Doyle v Secretary, NSW Department of Education [2026] NSWIRComm 1017

(1) The School is located in the town of Sanctuary Point on the South Coast of NSW. The town has a population of around 7,900 people.

(2) The School is the only public primary school in the township.

(3) The School contains 417 enrolled students (as at 27 February 2026). Amongst that student population there are seven support classes catering for children with a range of "additional learning and behavioural needs".

1. The findings of misconduct leading top the demotion (broadly described) relate to alleged ongoing noncompliance with mandatory departmental guidelines, inadequate supervision and control measures in connection with safety of students and staff, and failures to appropriately record and escalate incidents (some involving injury and aggressive behaviour), associated with the presence of support dogs (owned by the Appellant) at the school.
2. Section 164A(3) of the IR Act provides:

"The Commission, other than in Court Session, may make any non-disclosure order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice."

1. A "non-disclosure order" is defined in s 164A(1) to be:

"(a) an order prohibiting or restricting -

(i) the disclosure of the name, address, picture or any other material that identifies, or may lead to the identification of, any person (whether or not a party to proceedings before the Commission or a witness summoned by, or appearing before, the Commission), or

(ii) the doing of any other thing that identifies, or may lead to the identification of, any such person,

(b) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication or broadcast of any report of proceedings before the Commission,

(c) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication of evidence given before the Commission, whether in public or in private, or of matters contained in documents lodged with the Commission or received in evidence by the Commission,

(d) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure to some or all of the parties to the proceedings of evidence given before the Commission, or of the contents of a document lodged with the Commission or received in evidence by the Commission, in relation to the proceedings."

1. Section 164A of the IR Act affords the Commission a discretion to make a non-disclosure order in certain circumstances. The requirement that the Commission be satisfied that a non-disclosure order is "necessary ...in the interests of justice" reflects the foundational proposition that proceedings before the Commission are and should remain public (see Secretary of the Department of Education v X [2023] NSWIRComm 1061 at [35]). As observed by the Full Bench in Commissioner of Police v Robbs (No 2) [2022] NSWIRComm 1039 at [145]):

"Open justice is one of the fundamental attributes of a fair trial and a matter that must be weighed in considering the interests of justice. That the administration of justice must take place in open court is a "fundamental rule of the common law": John Fairfax & Sons Limited v Police Tribunal of NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 465, [476]-[477] (McHugh JA, Glass JA agreeing). The High Court has said that "the rationale of the open court principle is that court proceedings should be subjected to public and professional scrutiny, and courts will not act contrary to the principle save in exceptional circumstances": Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao [2015] HCA 5; (2015) 316 ALR 378, [44] (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ). The Full Bench in Smidmore referred to this as the paramount consideration.

1. A convenient summary of principle (albeit not exhaustive) in the application of the discretion provided by s 164A can be found in the decision of the Full Bench in Dr A v Health District [2014] NSWIRComm 28; (2014) 244 IR 208 at [47] - [48], and in the more recent discussion of the Full Bench in Secretary of the Department of Education v X [2023] NSWIRComm 1061 at [30] - [49]. Importantly, mere reputational harm, distress or embarrassment is not a proper foundation for an Order under s 164A(3) of the IR Act: see Secretary of the Department of Education v X at [36] - [37], and the cases referred to therein.
2. If orders are to be made pursuant to s 164A of the IR Act they should be clearly expressed (to ensure there is no confusion as to their operation), and they should be no wider, and operate for no longer, than reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose for which they are made.
3. The Appellant did not oppose the Non-Disclosure Orders sought by the Respondent. Whilst a relevant consideration, consent of an opponent is not sufficient to justify the making of a non-disclosure Order (see for example, Banozic v Industrial Relations Secretary in respect of the Department of Communities and Justice (Corrective Services NSW) (No 2) [2023] NSWIRComm 1042).
4. There are a number of factual and legal disputes that will need resolution to properly dispose of the substantive proceedings. Those factual and legal disputes will require, amongst other things:

(1) The identification of the School and school community in which the Appellant lived and worked, including the identification of a number of individuals, a number of whom are young children, none of whom are party to the proceedings.

(2) An examination of the conduct of the Applicant and others who had a connection (of various kinds) with the School and the support dogs, including the Appellant's former colleagues, students and parents of students. I accept the evidence of Ms Edwards that the evidence filed on behalf of the Respondent includes:

(a) the names of current and/or former primary school students of the School;

(b) evidence from parents of former primary school students of the School;

(c) photographs of a former primary school student of the School;

(d) sensitive medical information of current and/or former students of the School; and

(e) communications, statements and other records containing information and opinions about current and/or former students of the School, including references to their complex behavioural, educational and medical needs.

1. In weighing up the fundamental public interest in maintaining a system of open justice against the interests of the Respondent (whose interests are really to (a) ensure the proceedings do not have an adverse impact on persons not party to the proceedings, and (b) to ensure it can continue to perform its functions effectively, including obtaining assistance from parents and students in proceedings such as this), I am satisfied it is necessary to make the non-disclosure orders in the interests of justice.
2. Given there is no active contest around the making of the Non-Disclosure Orders, it is unnecessary to set out my reasoning in detail.

1. The Commission makes the following Orders pursuant to s 164A of the IR Act:

(1) Subject to order 5 below, and pursuant to s. 164A(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, the Commission prohibits the disclosure of the name, address, picture or any other material that identifies, or may lead to the identification of, or the doing of any other thing that identifies, or may lead to the identification of any former or current student of Sanctuary Point Public School identified in the evidence, submissions or any other document filed in proceedings No. 2026/00026371.

(2) Subject to order 5 below, and pursuant to s. 164A(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, the publication of evidence, submissions or any other document filed in proceedings No. 2026/00026371 is prohibited to the extent that it may lead to the identification of any former or current student of Sanctuary Point Public School identified in the material.

(3) Access to the Commission's file in proceedings No. 2026/00026371 is restricted, such that, if a third party seeks access to the file, the parties will first be consulted by the Industrial Relations Registrar to determine whether there is any objection to access being granted before any determination on access is made.

(4) These orders will remain in force for 15 years unless varied or rescinded by the Commission.

(5) Nothing in these orders:

(a) prevents the disclosure of any information or material to the New South Wales Educational Standards Authority in compliance with:

(i) a requirement to make mandatory notifications in accordance with section 42B of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004; or

(ii) a requirement to disclose relevant information in accordance with section 7 of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004;

(b) prevents the use or disclosure by the New South Wales Educational Standards Authority of information or material provided in that manner in the exercise of the New South Wales Educational Standards Authority's functions under the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004; or

(c) prevents the Appellant, Ms Belinda Doyle, or the Respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Education, from disclosing information or material that is the subject of the above orders to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal or any other court for the purposes of any review or appeal of a decision by the New South Wales Educational Standards Authority in accordance with Part 4 of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004.

[1] Confirmed in an email to the Commission on 4 March 2026, advising the Appellant consents to the making of the non-disclosure Orders sought.