[1] Teacher AKW was originally registered with the Queensland College of Teachers ('QCT') on 12 December 2003. His registration was suspended on 11 November 2021. He self-removed from the Register on 5 October 2023. He is a 'relevant teacher' for the purposes of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ('the Act').[1]
[2] Teacher AKW was employed full time as a high school teacher. He had nearly 18 years of experience and was approximately 40 years old at the time of the conduct. The conduct occurred during October 2021 while he was a registered teacher employed at a high school.
[3] Teacher AKW had an existing account on the Grindr internet application. The Grindr application is a website application that requires participants to confirm that they are 18 years or older when creating an account before access is permitted.
[4] Student A was a 16-year-old student at the same high school where the Respondent taught. Student A, during the month of October 2021, downloaded the Grindr application.[2]
[5] Student A, in a witness interview with QPS, said that, when signing up on Grindr he said his age was 21.[3] He describes receiving numerous messages with one messenger being close by "100 metres away".[4] This proximity was because Student A was using the application while at school. Student A and AKW began to interact on the application.
[6] At the time of the initial interaction neither Student A nor teacher AKW were aware of the identity of each other. After teacher AKW sent photographs, Student A recognised him as a teacher from his school. Sexualised messaging between the two continued for a few days with teacher AKW making several attempts to meet Student A. After becoming concerned by the messaging, Student A advised AKW that he was 15 years old. AKW questioned him about when he would be turning 16 and Student A replied that he would turn 16 the following month. AKW continued interacting with Student A after that time including sending a photo of his erect penis in a toilet cubicle. When asked by teacher AKW if he had any more photos, Student A sent a photo that he had located on the internet.
[7] Student A told his father what had been happening. Student A decided to email other staff members at the school along with the principal about the conduct. He also emailed the Queensland Department of Education Ethical Standards Unit. Police became involved and AKW was charged with a "serious offence"[5] namely, using internet to procure children under 16 under the provisions of s 218A(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
[8] When teacher AKW appeared in court, a nolle prosequi was presented and he was discharged.
[9] Teacher AKW agreed with the facts as stated in the Applicant submission except for one point. In paragraph 4(b) of QCT's submission, QCT claim that the Teacher AKW engaged in inappropriate conversations with Student A and met with Student A in person. Teacher AKW accepts that he communicated with Student A but denies meeting him in person and submits that there was no evidence that he met Student A in person. The QCT amended the submission to reflect that Teacher AKW had an intention of meeting in person rather than having met in person.
[10] Teacher AKW accepts that grounds for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act have been established. Teacher AKW also accepts that his discharge in the criminal proceedings does not preclude the Tribunal from deciding this matter.
[11] The QCT made a referral on 18 January 2024 to the Tribunal under sections 97(4) and 158(1) of the Act to the Tribunal to determine if grounds for disciplinary action against Teacher AKW exist.
[3]
[12] Section 92 of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action in practice and conduct matters. Numerous grounds are listed including:
[4]
'the person behaves in such a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.[6]
[5]
'Standard of behaviour' is not defined in the Act but has been addressed by the Tribunal in a previous matter:
[6]
'...the standard expected should be the standard 'reasonably' expected by the community at large, as the actions of a teacher may impact directly on 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.[7]
[7]
[13] The issues for determination by the Tribunal in the current matter are:
[8]
(i) whether a ground for disciplinary action against the respondent has been established;[8] and
(ii) the ground for disciplinary action to be considered if 'the teacher 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;[9] and
(iii) if the Tribunal decides a ground for disciplinary action against the respondent has been established, then the Tribunal must decide the disciplinary action to be taken.[10]
[9]
[14] A teacher is expected to adhere to an appropriate standard of behaviour generally when interacting with all students, including former students, with whom power imbalances continue to exist, and to whom continuing professional and ethical obligations apply.
[15] In considering the expected standard, the Tribunal must have regard to the main objects of the Act which are:
[10]
(i) to uphold the standards of the teaching profession; and
(ii) to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and
(iii) to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent manner by approved teachers.[11]
[11]
[16] The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is to further these objects of the Act.
[12]
It is essential that persons registered as teachers do not pose a risk of harm to children. Although punishment is not the aim, deterrence is a relevant consideration. The sanction imposed must provide "general deterrence to the members of the teaching profession and specific deterrence to further irresponsible conduct by the teacher in question".[12]
[13]
[17] In determining the appropriate sanction to impose, the Tribunal must consider the impact that the behaviour/s may have had on Student A, other students, the school, the profession and the community. The Tribunal may also consider the teacher's age, level of experience, level of expertise, the teaching record, the level of cooperation given during the investigative process, and the level of remorse and insight conveyed in the papers provided.
[18] In addition, the Tribunal has said:
[14]
Ultimately, of course, each case turns on its own facts. There is a range of relevant factors: the age of the teacher, the age of the student, the nature of the conduct, any psychological vulnerability, the level of cooperation in the proceedings, and so on. It is therefore not easy to rank cases in terms of seriousness.[13]
[15]
[19] The allegations occurred on or about October 2021.
[20] In early October 2021, teacher AKW engaged in inappropriate texting and photo exchanges with Student A on the Grindr application.
[21] At the beginning of the connection, neither Teacher AKW nor Student A knew the identity of each other. There is no evidence that Teacher AKW was aware of either the age or identity of the other party. After Teacher AKW sent a photo of himself in boxer shorts, Student A recognised him as teacher at his school.
[22] Teacher AKW initiated names for each other: he was Daddy and Student A was Boy.
[23] Teacher AKW made several attempts to arrange a time to meet. They engaged in Grindr app messaging which included explicit sexual preferences.
[24] Student A decided to tell teacher AKW that he was 15. Teacher AKW replied "Boy, why did you tell me that?... You didn't need to tell me at all." Teacher AKW then asked when Student A would turn 16. Student A replied that he would be 16 in a month.
[25] Teacher AKW replied, "Who knows it could be a month until we can play anyway...Got any more pics little boy?" Student A sent a picture of a penis he had found on the internet and then asked the Teacher AKW "Have u got any more daddy?" to which Teacher AKW replied with an explicit picture of him holding his penis while sitting on a toilet seat.
[26] Teacher AKW later stated: "I was thinking that I should not even be chatting with you until you are 16. You said it is next month. Contact me then. I'll be here." When Student A asked why, Teacher AKW advised "not good for my job ... work for the government."
[27] Teacher AKW finished the interaction with "So let me know boy."
[28] On 31 October 2021, Student A admitted to police that he had gone on to the Grindr app with mischievous intentions to engage in "trolling" persons he did not know.
[29] Student A also admitted to clicking on the Teacher AKW's photo (whom he did not know as a teacher at his school).
[30] Teacher AKW sent Student A a photograph of his penis after Student A purported that he was 15 years of age.
[31] Taking all the above allegations into account the ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act is established.
[16]
[32] Teacher AKW acknowledged that his behaviour did not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher and that a ground for disciplinary action exists against him.
[33] Teacher AKW expressed remorse and insight in correspondence sent to The Presiding Senior Member (QCAT) dated 21 May 2024. "I accept full responsibility for my actions."
[34] Teacher AKW agreed with all the allegations after QCT's correction to the issue outlined above regarding meeting student A in person. Teacher A's conduct was at most over a two-day period and he did not persist with it further.
[35] Teacher AKW had an existing Grindr account and initially did not know the identity of Student A.
[36] Teacher AKW enrolled in the Morrison Consulting and Advisory online course "Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries for Teachers".
[37] Prior to this matter, Teacher AKW had an unblemished record. Further, a supportive reference from a colleague with full knowledge of the matter, was presented.
[17]
[38] Teacher AKW had around 18 years of teaching experience at the time of the misconduct.
[39] Teacher AKW, after becoming aware that the child with whom he was communicating was not yet 16, said "Who knows it could be a month until we can play anyway...Got any more pics little boy?" This comment reinforces the lack of both insight and full appreciation of Child Protection Principles that are part of Mandatory All Staff Training every year.
[40] Teacher A was willing to engage in sexual innuendo with a 16-year-old boy. As an approved teacher the community would expect that teachers do not engage in such interaction with underage children. Having an attraction towards persons of school age is of a great concern to the panel.
[41] Teacher AKW, after becoming aware that the child with whom he was communicating was not yet 16, sent Student A a photograph of his erect penis while sitting in a toilet cubicle. This conduct reinforces the lack of both insight and full appreciation of Child Protection Principles that are part of Mandatory All Staff Training every year.
[18]
[42] Teacher AKW and QCT have both presented relevant previous decisions involving a teacher engaging in sexualised communications with a student or former student.
[43] Teacher AKW refers to Queensland College of Teachers v EMK[2016] QCAT 339. In teacher EMK, the teacher and student matched on the Grindr application. The student attended the same school where EMK taught, but EMK did not teach the student or have any extra-curricular activity connection. The parties exchanged images via Grindr including images of genitalia, exchanges about sexual preferences and history. There was also discussion of possible meeting. However, this did not occur. Unlike the current matter, the texting between EMK and the student continued at times over a period of many months whereas, in the current matter, teacher AKW's communication with the student was over a 2-day period. EMK self-reported to a pastor and this was considered favourably. The Tribunal decided to prohibit EMK for 12 months from the date of the order.
[44] Among several cases presented by the QCT, the following previous were referred to the Tribunal. Although there are some differences in these matters to the current matter, these decisions involve comparable behaviour of a teacher engaging in sexualised communications with a student or former student. These decisions:
DRR was a 29-year-old teacher who engaged in text and email communication with a 17-yearold student. The communication commenced two days after her graduation (November 2010) and continued until 25 March 2011. The content of the messages was personal and intimate, including lengthy discussions about sex in general, including attempts to arrange to meet the student to have sex with her. The teacher also sent the student a photograph of an erect penis. No sexual intercourse occurred. The teacher's conduct was considered to be 'grooming', and no insight or remorse was shown. The Tribunal cancelled his registration and ordered a 30-month prohibition (from the date of decision) from re-applying for registration and a notation requiring a psychologist report on re-application.
NRR used electronic communications to instigate and actively maintain contact with three former students. The nature of the communications contained reference to drugs, alcohol and steroid use, intimate/sexual communications and the exchange of intimate and/or sexual images. Commencement of communications with each former student began soon after their graduation. NRR also attempted to meet with one of the former students. The Tribunal considered NRR's cooperation with the Tribunal processes and the agreed statement of facts before making a prohibition order of 2 years and 9 months from the date of his suspension.
DECISION
[22]
[45] Pursuant s 160 of the Act the Tribunal has powers to make orders regarding any disciplinary action
[46] The QCT and Teacher AKW agree that a disciplinary action is appropriate, and the Tribunal has found that a ground for disciplinary action exists. The Tribunal agrees with the submissions of QCT that the appropriate sanction is a period during which Teacher AKW is prohibited from re-applying for teacher registration, subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal finds that pursuant to s 160(2)(j) of the Act the appropriate prohibition period of approximately 3.5 years from the date of suspension is an appropriate sanction. Teacher AKW is prohibited from reapplying for registration until 11 May 2025.
[23]
[47] The Tribunal has agreed that the decision must include a notation requiring Teacher AKW to undergo psychological assessment and associated sessions for the purposes of understanding the necessity to protect children, students and young adults of all ages. Specific details of the requirements of this psychological assessment are set out in the formal orders of Tribunal.
[48] The Tribunal orders also include a requirement for Teacher AKW to provide evidence of satisfactory completion of the Morrison Consulting and Advisory "Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries for Teachers" online learning program for individuals with a follow-up session conducted via face-to-face or videoconference. Specific requirements surrounding evidence of satisfactory completion are set out in the Orders.
[50] Other than to the parties to this proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent other than to the extent necessary for the QCT to meet its statutory obligations and as provided under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The respondent may provide a copy of this decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements