Rachelle and Victorian Institute of Teaching

This matter concerned an application by Ms Rachelle for the reinstatement of her teaching registration in Victoria, which had been cancelled by the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT). The dispute arose from Ms Rachelle's failure to disclose certain convictions and charges in New Zealand and Australia, including drink-driving offences and a contravention of a family violence intervention order. The VIT contended that Ms Rachelle was not fit to teach due to her character, reputation, and conduct. The case was heard by Deputy Britten-Jones P.

The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to reinstate Ms Rachelle's registration under section 32(2) of the *Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997* (Cth). This involved assessing whether Ms Rachelle's character, reputation, and conduct were such that she should be allowed to teach in a school, as defined by the *Education and Training Reform Act 2006* (Vic). The court also had to consider the weight to be given to alleged conduct that did not result in a conviction, and whether Ms Rachelle's failure to disclose her offending history impacted her fitness to teach.

Deputy Britten-Jones P reasoned that while Ms Rachelle's convictions for drink-driving offences and the contravention of a family violence intervention order did not reflect well on her character, they were to be given little weight. The court took into account that the drink-driving offences occurred during a period of domestic violence, and the intervention order contravention related to a dispute with her sister and resulted in a fine without conviction. Crucially, the court found that these matters had no connection to her teaching and did not suggest she would reoffend. However, the court found that Ms Rachelle's repeated failure to disclose her offending history, both in New Zealand and in multiple applications for registration in Victoria, weighed against her fitness to teach, as honesty is a fundamental requirement for teachers.

The court ultimately set aside the VIT's decision to refuse reinstatement and substituted it with a decision to reinstate Ms Rachelle's registration, subject to conditions. The court concluded that, despite the disclosure issues, the evidence did not suggest Ms Rachelle would reoffend in a manner that would impact her ability to teach, and that the past offences were not serious enough to warrant permanent exclusion from the profession.