Queensland College of Teachers v KLR [2025] QCAT 523

• [1] This matter was referred to the Tribunal by the applicant pursuant to sections 92 and 97 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ('the Act').
• [2] The Tribunal is satisfied that:

(a) KLR attained initial teacher registration on 27 October 2017 and held her registration until 31 January 2024, when she was removed from the register due to non-payment of the annual fee. KLR is therefore a "former approved teacher" pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Act.

(b) On 27 September 2021, the applicant suspended KLR's registration.

(c) KLR is a "relevant teacher" as defined in the Act.[1]

(d) The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter.[2]

• [3] While employed as a teacher, KLR engaged in behaviour which the applicant submits amounts to grounds for disciplinary action. KLR has made no submissions in relation to whether a disciplinary ground is established.
• [4] The Tribunal must decide whether a ground for disciplinary action against KLR has been established.[3] The Tribunal must determine, pursuant to s 92(1)(h) of the Act, whether KLR has behaved "in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher".
• [5] It is agreed between the parties that KLR engaged in the following behaviour:

(a) On multiple occasions in 2018, KLR transported student SH (then approximately 13 years of age) in her vehicle with no other staff present in the vehicle. SH was enrolled at KLR's school from approximately January 2018 to May 2019.

(b) Between 31 December 2018 and 31 July 2020, KLR made 784 telephone calls to SH. Between 4 January 2019 and 10 September 2019, KLR sent 12,057 text messages to SH.

(c) Allowed student MZ to touch, stroke and/or play with her leg and/or ankle while at a school event when MZ was approximately 14 years old.

(d) Engaged in inappropriate and overfamiliar communication via Facebook Messenger with former student NR (then aged approximately 15 years old) including by:

(i) referring to illegal drug use by NR;

(ii) encouraging NR to keep their communication a secret;

(iii) referring to NR as a "bong head";

(iv) joking with NR about the inappropriateness of their communication;

(v) characterising illegal drug use as "fun";

(vi) disclosing her views and experiences with prescription medication;

(vii) making personal comments, including about NR's hair, saying "I never got to brush it...would have been so satisfying"; and

(viii) referring to student SH as a "fucking retard".

(e) Engaged in inappropriate, overfamiliar, and sexualised conduct with student/former student RS (aged approximately 18 years old), including by:

(i) Allowing RS to travel with her in her car between August 2021 and August 2022;

(ii) Between August 2021 and November 2021, allowing RS to attend her residence and, on occasions, to stay overnight;

(iii) Between November 2021 and 16 August 2022, living with RS.

(iv) Between August 2021 and 29 June 2022, KLR:

1. Made 140 telephone calls to RS;

2. Sent 56 SMS messages to RS;

   1. Received 51 telephone calls from RS; and

   2. Received 38 SMS messages from RS.

(f) Between 18 September 2021 and 24 September 2021, while housesitting for a colleague, KLR allowed RS to attend the residence and deleted CCTV footage without permission.

(g) Between 7 December 2021 and 30 May 2022, KLR received money from RS.

(h) Between August 2021 and September 2021, KLR engaged in intimate and/or sexual conduct with RS.

(i) Between August 2021 and August 2022, KLR had an inappropriate, intimate and/or romantic relationship with RS, and was described by RS as his girlfriend. KLR gave RS a birthday card for his 18th birthday, and received money and gifts from him. They communicated in an intimate and personal manner via Snapchat, lived together, and engaged in intimate and/or sexual communication and conduct.

• [6] Evidence has been produced to the Tribunal by way of bank transfer receipts showing transfers from the bank account of RS to the bank account of KLR in the following amounts:

(a) 7 December 2021 - $4,978.61;

(b) 19 January 2022 - $894.41;

(c) 4 February 2022 - $337.00;

(d) 7 February 2022 - $660.00; and

(e) 30 May 2022 - $580.00.

• [7] There is no evidence as to the purpose of the bank transfers. When questioned by the applicant's investigator, RS stated that he did not recall the purpose of the transfers.
• [8] The applicant has made other allegations regarding KLR's actions and behaviour, including that KLR:

(a) Failed to take action to end a conversation between students who were discussing her having a sore jaw from performing a sexual act on her boyfriend.

(b) Allowed SH to use her mobile telephone and wear her sunglasses.

(c) Transported SH in her car without other staff present.

(d) Engaged in snapchat conversations with SH.

(e) Rubbed/stroked/played with MZ's hair at a school event.

(f) Encouraged NR to send her images and/or videos.

(g) Permitted RS to be in state of undress while in the home she was housesitting.

(h) Permitted RS to use cannabis at her/their residence.

(i) Showered with RS.

• [9] In response to these allegations, KLR states that she "disputes" them. As she did not provide any evidence in the form of an affidavit or statement, and did not take part in an oral hearing, the Tribunal has been denied the opportunity to hear from KLR whether she denies the allegations in their entirety, or whether she disputes only part of the allegations. Further, there has been no opportunity to cross-examine KLR.
• [10] Given the undisputed facts, and noting the objects of the Act:

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

(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,

it is clear to the Tribunal that KLR behaved in a way that "does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher", and that a ground for disciplinary action has been established.

• [11] The Tribunal must proceed to determine the sanction appropriate in these circumstances. KLR's registration has now lapsed, and so she is a "former approved teacher". Section 161 of the Act sets out (relevantly) that:

(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 -

(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 QCAT considers appropriate having regard to -

(i) any expenses incurred by the college in investigating the matter; and

(ii) the expenses incurred by the college in the proceedings before QCAT;

(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 a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely;

Note -

See also section 352 (Decision about disciplinary action against former approved teacher).

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

• [12] While it is generally appropriate that the Tribunal takes a similar approach to similar cases in order to promote consistency, each decision must be made on the basis of its particular factual circumstances, and this Tribunal is not bound by previous Tribunal decisions.
• [13] The applicant refers the Tribunal to a number of cases which are somewhat similar and which resulted in teachers being prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach for between two and six years. The applicant submits that a total period of approximately five years out of teaching (including the current suspension from 27 September 2021) is an appropriate sanction. KLR makes no submissions on the sanction that may be imposed by the Tribunal.
• [14] In determining sanction, we note that the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is not to punish the teacher, but to promote the objects of the Act.[4] In summary, these relevantly involve upholding standards in the profession, maintaining public confidence in the profession, and protecting the public by ensuring that education is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.
• [15] The Tribunal has taken into account:

(a) KLR engaged in repeated, intentional inappropriate behaviour towards four young boys at two separate teaching institutions over a period of approximately four years, including after she was suspended from the teaching profession.

(b) KLR's behaviour was unprofessional and harmful. All boys were vulnerable due to their ages and KLR was aware that some of the students were using drugs, were experiencing turmoil at home, and/or were diagnosed with medical conditions such as ADHD and ASD. The second institution where she taught catered for the educational needs of children who did not "fit in" at regular schools.

(c) KLR was in a position of authority and there was a power imbalance between her and the boys when she engaged in the behaviour.

(d) The behaviour damaged the reputation of the profession.

(e) While KLR was a relatively inexperienced teacher when the conduct commenced, the number of incidents, the number of students involved, and the sexual nature of the incidents raises grave concerns regarding KLR's capacity to work as a teacher in an appropriate and professional manner.

(f) KLR has not provided any explanation for her behaviour or evidence of mitigating factors.

• [16] KLR has provided no evidence to the Tribunal to indicate that she has reflected upon her conduct or recognised the potential harm to the students. It is self-evident that teachers must not pursue or engage in romantic or sexual relations with students, and teachers receive explicit and ongoing training in this regard.
• [17] Overall, we are of the view that KLR's behaviour showed a pattern of serious boundary violations over an extended period, aggravated by lack of evidence of insight and remorse. She failed to uphold standards and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. The community expects a teacher to have sufficient insight to know that this behaviour can harm young people.
• [18] In this case, we are satisfied that we would have made an order cancelling

KLR's registration if she had been an approved teacher. We therefore have the power to prohibit her from reapplying for registration or permission to teach "for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely". In our view, the objects of the Act are met by prohibiting KLR from re-applying for registration indefinitely. Her behaviour was abhorrent. KLR provided no evidence of undergoing counselling or other professional courses relating to her conduct. The Tribunal is concerned about KLR's apparent lack of insight or remorse.

• [19] The Tribunal may make orders under s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) prohibiting the publication of information which may identify a party or any other person affected by a proceeding for, amongst other reasons, the interests of justice.
• [20] We do not consider it to be in the interests of justice to publicly identify the students. Publication of identifying details could harm the students by affecting their reputations and lead to further psychological consequences. We therefore consider it is in the interests of justice to make a confidentiality order prohibiting the publication of any information in these proceedings that could identify the students in any way, including by naming the teacher and the schools involved.
• [21] The Tribunal's basis for making the confidentiality order rests solely with a concern for the students.

[2] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 9; the Act s 111A(2).