Queensland College of Teachers v Thompson
[2010] QCAT 608
•22 November 2010
CITATION: Queensland College of Teachers v Thompson [2010] QCAT 608
PARTIES: Queensland College of Teachers v Ms Amanda Louise Thompson
APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR021-10
MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE: 21 April 2010
HEARD AT: BRISBANE
DECISION OF: S Booth – Presiding Senior Member
R Joachim – Member
R Kyburz – Member
DELIVERED ON: 22 November 2010
DELIVERED AT: BRISBANE
ORDERS MADE:
Amanda Louise Thompson is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of five (5) years from the date of hearing.
CATCHWORDS : Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, former approved teacher registration suspended, not suitable to teach, child sexual offences APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The hearing was conducted on the papers in the absence of the parties
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Queensland College of Teachers (“The College”) has applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an order under s.161(2)(c) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (“the Act”) prohibiting Ms Thompson from reapplying for teacher registration or permission to teach for five years, which is the maximum period provided under the Act.
Ms Amanda Louise Thompson is a 30 year old teacher. In December 2008 she was convicted in the Brisbane District Court of maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a child under 16 years. She was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
The history of this matter is as follows:
§ In July 2005 Ms Thompson’s employer, the Department of Education and Training (DET) seconded her to another high school following allegations against Ms Thompson concerning a student at the school at which she taught. The Queensland College of Teachers (the College) was subsequently advised by DET that it had commenced an investigation into these allegations.
§ In September 2005, following a police investigation about allegations of inappropriate conduct between Ms Thompson and a student at the school where she taught, Ms Thompson was suspended from duty on full pay.
Following advice from the Queensland Police Service in March 2006 that Ms Thompson was charged under section 210 of the Criminal Code of 92 counts of indecent treatment of a child the College suspended Ms Thompson’s registration. The suspension was continued by the former Teachers Disciplinary Committee (TDC) in April 2006.
Ms Thompson did not renew her teacher registration and it was cancelled in April 2007 and her name removed from the register of approved teachers.
The Director of Public Prosecutions advised the College in January 2009 that Ms Thompson was convicted of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 and was sentenced to 7½ years imprisonment.
In August 2009, the College referred the matter to the former TDC. In December 2009 the TDC was replaced by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal).
In January 2010, the College requested the Tribunal make an order that Ms Thompson be prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of five (5) years.
The Tribunal notified Ms Thompson by registered mail, that it intended to hold a hearing to determine whether there exists grounds for disciplinary action against her under the Act. The ground to be considered was that she is not suitable to teach.
10. There were no appearances and the matter was dealt with by the Tribunal on the basis of the written material before the Tribunal.
11. This material consisted of submissions and documents provided by the College. Ms Thompson provided no submissions.
12. The tribunal must determine if there is established ground for disciplinary action as provided for in s.92 of the Act, specifically whether Ms Thompson is a teacher not suitable to teach as provided in s.92(1)(h).
13. The College in its submissions assert that grounds for disciplinary action exist for the following reasons:
§ Had Ms Thompson been an approved teacher as defined in Schedule 3 of the Act at the time of her conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the College was mandated to cancel her registration and Ms Thompson would have been prohibited from ever teaching in Queensland again. By virtue of her not renewing her registration, this prohibition is not available.
§ Ms Thompson’s criminal history shows the offending was committed recently and over a period of some two (2) years.
§ Factors relating to a teacher’s suitability to teach are contained in sections 11 and 12 of the Act and the Tribunal ought to take these factors into account in determining Ms Thompson’s suitability, particularly whether an exceptional case exists.
§ Ms Thompson abused her position of trust and authority over the child, the offending was protracted and pressure was put on the child to keep their intimate relationship a secret.
§ The child related sexual offending of Ms Thompson:
“does not satisfy a standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher and Ms Thompson behaved in a disgraceful or in appropriate way that show(s) the person is unfit to be granted registration or permission to teach.”
§ There is no material before the Tribunal establishing that Ms Thompson’s case is an exceptional one.
§ Ms Thompson received a heavy sentence reflecting the gravity of her offending.
§ The College seeks an order that Ms Thompson be prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of five (5) years.
In considering what effect a person’s criminal history has on a person’s suitability to teach, the College is guided by sections 11 and 12 of the Act. It requires the College to consider a person’s criminal history and whether the teacher has behaved in way that satisfies the standard generally expected of a teacher. The College submits that the Tribunal should take the same factors into account in deciding whether Ms Thompson is suitable to teach.
Assessment of evidence and applicable law
In relation to the standard of proof applicable in this Tribunal, the determination of a disciplinary matter is an administrative function where the appropriate standard is the reasonable satisfaction of the decision-maker with that degree of satisfaction varying according to the gravity of the fact to be proved: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-62 (“Briginshaw”).
Ms Thompson’s conviction and subsequent imprisonment are facts to which the Tribunal must give appropriate weight in considering the issue of suitability to teach. Considerations of criminal history relevant as guidance in this matter are set out in sections 11(2) and sections 11(4) of the Act:
11 Suitability to teach—criminal history information
(2) If the college is aware the person’s criminal history includes a conviction for a serious offence, the college must decide the person is not suitable to teach, unless the college is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the person to teach.
Having been convicted of a criminal conviction as a result of child related sexual offending, the Tribunal has concluded that Ms Thompson is not suitable to teach. Given Ms Thompson was in a position of trust and authority as the child’s school teacher; the offending behaviour was over a significant period of 2 years; and the complainant child was pressured to not reveal the offending behaviour this is not an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the person to teach.
Having decided that Ms Thompson is not suitable to teach and that this not an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the person to teach the ground for disciplinary action is established.
The Tribunal notes that the Act provides that when an approved teacher is convicted of a disqualifying offence and receives a sentence of imprisonment there is a mandatory cancellation of the teacher’s registration: section 56(2) of the Act. At the time of the commission of the offences in 2003 to 2005, Ms Thompson was a registered teacher. She became a former approved teacher through the non renewal of her registration.
Where the relevant teacher is a former approved teacher, s161 of the Act determines what the Tribunal can do when a ground for disciplinary action has been established. (This does not include mandatory cancellation of the teacher’s registration.)
Section 161 provides where relevant:
161 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—
. . .
(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 not more than 5 years from the day the order is made;
d) make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
As a former approved teacher where a ground for disciplinary action is established, the Tribunal must decide on an appropriate sanction.
Ms Thompson offered no explanation for the conduct. The jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal is protective, not punitive. There are dual reasons for this. In Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association [1960] HCA 40;
(1960) 104 CLR at 201-202, the High Court said:
Although it is sometimes referred to as the “penalty of disbarment” it
must be emphasized that a disbarring order is in no sense punitive in
character. When such an order is made, it is made from the public point
of view, for the protection of those who require protection, and from the
professional point of view, in order that the abuse of privilege may not
lead to loss of privilege.Teachers have a great community trust conferred upon them. For example, they
are not required to hold a Blue Card (positive notice pursuant to the employment
screening provisions of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000) for the purpose of holding teacher registration. A corollary of these privileges is that obligations are imposed. There is an expectation that they will maintain very high standards.The disciplinary process is therefore partly child protection legislation designed to
ensure that only those suitable to do so work with children.
The Tribunal would have cancelled Ms Thompson’s registration if she had been an approved teacher.
The Tribunal has taken into account the very serious nature of the behaviour, offences and penalty. Additionally that any order is protective and is in no sense punitive in character. No submissions were provided by Ms Thompson as to mitigation of the penalty and the Tribunal could not identify any demonstrated behaviour that would ameliorate a maximum penalty. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has concluded that it should impose the maximum penalty available under s161(2)(c).
Accordingly the Tribunal orders that Ms Thompson be prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of five (5) years from the date of hearing.
0
3
0