Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDO - [2025] QCAT 403

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDO [2025] QCAT 403

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

TEACHER FDO

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR239-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

15 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member P Roney KC presiding
Member N Jensen

Member Robyn Oliver

ORDERS:

1. A disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(b) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established but it is decided to take no further action in relation to the matter.

2. A disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is not established.

3. The Register of Teachers is to be endorsed with a notation under s 161 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) as follows:

(a)     Other than to the parties to this proceeding and their legal representatives, and until further order of the tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent, the student, or the school, other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations and as provided for under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The teacher may give a copy of this decision and the reasons to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.

4.   The Queensland College of Teachers may provide a copy of this decision to any regulating authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.

5.   We grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS – whether a ground of disciplinary action is established against an approved and experienced female teacher – where the respondent does not generally pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS –– where teacher’s registration lapsed and the teacher removed from the register 6.5 years prior to hearing of application – where conduct occurred not in the course of teaching – whether ground for disciplinary action exists – where appropriate sanction discussed

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – SANCTION FOR MISCONDUCT – CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where delay occurred in advancing the disciplinary proceedings – whether orders ought to be made that any future application for registration or permission to teach by the respondent must include a psychologist's report

PROCEDURE – OTHER MATTER – where a non-publication order should be continued, subject to the necessary exceptions to enable compliance with s 164 and s 165 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld)

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3(1), s 3(2), s 97, s 160, s 161, s 164, s 165, sch 3

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s 66

Amador v Amador [2009] FamCAFC 196
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Department of Health v Arumugam [1988] VR 319
Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691
Holder v Law Society [2003] 1 WLR 1059
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69

Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449

Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709
Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194
Queensland College of Teachers v DS [2014] QCAT 373
Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MXQ [2025] QCAT 60

Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ [2019] QCAT 283

Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517
S v R (1999) 149 FLR 149

Sharma v Legal Aid (Queensland) [2002] FCAFC 196

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

On 23 February 2021 the respondent to this proceeding was a teacher (‘the teacher’) who was aged in her 40s. She commenced a full-time permanent contract with the Department of Education Queensland (‘the Department’) in January 2000 and so had been a teacher for some 18 years when things started to go badly for her in 2019.
She was contracted by the Department to teach but commenced special leave, on no pay, on 18 April 2017 and remained on leave until 23 January 2020. She had not contacted the Department following the cessation of her extended leave on 23 January 2020. The Department wrote to her in a letter dated 28 February 2020, regarding her employment in the position as a teacher at a State School north of Brisbane.
Until 9 April 2019 the teacher held full registration as a teacher in Queensland. She was removed from the Register of Teachers on 9 April 2019, as she failed to pay the annual renewal fee, which was due on 31 December 2018. Her Teacher registration was not otherwise due for renewal until 31 December 2020. As a result of her being removed from the Register of Teachers, she was no longer considered an approved Teacher for the purposes of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’).
On 31 March 2020 her employer, the Department, wrote to her terminating her employment contract. It also stated that a Notice of Further Consideration (‘Notice’) had been placed against her employment record. A Notice on an employee's computerised employment record is an internal mechanism to monitor applications of an employee seeking to return to work following separation from employment. The Notice required that future applications for employment with the Department be referred directly to the Executive Director, Integrity and Employee Relations for consideration. This would have made it difficult for her to teach for the Department again.
In August 2018, police commenced an operation to investigate the trafficking of drugs in certain areas north of Brisbane. Her husband was the operation's primary target. On 7 January 2019, police executed a search warrant at the respondent’s residential address. She was home and a search of her person revealed a clip sealed bag concealed in her clothes which contained 1.299 grams of Methylamphetamine. The police accepted that she possessed the Methylamphetamine for personal use.
She pleaded guilty to that charge on 24 June 2022 and was given probation on condition that she must report to the local Probation and Parole office and importantly must attend drug counselling as directed. She does not say that she actually did attend counselling but she has indicated that she had received treatment. There is no suggestion that she has any relevant reoffending since then.
On 8 January 2019, the QCT received notification from the Queensland Police Service that the teacher had been charged with a ‘serious offence’ (as defined by Schedule 3 of the Act) under the Queensland Criminal Code of trafficking in dangerous drugs pursuant to section 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The offence was a “serious offence” as defined by Schedule 3 of the Act and section 15 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld). The respondent was also charged with a substantial number of other criminal offences falling within or around the time of the serious offence. She was jointly charged with her husband.
On 3 June 2020 and 25 September 2020, the Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane “dealt with” the serious offence by the entry of a nolle prosequi in relation to multiple indictments 74/20 and 856/20 respectively. In other words, the Prosecution abandoned its case against her, so it was “dealt with” in that sense with no adverse outcome for her. However, on 23 February 2021, the Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane sentenced the respondent for the possession offence of 7 January 2019, for which the respondent received a suspended sentence of imprisonment of three months with an operational period of 12 months.
The respondent was also convicted and sentenced in the Magistrates Court on 24 June 2022 for a number of summary offences, for which she was sentenced to nine months’ probation with convictions being recorded. The offences were all committed after she ceased being a registered teacher and occurred in a window of activity in June, July and August 2021, some four years ago:
a.    Possessing dangerous drugs (on 6/07/2021);
b.    Possessing utensils or pipes etc for use (on 24/06/2021);
c.    Possessing property suspected of having been acquired for the purpose of committing a drug offence (on 24/06/2021);
d.    Possessing utensils or pipes etc for use (on 6/07/2021);
e.    Possessing utensils or pipes etc for use (on 13/07/2021);
f.     Possessing dangerous drugs (on 4/08/2021);
g.    Possessing utensils or pipes etc that had been used (on 04/08/2021);
h.    Possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence (on 4/08/2021); and
i.     Possessing relevant substances or things (on 4/8/2021).
On the same date, the respondent was convicted and disqualified from driving for three months for an offence of driving while a relevant drug is present in her blood or saliva. These offences were committed during the operational period of the suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane on 23 February 2021. Therefore, the respondent was liable to be re-sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland for committing further offences during the operational period of that sentence. The respondent was also convicted for breaching a bail condition (on 7/10/2020), for which she was fined $400.00 and a conviction recorded. The latter offence was not committed in breach of the suspended sentence imposed by the Supreme Court.
Her registration is and has now been cancelled for an excess of five and a half years. That has meant she has been unable to work as a teacher and derive an income from that source.
In a letter to the Department of Education in 2020 she identified that her mental health had been adversely affected by what had been happening to her and she began the difficult road of trying to get her life back in order. She had her mental health care plan reviewed and then began seeing a psychologist. She was then still living in financial hardship and felt that the way her suspension and termination occurred left her in a dire situation. She said in that letter:
Since I was young, being asked what I wanted to be when I grew up was easy. I had always wanted to be a teacher. It was something that I was truly passionate about and so for 18 years I dedicated a large part of my life to this career. It is so very upsetting when I think about the way I was terminated and the way I was treated. I definitely felt that I was being treated very unfairly and that I was being viewed as a criminal. It has caused a great deal of turmoil in my life and I will never understand how a long-time employee could have been treated with such disdain. I don't know what, if anything can be done for me now as the damage has already been done. I do hope my story may help someone in the future whose life takes a wrong turn to be treated with a little more respect and given the right to fair treatment …
She has said in material filed in the Tribunal that she has come to terms with losing her teaching career and it has had a detrimental impact on her livelihood and caused her emotional turmoil. She says though that she has put this to rest and accepted teaching is no longer an option for her, she submits that “it seems almost cruel to drag her back down a path she worked hard to walk away from”.
She has said in material filed in the Tribunal that on a personal level it has cost her dearly. She lost her livelihood. She was on the brink of homelessness and it remains a real challenge finding decent employment with the police history she has. She has said she has worked really hard to get her life back on track and move forward.
In June this year she started her own business providing lawn care services in the community. It is in its early stages and she has just bought the tools and equipment she needs. She submitted that if the tribunal orders she pays the expenses incurred by the college to investigate her matter and conduct these proceedings, it will greatly impact her current business venture.
She says that teaching children wasn't just a profession for her, teaching children had become a way of life for her. She says she feels much shame and remorse for her actions at that time in her life and understands that her behaviour whilst on leave was still bound by the code of conduct. She says she understands why her contract was terminated and understands why the QCT has sought disciplinary action.

Legislation

Section 92(1)(h) of the Act relevantly provides as follows:
92 Grounds for disciplinary action
(1)Each of the following is a ground for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher—
(h)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;
Section 92(2)(a) of the Act states that the ground for disciplinary action in section 92(l)(h) of the Act is taken to apply to a relevant teacher whose registration is suspended under section 48 of the Act where the teacher has been charged with a ‘serious offence’ and the charge has been ‘dealt with’. ‘Dealt with’ includes the charge being withdrawn or dismissed.
Section 97 of the Act provides as follows:
97 Requirement for College to start practice and conduct proceedings
(1)If the College reasonably believes, other than on the basis of interstate information, that 1 or more grounds for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher exist, the College must refer the matter to the practice and conduct body stated in subsection (2).
(2)The practice and conduct body to which the matter must be referred is—
(a)for a general matter—QCAT; or
(b)for a PC&TC matter—the PC&TC committee.
(3)However, subsection (1) does not apply to a matter in relation to which the College and the relevant teacher have entered into a practice and conduct agreement.
(4)If a matter is referred to QCAT—
(a)the College must inform QCAT about the grounds for the practice and conduct matter and the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the grounds; and
(b)QCAT must conduct a hearing and make decisions about the practice and conduct matter referred to QCAT having regard to the information provided by the College.
Section 160 of the Act provides as follows:
160 Decision about disciplinary action against approved teacher
(1)This section applies if the relevant teacher is an approved teacher.
(2)If QCAT decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established, QCAT may do 1 or more of the following—
(a)decide to take no further action in relation to the matter;
(b)if the teacher’s registration or permission to teach is suspended under section 48 or 49—end the suspension;
(c)issue a warning or reprimand to the teacher;
(d)cancel the teacher’s registration or permission to teach;
(e)suspend the teacher’s registration or permission to teach for a stated time;
(f)make an order requiring the teacher to pay to the College, by way of costs, an amount QCAT considers appropriate having regard to—
(i)any expenses incurred by the College in investigating the matter; and
(ii)the expenses incurred by the College in the proceedings before QCAT;
(g)make an order requiring the teacher to pay to the College, by way of penalty, an amount fixed by QCAT but not more than the equivalent of 20 penalty units;
(h)impose conditions on, or amend or remove conditions on, the teacher’s registration or permission to teach;
(i)make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register;
(j)if QCAT cancels the teacher’s registration or permission to teach—make an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely;
Note—
See also section 350 (Decision about disciplinary action against approved teacher).
(k)make another order QCAT considers appropriate;
(l)accept an undertaking from the teacher.
Section 161 of the Act 2005 deals with disciplinary action against a former approved teacher, as this teacher is. If this Tribunal finds grounds for disciplinary action, it can take no further action, order the teacher to pay costs, or, if the teacher is a former approved teacher, prohibit them from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a set period or indefinitely. It can also make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
The critical issues for determination are first, whether a ground for disciplinary action has been established pursuant to section 92(1)(b) and/or section 92(1)(h) of the Act, namely that the respondent behaved 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 ground for disciplinary action in section 92(1)(h) of the Act is established when a 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 expression ‘standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’ in section 92(1)(h) is not defined in the Act however we accept that it involves consideration of community and professional expectations and standards.
The expression ‘Standard of behaviour’ has been addressed by the Tribunal before. In our view, ‘generally expected’ means by the community and by the teaching profession; Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709 (‘Armstrong’); Queensland College of Teachers v CMF (No 2) [2016] QCAT 290 at [24].
In Armstrong,[1] the Tribunal said:
... 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.
[1][33].
The standard is a fluid one and informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave.[2]
[2]Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59.
In Armstrong, referred to above, the Tribunal also referred to the requirement that ‘the welfare and best interests of children’ be the primary consideration in the exercise of the applicant’s functions and the Tribunal’s consideration of matters concerning the teaching profession.[3]
[3]Armstrong [34]–[36]; The Act s 233.
In considering the expected standard, the Tribunal must have regard to the main objects of the Act which are:
(a)to uphold the standards of the teaching profession; and
(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 manner by approved teachers.
We accept that teachers are bestowed with a high level of trust by students, parents, and the wider community, and with that, an expectation that trust will not be breached. In Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194, the Tribunal said:
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.[4]
[4]Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194, [38].

We accept and apply those principles here.

This application and the orders sought

The QCT referred this matter to the Tribunal in October 2024 under section 97 of the Act by application filed five or more years after the subject event which led to the February 2021 conviction and more than five years after she had ceased to be a registered teacher.
The disciplinary proceedings were referred to the Tribunal under sections 92(1)(b), 92(1)(h), 92(2)(a) and 97 of the Act, pursuant to which the Tribunal must examine the circumstances of a serious charge that has been ‘dealt with’ as defined in the Act. As we have found, the serious charge was dealt with by the abandonment of the indictments containing the serious charge(s).
The Tribunal is conferred with jurisdiction to deal with the matter by section 9 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) and sections 93, 95, 96 and 97 of the Act. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the respondent is a former approved teacher in Queensland.[5]
[5]See definition in Schedule 3 of the Act.
In the application the applicant seeks orders that the disciplinary grounds in sections 92(1)(b) and 92(1)(h) of the Act are established. It also seeks an order pursuant to section 161(2)(d) of the Act, that the following notation is entered in the register of approved teachers:
i) Any future application for registration or permission to teach by the respondent must include a psychologist's report, satisfactory to the applicant, providing an assessment as to whether the psychologist is satisfied that the respondent has adequately understood and addressed the following matters:
(1)her general suitability to teach and work in a child related field;
(2)current and historic issues with drug use and/or drug addiction;

(3)awareness of behaviour, including behaviour in the private sphere which may compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
(4)an in-depth examination of the extent and nature of the student, parental and community trust invested in a teacher;
(5)understanding of and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
(6)any recommendations whether any further conditions of registration relevant to suitability should be imposed.

ii)     The report must indicate that the psychologist was provided with a copy of the Tribunal's decision and reasons and the College's referral.
iii)     The report must include the duration and frequency of visits and details of any testing that was undertaken.
iv)     The respondent must bear all costs of, and associated with, compliance with these orders.

The Tribunal is required to determine whether a ground for disciplinary action is established under section 158(1) of the Act; and if so, whether a sanction should be imposed on the Respondent under section 161 of the Act, as the teacher is now a former approved teacher.
In that regard we note that the applicant does not submit that there should be any sanction imposed, and nor do we consider that one ought to be. The issue seems to be just whether any future application for registration or permission to teach by the respondent must include a psychologist’s report (‘the psychologist’s report requirement’) setting out the matters contended for.
The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(b) of the Act is established when ‘the relevant teacher has been convicted of an indictable offence that is not a serious offence, or an offence against this Act, except if, in relation to the conviction, the teacher becomes a relevant excluded person’. We accept that the respondent does not meet the definition of a ‘relevant excluded person.’
We find that on 23 February 2021, the respondent entered a guilty plea and was convicted of an indictable offence that is not a ‘serious offence’ namely possessing a dangerous drug, in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The applicant submits that the ground under section 92(1)(b) of the Act is established. We accept that to be so, however the outcome that flows from that was no sanction other than the psychologist's report requirement.
We were referred to no authority as to when and in what circumstances it is appropriate to order anything like the psychologist's report requirement.
In a decision of this Tribunal this year,[6] it was held in relation to similar orders that were sought, that it was not considered that such a formulaic psychologist's report addressing those matters was either warranted or justified, in circumstances where a teacher’s ability to teach will depend on the subjective view of whether a report is satisfactory to some person unidentified at Queensland College of Teachers, having regard to the process the respondent there had just been through to arrive at the findings made that the teacher had acted inappropriately.
[6]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MXQ [2025] QCAT 60.
As to the applicant’s general suitability to teach and work in a child related field, there is nothing which reliably indicates that she is not a suitable person to do so. The relevant conduct had nothing to do with teaching or engaging with students. There is no suggestion that she has or may have any current and historic issues with drug use and/or drug addiction. She actually says she does not plan to go back to teaching, but should she seek to do so, the applicant is more than capable of making appropriate enquiry as to her suitability.
Under section 11 of the Act headed “Suitability to teach—police information” the applicant has broad powers to enquire when considering whether a person is suitable to teach, and matters the applicant must have regard to. Under section 12 headed “Suitability to teach—other considerations”, the applicant has wide powers in considering whether a person is suitable to teach and may have regard to any other matter the college considers relevant, even if the matter happened outside the State. In our view the psychologist's report requirement would serve no useful purpose and further would burden her financially in a way which would provide a bar to her getting such a report.
Again, in light of her having reformed her life, putting that period a significant number of years ago behind her and receiving her own treatment by a psychologist and been directed to undertake drug counselling, we see no useful purpose in making such an order. She has a high degree of self-awareness of the situation she got herself into and its implications for her as a teacher.

Section 92(1)(h) of the Act and a finding of behaviour that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher

Section 92(2)(a) of the Act deems that ‘the ground for disciplinary action mentioned in subsection (l)(h) is taken to apply to a relevant teacher whose registration or permission to teach is suspended under section 48 of the Act if any of the following applies— (a) the teacher has been charged with a serious offence and the charge has been ‘dealt with’.
The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Act is established when ‘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’. Section 92(3) of the Act states that the object of section 92(2) is to ensure the circumstances of the charge ‘are examined by a practice and conduct body.’
As we have said, on 8 January 2019, the respondent was charged with a serious offence, but that or those offences were never pressed and she was discharged in respect of them when a nolle prosequi was entered in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 3 June 2020 and 25 September 2020 respectively.
The applicant submits that the issue is whether a ground under section 92(1)(h) in relation to the serious offence of drug trafficking which was nollied is also established. The applicant submits that the filed material (which it did by attaching documentary hearsay material) obtained from prosecuting authorities demonstrates that the respondent resided at a premises where a substantial amount of drugs (including 7.8 grams of MSM Crystals as well as cannabis) and drug related paraphernalia were located.
The applicant concedes that the standard of proof that it must meet is the civil standard, applying the principles to be derived from the decision in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 (‘Briginshaw’). Hence the Tribunal must decide whether it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegations against the respondent have been made out, having regard to those principles.
The applicant refers to what was said in Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ [2019] QCAT 283 at [41], where the panel said in this context:
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.

Actually, the principles apply to not only allegations of criminal conduct, although we have here such an allegation in that assault is alleged. Briginshaw solely concerned proof of adultery in divorce proceedings. However, Briginshaw’s later application was not so limited. Beginning with the High Court’s unanimous application of the principle to murder allegations in Helton v Allen,[7] it was applied to a broad range of allegations including fraud, discrimination workplace and sexual misconduct,[8] but also to other kinds of serious allegations.
[7](1940) 63 CLR 691, 696 (Rich J), 701 (Starke J), 711–12 (Dixon, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ).
[8]See, eg, Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517, 521 (Barwick CJ, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ); Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449, 449–50 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ). See, eg, Department of Health v Arumugam [1988] VR 319, 331 (Fullagar J); Sharma v Legal Aid (Queensland) [2002] FCAFC 196, [40] (Heerey, Mansfield and Hely JJ); M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69, 76–7 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ); S v R (1999) 149 FLR 149, 173 [109] (Kay, Holden and Mullane JJ); Amador v Amador [2009] FamCAFC 196, [86] (May, Coleman and Le Poer Trench JJ).
We are not satisfied that the serious offence of drug trafficking which was nollied is established on the evidence. The respondent denies having engaged in those acts. She contends that she was charged to put pressure on her to assist with the prosecution of her husband.
The standard imposed by s 92(1)(h) of the Act is not defined. However, we accept that the Tribunal will find assistance in the objects of the Act, which are to uphold the standards of the teaching profession, to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession, and to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.
Section 233 of the Act provides that the primary consideration of the applicant under the Act is the welfare and best interests of children. The applicant submits that this is a relevant consideration in determining the standard expected of teachers’ behaviour and that the Tribunal must examine the circumstances and decide whether it is satisfied that the respondent behaved in a way that did not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
It is by no means obvious that any person found with a relatively small quantity of the illicit drug for personal use more than five years ago, absent more should be treated as a person who now does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
Having regard to the authorities cited earlier 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.
There has not been a contested hearing in any Court or Tribunal in relation to her role or responsibility, if any, in relation to that drug material in 2018 and 2019 being found. We can however be confident that the Director of Prosecutions was satisfied that none of the charges that were brought in relation to what was found there had sufficient prospects of success to proceed in front of a jury. It is not the task of this Tribunal to conduct an on the papers assessment of the veracity of that material to conclude that she committed that offence, or was present in a household where someone else was committing drug related offences.
She pleaded guilty in February 2021 to that one count of possession which occurred in January 2019. She was given a suspended sentenced in a way that expected her rehabilitation. The June 2022 convictions for drug related offences in June 2021 to which she pleaded guilty involved her being sentenced in a way that required her rehabilitation and counselling.
We were referred to a decision of this Tribunal in Queensland College of Teachers v DS [2014] QCAT 373, where a teacher was convicted of possessing and supplying methylamphetamine. The Tribunal found that she was remorseful and had taken significant steps to rehabilitate herself. It was submitted that the Tribunal there had noted that 'the nature of the drug offence that is the misuse of methylamphetamine is repugnant to the role model that teachers should represent particularly given the notoriety of the destructiveness of that drug’. In those circumstances denunciation of such conduct should be reflected in the sanction. That teacher was also convicted of dishonesty offences.
The Tribunal actually said after an on the papers hearing, and without expanding on the basis for the finding, that:
[8]     The Tribunal accepts that DS' conduct in the possession and supply of methylamphetamine amounts to conduct that falls short of what is expected of a teacher. A teacher is in the position of a role model to their students. As noted by the QCT the destructive role of methylamphetamine in the community is well known.
[9]     It appears from the sentencing remarks of the Supreme Court Judge that after DS was charged with the drug offences, she was placed on the QMERIT program. This is the Queensland Magistrates early referral into treatment program. It is noted that she was employed to teach during this time (November/December 2011) but also continued to drink and take drugs.
[10]    The Tribunal also accepts that DS' conduct in engaging in fraudulent behaviour falls short of the level of integrity and honesty expected of a professional in the teaching role.
[11]    These offences occurred in 2011/2012. The Tribunal must decide whether DS is unsuitable to teach now.
There, the respondent teacher started to use cocaine and amphetamines. She handed over significant sums of money to this acquaintance and was tempted to make the money back by becoming involved in his drug activities. She was charged in August 2011 and commenced on the QMERIT program in October 2011. She was drinking and taking drugs during this period whilst on the QMERIT program.
The findings about suitability were partly based on the fact that the teacher herself did not urge the Tribunal to find that she is currently suitable to teach but instead she acknowledged the likelihood of a suspension. The Tribunal found that given the seriousness and recency of the unsatisfactory conduct the subject of the criminal convictions she is currently unsuitable to teach. The offences were in 2011 and 2012, and this was in 2014 that the matter was being heard.
That statement about that drug being repugnant to the role model that teachers should represent, particularly given the notoriety of the destructiveness of that drug, should not be treated as a broad statement of fact that mere possession of and supplying methylamphetamine establishes that a teacher has behaved 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 present applicant was not convicted of, or in the end even prosecuted for supplying methylamphetamine. The supplying of drugs is a more serious offence than mere possession for personal use.
One could justifiably say that there is notoriety as to the destructiveness of alcohol and nicotine in our health community. It could not be suggested that asserted notoriety about a drug ought to lead to a finding that teachers who use them engage in behaviour that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
In the event that the Tribunal had been reasonably satisfied that a ground for disciplinary action exists under section 92(1)(h) of the Act, and we are not so satisfied, the disciplinary action available to the Tribunal is provided by section 161 of the Act.
Since the applicant does not submit that any disciplinary action should be taken, even had we been persuaded that a ground for disciplinary action exists under section 92(1)(h) of the Act, we would not have imposed a disciplinary sanction in the circumstances.

Non-publication

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.[9] The Tribunal may make such an order if it considers it is necessary to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person, to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest or for any other reason in the interests of justice. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to continue the non-publication order subject to the necessary exceptions to permit the QCT to comply with sections 164 and 165 of the Act.
[9]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66(1), (2).
The Tribunal considers that in the public interest a non-publication order should be made under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), to ensure that Teacher FDO, any relevant child, Teacher FDO’s employing authority, or the school are not identified. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of any information that could identify Teacher FDO, any relevant child, Teacher FDO’s employing authority or the school.
The College submitted that if a non-publication order was made, an exception be applied which enables the sharing of information for certain purposes. We agree and have expressed the non-publication order accordingly.

Orders

For the reasons that we have given, we make the following orders;
1.A disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(b) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established but it is decided to take no further action in relation to the matter.
2.A disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is not established.
3..The Register of Teachers is to be endorsed with a notation under s 161of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) as follows:
(a) Other than to the parties to this proceeding and their legal representatives, and until further order of the tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent, the student, or the school, other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations and as provided for under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The teacher may give a copy of this decision and the reasons to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.
4.The Queensland College of Teachers may provide a copy of this decision to any regulating authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.