Teachers Registration Board of South Australia v Kourlas

This case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court of South Australia by the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia (the Board) against a decision of a District Court judge. The dispute concerned the Board's refusal to register the respondent, Mr Kourlas, as a teacher. Mr Kourlas had applied for registration but failed to disclose two criminal charges arising from an incident when he was 18 years old, involving possession of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and related substances. Although these charges were ultimately withdrawn or not proceeded with, the Board considered his failure to disclose them and the underlying circumstances relevant to his fitness to be a registered teacher.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the District Court judge erred in finding that the Board had unduly relied on the observations of its investigator without independent scrutiny of the evidence, and alternatively, whether the judge erred in directing the Board on remittal not to consider the respondent's involvement in an incident on Hindley Street. The core of the matter revolved around the Board's obligations under the *Teachers Registration Act* (SA) and the principles of administrative law, particularly concerning the assessment of a person's fitness to be a registered teacher and the Board's approach to evidence.

The Supreme Court considered sections of the *Teachers Registration Act* governing the Board's proceedings, including its ability to receive and adopt evidence from other proceedings and its discretion to inform itself on any matter as it thinks fit, while being bound by the rules of natural justice. The Court noted that section 43 of the Act permits the Board to receive transcripts and adopt findings from other proceedings, and section 45 states the Board is not bound by the rules of evidence. The Court reasoned that the judge's finding that the Board was "heavily influenced" by the investigator's observations without independent scrutiny was not supported by the evidence. The Court found that the Board had engaged in its own investigation, including obtaining further affidavits and forensic certificates, and had considered the respondent's explanation. The Court also found that the judge erred in directing the Board not to take into account the Hindley Street incident, as the circumstances of the charges, even if not proven in court, were relevant to the respondent's character and fitness to teach.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Court judge, and remitted the matter to the Board for redetermination according to law, with the direction that the Board was entitled to consider all relevant evidence, including the circumstances of the Hindley Street incident.