Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher R

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher R [2012] QCAT 325

PARTIES:	Queensland College of Teachers (Applicant)
v
Teacher R (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR030-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

K Buxton, Member

DELIVERED ON:

24 July 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Tribunal prohibits publication of any information that may enable the respondent teacher to be identified.

CATCHWORDS:

Disciplinary referral – where allegations that teacher not suitable to teach – non-publication order sought – whether sufficient evidence that the order necessary under section 66(2) QCAT Act

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

By application filed 27 June 2012 the teacher named by the Queensland College of Teachers as the respondent in this referral to QCAT seeks a non-publication order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable that teacher to be identified.
Annexed to the application for the non-publication order is a letter from the respondent’s spouse’s general practitioner which identifies some particularised and serious existing and ongoing health issues of the respondent’s spouse. The general practitioner expresses the view that publication and identification of the respondent would have a significant extra impact on the respondent’s spouse’s health and wellbeing at a time when that person may be particularly vulnerable.
The Queensland College of Teachers opposes the non-publication order for the following reasons:
a)Whilst acknowledging the general practitioner’s opinion, there is a difference between the effect of these proceedings and the effect of publication of these proceedings and, as these proceedings have been published to date, there must be doubt as to whether further publication of the proceedings would endanger the respondent’s spouse’s health;
b)The timing issues expressed by the doctor relate in part to future matters. The application is therefore precipitous; and
c)As the couple are located in a remote community publication may not necessarily affect the respondent’s spouse.
Section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) allows for the making of such a non-publication order. Section 66(2) of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal may make an order only if the order is necessary for one of a number of stated reasons including “to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person”.
In the ordinary course of events publication will occur. A non-publication order is not appropriate if the purpose of the teacher’s application is to avoid the consequences of his or her actions.[1] However in an appropriate matter a non-publication order which prohibits identification of the teacher will be made.[2]
[1] QCT v Stark [2010] QCAT 592.
[2] QCT v A Teacher [2010] QCAT 225; QCT v Teacher CAP [2011] QCAT 451.
In this particular instance, having regard to the evidence of the relevant general practitioner, the Tribunal is satisfied that the non-publication order sought is necessary to avoid endangering the respondent’s spouse’s physical health.
It is therefore appropriate to order prohibition of the publication of any information that may enable the respondent teacher to be identified.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland College of Teachers filed an application against Teacher R, seeking to have information that may lead to the identification of the respondent prohibited from being published. The application was heard and determined on the papers by K Buxton, Member, of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether a non-publication order was necessary to avoid endangering the physical or mental health of a person, as provided under section 66(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). The respondent argued that publication of information identifying them could significantly impact the health and wellbeing of their spouse, who is already experiencing serious and ongoing health issues, according to their spouse's general practitioner. The Queensland College of Teachers opposed the order, arguing that the potential impact on the spouse's health was uncertain due to the proceedings already being published and the remoteness of the community where the couple resides.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the respondent's spouse's general practitioner and the arguments from both parties. The Tribunal noted that while the potential impact of the proceedings on the spouse's health was significant, the College of Teachers raised valid points regarding the timing and necessity of the order. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence from the general practitioner was compelling enough to warrant a non-publication order. The Tribunal determined that the order was necessary to avoid endangering the respondent's spouse's physical health, and it was appropriate to prohibit the publication of any information that may enable the respondent teacher to be identified.

In light of the above, the Tribunal made an order prohibiting the publication of any information that may enable the respondent teacher to be identified, in accordance with section 66(1) of the QCAT Act. The order was necessary to protect the physical health of the respondent's spouse, as identified by their general practitioner. The application for the non-publication order was successful, and the Tribunal delivered its decision on 24 July 2012.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established