Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CC [2025] QCAT 284

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

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

• [3] The College submits a ground for disciplinary action against CC 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' or 'standard'). It contends that in the period of or around 27 November 2019 to 29 May 2020, CC engaged in a sexual relationship with BA as follows:[1]

(a) From at least 2018, CC engaged in conversations with BA about her mental health without appropriate approval and did not make adequate records of those communications.

(b) From late 2019, CC met BA away from school on several occasions including at Black Gully Creek, BA's house and a park.

(c) CC sent BA 2,337 text messages characterised by periods of intense messaging.

(d) CC had sexual intercourse with BA on at least two occasions, after which the periods of intense messaging ceased.

(e) CC kissed BA in the school gymnasium after school.

(f) CC sent BA nude photographs of himself with sexualised commentary, including a photograph of his penis.

Is a ground for disciplinary action established?

• [4] CC has called no evidence to rebut to the contentions advanced by the College or made any submissions impugning its claims. Nevertheless, the Tribunal must satisfy itself that the evidence supporting the existence of a ground for disciplinary action has been proved to the requisite standard.
• [5] The appropriate standard of proof to be applied by this Tribunal is the civil standard, namely, proof on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal must also apply the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw,[2] which requires a tribunal of fact applying the civil standard of proof, when deciding whether evidence proves a fact, to bear in mind the seriousness of the allegation in issue, or the gravity of the consequences of a finding, when assessing the probative value of evidence.[3]

• [6] The primary evidence that CC engaged in a sexual relationship with BA arises from disclosures she made to the officers from the Queensland Police Service ('QPS') and investigators from the Department of Education Queensland ('DOE').
• [7] BA participated in an interview with a QPS officer on 11 March 2020. Initially, she denied engaging in a sexual relationship with CC. However, in a second interview on 1 June 2020, she disclosed having sexual intercourse with CC around Christmas 2019. She also disclosed that CC sent her a text message containing an image of his genitalia.
• [8] BA also participated in a recorded interview with an investigator from the DOE on 27 May 2020. She told the investigator that CC had been in her life since grade seven. She professed to not having a great childhood. She said her father was abusive, and she suffered from PTSD anxiety and depression. She "trusted" CC and spoke to him about her "problems".
• [9] BA claimed that her relationship with CC changed in the fourth term of grade 11 when he gave her his mobile number, ostensibly for the purpose of discussing her mental health struggles. CC started texting her, which progressed to meeting in a park. The first time "anything sexual happened" was at her house during the school holidays. She told her best friend about her relationship with CC. Her relationship with CC was physical on two occasions. She also told another teacher at School D, Teacher T, about the relationship.

• [10] Investigators from DOE interviewed CC on 26 August 2020. Initially he denied providing BA with his telephone number or communicating with her outside the school environment. However, after pausing the interview to speak to his union representative, CC admitted to providing BA with his number in 2019 before the Christmas holidays and exchanging text messages relating to her mental health.
• [11] CC confessed to sending BA sexually explicit text messages. He admitted sending BA a text message professing his desire to be sexually intimate with her. He admitted engaging in "dirty talk". He denied sending BA a photograph of his genitalia, engaging in a physical sexual relationship with her, or seeing her outside school.

The Tribunal's findings about the existence of a sexual relationship

• [12] We find that BA's disclosures to the QPS and DOE are cogent evidence that CC was in a sexual relationship with BA in the manner particularised by the College. Her disclosures are not inherently implausible, and she had no motive to lie. Accordingly, in the absence of contradictory evidence, BA's disclosures ought to be accepted.
• [13] CC had an obvious sexual interest in BA. By his own admission, CC sent BA sexually explicit texts, engaged in "dirty talk" and intimated to her his desire to be sexually intimate. Against that confession, CC's denials that he did not engage in sexual intercourse with BA, are not credible.
• [14] CC's initial lies to DOE investigators about not communicating with BA outside school hours further impugn his credibility. In Edwards v The Queen[4] it was held that "ordinarily, the telling of lie will merely affect the credit of the witness who tells it. A lie told by an accused may go further and, in limited circumstances, amount to conduct which is inconsistent with innocence, and amount therefore to an implied admission of guilt". The obvious inference to draw here, is that CC lied as a means of self-preservation. When it became obvious to CC that his lies were not sustainable and could be easily disproved, he confessed to texting BA. We find that CC's lies are probative evidence of the existence of a sexual relationship.
• [15] Additionally, there is a significant body of circumstantial evidence supporting the veracity of BA's narrative, namely:

(a) On or about 3 March 2020, BA told another student named N that she was in a sexual relationship with CC.

(b) On or about 13 March 2020, Student G told her school's guidance officer that she was aware that BA and CC were in a relationship. Later, on 27 May 2020, Student G told DOE investigators that she had sighted text messages between the pair, which was mostly "dirty talk" and a few pictures of male genitalia.

(c) On 23 March 2020, in a conversation with Teacher T, BA alluded to having a relationship with someone she had "always spoken to from year seven about everything".

(d) Former Student Z told a DOE investigator that CC sent her several Snapchat messages after 10.00pm including pictures of him lying shirtless in bed with the sheets up to his chest.

(e) Over the course of two interviews, BB, who was CC's partner at the time of the alleged transgressions, told DOE investigators that:

(i) she confronted him after discovering searches for young girls, especially girls from School D, on his Facebook history.

(ii) CC confessed to her that he had pleasured himself to a Facebook photograph of a former student at School D.

(f) Lastly, pursuant to a Notice to Produce, the QPS provided the Tribunal with screenshots taken from BA's mobile telephone. The screenshots contain a photograph of a male's genitalia sent to BA's mobile telephone via text message, from a contact bearing CC's surname.

• [16] The allegation that CC engaged in a sexual relationship with a student is a serious allegation. We are mindful that CC will suffer grave consequences if the Tribunal finds the allegation proven. Nevertheless, we are reasonably satisfied that the preponderance of the evidence, as set out above, irrefutably establishes that CC was in a sexual relationship with BA.

• [17] Turning now to the question of whether CC's behaviour falls below the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. The standard is not defined in the EQCT Act, but can 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.

• [18] Plainly, CC's behaviour is antithetical to the above objects. He failed to maintain professional boundaries and exploited the trust of a vulnerable student. CC's conduct was unprofessional and, if it came to light, would have the effect of diminishing public confidence in the teaching profession. Accordingly, we are satisfied that CC's behaviour falls below the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.

• [19] If the Tribunal decides a ground for disciplinary action against a former approved teacher has been established, it may:[5]

(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.

• [20] The College moves for the Tribunal to indefinitely prohibit CC from registering as a teacher. It relies on Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin [2024] QCAT 298 ('Duffin'), Queensland College of Teachers v ATL [2020] QCAT 59 ('ATL') and Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MUE [2021] QCAT 401 ('MUE'), as factually similar cases where the Tribunal imposed an indefinite prohibition.
• [21] Duffin concerned a teacher who had a sexual relationship with his 16 year old student. The relationship involved several instances of kissing and touching. It continued after the student graduated.
• [22] In ATL, a 35 year old teacher engaged in a sexual relationship with his 17 year old student when she was in grade 12. The relationship continued after graduation. The Tribunal found that the teacher gave the student an inappropriate amount of assistance with assignments. He subsequently entered a relationship with a different former student. ATL agreed with most of the allegations levelled against him.
• [23] MUE concerned a teacher who had a sexual relationship with a student who he had taught for three years. There were 10 occasions of sexual intercourse. The teacher and student also consumed cannabis and alcohol together.
• [24] As the College aptly points out in its submissions, each of the above cases involved long standing relationships between the teacher and student, power imbalances and inappropriate conduct that escalated into a sexual relationship. Whilst prior comparative cases are helpful, each disciplinary referral is unique and must be assessed on its own merits.
• [25] In this case, there are several aggravating features to CC's conduct. Firstly, there was a significant power disparity between BA and CC. He held a position of authority over her as a teacher. He was also much older. At the relevant time CC was 26 and BA was 17.
• [26] Secondly, CC leveraged BA's psychological fragility to further his own sexual gratification. CC knew about BA's mental health struggles, yet he exploited her vulnerability and violated her trust.
• [27] Thirdly, CC demonstrates a lack of insight into his conduct. We have found that he lied to DOE investigators about the true nature of his relationship with BA. CC did not meaningfully participate in the disciplinary process. He has expressed no remorse for his conduct. There is no evidence that CC has reformed himself or changed his behaviours.
• [28] Fourthly, CC plainly has a sexual interest in students. By his own admission CC expressed a sexual interest in BA. He engaged in a sexual relationship with a former student of School D. He sent former students inappropriate text messages and photographs at inappropriate times of the day. He masturbated to an image of a former student.
• [29] Ultimately, we are satisfied that an order indefinitely prohibiting CC from reapplying for registration or permission to teach is warranted. Such a sanction serves as an empathic denunciation of the gravity of CC's conduct. Further, it discourages other teachers from engaging in similar conduct and protects future students from predation.

• [30] We accede to the parties' request for a non-publication order. We consider such an order is appropriate to avoid endangering BA's mental health or safety. It is also necessary for the purpose of preserving the privacy of the other students at School D.

[1] Applicant's Outline of Submissions (17.01.25), para 15, Notice of Investigation, Annexure A - ('Particularised Allegations').

[2] [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[3] Leigh v Bruder Expedition Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 246, [26].

[4] [1993] HCA 63; (1993) 178 CLR 193, 9 (Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ).