Queensland College of Teachers v TBB [2025] QCAT 562

[3] On 7 September 2023, while the investigation was ongoing, the QCT suspended TBB's teacher registration.[1] On 30 October 2023, the suspension was continued by the Tribunal.[2]

[4] The QCT subsequently prepared an investigation report and referred the results of the investigation to the Professional Capacity and Teacher Conduct Committee ('PC&TCC'). The investigation report considered further alleged grounds for disciplinary action against TBB in relation to her conduct with Student 1, including an allegation that TBB had commenced a sexual relationship with Student 1 after she graduated from school.

[5] There were also allegations about inappropriate electronic communications with another student at the school where TBB was teaching ('Student 2') and two other students who attended the school where TBB was teaching in 2021 ('Student 3' and 'Student 4').

[6] The PC&TCC referred the matter to the Tribunal for determination.

[7] TBB sent an email to the QCT setting out her response to the referral of the disciplinary matter to the Tribunal. In her response, she said she did not dispute the allegations set out in the referral. TBB has not participated further in the review.

[8] If a matter is referred to the Tribunal, it must conduct a hearing to determine whether a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher is established[3] and if so, the appropriate sanction to be imposed.[4] The grounds for disciplinary action are set out in s 92 of the Act.

[9] The ground for disciplinary action referred to the Tribunal to determine is whether TBB has behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.[5]

[10] A relevant teacher is an approved teacher, which includes a registered teacher.[6]

[11] The Tribunal is satisfied that TBB is and was at the time of the alleged conduct a relevant teacher and that the referral relates to determining whether a ground for disciplinary action as set out in s 92 of the Act is established.

[12] The QCT must inform the Tribunal about the grounds for the practice and conduct matter and the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the grounds. The Tribunal must decide the matter having regard to the information provided by the QCT.[7]

Whether a ground for disciplinary action is established

[13] Section 92 of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action. They include:

the person behaves in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.'[8]

[14] The expected standard of behaviour is not described in the Act. However, the objects of the Act, as set out in s 3, 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.

[15] Further, s 233 of the Act provides that:

In performing its functions under this Act, the welfare and best interests of children are to be the primary considerations of the college.

[16] In previous decisions, the Tribunal (differently constituted) has observed that:

(a) '...the standard expected should be the standard 'reasonably' expected by the community at large, as the actions of a teacher may impact directly upon the children of the community; and this in turn should reflect the standard that those in the teaching profession would expect of their colleagues and peers.'[9]

(b) the standard expected of a teacher is fluid and 'informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave';[10] and

(c) teachers are bestowed with a special trust by parents and the community to act in the best interests of students and to protect them from harm and, with that trust, an expectation that it will not be breached.[11]

[17] We respectfully agree with these observations.

[18] In deciding whether a person has breached the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, s 158(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decisions by a practice and conduct body of which it is aware.

[19] In making its findings about the allegations the Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof. That means the Tribunal must be reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities on the evidence before it that the ground for disciplinary action is established. The Tribunal's state of satisfaction must be informed by the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw[12] in which Dixon CJ observed (citations omitted):

The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer... In such matters 'reasonable satisfaction' should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.[13]

[20] The QCT has referred 10 allegations of conduct it says establishes a ground for disciplinary action against TBB. The allegations concern four students at two different schools in overlapping time frames between March 2021 and August 2023.

[21] Allegation 1 - Between 2 March 2022 and 10 September 2022, TBB is alleged to have engaged in inappropriate, overfamiliar and unprofessional email communications with Student 1. The communications are alleged to have occurred when they were in a direct teacher student relationship and TBB was aware Student 1 was 17 years old and experiencing family instability. They are alleged to have included discussions of personal matters without a reasonable teaching or pastoral purpose, swearing and using or allowing the use of terms of endearment.

[22] Allegation 2 - Commencing at about the same time, but continuing to August 2023, TBB is alleged to have communicated with Student 1 by exchanging messages and phone calls including the use of terms of endearment and intimate language.

[23] Allegation 3 - Between July 2022 and December 2022, TBB is alleged to have engaged in overfamiliar and unprofessional conduct with Student 1 including purchasing personal gifts for her such as jewellery and scented candles and allowing Student 1 to attend TBB's residence.

[24] Allegation 4 - TBB is alleged to have been photographed with Student 1 at a private function on the day of her graduation from school. This was at a time when TBB had been directed to cease all communications with students at the school.

[25] Allegation 5 - TBB is alleged to have attended Student 1's 18th birthday celebrations.

[26] Allegation 6 - at some time between March 2023 and August 2023, TBB and Student 1 commenced a sexual relationship and started living together.

Student 1 - facts and circumstances forming the basis of the grounds for disciplinary action.

[28] A notification to the QCT was made in September 2022 when the principal of the school became aware of emails between TBB and Student 1 on the school email network. In the notification, it was said that Student 1 was experiencing family instability at the time and was living with another family in the community.

[29] Immediately after the notification to the QCT, TBB was advised by the school administrative body that they had commenced a formal investigation. TBB was suspended and directed to immediately cease communication with students, parents and employees at the school and not to discuss the matter with anyone other than her support person or union representative.

[30] The investigation authorised by the school administrative body was completed in January 2023. Following a show cause process, TBB's employment was terminated.

[31] The QCT authorised a broader investigation in May 2023. The investigators examined email and mobile phone records and interviewed several witnesses including Student 1, the parents of Student 1, TBB and her partner. That evidence, and the transcripts of the interviews, is before the Tribunal.

[32] The evidence indicates that email communication between TBB and Student 1 during 2022 was frequent. It took place during and outside school hours. It was personal and affectionate with the use of 'love you', kiss symbols, and similar expressions.

[33] In some emails, TBB used swear words but replaced a letter with a symbol. She spoke about other teachers and told Student 1 about what other teachers had said about her. There were discussions about the 'friendship' between TBB and Student 1 progressing after Student 1 finished school.

[34] After the initial investigation conducted on behalf of the school administrative body which centred on these email communications, a show cause notice was issued to TBB asking her to address why her employment should not be terminated. TBB wrote a response in which she:

(a) conceded that the frequency and informality of her email communications with Student 1 were inappropriate but claimed the content was not inappropriate or unprofessional 'to such an extent that it needs to interfere with [her] ongoing employment';

(b) pointed out that she had 18 years of teaching experience and had performed student protection training on numerous occasions;

(c) said that working in the particular school system she was working in 'created an emphasis on pastoral care leading to a more personal relationship with students';

(d) claimed to know Student 1's mother which 'blurred' the lines with Student 1;

(e) claimed that 'I have no improper interest in [Student 1]' and the nature of the conversations 'were not improperly motivated or sexual in nature.'

I do not accept that the nature of my communications with [Student 1] should result in any adverse impact on my employment.[14]

[36] TBB did not otherwise dispute the existence or frequency of the emailed communications.

[37] The evidence also indicates that TBB was engaging in telephone calls with Student 1 and exchanging SMS messages. The messages are referred to and extracted in the investigation report. Like the email communications, they contain affectionate and intimate language, including the terms 'love you' and kiss symbols.

[38] Student 2 told investigators that during 'schoolies' week, Student 1 used Student 2's phone to communicate with TBB. This was done to conceal the fact that TBB and Student 1 were communicating with each other.[15]

[39] The Tribunal notes that during the investigation conducted by the school administrative body, TBB denied communicating with Student 1 through phone calls or SMS messaging.[16]

[40] The evidence indicates that between July and December 2022, TBB gave presents to Student 1 including jewellery, scented candles and a shirt.[17] The gifts from TBB were confirmed by Student 1 in her interview with investigators.

[41] Student 1 says the shirt was given by TBB to thank Student 1 for helping to look after some of TBB's animals while TBB was on holidays in July 2022.[18] In addition, Student 1 says she was given a necklace by TBB on the day TBB was suspended.[19] This is consistent with the evidence of other students.

[42] The evidence before the Tribunal including electronic communications between Student 1 and TBB's then partner indicates that Student 1 visited TBB's residence on up to six occasions between 1 October 2022 and 8 November 2022. This was after TBB had been suspended and directed not to communicate with students at the school.

[43] Student 1 says in her interview with investigators that she visited TBB's house for dinner on two or three occasions after TBB was suspended, with the permission of her mother. She confirmed TBB was present during those visits.[20] There were also references in the communications between Student 1 and TBB's partner to Student 1 parking in a place she would not be seen.[21]

[44] The Tribunal again notes that during the earlier investigation conducted by the school administrative body, TBB denied Student 1 had been to her house when she had been there.[22]

[45] There is evidence from various witnesses including Student 1 that TBB attended Student 1's family celebration for her graduation. There is also photographic evidence of TBB with Student 1 and her family on the day.

[46] Similarly, there is evidence from various witnesses including Student 1 that TBB attended Student 1's 18th birthday celebrations. Again, there is photographic evidence of her attendance[23] and records of her booking accommodation at the venue.[24]

[47] Student 1 confirmed in her interview with investigators in August 2023 that she was in an intimate sexual relationship with TBB, and they were living together. Student 1 said the sexual relationship had started in March 2023, some months after her graduation.

[48] As noted above, in her response to the referral sent to the QCT, TBB says she does not dispute the allegations.

[49] TBB is alleged to have engaged in inappropriate, overly familiar email communications with Student 2, who was a friend of Student 1. The emails were alleged to have been exchanged between 2 March 2022 and 10 September 2022 when TBB was in a direct teacher student relationship with Student 2 and was aware Student 2 was 17 years old.

Student 2 - facts and circumstances forming the basis of the grounds for disciplinary action.

[50] The evidence before the Tribunal indicates emails were exchanged between TBB and Student 2 during this time period. They were sent by TBB at different times of the day and night ranging from 5:33am on a Sunday morning to 11:25pm on a Tuesday night.

[51] They included emails about personal matters not related to what TBB was teaching Student 2, or school subjects that TBB did not teach to Student 2. However, they were not of the same intimate or affectionate nature as the emails exchanged between TBB and Student 1.

[52] Allegation 8 - TBB is alleged to have engaged in inappropriate, overfamiliar and unprofessional conduct with Student 3 and Student 4 when TBB was in a direct teacher student relationship with them and was aware they were both 17 years old.

[53] That conduct was alleged to have occurred in 2021 and extended into the early part of 2022. The conduct is alleged to have included allowing them to attend her residence and going hiking with them after graduation.

[54] Allegation 9 - TBB is alleged to have engaged in inappropriate and or overfamiliar conduct by paying for and transporting Student 3 to a cooking master class after she graduated from school.

[55] Allegation 10 - It is also alleged that between January 2022 and 19 March 2022 TBB engaged in inappropriate and or overfamiliar behaviour with Student 3 and Student 4 by, among other things, paying for and accompanying them to recreational activities and buying them a housewarming present.

Students 3 and 4 - facts and circumstances forming the basis of the grounds for disciplinary action

[56] In 2021, TBB was in a direct teaching relationship with Student 3 and Student 4 who were in year 12. TBB's conduct in relation to Student 3 and Student 4 came to light during the investigation into her conduct with Student 1.

[57] The evidence before the Tribunal includes email communications between TBB and both students and transcripts of interviews with them. The email communications relate mostly to the subjects that TBB was teaching students 3 and 4.

[58] In the transcripts of interview both students say they visited TBB's house at TBB's invitation at least twice while they were at school. The earliest visit the evidence reliably indicates was in October 2021 when TBB invited them to come back to her house after a football carnival. Student 4 said TBB wanted to ensure her parents knew they were attending TBB's house outside of school hours.

[59] On the other occasion, Student 3 said she contacted TBB to find out why she was not at school. TBB invited them to her house to explain she had been directed not to attend school for reasons which appear to have led to her dismissal from employment at that school.[25]

[60] Both students report attending activities with TBB post-graduation, including going hiking together. Also, TBB booked, paid for and transported Student 3 alone to a cooking class. The cost of the class was more than $100.

[61] Subsequently both students moved away to attend university. They say TBB encouraged them to meet with her when they returned for visits. When visiting them, TBB paid for and attended another social activity with both former students. TBB also gave them a housewarming gift.[26]

[62] In their interviews both former students describe these and other social interactions with TBB in the context of an ongoing friendship with TBB. However, they say that over time they felt increasingly uncomfortable with their interactions and sought to distance themselves from TBB. Student 3 suggests TBB may have been seeking a relationship with her that went beyond friendship.

Whether the grounds for disciplinary action are established

[63] The QCT submits that the evidence demonstrates that TBB engaged in an inappropriate and overfamiliar relationship with Student 1 which should be viewed as a prelude to a sexual relationship between them after Student 1 finished school. This is sufficient to establish a ground of disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h).

[64] In addition, the QCT submits that TBB's conduct towards students 2, 3 and 4 is evidence of her propensity to seek out inappropriate relationships with her students.

[65] The Tribunal finds based on the evidence referred to above, the conduct as alleged in respect of Student 1 did occur.

[66] We accept the QCT's submission that TBB's inappropriate conduct towards Student 1 in 2022 was preparatory to the intimate sexual relationship that subsequently developed. That is, TBB established a non-professional, personal, affectionate relationship with Student 1 which laid a foundation for an intimate relationship after Student 1 graduated.

[67] It is well established, that due to the authority that teachers have over students, disparities in age, maturity and a life experience and the inherent vulnerability of young people, there is an inherent power imbalance between teachers and student that students do not fully recognise or understand. By contrast, it is part of a teacher's duty to recognise it and make sure they do not exploit it.

[68] That power imbalance takes time to dissipate and can still act on a student after they finish school. In addition to Student 1's inherent vulnerability as a child, she was vulnerable because of her unstable family situation.

[69] In this case, TBB was between 39 and 41 years of age at the time the conduct as alleged in the referral was occurring. She had between 16 and 18 years of teaching experience. She had done child protection training numerous times. She was aware that her conduct was inappropriate beyond the frequency and informality of the email communications with Student 1.

[70] She continued the inappropriate conduct after being directed to cease any communication with Student 1 or other students, parents or employees at the school. She attempted to conceal communications with Student 1 by communicating through Student 2's phone.

[71] The Tribunal has considered that some communications and contact between TBB and Student 1 occurred after she graduated from school.

[72] However, correspondence sent to TBB in October and November of 2022 indicates the purpose of the direction to cease contact with students, parents and staff clearly included maintaining the integrity of the investigation into her conduct by the school administrative body which was ongoing at the time.

[73] In addition, TBB's claim in her response to a show cause notice from the school, that she did not have any improper interest in Student 1 is belied by the fact that shortly after her response TBB commenced an intimate relationship with Student 1.

[74] In coming to the conclusions that a ground of disciplinary action is established; the Tribunal has considered the following matters of particular relevance in which grounds for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act were established:

[75] Queensland College of Teachers v ATL[27] ('ATL') in which ATL was found to have engaged in a sexual relationship with a former student in the year after she finished school which continued for approximately three years. That relationship ended at or about the time he commenced a sexual relationship with another student during her final year of school when she was 17 years of age. He then started living with that student after she finished school. The Tribunal also found in that case he gave the student he was involved with excessive academic assistance because of the relationship. The Tribunal found no indication of any extenuating circumstances, remorse, insight or behavioural change.

[76] In that case, the Tribunal found that in the absence of any evidence that ATL had reformed or was likely to change his behaviour, an indefinite prohibition on reapplication was appropriate.

[77] Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin[28] ('Duffin') in which the teacher commenced a sexual relationship with a student who was 15 years of age and in grade 11 at the time. The relationship continued throughout the following year while the student was in grade 12 and for about six months after graduation. There was also evidence that the relationship had a detrimental impact on the student. The teacher denied the allegations of inappropriate conduct. His registration was cancelled, and he was prohibited from reapplying for registration indefinitely, a sanction he did not contest.

[78] Queensland College of Teachers v RTM[29] ('RTM') in which RTM, a 35-year-old teacher with approximately 11 years of experience, engaged in over-familiar email communication with a student and gave the student gifts. The Tribunal characterised this behaviour as a 'prelude to the later intimate relationship'. Soon after the student turned 18, but before she graduated, the teacher began exchanging sexualized messages with her and they met for intercourse and other sexual activities on at least five occasions. The sexual relationship continued for about six months after the student graduated. The tribunal cancelled the teacher's registration, prohibited him from reapplying for registration for seven years, ordered a notation to be made requiring a psychologist report should he again seek registration and ordered him to pay the QCT's costs.

[79] Queensland College of Teachers v SGS[30] ('SGS') in which a 42-year-old teacher, commenced a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student while she was at school. The conduct included sexualized text messages, Facebook communication, and ultimately sexual conduct and intercourse. The sexual relationship continued for at least ten months. The teacher and student commenced cohabiting within three months of her leaving school. The tribunal prohibited SGS from reapplying for registration for seven years and ordered that a notation be made requiring a psychologist report should he again seek registration and ordered him to pay the QCT's costs.

[80] In Queensland College of Teachers v FDA[31] ('FDA'), a relatively inexperienced teacher commenced a sexual relationship with a former student in the January after she graduated. There had been no direct student teacher relationship as he had left the school the year before. There was no evidence of improper contact between them while the student was at school. FDA's registration was cancelled, and he was prohibited from reapplying for registration for four years.

[81] The Tribunal is satisfied that TBB's conduct in respect of Student 1 fell well short of the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. The conduct in question was less serious than the conduct of ATL or Duffin. It was in some ways equivalent to the circumstances in SGS and RTM, but the Tribunal accepts that the sexual relationship between TBB and Student 1 commenced after Student 1 graduated from school, not while she was at school.

[82] The Tribunal considers TBB's conduct to be more serious than the circumstances in FDA.

[83] The Tribunal has considered the conduct of TBB with respect to student's 2, 3 and 4. There is no evidence or suggestion that TBB ever had an intimate or sexual relationship with student's 2, 3 or 4. There is no cogent evidence that TBB sought such a relationship with any of those students.

[84] As noted above although TBB was communicating with Student 2 outside of school hours in relation to matters not associated with school, the communications were of a very different nature to the communications with Student 1.

[85] In respect of students 3 and 4, much of the evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate conduct is from the transcripts of interview with the students. Those interviews occurred almost two years after the events they are describing. The alleged inappropriate conduct occurred before and after graduation. They say they became more uncomfortable with TBB over time and gradually distanced themselves from the relationship.

[86] Their recounting of events also occurred in the context of students 3 and 4 describing or interpreting those events and their feelings of discomfort after they knew about the relationship between Student 1 and TBB. At the same time, they refer to the difficulties they were experiencing in their own friendship with Student 1, whom they both knew, which they perceive to be attributable to Student 1's relationship with TBB.

[87] The Tribunal accepts that certain events described by Student 3 and Student 4 occurred. There is corroborating evidence which suggests that TBB did plan, book and pay for certain activities after they graduated from school. The Tribunal is also satisfied that they attended TBB's house on at least two occasions at TBB's invitation while they were at school.

[88] We consider that conduct may constitute a failure to maintain appropriate boundaries in respect of teacher student relationships. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the current evidence that TBB's conduct in respect of students 2, 3 and 4 is sufficiently similar to her conduct with Student 1 to make a finding that she was engaging in a pattern of seeking out similarly inappropriate relationships.

[89] We also note that TBB's concession in relation to not disputing the allegations in the referral was made in the context of acknowledging the inappropriateness of her behaviour in 2022.

[90] The purpose of disciplinary action is not punitive but to impose a sanction that will serve as a:

general deterrence to the members of the teaching profession and as a specific deterrence to further irresponsible conduct by the teacher in question.

[91] This is consistent with the objects of the Act which are to uphold the standards of the teaching profession, maintain public confidence in the profession and protect the public by ensuring that education is provided in a professional way.[32]

[92] The QCT submits that TBB's conduct in respect of Student 1 is particularly serious. In addition, the QCT submits that in the absence of any evidence about TBB's character or demonstrating her remorse, insight or remedial action taken to ensure this behaviour does not happen again, TBB is unsuitable to hold registration as a teacher and an indefinite prohibition on reapplying for registration is appropriate.

[93] QCT submits if the Tribunal decides not to impose an indefinite prohibition on TBB reapplying for registration, a prohibition period of at least seven years is warranted.

[94] The QCT also seeks costs in the amount of $7,885.00 and orders requiring a notation be entered on the register that if TBB applies for registration as a teacher or permission to teach, she must include an independent psychologist's report which is satisfactory to the QCT.

[95] In deciding what is the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal may consider many factors including, but not limited to:

(a) the teacher's antecedents and experience;

(b) the nature and context of the behaviour itself;

(c) the level of insight a teacher may have about the impact of the behaviour on the students, school and community; and

(d) any action they have taken to remedy the behaviour.[33]

[96] TBB was between 40 and 41 years old and had been teaching for around 17 years, when the conduct in respect of Student 1 was occurring. She had completed numerous child protection courses.

[97] We have addressed the nature of the behaviour and find it particularly significant that TBB was engaging in clearly inappropriate communications with a 17-year-old student which developed into a sexual relationship after she finished school. In SGS the Tribunal noted that it was relevant that SGS pursued the inappropriate relationship even after he left the school:

and therefore had an opportunity to consider his position and disconnect from her. SGS did not take that opportunity and instead actively pursued the relationship...

[98] After the emails between TBB and Student 1 were discovered by the school, TBB:

(a) repeatedly disobeyed directions to cease communicating with students;

(b) involved Student 2 in her ongoing communications with Student 1;

(c) in a Show Cause Response letter:

(i) claimed there was nothing inappropriate in the contents of the emails between her and Student 1;

(ii) explained her behaviour toward Student 1 as (partly) an attempt to engage in the pastoral care; and

(iii) said she did not have any sexual interest in Student 1 a very short time before commencing a sexual relationship with Student 1.

[99] The Tribunal also notes that TBB denied allegations of wrongdoing prior to and during the investigation by the school administrative body which she has subsequently accepted after the QCT investigation was complete.

[100] In her submission in response to the allegations TBB said, in part:

In the two years since my suspension from [School] I have spent a lot of time reflecting on my conduct as the teacher and I feel deep remorse for the unprofessionalism I demonstrated whilst there. I allowed the lines between teacher and student to blur and this is absolutely unacceptable. As a teacher spanning almost two decades, I knew better and yet I conducted myself inappropriately during 2022. With the support of medical professionals, I am moving towards gaining insight into my actions and am making plans to never act in such a way again....

I have a genuine care for young people and none of my actions were rooted in malice. My actions have always been centred on genuine care and support of my students....

I am deeply sorry for my actions and realise that they may lead to the possibility of not teaching for a long time (or ever again).

[101] We accept that TBB has no relevant antecedent findings against her.

[102] We accept that TBB conceded her conduct in 2022 was inappropriate and expressed general remorse. However, she did not expressly refer to harm that could arise because of the sexual relationship that developed with Student 1.

[103] Further, TBB's claim that her actions have always been centred on genuine care and support of her students fails to recognise that over an extended period they were not. This reveals a lack of insight into the appropriateness of her conduct.

[104] The available sanctions are set out at s 160(2) of the Act. They include:

(a) cancelling the teacher's registration;

(b) ordering the teacher to pay the QCT's costs in relation to the investigation and Tribunal proceedings;

(c) ordering a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register; and

(d) prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely.

[105] In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal has considered the cases referred to by the QCT to assist the Tribunal.

[106] The Tribunal considers the facts and circumstances as found by the Tribunal are less serious than those in ATL and Duffin. The evidence supports a finding of only one sexual relationship with a former student even though the conduct here included inappropriate communications while Student 1 was at school. In this case there is at least some evidence of remorse and an appreciation that TBB's conduct in 2022 was inappropriate.

[107] We consider that the facts and circumstances as found are more serious than those in FDA. TBB is a far more experienced teacher who engaged in inappropriate communications with the student she subsequently formed a sexual relationship with while that student was at school and in a direct teacher student relationship with her.

[108] We accept the QCT's submission that the facts and circumstances of this case warrant a sanction of cancellation of registration and prohibition on reapplying for registration. Consistently with our observations about similar matters, we do not consider an indefinite prohibition is appropriate.

[109] The facts and circumstances in this case bear some resemblance to the matters of RTM and SGS in which experienced teachers engaged in inappropriate communications with a student that escalated into a sexual relationship shortly before and after graduation. Both cases involved a degree of deception and a lack of appropriate insight.

[110] We accept the sexual relationship between TBB and Student 1 commenced after graduation and not while Student 1 was at school. We consider that factor makes this case slightly less serious.

[111] We consider a period of prohibition before TBB can apply for registration or permission to teach of five years is warranted. We also accept the submission of the QCT that given any period of prohibition commences from the date of the Tribunal's order, time already spent under suspension should be considered.

[112] TBB's registration was suspended 7 September 2023. The Tribunal considers her registration should be cancelled and she should be prohibited from reapplying for registration for a period of five years. That would involve imposing a prohibition period of two years, three months and two weeks from the date of this order.

[113] We accept the QCT's submission about requiring an independent psychologist's report.

[114] Under s 160(2)(f) of the Act, the Tribunal may require TBB to pay the QCT's costs in an amount the Tribunal considers appropriate having regard to:

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

(b) the expenses incurred by the college in the proceedings before QCAT.

[115] The QCT submits it is funded by registration fees paid by teachers, and it would be unreasonable to expect approved teachers in good standing to subsidize TBB's misconduct. The Tribunal notes that costs sought in the amount of $7,885.00[34] are the costs of QCT performing its statutory functions in response to TBB's misconduct.

[116] The Tribunal is also aware of the recent decision in Queensland College of Teachers v LDA.[35] A differently constituted Tribunal declined to award costs to the QCT because the respondent in that case did not act to the disadvantage the QCT and agreed with the facts of the majority of the allegations and proposed sanction.

[117] In addition, some allegations were withdrawn or found to be unsubstantiated, and the matter was not considered to be unusually complex. Balancing the access to justice principle in s 100 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act') with the interests of justice under s 102(3) of that Act, the Tribunal decided that the factors in favour of not awarding costs outweighed those in favour of doing so.

[118] In this case, TBB participated in interviews with investigators engaged by the school administration body in a way that presented an inaccurate and self-serving version of the events that the Tribunal has found to be established. It was not until the full suite of allegations referred to the Tribunal and the evidence collected during the investigation as presented in the report were made known to TBB did she fully acknowledge her inappropriate conduct.

[119] In addition, the allegations in this case are more complex, involve four students at different schools during overlapping timeframes. However, we have not accepted that all the allegations made in the referral establish a ground of disciplinary action.

[120] The costs sought by the QCT are significantly less than those sought in LDA.[36] On balance we consider it appropriate that the costs incurred by the QCT in responding to TBB's conduct be borne by TBB. The QCT has particularised those costs. They are unchallenged and appear to be reasonable.

(a) The ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act is established.

(b) Pursuant to s 160(2)(d) of the Act, TBB's teacher's registration is cancelled.

(c) Pursuant to s 160(2)(j) of the Act, TBB is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of two (2) years and eight (8) months from the date of this order; and

(d) Pursuant to s 160(2)(f) of the Act TBB must pay QCT's costs of the application in the amount $7,885.00.

(e) Pursuant to s 160(2)(h) of the Act, should TBB reapply for registration or permission to teach, the application must include a psychologist's report satisfactory to the Queensland College of Teachers addressing addressing:

(i) An assessment of TBB's appreciation of the following:

1. The legal obligations of the teacher;

2. Differentiating between personal and professional relationships;

   1. Development and maintenance of professional standards when working with young people and actively determining and implementing professional boundaries with individual students;

   2. Personal and social behaviour that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;

   3. What constitutes inappropriate communication;

   4. Understanding the effect of inappropriate relationships with students and former students;

   5. The awareness of the trust and power granted to a teacher;

   6. Understanding and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers' Code of Ethics;

(ii) The psychologist's report must also include:

1. An assessment from the psychologist of the likelihood of TBB engaging in a similar type of behaviour in the future;
2. An indication from the psychologist about whether the psychologist is satisfied that TBB has adequately understood and addressed the above;
   1. Confirmation that the psychologist was provided with copies of this decision and referral under section 97 of the Act.

[122] Pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified. The Tribunal may do so on the application of a party or on its own initiative.

[123] The QCT submits such an order should be made in this case. A non-publication order is appropriate in the circumstances of this case, where identification of TBB or the schools involved could lead to the identification of a complainant, witness, student or former student. We make orders pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of that information.

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

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

[11] Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194, [34].

[12] [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[14] Annexure 2 to the investigation report dated 16 February 2024.

[15] Investigation report p 24 and transcript of interview with Student 2 dated 20 June 2023.

[17] The investigation report at pp 29-32 references the evidence of Student 1 and other witnesses.

[18] Transcript of interview with Student 1 p 21.

[20] Transcript of interview with Student 1 p 14.

[23] Investigation report - Annexure 55.

[24] Investigation report - Annexure 38.

[25] Although it is not clear on the evidence there is nothing to suggest her dismissal was related to the allegations in the referral to the Tribunal.

[26] Investigation report pp 52-57 and transcripts of interviews with students 3 and 4 both dated 4 August 2023.

[27] [2020] QCAT 59, [82].

[28] [2024] QCAT 298.

[29] [2016] QCAT 501.

[30] [2017] QCAT 383.

[31] [2017] QCAT 224.

[33] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694, [21].

[34] The particulars of those costs are set out in an annexure to QCT's submissions.

[35] [2025] QCAT 499 ('LDA').

[36] In LDA the costs sought were $11,121.50.