and circumstance forming the basis of the ground for disciplinary action
The disciplinary referral relates to alleged conduct by SWL on 2 March 2021 when he was a registered teacher. The alleged conduct which formed the basis of the sexual assault charge as particularised by the QPS was that:
[SWL] allegedly unlawfully when the complainant was leaving the classroom has slapped the left buttock of the complainant after she said ‘thanks sir’ and maintained contact and squeezed her left buttock for approximately 1 minute and has then said to the complainant, ‘that’s [SWL] to you’.
It is clear from the evidence before the Tribunal, there were no independent witnesses to the alleged conduct. The complainant (‘Student 1’) gave evidence at the trial of SWL. Student 1’s version of events was that on the day of the alleged incident she was the last student to exit the classroom through one of the doors. A friend (‘Student 2’) who was with her in the classroom had just exited through another door.
SWL was standing behind Student 1 on the right-hand side of the door and gestured for her to go through the door first. As she exited through the door, SWL was standing behind her. He then slapped her behind, grabbed her a little bit and said ‘that’s SWL to you’.
Student 1 conceded that she could not see him and did not look around when this happened. She also conceded he was carrying ‘stuff he would take to and from class’ including possibly a laptop in one of his hands. Despite her concessions she maintained under cross examination that SWL touched her and that it felt like what a hand would feel like.
There is also evidence before the Tribunal of statements and evidence in chief of other students at the school who describe Student 1’s behaviour and what she said to them describing the alleged incident.
One student described an interaction between Student 1 and another student after the alleged incident. The other student made an inappropriate joke to Student 1, and she said ‘you weren’t even there’ and stormed off. That was corroborated by another student who witnessed this interaction.
When put to Student 1 under cross examination that it was after this interaction that she made her complaint, she conceded that the interaction could have happened, but it was not why she made the complaint. This interaction was not referred to in her statement to police or in her evidence in chief at the trial.
In addition, admissions were made by the Crown at the trial of several behavioural incidents from school incident reports between 1 August 2019 and 15 February 2021 about Student 1. Some of these incidents related to Student 1’s truthfulness about her conduct.
Student 1 made some minor concessions about these incidents but otherwise denied or said she did not recall most of the reported incidents.
SWL gave evidence in chief at the trial. He said that Student 1 was often absent from class. He said on the day of the alleged incident, Student 1 had not attempted to complete any of her work. As a result, he sat down beside her in class and tried to encourage her to complete her work. He said to her that if she did not get the work done, she was likely to fail the unit. When he saw she was working on her computer, he moved on to assist another student.
At the end of the lesson, SWL recalled that Student 2 exited through the back door to the classroom and offered to close it. SWL thanked him. SWL then moved to the front door and held it open with his right hand as it opens outwards to the right. He held his briefcase in his left hand and escorted Student 1 as the last student in the classroom out of the class. Student 1 said ‘thanks mate.’ SWL says he corrected her to say ‘it’s either sir or SWL.’
Student 1 then exited through the door and SWL ‘swung around’ and locked the door.
SWL denied touching Student 1. He said it was possible his briefcase may have touched her accidentally as he swung around to lock the door.
He maintained this account of events under cross examination.
Submissions of the parties
The QCT submissions
The QCT submits that the Tribunal’s task in cases such as this is not to reconsider whether the evidence before the Tribunal establishes the elements of the charged criminal offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it is to consider whether, on the evidence before the Tribunal, the ground for disciplinary action set out in s 92(1)(h) applies. That is, to consider if the Tribunal is satisfied that SWL behaved in a way that did not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
The standard is not defined in the Act. However, the Tribunal has previously said in Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong:[18]
…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 professions would expect of their colleagues and peers.
[18][2010] QCAT 709 [33].
The QCT referred to the Tribunal’s previous decision in Queensland College of Teachers v PPK,[19] where it the standard was described as ‘fluid’ and is ‘informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave’.[20]
[19][2019] QCAT 59.
[20]Ibid [36].
The QCT also referred to the Tribunal’s previous decision in Queensland College of Teachers v DGM.[21] In that decision, the Tribunal said:[22]
…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, the community expects these powers to be exercised appropriately…
[21][2018] QCAT 194.
[22]Ibid [34].
The standard of proof applicable is the balance of probabilities, also known as the Briginshaw[23] standard. The QCT refers to the Tribunal’s decision in Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ where the Tribunal said:[24]
The Briginshaw approach is based on the principle that a court in a civil action should not lightly find that a party has engaged in criminal conduct. The standard of proof does not vary – the civil standard remains the applicable standard. However in applying the Briginshaw principles we must proceed cautiously in light of the gravity of the allegations made against the respondent and we must be satisfied that the relevant evidence has a high probative value, commensurate with the seriousness and the consequences of the alleged conduct.
(citations omitted)
[23]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, 361–362.
[24][2019] QCAT 283 [41].
The evidence must be examined through the lens of the Act which prioritises the safety, welfare and best interests of children and students,[25] and the objects of the Act set out in s 3 of the Act.
[25]Act (n 1) ss 3, 101(2).
The QCT submits that the Tribunal may only make findings against SWL if positively satisfied of Student 1’s credibility and reliability. In that respect, the Tribunal is not making a determination about which witness, Student 1 or SWL, is more credible and reliable. The issue the Tribunal must decide is whether the evidence supporting the allegation is sufficiently credible to satisfy the Tribunal, on the relevant standard, that the allegation is made out.[26]
[26]See the Appeal Tribunal’s decision in OP v Deputy Commissioner Gollschewski [2020] QCATA 163 [16]; Hewett v Medical Board of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 170, [119]
The QCT submits that, given the seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the consequences flowing from a finding that a disciplinary ground is made out, the presumption of innocence, and in these circumstances, the application of the Briginshaw principles, Student 1’s evidence is not sufficiently reliable and credible to make that finding.
SWL’s submissions
SWL’s submissions are consistent with the submissions of the QCT. In addition, SWL submits he has an unblemished record in his 42–year career working in the education industry. On the day of the alleged conduct, SWL was engaging in his usual method of teaching which included regularly sitting beside students in class to assist their learning and circulating the classroom to ensure students remained on task. He applied this teaching approach to Student 1.
SWL’s submits that his evidence should be preferred to Student 1’s evidence because it was not possible for his hand to have made contact with Student 1 in the way she alleges. Student 1 has a history of reported behavioural and conduct issues. Further, the preliminary complaint evidence raises issues about Student 1’s credibility and reliability because of significant inconsistencies.
SWL also raises the need to closely examine Student’s 1’s motivation in the context of her not having commenced the learning task as required, being given guidance by SWL about that task, potential consequences of not having commenced and being corrected in relation to casual comments made when leaving the classroom.
On that basis, SWL submits the ground for disciplinary action in s 92(1)(h) of the Act cannot be established.
Analysis
The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the QCT in respect of the principles it needs to apply in examining SWL’s conduct and standard of satisfaction it must reach before making findings about grounds for disciplinary action. That is, if the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SWL touched Student 1 in the way she alleges, the ground for disciplinary action in s 92(1)(h) would be made out.
That state of reasonable satisfaction must be informed by the principles in Briginshaw in which Dixon CJ observed (citations omitted):[27]
…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” …
[27] (1938) 60 CLR 336, 361–362
The Tribunal is not satisfied that Student 1’s evidence is sufficiently reliable or credible to support the allegation. The evidence regarding precisely what happened when she was exiting the classroom is not particularly persuasive. She conceded under cross examination that she did not see SWL touching her or look around at the time she says she felt contact. She also conceded that SWL was carrying something when the alleged incident occurred.
In addition, at the criminal trial, the prosecution admitted numerous reported behavioural or attendance issues about Student 1, some of which she denied. There are inconsistencies in the preliminary complaint evidence, that is what she said to other students, what the other students reported she said and what she omitted to say when she was reporting the alleged incident.
The same factual allegations were examined by a jury. Although the jury trial required a higher standard of proof, their examination of the allegations and evidence supporting them resulted in an acquittal.
Taken together, these considerations affect the Tribunal’s assessment of the reliability and credibility of Student 1’s evidence.
Conclusion
In applying the principles in Briginshaw, particularly having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and consequences, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence before it is sufficiently reliable and credible to find that a ground for disciplinary action is established.
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.[28]
[28]QCAT Act (n 3) s 66(3).
The parties submit that the Tribunal should make a non-publication order prohibiting the publication of any information that may identify SWL, any relevant students or former students and the school, other than to the extent necessary to allow the QCT to meet its statutory obligations and as otherwise provided for under the Act.[29]
[29]Act (n 1) ss 285, 285AA, 285B, 287.
The discretion to make a non-publication order under s 66 of the QCAT Act is only enlivened if the Tribunal is satisfied the order is necessary because it meets any or all of the criteria in s 66(2) of the QCAT Act, including that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The matter involves a charge for a sexual offence. The parties submitted that s 10(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act1978 (Qld) (‘Criminal Law Act’) prohibits a person from making or publishing statements or representations that reveal the name, address, school or place of employment, or any other particular that is likely to lead to the identification of a complainant at any time. At the time of publication of this decision, the Criminal Law Act has been repealed.[30]
[30]Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act2024 (Qld) s 103.
Prohibitions on publishing identifying matter about a complainant in relation to an alleged sexual offence are now contained in Part 6C of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) (‘Evidence Act’). Section 103ZZN(1) of the Evidence Act provides that ‘a person must not publish identifying matter in relation to a complainant.’ Identifying matter, in relation to a complainant, is defined in s 103ZZL of the Evidence Act as meaning:
(a)the name, address, place of employment or another particular of the complainant or another person that is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant as a victim of a sexual offence or an alleged sexual offence; or
(b)a photograph, picture, videotape, digital image or other visual representation of the complainant or another person that is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant as a victim of a sexual offence or an alleged sexual offence.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate to make a non-publication order. The Tribunal is satisfied it would be necessary to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice and otherwise contrary to the public interest to publish any information that may identify SWL, the complainant or any other student or former student, child, school or witness other than to the extent necessary for the QCT to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under sections 285, 285AA, 285B, and 287 of the Act.
Orders
The following orders are made:
1.The disciplinary ground in section 92(1)(h) of the Act is not established.
2.Pursuant to s 159(2) of the Act, the suspension of the SWL’s teacher registration is ended.
3.Publication is prohibited of any information that may identify SWL the complainant, any other student or former student, child, witness or school, other than to the extent necessary to allow QCT to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under ss 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Act.
4.SWL may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.
0
8
3