Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FZH - [2025] QCAT 423

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FZH [2025] QCAT 423

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

TEACHER FZH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR249-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

29 August 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Arthur (Presiding)
Member English

Member H. Katter

ORDERS:

1. The ground for disciplinary action pursuant to section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.

2. The teacher is prohibited from re-applying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.

3. Other than to the parties of this proceeding publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the Respondent, the former students or the relevant school, or another teacher other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations as provided under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The parties 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 engaged in inappropriate conduct with students of the school where the teacher was then teaching – whether teacher’s conduct satisfies standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – consideration of appropriate disciplinary action

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – whether non-publication order should be made – where order necessary in the interests of protecting vulnerable young persons

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act2005 (Qld), s 49, s 50(5), s 76, s 97(1)(d), s 97(1)(h), s 97(1)(i), s 97(1)(j), s 97(4)(a), s 97(4)(b), s 158, s 160(2)(b), s 160(2)(d), s 160(2)(j), s 160(2)(i)

Queensland Civil and Administrative TribunalAct2009 (Qld), s 66

Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher VK [2014] QCAT 268

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

D. Silvester, Manager, Discipline and Appeals, Queensland College of Teachers

Respondent:

B. Bezzina, Holding Redlich

REASONS FOR DECISION

An Application or referral – disciplinary proceeding was filed at the Tribunal on 1 November 2024. In part C of that form, as to what legislative provisions provide grounds for taking the disciplinary action, there is reference to sections 92(1)(h) and 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (the “Act”).
Section 97 of the Act states:
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. …
(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.
On 25 March 2025 it was directed by the Tribunal that the ‘application or referral – disciplinary proceeding’ be heard and determined by a panel on the papers and without an oral hearing, based on the filed material and written submissions, not before 4 April 2025. The Tribunal was subsequently constituted for the hearing on the papers on 29 August 2025.
Section 158 of the Act relevantly states:
Decision about whether ground for disciplinary action is established
(1)     As soon as practicable after finishing the hearing, QCAT must decide whether a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established.
(2)     In making its decision, QCAT must have regard to any relevant previous decision by a practice and conduct body of which QCAT is aware.
(3)     Subsection (2) does not limit the matters QCAT may consider in making its decision. …
Section 6 of the Act states that ‘the dictionary in schedule 3 defines particular words used in this Act’. The phrase “relevant teacher” as used in section 158(1) of the Act is in Schedule 3: “ … relevant teacher— (a) for chapter 3, part 1, division 3, see section 73; or (b) otherwise, means— (i) an approved teacher; or (ii) a former approved teacher.” At paragraph 2 of the submissions of the Applicant filed 27 February 2025 it is submitted that FZH is a former approved teacher within the meaning of Schedule 3 of the Act. FZH held provisional registration until 20 December 2023, when FZH’s registration ended, as FZH did not apply to renew FZH’s registration at the end of the provisional registration period. Schedule 3 defines a ‘former approved teacher as (a) a former registered teacher; or (b) a former holder of a permission to teach’. A former registered teacher in Schedule 3 is defined: ‘former registered teacher, in relation to a disciplinary matter, means a person who— (a) was a registered teacher, whether under this Act or a former Act, when the conduct to which the disciplinary matter relates happened; and (b) is no longer a registered teacher.’ FZH is therefore a former approved teacher and a relevant teacher according to the definitions in Schedule 3 of the Act.
Section 92 of the Act relevantly states:
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; …
(2)     The ground for disciplinary action mentioned in subsection (1)(h) is taken to apply to a relevant teacher whose registration or permission to teach is suspended under section 48 if any of the following applies—
(a)the teacher has been charged with a serious offence and the charge has been dealt with;
(b)the teacher has been charged with a serious offence and the teacher is convicted of an offence other than an indictable offence;
(c)the teacher is or becomes subject to a temporary offender prohibition order or interim sexual offender order.
(3)     The object of subsection (2) is to ensure the circumstances of the change are examined by a practice and conduct body.
(4)     Subsection (2) does not limit the application of subsection (1)(h). …
The affidavit filed with the application form included allegations:
Allegation 1
On various … dates in 2021 [FZH] engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or unprofessional and/or sexualised conduct with … students, including but not limited to: …
a. On various dates in 2021 engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or sexualised communication with student … , including but not limited to:
i. Discussed age differences in sexual relationships with student …
ii. Said to student … words to the effect of … you and me … sex …
iii. Told student … about … sexual history including having a …
iv. Told student … that [the student] flirts with [FZH] …
b. On an unknown date around late 2021, after [FZH] touched student … on the buttocks … said words to the effect of …
c. Between … November 2021 … engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or sexualised electronic communication with student … through [social media] messages, including but not limited to:
i. Words to the effect of …
ii. Words to the effect of ‘if you weren’t 14, I’d … ’
iii. Told student that [FZH] had a sex dream about [student]
iv. Asked student … to send [FZH] pictures
v. Discussed with student … [FZH’s] personal Cannabis use
Allegation 2
On various dates in 2021 engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or unprofessional and/or sexualised communication with … students including but not limited to:
a. Discussed with students [FZH’s] personal Cannibis use
b. Discussed losing one’s virginity
c. Discussed lesbians cutting their fingernails so they can finger each other
d. Discussed giving a girl … and getting a rash …
e. Discussed students posting sexualised photographs on social media
f. Made sexualised jokes to students
g. Discussed with Year 9 student … [that student’s] anoxeria, and referred to porn viewing habits during the discussion
h. Discussed with Year 9 student … a rumour regarding [that student’s] sexualised history …
Allegation 3
On unknown dates in 2021 engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or unprofessional physical contact with … students, including:
a. Tapped Year 9 student … on … leg to get … attention
b. Stood next to Year 9 student … so that … knew touched [student] leg
The submissions of FZH filed 28 March 2025 at paragraph 14 state: ‘Disciplinary Ground … FZH makes no submissions on disciplinary grounds and leaves this in the hands of the Tribunal’.
In making the decision as to whether a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established according to s 158(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must, according to s 158(2) of the Act, have regard to any relevant previous decision by a practice and conduct body of which the Tribunal is aware.
As submitted by the Applicant, in Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709, the Tribunal stated at [33]: “ … 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.” “The standard expected of teachers is fluid and informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave”.[1] “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 that it will not be breached”.[2]
[1]Applicant’s submissions in reply filed 4 April 2025, paragraph 14, referencing Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59, [36].
[2]Applicant’s submissions in reply filed 4 April 2025, paragraph 15, referencing Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194, [34]; Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin [2024] QCAT 298, [20].
The Applicant referred particularly to the following previous decisions:[3]
Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241 – IOP was a 27 year-old male teacher with around 3 years’ experience who engaged in inappropriate and sexualised conversations with two students. IOP sent sexually explicit photos to students and a video of him masturbating. The students were in year 12 or former year 12 students at the time of the conduct. The Tribunal considered that his behaviour clearly fell below the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. He was prohibited from reapplying for registration indefinitely.
… Queensland College of Teachers v BNU [2022] QCAT 255 – BNU was 32 years old and had around 5 years’ experience at the time the conduct commenced. The conduct lasted for about two years and related to one student who was in grade 11 and 12. BNU inappropriately hugged the student, touched the student’s bottom on more than one occasion, said to the student “I love you” … . BNU showed no insight or remorse into his conduct. He had been on suspension for 3.5 years at the time his registration was cancelled, and he was prohibited from reapplying for registration for a further 1.5 years.
… Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152 – NRR had engaged in communications with three former students that included references to drug, alcohol and steroid use, intimate and/or sexual communications and the exchange of intimate and/or sexual images. … He was prohibited from applying for registration for two years and nine months from the date of his suspension.
… QCT v DHN [2022] QCAT 406 – DHN was a 41-year-old experienced male teacher who engaged in conduct over a period of approximately 7 months with a 15 year old student. There was a direct teacher/student relationship. DHN had inappropriate and overfamiliar social media communication with the student including offering to supply drugs. DHN accepted that the communication was inappropriate and showed remorse. He was prohibited from reapplying for registration for two years from the date of his suspension.
[3]Applicant’s submissions in reply filed 4 April 2025, paragraph 87.
As to the allegations, the Tribunal is satisfied it is appropriate to find the facts referred to in allegations 1-3. FZH ‘has behaved in a way connected with the teaching profession that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher’. The Tribunal decides that a ground for disciplinary action, being the ground in s 92(1)(h) of the Act, has been established.
FZH submits that if the Tribunal finds that a disciplinary ground is established, section 161 of the Act ‘should be applied’:
Decision about disciplinary action against former approved teacher
(1) This section applies if the relevant teacher is a former 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)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;
(c)if QCAT would have made an order cancelling the teacher’s registration or permission to teach if the teacher had been an approved teacher—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 352 (Decision about disciplinary action against former approved teacher).
(d)make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
FZH submits as to sanction, that:
… Teacher IOP^[[4]] concerns the following factual matrix: … Teacher IOP participated in the Tribunal process and accepted all but one of the allegations, the final allegation was substantiated by the Tribunal. … Teacher IOP provided mitigation material to the Tribunal in the form of a report from a psychologist, however in the report Teacher IOP had downplayed the extent of the allegations. The Tribunal found this demonstrated that he had a lack of insight into the concerns. …
The current matter can be compared to and distinguished from Teacher IOP as follows: … Teacher IOP had more teaching experience than the Respondent. … The conduct of the Respondent is less serious in that [FZH] has not exchanged sexually explicit videos and photos with multiple students. [FZH’s] conduct in terms of messaging only extended to one student. … The current student believed she was in a relationship with Teacher IOP. There was no relationship in the present case. … The material submitted in mitigation by Teacher IOP was concerning as it demonstrated he had failed to take accountability with his psychologist by downplaying the allegations. This is a particularly aggravating feature for a person who is going through disciplinary proceedings and who provided the evidence to the Tribunal as a means of demonstrating insight. This effectively provided a more recent example of a lack of insight. … The conduct of the Respondent sits lower on the scale than Teacher IOP. Indefinite cancellation is the highest sanction available to the Tribunal. Such a sanction should only be applied in cases of the most serious nature. If the Tribunal determines that the allegations are substantiated, it is submitted that the conduct taken at its highest is not to such a level that indefinite cancellation is warranted. … The Tribunal can consider that given the young age and inexperience of the Respondent that the passage of time and having been through the process of these disciplinary proceedings could provide the opportunity for rehabilitation by the time any re-application for registration occurs. …
The case of teacher NRR^[[5]] concerns the following factual matrix … Teacher NRR took responsibility for his conduct and filed an agreed statement of facts. … Teacher NRR was prohibited from reapplying for a period of 2 years and 9 months. … The current matter can be compared to and distinguished from NRR … The allegations refer to the Respondent messaging one current student through a social media platform and the conduct did not extend to exchanging explicit photographs. … The Respondent's conduct involved current students, whereas Teacher NRR's conduct involved former students who had graduated. … The Respondent was significantly less experienced than Teacher NRR. … The relative age gap between the Respondent and the student is significantly less than the age gap between Teacher NRR. … The alleged conduct of the Respondent is more serious than that of Teacher NRR.
The case of teacher BNU^[[6]] concerns the following factual matrix: … Teacher BNU had engaged with a psychiatrist as well as completed courses to demonstrate insight. … Teacher BNU was prohibited from reapplying for a period of 1.5 years from the date of the order noting he had already been suspended for 3.5 years. … The current matter can be compared to and distinguished from Teacher BNU … : The ages of the students in the present case are younger than BNU. … Teacher BNU had more teaching experience than the Respondent and was 6 years older than the Respondent was at the time of the allegations. … Teacher BNU's conduct involved multiple instances of hugging the student over a period of 6 months, whereas the alleged Respondent's inappropriate conduct was a once-off. The alleged contact with the two other students is on the lower level and could be characterised as unintentional. … Teacher BNU was much more familiar with the student and the conduct was indicative of a relationship between the teacher and the student. … Teacher BNU's registration was prohibited from reapplying for registration for a period of 1.5 years having already been suspended for 3.5 years at the date of decision. …
The Respondent's alleged conduct is less serious than that of Teacher BNU noting that persistent intimate physical contact that Teacher BNU engaged in with the student that eventually became unwanted. Although the ages of the students in the present case are lower, the Tribunal should consider that consistent unwanted physical intimacy is more concerning than the conduct in the present case. … The Respondents conduct sits lower on the scale than that of Teacher BNU.
The case of teacher DHN^[[7]] concerns the following factual matrix: … Teacher DHN expressed remorse for his actions and acknowledged that his conduct was improper … Teacher DHN received a two year prohibition period from the date of his registration was suspended, not the date the order was made. … The current matter can be compared to Teacher DHN … :
The Respondent was significantly younger and less experienced than Teacher DHN. … Both cases involved a direct teacher student relationship. … The Respondent has not accepted or disputed the allegations or provided any mitigation material. … The current matter sits higher on the scale than the conduct of Teacher DHN.
The case of Teacher BMT^[[8]] concerns the following factual matrix … Teacher BMT was registered as a teacher for 5 years and was in her early 20s. … The student involved a female student who was in year 9 - 10. … Teacher BMT had previously been reprimanded by the Professional Practice and Conduct Committee in relation to over-familiar conduct with students. … Teacher BMT exchanged inappropriate and over familiar messages with the student … Teacher BMT had discussions with the student about sexual matters and purchased condoms for a male student facilitating a sexual relationship between the 15 year old student and the male student. … Teacher BMT met up with the student outside of school on multiple occasions over two years and allowed her to attend her private residence. … Teacher BMT accepted the allegations before the Tribunal. … Teacher BMT was prohibited from reapplying for a period of 4 years from the date of suspension. … The current matter can be compared to Teacher BMT … : … Teacher BMT was a more experienced teacher than the Respondent. … The students were of a similar age in both cases and involved inappropriate and overfamiliar messages. … Teacher BMT's conduct extended to meeting up outside of school and facilitating a sexual relationship between two students, one of whom was under the age of consent. … The Respondent did not go through a disciplinary process with the QCT and it's alleged that he was only spoken to by colleagues. … The Allegations in respect of the Respondent involve more students than Teacher BMT. … The conduct of Teacher BMT sits higher on the scale than that of the Respondent however Teacher BMT did accept the allegations, whereas the Respondent has not. The Tribunal should find that Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BMT is of the most assistance to the Tribunal in determining the length noting the similarities of the student’s ages, previous warnings and inappropriate messages. It is relevant to note that the Respondent's conduct did not extend to meeting up with the student outside of school which is a more significant departure from the standards reasonably expected of a teacher.
[4]Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241.
[5]Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152.
[6]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BNU [2022] QCAT 255.
[7]Queensland College of Teachers v DHN [2022] QCAT 406.
[8]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BMT [2024] QCAT 94.

FZH submits as to sanction in the submissions dated 28 March 2025:
On the material before the Tribunal, it is within the permissible range to adequately address the issue of sanction as follows: … the Respondent is prohibited from re-applying for registration until 6 June 2027.
At part C of the application form, as to the orders sought, there is reference to an attachment, which states:
The QCT seeks the following orders under the Act:
1. The ground for disciplinary actions against the respondent under section 92(1)(h) is established.
2. The cancellation of the respondent’s teacher registration pursuant to section 160(2)(d) of the Act.
3. The respondent is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely, pursuant to section 160(2)(j) of the Act.
The Tribunal has previously stated as to sanction:[9]
[26] Sanctions in a disciplinary action are not a ‘punishment’ nor are sanctions punitive action against a teacher or former teacher. This is a well established principle in these matters. The purpose of the sanction is to uphold the objects of the Act.
[27] Factors that are relevant to sanction in this matter are as follows:
(a)… breach of professional boundaries;
(b)vulnerability of the students and risk of harm;
(c) experience as a teacher; and
(d)lack of insight into his behaviour.
[9]Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241.
The findings as to allegations 1-3 are the ‘breach of professional boundaries’ by FZH.
There is vulnerability, by reason of the age and year level of the students referred to in the findings as to allegations 1-3.
FZH had been registered as a teacher for some 2 years.
There are no particular submissons made as to insight by FZH, but FZH submits that the Tribunal should place relevant weight on FZH’s age (mid-20’s) and experience (some 2 years).
There are no mitigating factors identified by FZH.
FZH submits that there has been a ‘delay’ which is relevant to sanction. FZH was suspended from employment in November 2021. In June 2023 the Applicant suspended FZH. In July 2023 the Tribunal continued the suspension of FZH. FZH submits that ‘there has been unreasonable delay by the Applicant concerning the date range of July 2023 (date the report was finalised) and November 2024 (date of the Applicant’s disciplinary referral being filed at the Tribunal). Having regard to the submissions as to the delay, FZH then submits that the comparable cases indicate the relevant range of the prohibition period is from 2 to 5 years.
FZH submits that ‘indefinite cancellation is the highest sanction available to the Tribunal and that such a sanction should only be applied in cases of the most serious nature. If the Tribunal determines that the allegations are substantiated, it is submitted that the conduct taken at its highest is not to such a level that indefinite cancellation is warranted. The Tribunal may consider FZH’s young age and inexperience. The passage of time combined with experience of these disciplinary proceedings, could provide an opportunity for rehabilitation before any re-application for registration’.
The purpose of the sanction is to uphold the objects of the Act. The section 3 objects of the Act 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.
The Tribunal considers that FZH has not just failed to maintain professional boundaries, but did so by particularly heinous communications with students who were particularly young and impressionable. FZH presumed to raise highly sexualised topics in a classroom setting and to make sexualised comments to adolescent students. FZH appears to have been oblivious to the inappropriateness of the conduct.
The Tribunal would have made an order cancelling the teacher’s registration or permission to teach if the teacher had been an approved teacher. The Tribunal will make an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely.
On 7 November 2024 the Tribunal ordered that, other than to the parties to this proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information which may identify FZH, the relevant complainant or child, or any relevant school, other than to the extent necessary to enable the College to meet its statutory obligations and as otherwise provided under the Act, particularly under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287. It is considered by the Tribunal that a permanent order should now be made under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).