Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher 12

[2025] QCAT 404

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher 12 [2025] QCAT 404

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

TEACHER 12

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR251-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Jennifer McVeigh (Presiding)
Member Lee Benjamin

Member Richard English

ORDERS:

1. The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act2005 (Qld) is established.

2. Pursuant to section 160(2)(d) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), the respondent’s teacher’s registration is cancelled.

3. Pursuant to section 160(2)(j) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), the respondent is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where teacher engaged in overfamiliar, inappropriate, and sexualised conduct – ground for disciplinary action made out – registration should be cancelled – prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3, s 48, s 49, s 55, s 76, s 77, s 92, s 97, s 158, s 160, s 175

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

Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709

Queensland College of Teachers v ATL [2020] QCAT 59
Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194
Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin [2024] QCAT 298
Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241
Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59
Queensland College of Teachers v RTM [2016] QCAT 501
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA [2017] QCAT 224
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher XBW [2019] QCAT 240

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)
Applicant:	In-house legal, Queensland College of Teachers
Respondent:	Holding Redlich

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this decision about?

1. The respondent is a teacher (Teacher 12). Teacher 12’s teacher registration was suspended because the Queensland College of Teachers (College) formed the view that he posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. An ensuing investigation found evidence that Teacher 12 had engaged in overfamiliar, inappropriate, and sexualised conduct. Based on information uncovered during the same, the College believes that a ground for disciplinary action against Teacher 12 exists and has referred the matter to the Tribunal for determination.

2. The questions for this Tribunal are (1) whether the alleged ground for disciplinary action is established; and if so, (2) whether a sanction should be imposed against Teacher 12.

3. In our view, the evidence safely establishes that there is a ground for disciplinary action made out against Teacher 12. The allegations reveal a pattern of appalling behaviour by Teacher 12 in that he is shown to have had a prolific sexual interest in three young female school students or former school students, and a preparedness to act on that interest in flagrant breach of his position of trust. The evidence supports a finding that Teacher 12’s conduct is predatory in nature. Given the gravity of Teacher 12’s behaviour, we find that Teacher 12’s teacher’s registration should be cancelled, with Teacher 12 prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.

What happened?[1]

[1]The applicant’s submissions dated 14 February 2025 helpfully set out uncontroversial background facts in para [2]–[7].  A modified version of the same is reproduced here.

1. On 15 January 2021, School 1 notified the College of allegations concerning Teacher 12 pursuant to s 76 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (Act).

2. On 18 February 2021, the College received notification in accordance with s 77 of the Act.

3. On 26 February 2021, pursuant to s 175 of the Act, the College authorised an own initiative investigation into the allegations concerning Teacher 12.

4. On 8 March 2021, the College suspended Teacher 12’s registration under s 49 of the Act upon forming a reasonable belief that he posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children.

5. On 23 April 2021, the Tribunal (differently constituted) ordered the suspension be continued pursuant to s 55 of the Act.

6. On 28 April 2022, a subsequent investigation into the allegations was completed, and reported that Teacher 12 had engaged in overfamiliar, inappropriate, and sexualised conduct.

7. Based on the materials uncovered during the investigation, the College formed a view that a ground for disciplinary action against Teacher 12 existed. On 28 October 2024, the matter was referred to the Tribunal pursuant to s 97 of the Act.

8. Pursuant to s 158 and s 160 of the Act, the Tribunal is to determine: (i) whether the alleged ground for disciplinary action is established; and (ii) if so, whether a sanction should be imposed against Teacher 12.

The investigation & allegations

1. From March 2021 to March 2022, the College’s professional conduct unit conducted an extensive investigation into Teacher 12’s alleged conduct. This included interviewing student 1, student 2, Teacher 12’s former wife, the director of studies at school 1, and the director of senior school at school 1. In April 2022, an investigation report was prepared. The report totalled more than 500 pages and annexed voluminous interview notes plus primary source materials covering emails, handwritten notes and cards, photographs and other materials exchanged between Teacher 12 and the students.[2]  

   [2]The applicant’s application for disciplinary proceeding dated 4 November 2024 – affidavit of Corporate Legal Counsel employed by applicant dated 29 October 2024. 

2. The College alleges, in summary, that Teacher 12 engaged in the following serious conduct:[3]

   (a)In 2000, Teacher 12 procured a sexual relationship with female student 1 who was also employed as a babysitter for his children. He initiated and engaged in inappropriate, overfamiliar, and sexualised communication and conduct towards her. A sexual relationship continued for several years after student 1 graduated. In 2004, he procured the former student 1 to sign a statutory declaration that he had written, knowing it falsely stated that she had not been in an inappropriate relationship of a romantic or sexual nature with him;

   (b)Between 2013 and 2015, Teacher 12 engaged in overfamiliar and inappropriate email communication with a female student 2 whom he knew to be experiencing challenges, including family issues, bullying, and mental health issues. During that period, he also engaged in inappropriate and overfamiliar conduct by attending the residence of student 2 during the school holiday period and uploading a photograph of himself with the student to form part of his personal online dating profile. Following her graduation, they remained in contact and from September 2016, he engaged in an inappropriate and intimate relationship with student 2; and

   (c)Between August 2015 and May 2016, Teacher 12 engaged in inappropriate and overfamiliar communication with female student 3.

   [3]The applicant’s submissions dated 14 February 2025 in para [13].

3. Overall, the College contends that the allegations disclose Teacher 12’s sexual proclivity towards young female school students or former school students and a willingness to act on that interest in breach of the position of trust he held. The College also says that the evidence established that Teacher 12’s conduct is predatory in nature.[4]

   [4]Ibid [14].

What questions need to be answered?

1. In this application, the Tribunal must consider two questions: (1) whether the alleged ground for disciplinary action is established; and if so, (2) whether a sanction should be imposed against Teacher 12.

What are the answers to these questions?

1. In our view (and we find that), there exists extensive evidence which safely establishes that there is a ground for disciplinary action made out against Teacher 12. The same evidence supports the College’s allegation that Teacher 12 has demonstrated a pattern of appalling behaviour in that he is shown to have had a prolific sexual interest in three young female school students or former school students, and a preparedness to act on that interest in flagrant breach of his position of trust. Given the gravity of Teacher 12’s behaviour, we find that Teacher 12’s teacher’s registration should be cancelled, with Teacher 12 prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.

Why are these the answers to the questions?

1. First, we need to say something about Teacher 12’s engagement in these proceedings. As is customary in matters such as these, the Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions on the application/referral. The College filed comprehensive submissions and extensive evidence in support of the same. Teacher 12, despite being represented by a law firm and put on notice about the College’s allegations and submissions, did not file substantive contentions, including in reply, or otherwise engage with the Tribunal in these proceedings. We are satisfied that Teacher 12 has been duly made aware of the allegations against him and been provided with ample opportunity to respond to, and be heard in, this application. Teacher 12 has chosen to say nothing. That is a matter for Teacher 12. The Tribunal proceeds on the unchallenged material before it.         

2. Under s 92(1)(h) of the Act, a ground for disciplinary action against a teacher includes where a teacher 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.

Standard[5]

[5]Ibid [8]–[12].

1. In addressing the standard imposed under s 92(1)(h) of the Act, the Tribunal’s consistent approach has been to find that 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.[6]

   [6]Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709, [33].

2. Past Tribunals have had no trouble, as we do, in finding that conduct which occurs outside of the school environment, or with recent former students, remains subject to the standards of behaviour generally expected by a teacher.[7] 

   [7]Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59, [35].

3. By virtue of a teacher’s position, disparities in age, maturity and life experience, and the inherent vulnerability of young people, there is a power imbalance between teachers and students which must not be exploited. In respect of former students, this power imbalance continues after the student finishes school.[8]

   [8]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher XBW [2019] QCAT 240.

4. Generally, the standards are tied to the special position of trust bestowed by parents and the community in teachers to act in the best interests of students and protect them from harm.[9] 

   [9]Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194, [34]

5. The College contends that the Tribunal ought to conclude that the alleged conduct occurred.[10]    On the basis of the materials before the Tribunal, including the extensive investigation report referred to earlier, we readily accept that the alleged conduct summarised above did in fact occur.

   [10]The applicant’s submissions dated 14 February 2025 in para [33].

6. The College further submits that we should go on to determine that Teacher 12’s behaviour does not satisfy the standard generally expected of a teacher. To this end, our attention was drawn to s 158(2) of the Act, which provides that the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decisions by a practice and conduct body of which it is aware. The College asks the Tribunal to consider the following matters in which a ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) was established:[11]

   (a)Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin [2024] QCAT 298 concerned an historical complaint involving a teacher who had approximately six-years experience at the relevant time. While overseas on a school trip, the teacher kissed and touched the student over her clothing after they had consumed alcohol together. The student was then aged 15 and was in grade 11. The conduct escalated to sexual intercourse, which was maintained through the following year (grade 12), and then for about six months after her graduation. He denied having a sexual relationship with her or behaved inappropriately. The Tribunal cancelled his registration and prohibited him from reapplying indefinitely. Costs of $5,220.50 were also ordered;

   (b)Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher XBW [2019] QCAT 240 concerned a 49-year-old teacher with over 25 years of experience who held a leadership position. He sent inappropriate communications to a year 12 student. After the student’s graduation, the behaviour escalated, with the communications becoming sexually explicit. The Tribunal cancelled the teacher’s registration, prohibited him from reapplying for registration for three years and six months, and ordered a notation to be made requiring a psychologist report should he again seek registration;

   (c)Queensland College of Teachers v ATL [2020] QCAT 59 concerned a teacher who engaged in sexual relationships with a student and former student. He was aged between 28 and 32 in the relevant period. With respect to the first student, the conduct started while she was in grade 12 and involved excessive assistance with school work, electronic communication, spending time alone with her, and on more than one occasion they had sexual intercourse. The relationship continued after the student graduated. With the second student, the conduct started in the year after she graduated and included sexual intercourse. That relationship lasted for approximately three years. The Tribunal cancelled the teacher’s registration and prohibited him from applying for registration indefinitely; and

   (d)Queensland College of Teachers v RTM [2016] QCAT 501 involved a 35-year-old teacher with about 11 years of experience. RTM engaged in an overfamiliar and ultimately sexual relationship with a student. While it began with the teacher providing gifts to the student and overfamiliar emails, the Tribunal accepted a submission that was a “prelude to the later intimate relationship”: see [11] and [14]. Near the end of her final year of school (and after the student turned 18), the teacher’s conduct escalated. Following sexualised messages, they met for intercourse and other sexual activities on at least five occasions before the student graduated and continued for about six months thereafter. RTM took steps to hide the relationship. The Tribunal cancelled the teacher’s registration, prohibited him from reapplying for registration for seven years, and ordered a notation to be made requiring a psychologist report should he again seek registration. Costs of $5,000 were also ordered.

   [11]Ibid.

7. Overall, having regard to the foregoing decisions, we are satisfied that Teacher 12’s behaviour in this case falls well outside the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. Indeed, there is no other conclusion that can be reached.

8. We agree with the College’s case that, by virtue of Teacher 12’s position, greater age, maturity and life experience, and the inherent vulnerability of young people, there was a power imbalance between Teacher 12 and the students or former students in this case.[12]  In our view, that imbalance is significant in this case especially in the context that Teacher 12’s relationship with female student 2. Teacher 12 knew of student 2’s particular vulnerabilities. That power imbalance continued after student 2 finished school.[13]  By his conduct, Teacher 12 has repeatedly and seriously abused his power as a teacher.[14]

   [12]Ibid [35].

   [13]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA [2017] QCAT 224, [40].

   [14]The applicant’s submissions dated 14 February 2025 in para [35].

9. Accordingly, we find that the ground for disciplinary action pursuant to s 92(1)(h) of the Act is safely established.

Sanction

1. In light of our conclusion above, the Tribunal may take action under s 160 of the Act to impose a sanction on Teacher 12.

2. It is well settled that a sanction’s purpose is to uphold the Act’s objects while providing specific and general deterrence,[15] rather than ‘punishment’ or punitive action against a teacher or former teacher.[16]

   [15]The Act s 3; see also, Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186, [25].

   [16]Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241, [26].

3. In deciding what is the appropriate sanction, the case law suggests that a variety of factors should be considered. These include the nature and context of the behaviour itself, the level of insight a teacher may have about the impact of the behaviour on the students, school and community, what actions they have taken to remedy the behaviour, as well as their teaching history, seniority and any leadership role they may hold. The overarching considerations include protecting students from harm and maintaining public trust and confidence in the teaching profession and upholding professional standards.[17]

   [17]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694, [41].

4. We now turn to consider these matters.

Conduct

1. It was put to us by the College, and we readily accept, that Teacher 12’s conduct falls toward the most serious end of breaches from the behaviour standard expected of a teacher.[18] 

   [18]The applicant’s submissions dated 14 February 2025 in para [40].

2. There are serious features to the nature of Teacher 12’s breaches in this case, in that Teacher 12:[19]

   [19]Ibid [41].

   (a)demonstrates a propensity to pursue intimate relationships with three students and former students;

   (b)purchased alcohol for a student;

   (c)propositioned a student to become a “sexual accessory”;

   (d)kissed and fondled a student his office after requesting her attendance there;

   (e)procured sexual intercourse multiple times with a student;

   (f)continued a sexual relationship a student after her graduation for a lengthy period;

   (g)pursued a relationship with a former student whom he knew to be vulnerable;

   (h)exhibited manipulative and controlling behaviour;

   (i)encouraged a student to act dishonestly in obtaining an 18+ card; and

   (j)procured a former student to sign a false statutory declaration with the intention of undermining legitimate investigations into his conduct.

3. It is self-evident that students should be protected from Teacher 12’s behaviours and the harm that can follow the same.

Insight or remedial action

1. On the material before us, there is nothing to suggest that Teacher 12 has any insight into his conduct or taken remedial action on the same.

Antecedents and experience

1. According to the investigation report referred to earlier, Teacher 12 was married in 1990 and first registered as a teacher in 1996. He had been a registered teacher for approximately three to four years when his conduct commenced in relation to student 1. In our view, by his life experience and training as a teacher, Teacher 12 should have known the parameters that applied to his dealings with students and former students. By the time of his conduct with student 2 and student 3, Teacher 12 was an experienced teacher. This is an aggravating factor. Teacher 12 does not otherwise allege any prior disciplinary history.[20]

   [20]Ibid [45].

Potential harm

1. Teacher 12’s behaviour in this case obviously involves a serious breach of trust, which can lead to genuine harm. The student or former students had vulnerability given their age, immaturity, and apparent limited life experience. The family and personal challenges, as well as mental health issues, experienced by student 2 marked her out as a more vulnerable student. Teacher 12 seriously and repeatedly abused his position of power.[21]

   [21]Ibid [46].

Risk of reoccurrence

1. The College contends that risk of reoccurrence in this case must be considered high. We find this submission compelling because Teacher 12 has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity for sexual activity with students or former students. Teacher 12 has shown a determination to act in his own interests and abuse the trust placed in him as a teacher. In taking steps to manufacture false evidence to hide his behaviour, Teacher 12 has shown he is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to conceal his conduct, which only serves to increase the risk he poses.[22]

   [22]Ibid [47].

Appropriate sanction

1. The College contends that, while some time has passed since the allegations arose, the only appropriate sanction, having regard to all the circumstances, is cancellation of Teacher 12’s registration and an indefinite prohibition on reapplying for registration.[23]

   [23]Ibid [49].

2. In light of what is before us, we view a cancellation and an indefinite prohibition on reapplying for registration as the only appropriate sanction to adequately meet the objectives of the Act. Namely, (a) to uphold the standards of the teaching profession; (b) to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and (c) to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.

A non-publication order issued in the interests of justice

1. On 14 November 2024, the Tribunal made a non-publication order under s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) in relation to this matter. This order remains in place.