Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher JNP [2025] QCAT 500

(a) whether the alleged ground for disciplinary action is established; and

(b) if so, whether a sanction should be imposed against Teacher JNP.

• [8] From September 2022 to April 2024, the College's professional conduct unit conducted an investigation into Teacher JNP's alleged conduct. This included interviews with Student 1, Student 1's mother, Student 2, Ms A, Ms B and Ms C, material provided by the QPS, various banks statements and records of telephone contact between Teacher JNP and some of the girls. In April 2024, the Investigation Report was prepared. It was more than 500 pages and annexed primary source materials including photographs of Student 1 at the time she was in contact with Teacher JNP.
• [9] In summary, the College alleges Teacher JNP engaged in the following serious conduct:[1]

(a) Between October 2021 and November 2021 Teacher JNP and Student 1 were in a relationship. Student 1 met Teacher JNP on the website sugardaddies.meet. Student 1 told Teacher JNP she was 15 years old and in grade 10 at School A. On one occasion Teacher JNP gave Student 1 $350 to purchase drugs. Teacher JNP drove Student 1 and Student 3 to a place where Student 1 knew drugs were sold. Student 3 got out of the car and purchased a one gram bag of cocaine. Teacher JNP then drove Student 1 and Student 3 back to his home. Teacher JNP gave Student 1 and Student 3 alcohol and, while sitting in a single chair, watched Student 1 and Student 3 do lines of cocaine. Teacher JNP then said it "was our time to pay him."[2] Student 1 and Student 3 went into Teacher JNP's bedroom and both girls had sex with him. Student 1 and Student 3 then went back downstairs and had some more cocaine before Teacher JNP drove the girls home. On another occasion Teacher JNP and Student 1 were driving around in his car talking about Student 1's upcoming 16th birthday. Teacher JNP gave Student 1 a rechargeable vape, packed the car and they had sex in the back seat. Teacher JNP then drove Student 1 home. During the field interview between the QPS and Teacher JNP, Teacher JNP acknowledged Student 1 and Student 3 were using marijuana in his house, he didn't know if the white substance on a plate in his house was cocaine and that the sugardaddies.meet website is for people over the age of 18 years.

(b) Between August 2021 to November 2021 Teacher JNP engaged in overfamiliar and inappropriate conduct with Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, Ms A, Ms B and/or Ms C (all under the age of 18 years at the time). The conduct included communications (evidence by mobile telephone records) and providing financial benefits and/or gifts (evidence by bank statements). Communications included assisting one of the girls to take explicit photographs and gifts included paying for nipple piecing.

• [10] Overall, the College contends the allegations disclose Teacher JNP met underage girls on sugardaddies.meet and engaged in overfamiliar conduct and, sexual conduct in exchange for money and/or gifts. Some of those girls were students, though not at Teacher JNP's school. He facilitated drug use and, because he was a secondary school teacher, knew persons in year 12 could be aged 18 years old in Queensland. The College argues Teacher JNP's submissions to the Tribunal showed little insight into the ramifications of his conduct. Some of the girls he was involved with appeared to have vulnerabilities including homelessness and drug use. Teacher JNP's conduct took advantage of these vulnerabilities for his own sexual gratification. The College submits it "is immaterial if the persons were aged 18 years, they are still 'young people' and of school age in Queensland".[3]

• [11] Teacher JNP provided to the Tribunal a five page letter dated 7 December 2022. He submitted that the allegations against him were unsubstantiated, had no evidentiary basis and were strongly refuted by him. He is dedicated to the education and mentoring of children. He is a professional and has never displayed inappropriate conduct nor posed a risk of harm to children and/or young people. Teacher JNP, who was represented, did not wish to file any further submissions.

Has a ground for disciplinary action been established?

• [12] The Tribunal has a substantial amount of evidence before it. That evidence indicates Teacher JNP was in contact with at least seven girls aged between 15 and 17, had transferred monies into five girls' bank accounts, had permitted and/or facilitated girls using drugs (including marijuana and cocaine) in his home, had given alcohol to girls in his home and had engaged in sexual intercourse with at least two students; one of whom was 15 years old at the time. There is evidence that at least four girls met JNP via the website sugardaddies.meet and, during a conversation with the QPS, JNP acknowledged he had been on that website using a fake name.
• [13] Overall, the evidence indicates Teacher JNP met underage girls on sugardaddies.meet using a fake name and provided them with money, gifts, alcohol in exchange for sexual favours - including intercourse. JNP would facilitate transportation and money for girls (including students) to purchase marijuana and cocaine and then watch girls (including students) use those drugs at his home. On the basis of the materials before it, including the Investigation Report, the Tribunal is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, the alleged conduct of Teacher JNP did in fact occur.
• [14] Section 92(1)(h) of the Act states a ground for disciplinary action against a teacher exists when a 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". The standard is that "'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."[4] The position of a teacher is one of trust.[5] The conduct does not need to be in the context of a student/teacher relationship or occur in a person's capacity as a teacher. That means conduct occurring outside the school environment is subject to the standards of behaviour generally expected by a teacher.[6]
• [15] When determining whether Teacher JNP's conduct does not satisfy the standard generally expected of a teacher, the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decisions by a practice and conduct body of which it is aware.[7] Although not "entirely analogous"[8] the College asks the Tribunal to consider the following matters in which a ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) was established:

(a) Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin [2024] QCAT 298 involved Duffin consuming alcohol with a student, kissing a student, touching a student and engaging in sexual intercourse. The conduct occurred over a period of two and a half years and started when the student was in grade 11. Duffin denied the allegations and demonstrated no insight. The Tribunal prohibited Duffin from applying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely; and

(b) Queensland College of Teachers v FPD [2023] QCAT 240 involved FPD engaging in an ongoing intimate relationship with a recently graduated year 12 student. Despite being put on notice about his inappropriate conduct, FPD engaged in an intimate personal relationship with another year 12/former student. FPD had three years' experience at the time of the first instance and nine years at the time of the second. FPD took no steps to change his behaviour and engaged in dishonest conduct by emailing his school authority using a fake email address for the manager of professional standards and student protection. The Tribunal indefinitely prohibited FPD from applying for registration or permission to teach.

(c) Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MUE [2021] QCAT 401 involved MUE having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student that continued past her graduation. MUE's conduct spanned six years and involved sexual intercourse on ten occasions when the student was in grade 11. MUE supplied and drank alcohol with the student and was charged with unlawful possession of a dangerous drug. The Tribunal indefinitely prohibited FPD from applying for registration or permission to teach.

• [16] The Tribunal does not accept, given Teacher JNP's experience with children aged between 12 and 18 and Student 1's physical appearance (as evidenced by photographs of Student 1 in and around the time she was in contact with Teacher JNP), Teacher JNP did not know, or reasonably suspect, Student 1 was under the age of 18. Teacher JNP has demonstrated a pattern of meeting girls under the age of 18, some of which were students at school, on the website sugardaddies.meet. Teacher JNP was in a position of power over these girls because of his age, life experience and financial resources. The power imbalance was significant, and Teacher JNP used that power imbalance for his sexual gratification. The Tribunal accepts that, even if the girls were aged 18 years, Teacher JNP took advantage of vulnerable girls who could have been of school age in Queensland.
• [17] Having regard to the above decisions, the Tribunal is satisfied Teacher JNP's behaviour does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. The Tribunal finds a ground for disciplinary action pursuant to s 92(1)(h) of the Act has been established.

• [18] The purpose of a sanction is not to punish a teacher but to uphold the objects of the Act and provide a deterrent.[9] The College submits that when determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal may have regard to:

(a) Teacher JNP's antecedents and experience;

(b) The nature of the conduct;

(c) The level of insight of Teacher JNP;

(d) The impact the behaviour may have on students; and

(e) Whether any remedial action has been taken by Teacher JNP.

• [19] Teacher JNP's conduct fell well below the behaviour standard expected of a teacher. Teacher JNP used his position of power for his own sexual gratification. He facilitated/permitted illegal drug use in his home and engaged in sexual conduct with vulnerable girls under the age of 18 in exchange for money and/or gifts.

• [20] There was no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate Teacher JNP has insight into his conduct or taken remedial action. His continued denials, in the context of providing no evidence to contradict the material before the Tribunal, supports that conclusion.

• [21] Teacher JNP was first registered as a teacher in 1999 and had more than two decades of teaching experience at the time.

• [22] Teacher JNP's behaviour involved an abuse of power. The girls were vulnerable and facing personal challenges including homelessness, mental health issues and drug use and/or addiction. When Student 1's involvement with Teacher JNP was exposed on social media, she took an overdose of her antidepressant medication requiring a hospital admission and ongoing counselling.

• [23] Teacher JNP has repeatedly found vulnerable girls under the age of 18 on sugardaddies.meet using a fake name and his position of power for his own sexual gratification. He has shown no insight into his conduct and the Tribunal finds the risk of reoccurrence is high.

• [24] Based on all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is of the view Teacher JNP's teacher's registration should be cancelled and he be prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach indefinitely. This is the only appropriate sanction to adequately meet the objectives of the Act. In particular, to uphold the standards of the teaching profession and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession.

A non-publication order issued in the interests of justice

• [25] On 14 November 2024, the Tribunal made a non-publication order under s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) in relation to this matter. This order remains in place.

[1] The applicant's submissions dated 4 April 2025 page 15 at paragraph 24.

[2] Affidavit of Student 1 dated 24 July 2022 at paragraph 24.

[3] Investigation Report page 87 at 3.3 Investigation Findings.

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

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

[6] Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59, [35].

[8] Applicant's written submissions dated 4 April 2025 at paragraph 86.

[9] The Act s 3; see also, Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186, [25]; Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241, [26].