Queensland College of Teachers v EMM [2026] QCAT 128

(a) a ground for disciplinary action against EMM has been established; and

(b) if so, whether EMM should be sanctioned.

[3] The College submits a ground for disciplinary action against EMM exists because he behaved in way that did not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher imposed by s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ('EQCT Act').

[4] The particulars of EMM's behaviour are contained in an attachment to the College's referral/application.[1] An extract of the grounds is set out below. It includes amendments to the grounds which the parties have agreed between themselves.

Disciplinary Grounds and Particulars

Ground 1 - it is alleged that whilst a registered teacher employed at State High School A, the respondent, on unknown dates between 16 November 2012 and May 2013, engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or intimate communication with former student A, including but not limited to:

(a) On or about 16 November 2012, became Facebook friends with former student A;

(b) On 17 November 2012, posted on former student A's Facebook page wishing her a happy birthday;

(c) Following 16 November 2012, commenced direct messaging with former student A via Facebook Messenger (or equivalent), with conversations including but not limited to:

1. Telling former student A that he wanted to kiss her following a drive together;
2. Asking former student A if she was a virgin and seeking details about her sex life;
3. Told former student A that he kept cannabis in his bongo drum, and offered for her to attend his apartment and smoke it with him;

(d) On unknown dates, transported former student A from her home in Clontarf to locations including, but not limited to, Pelican Park Clontarf.

Ground 2 - it is alleged that whilst a registered teacher employed at State High School A, the respondent, on unknown dates between 16 November 2012 and 31 July 2013, engaged in overfamiliar and/or inappropriate sexualised conduct towards former student B, including:

(a) On an unknown date prior to after former student B's graduation on 16 November 2012, became Facebook friends with her, and commenced exchanging direct messages via Facebook Messenger;

(b) On unknown dates following her graduation, picked former student B up from her home in Kippa Ring and socialised with her at locations including but not limited to his home and/or shopping centres;

(c) On an unknown date between 29 November 2012 and 11 February 2013 (inclusive) attended a cinema and viewed 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' with former student B;

(d) Following her graduation, engaged in sexual intercourse with former student B at his home on multiple occasions both before and after her 18th birthday on 4 March 2013.

Ground 3 - it is alleged that whilst a registered teacher employed at State High School A, the respondent, in 2013, engaged in overfamiliar and/or inappropriate and/or sexualised conduct towards former student C, including:

(a) Between 12 March 2013 and 16 May 2013 (inclusive) exchanged sexualised Facebook Messenger communications, including attempting to meet for the purpose of sexual activity and/or intimate contact;

(b) Kissed former student C on the lips after dropping her home from an ice cream date at Cold Rock, North Lakes.

Ground 4 - it is alleged that whilst a registered teacher employed at State High School A, the respondent, on various dates between 20 November 2015 7 September 2017 and 11 December 2017, engaged in overfamiliar and/or inappropriate and/or sexualised conduct towards former student D, including:

(a) Between 7 September 2017 and 11 December 2017 (inclusive), engaged in sexualised Facebook Messenger conversations with former student D, including but not limited to:

1. Discussing their sexual preferences and history;
2. Discussing their sexual attraction to each other while she was a student;
3. Telling her she was hot, and he would have his way with her.
4. Sending her a message that read "I can't stop thinking about sucking and licking and biting your boobs now though..."
5. Sending her a message that read "God I wish I could fill your pussy with my cum right now".

(b) Exchanged sexualised images via Facebook Messenger with former student D, including:

1. On 20 November 2017, received a nude image of her, following his request to show him her "physique";
2. On 20 November 2017, sent a shirtless image of himself;
3. Between 28 November 2017 and 11 December 2017 (inclusive), received three naked images from her;
4. On 11 December 2017, sent a photo of an erect penis after stating "you should see how big and hard I am".

(c) On or about 7 September 2017, had sexual intercourse with former student D after collecting her from Boondall Train Station.

[5] On 17 February 2025, the parties participated in a compulsory conference where the parties reached an agreement about sanction.

[6] EMM's responses to the allegation of the College are contained in his statement sworn on 26 March 2025. He relevantly deposes:

(a) He unreservedly accepts the allegations.[2]

(b) He has been married since November 2019 and has a two-year-old daughter with his wife.

(c) He has been employed as a data analyst since October 2023. Prior to that he worked as a teacher from 2011 to September 2023.

(d) He is deeply remorseful and proffers no excuses to justify his actions.

(e) He was inexperienced and naïve but now understands that engaging with a former student is 'one of the grey areas discussed in the Guidelines' and he should have sought guidance from his supervisors before considering any relationship with a former student.

(f) Concerning Grounds 1 and 3, student C was never a student at the school while he was teaching there.

(g) Concerning student D, he was experiencing personal difficulties after recently breaking up with his partner.

(h) He experienced 'significant distress, regret, shame, anxiety and depression' when the allegations first arose. He sought treatment from Dr Hamish Love, Psychologist with who he engaged in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and other intervention strategies.

(i) He has a desire to teach again as it is something he 'dedicated the largest part of (his) adult life towards'. He contends that an indefinite suspension would severely impact his life goals because the stability of teaching would permit him to provide for his family.

Does the respondent's conduct fall below the standard?

[7] Turning now to the question of whether the respondent's behaviour falls below the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. The standard is not defined in the EQCT Act but has been considered in previous decisions of the Tribunal. The standard expected should be the standard 'reasonably' expected by the community which should in turn reflect the standard that those in the teaching profession would expect of their colleagues and peers.[3] It is fluid and is 'informed by how the community including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave'.[4] Further, a teacher working with children and young people holds a trusted position in the community to conduct themselves in a way that will not impact on children and undermine public confidence in the teaching profession.[5]

[8] The document 'Professional Boundaries: A Guideline for Queensland Teachers' ('Guideline'), published by the College, was designed to educate teachers about the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher in their relationships with students.

[9] The Guideline lists several 'at risk' behaviours which may be classed as crossing boundaries. Those behaviours inter alia include:

(a) Intimate relationships with students; engaging in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a student (current or former).

(b) Flirtatious behaviours/intimate gestures directed towards a student.

(c) Expressing romantic feelings towards a student in written or other form.

(d) Planned meetings with the student alone outside of school without a valid context.

(e) Talking with a student about highly personal and/or sexually inappropriate matters that do not benefit the student.

(f) Asking a student questions about personal/sexual matters.

[10] Notably, the Guideline states the following about romantic sexual relationships where a teacher-student relationship once existed:

Romantic/sexual relationships with recent former students may breach teacher-student professional boundaries.

Where there is a reasonable belief that the emotional intimacy of the relationship developed while the teacher-student relationship existed, a judgement that teacher abused their position is likely.

A significant factor in the teacher-student relationships is the difference in power and authority between the two parties and the usually high level of trust the student and their family places in the teacher. These differences do not disappear at a specific point in time. They linger as an imbalance between the two individuals and as a potential impediment to their capacity to make decision in their own and other's best interests.

Consequently, teachers cannot assume that they will be protected from disciplinary action by claiming a relationship began only after the school term concluded or after exams finished. Teachers should be wary of entering such a relationship with any young adult who was formally a student of theirs, particularly in the first year or two after the cessation of the teacher-student relationship.

The length of time between the conclusion of the teacher-student relationship and the beginning of an intimate relationship is only one of a number of critical factors that regulatory authorities will take into consideration when judging the appropriateness of a teacher's conduct in these circumstances. Other factors that teacher regulatory authorities may take into account include:

• The age difference between the student and the teacher.
• The emotional/social maturity of the student.
• The vulnerability of the student.
• Evidence of the nature of the teacher-student relationship, including the closeness, dependence, significance and length of the relationship at school.
• Any misconduct of the teacher during the professional relationship with the student.

[11] Lastly, the standard can also be gleaned from the Act's objects, which are:

(a) to uphold the standards of the teaching profession;

(b) to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and

(c) to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.

[12] Section 158 of the EQCT Act provides that in deciding whether a ground for disciplinary action is established, the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decision by a practice and conduct body of which it is aware. In that regard, the College proffers Queensland College of Teachers v NRR,[6] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher XBW,[7] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher VK,[8] Queensland College of Teacher v PPK[9] as decisions that bear on the issue of whether a ground for disciplinary action is established.

[13] We agree that each of the above decisions stands as authority for the proposition that having intimate and sexualised conversation with, exchanging intimate images with, and engaging in sexual relationships with, former students, constitute grounds for disciplinary action.

[14] Here, EMM crossed professional boundaries with several students over a protracted period of time. He personally taught three of the students. The respondent's behaviour was incongruent with community expectations of teachers and that brings the teaching profession into disrepute. We are amply satisfied that his conduct falls below the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher contemplated by s 92(1)(h) of the EQCT Act.

[15] If the Tribunal decides a ground for disciplinary action against a former approved teacher has been established, it may:[10]

(a) decide to take no further action in relation to the matter.

(b) make an order requiring the teacher to pay to the college, by way of costs, an amount it considers appropriate.

(c) if the Tribunal 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 a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely.

(d) make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.

[16] The following matters are relevant to the Tribunal's determination of sanction:[11]

(a) the nature and context of the behaviour.

(b) the teacher's level of insight.

(c) the impact the behaviour may have on the students, school and community.

(d) what actions, if any, have been taken to remedy the behaviour.

(e) whether the teacher cooperated with the investigation and disciplinary proceedings.

(f) the teacher's history, seniority and whether they hold a leadership role.

(g) the need to protect students from harm, maintain public trust and confidence in the teaching profession and uphold professional standards.

[17] The College moves for the Tribunal to prohibit EMM from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for five years from September 2023. This position is by consent between the parties.

[18] EMM's conduct was serious and warrants a condign punishment. It was committed against several students over a protracted period. EMM plainly had a propensity to target young girls shortly after they left school. The vulnerability of those students, resulting from the power imbalance between them and EMM, would not have dissipated by the time he commenced a relationship with them. EMM's conduct violated the trust the students and their families placed in him.

[19] EMM's inappropriate relationship with student C is a lesser moral failing. She was not a student at EMM's school at the time he was employed there. In Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDG,[12] this Tribunal aptly observed that a teacher's moral culpability is tempered where the student is from a different school to that at which the teacher teaches.

[20] We do not agree with the College's submission that EMM lacks insight because he commented that sexual relationships with former students is a 'grey' area. Concerning that issue, the College's own Guideline states that teacher should be wary of entering such a relationship 'particularly in the first year or two after cession of the teacher-student relationship'. The guideline then goes on to state that the length of time between the conclusion of the teacher-student relationship and the beginning of an intimate relationship is only one of several critical factors that regulatory authorities will take into consideration. The wording of the Guideline therefore implies that in some circumstances a relationship with a former student may not be objectionable, especially if it falls outside a two-year timeframe. That messaging by the College is apt to cause confusion about what amounts to permissible behaviour.

[21] To the respondent's credit he largely cooperated with the College's investigation and disciplinary proceeding. Whilst EMM initially minimised the severity of his conduct during the preliminary stages of the investigation, he later made full admissions and now professes to experiencing deep remorse for his past actions. We are satisfied that EMM now has insight into his conduct, and we note that he has obtained professional assistance to address its causes. The unchallenged evidence of Dr Love is that EMM has developed clear boundaries and supports, and that he has displayed significant growth.

[22] Both parties submit for the Tribunal to prohibit EMM from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for five years from September 2023. Due to the mitigating matters we have touched on above; we accede to that submission. Such a sanction acknowledges EMM's remorse, his insight and the steps he has taken to rehabilitate himself, whilst still serving the purpose of appropriately denouncing his behaviour. It occurs to us that this Tribunal ought not hasten to impose a crushing sanction on a teacher, where rehabilitation and reintegration into the teaching profession remains a viable possibility. We are satisfied that a five-year prohibition, from September 2023, is within the acceptable range of penalties in these circumstances.

[23] We decline the College's request for the Tribunal to make a notation requiring EMM to obtain an independent psychological report if he reapplies for registration. In our view, s 161 of the EQCT Act confers no power on the Tribunal to make such an order against a 'former approved teacher'.

[24] We are cognisant that s 161(2)(d) of the EQCT Act provides that if the Tribunal decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established, it may make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.

[25] The terms 'notification' or 'endorsement' are not defined in either the EQCT Act or the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld). Recourse must therefore be made to the ordinary meaning of those terms. Relevantly, the Macquarie Dictionary defines the term 'notation' to mean 'the act of noting, marking or setting down in writing' or 'a note, jotting, or record'. It defines the term endorsement to mean 'approval or sanction' or 'any statement subsequently added to a document to indicate some modification of its original terms'.

[26] In our view none of the above definitions imbue the Tribunal with the power to order the provision of a report in the event of re-registration. This is in contradistinction to s 160(2)(h) of the EQCT Act which permits the Tribunal to impose conditions on the teacher's registration or permission to teach, or s 160(2)(k) which allows the Tribunal to 'make another order it considers appropriate' if it decides a ground for disciplinary action against an approved teacher has been established.

[27] Adopting a purposive interpretation of the legislation, parliament clearly intended to distinguish the powers available to the Tribunal when imposing sanction on a 'former approved teacher' compared to a 'approved teacher. If, as the College contends, the power to make a notation or endorsement imbues the Tribunal with the power to make any condition it sees fit, s 160(2)(h) and s 160(2)(k) of the ECQT Act would effectively be rendered nugatory.

[28] Additionally, we observe that a mechanism for obtaining a psychological report is already available to the College under s 17(1) of the EQCT Act. That section provides that when deciding an application for registration or permission to teach, the college may, by notice, require the applicant to give the college, within a stated reasonable time, further information or a document the college reasonably requires to decide the application.

[29] Lastly, we accede to the parties' request for a non-publication order. We consider such an order is appropriate to avoid endangering EMM's mental health or safety. It is also necessary for the purpose of preserving the privacy of the relevant students involved.

[1] See Further Amended Attachment to Form 22 - Part C.

[2] As set out in the Submissions prepared by Pamela Skirving dated 13 November 2024.

[3] Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709, [33].

[4] Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59, [36].

[5] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EOL [2022] QCAT 108, [19], [21].

[6] [2021] QCAT 152.

[7] [2019] QCAT 240.

[8] [2014] QCAT 268.

[9] [2019] QCAT 59.

[11] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694, [41].

[12] [2026] QCAT 71.