Queensland College of Teachers v TXU [2026] QCAT 127

[2] On 30 July 2021 the QCT suspended TXU's registration under section 49 of the Act.[1] On 20 August 2021 the Tribunal ordered the suspension of TXU's registration continue.[2]

[3] Under the Act, QCT must refer a matter for disciplinary proceedings if it 'reasonably believes' that one or more grounds exist for disciplinary action against a 'relevant teacher'.[3] 'Relevant teacher' is defined to mean an approved teacher or a former approved teacher.[4] An 'approved teacher' means a person who is registered as a teacher or holds a permission to teach.

[4] TXU was initially granted teacher registration in September 2009 and has held continuous registration from that date until 7 August 2024 when TXU's licence was not renewed. Therefore, while TXU's status changed during the proceedings, she remains a 'relevant teacher' for the purposes of these proceedings.[5]

[5] The Tribunal is satisfied that as a 'former approved teacher', TXU is a 'relevant teacher' as defined in the Act and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter.[6]

Was the ground for disciplinary action established under section 92(1)(h)?

[6] The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are:

(a) whether a ground for disciplinary action is established;

(b) if so, the appropriate sanction to be applied;

(c) whether there should be a non-publication order; and

(d) whether costs should be awarded.

[7] The ground for disciplinary action primarily relied upon by QCT is that TXU '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'.[7] 'Standard of behaviour' is not defined in the Act and the Tribunal accepts that the standard is a fluid one and informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave[8] and that the welfare and best interests of children should be the primary consideration in the Tribunal's consideration of matters concerning the teaching profession.[9]

[8] In considering the expected standard, the Tribunal must have regard to the main objects of the Act which are:[10]

(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 manner by approved teachers.

[9] QCT assert that the behaviour of TXU does not satisfy the standard of behaviour which is generally expected of a teacher in that:

(a) Between January 2020 and 14 October 2020 TXU engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or sexualised electronic communications with a student (hereafter referred to as 'RIS');

(i) when RIS was a child;

(ii) there was a current direct teacher/student relation:

(iii) and student RIS had vulnerabilities known to TXU, including that he was an illicit drug user and exhibited disengagement with schooling.

(b) Between April 2020 and October 2020 TXU engaged in sexualised electronic commination with RIS through Facebook Messenger, including sending images depicting a female believed to be TXU lying on a bed only in underwear with their breasts mostly visible.

(c) From 20 June 2020, TXU failed to report student RIS's alleged sexual relationship with another student (hereafter referred to as 'GHL'), who was then aged 15 years old.

(d) On 27 July 2020, TXU engaged in conduct which concealed student RIS's unauthorised absence from school, using erroneous school attendance records.

(e) On 24 June 2020, TXU discussed with RIS retaliation against another student (hereafter referred to as 'MNS'), including stating 'I'm going to destroy that cunt" and when RIS asked if he planned 'someone to bash' MNS would she 'let it slide', TXU stated 'K' and 'Not in uniform'.

(f) Around 14 October 2020, TXU threatened student RIS with academic repercussions if he or student GHL reported her conduct.

[10] On 15 April 2024 TXU filed a response to the allegation through their solicitor. TXU agreed with the first five allegations but disputed allegation six that she threatened student RIS with academic repercussions if he or student GHL reported her conduct.

[11] In submissions filed on 10 October 2024 TXU confirmed that she no longer wished to contest allegation six, she accepts the grounds of disciplinary action pursuant to section 92(1)(h) is established on the material before the Tribunal and accepts the finding that the Tribunal makes in respect of the allegation.[11]

[12] The Tribunal reviewed and considered the material filed by QCT, which included:

(a) The application or referral - disciplinary proceedings received 08 March 2024.

(b) Affidavit of Chad Wayne Hill, Corporate Legal Counsel, QCT, filed 8 March 2024.

(c) QCT's submissions on grounds, sanction and non-publication orders, dated 13 September 2024.

(d) Affidavit of Chad Wayne Hill, Corporate Legal Counsel, QCT, dated 15 October 2024.

(e) QCT's submissions in reply received on 16 October 2024.

[13] The Tribunal reviewed and considered the material filed by the respondent teacher, which included:

(a) The respondent teacher's response to the allegations dated 15 April 2024;

(b) Emails which confirm TXU has completed the 'Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries for Teachers' online course in April 2024.

(c) A reference dated 9 April 2024 in support of TXU, written by one of the Heads of Department at the school TXU worked at.

(d) An education program report confirming the details of the program of education completed by Teacher TXU on 23 April 2024.

(e) A letter from Teacher TXU dated 9 October 2024.

(f) Respondent's submissions in response to disciplinary ground, sanction and non-publication and costs dated 10 October 2024.

[14] The applicable standard of proof for the Tribunal is the civil standard on the balance of probabilities. As set out in Briginshaw v Briginshaw ('Briginshaw')[12] the degree of satisfaction varies according to the gravity of the facts to be proven, and 'reasonable satisfaction' should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.[13]

Are grounds for disciplinary action established?

[15] TXU does not challenge any of the applicant's material or submissions in relation to a finding of misconduct. Although the parties agree that grounds are established, the Tribunal must still be satisfied on its own assessment of the relevant merits of the matter.

[16] We are satisfied to the requisite standard that the six grounds are made out on the evidence and this conduct was overfamiliar and inappropriate and we find that the respondent teacher 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 and grounds for disciplinary action exists under s 92(1)(h) of the Act.

(a) RIS was a year 12 student at the school in which TXU taught.

(b) TXU was RIS's Year Level Coordinator from 2018-2020, and his recreation subject teacher in 2019-2020.

(c) By virtue of her position as a Head of Senior Schooling, TXU held a position of trust.

(d) RIS had a history of illicit drug use and disengagement from school which TXU was aware of and supporting RIS with.

(e) GHL was a year 10 student at the school in which TXU taught. She was 15 years old.

(f) MNS was a year 10 student at the school in which TXU taught at.

[18] The evidence supports a finding that in early 2020, which was the start of Year 12 for RIS, TXU began communicating directly with him through Facebook Messenger. This act in and of itself is outside the standards expected of a teacher, as it is expected a teacher will maintain appropriate professional boundaries and not communicate directly with a student on social media.

[19] While there was some discussion about everyday matters, there was also more serious breaches of the standards expected when TXU engaged in sexualised communication, sending and receiving photographs with student RIS, and having discussions about, and encouragement of, drug use and violence towards another student. The communication occurred both after hours, and during school hours while TXU and RIS were on school grounds.

[20] TXU sent multiple messages that were flirtatious in nature. She used 'winking' and 'love heart' emojis and joked the only reason RIS comes to school was to hang out with her. She told him on one occasion she was thinking about how much she wants to hug him at school, which came directly after a message where she had sent a photograph to RIS of her chest area in a V neck top. She told RIS she knows how to have fun and when he responded, 'only if you have bruises on both knees' she responded 'but true, the shower floor is not very forgiving, I imagine'.

[21] The messages discussed RIS's sex life with TXU often instigating the conversation. When RIS told TXU that he was horny, but not for long as GHL was coming over, TXU proceeded to send him multiple selfie photographs including one of her chest area (clothed) and said, 'let me know when Ur with Ur girl and I can't message U anymore". She asked RIS "Can we still be friends now you have a gf", referring to GHL being his girlfriend. When asked why not, she said, "Bitches be jealous" and told RIS that his girlfriend cannot know that they message.

[22] Not only did TXU not report sexual interaction between RIS and GHL, knowing GHL was under 16, but she condoned the behaviour telling RIS 'good luck'. Then when he confirmed he had had sex with GHL she told him 'Well done'.

[23] TXU sent and received multiple images from RIS, including a photo of RIS shirtless lying on a bed. TXU sent multiple selfie images including a picture of her face, legs and breasts, some in provocative poses such as sucking on a straw and one with her wearing only underwear and her bare breasts exposed.

[24] TXU repeatedly discussed current drug use with RIS, with some of these conversations being initiated by TXU. TXU not only failed to discourage RIS's drug use but discussed her own desire to use drugs. This included TXU saying, 'there's not enough alcohol in the world tonight' and 'pretty tempted to go heavier'. She agreed with RIS that a 'bong' would help and asked RIS to 'hit me then'. When he said 'tomorrow', she replied 'don't fucking tempt me. If I knew I would get caught I just might'.

[25] There is reference to TXU taking pills with TXU telling RIS that she would have to block him, so she does not get 'real inappropriate' as 'pills do it to me every time'. On another occasion there was reference to TXU being 'on the Columbian stuff'. TXU also implied that there were other teachers at the school who used drugs with her. This communication between TXU and RIS normalised, reinforced and even encouraged drugs use.

[26] There was a number of conversations between TXU and RIS about TXU covering for RIS's absences and taking him out of class. TXU made comments about allowing RIS to 'wag' certain classes and told him that she would love to hang out with him all day and how much she hated to send him off, but she had to. On 27 July 2020 RIS texted TXU directly asking her to cover for him for his school absences and lateness. She agreed and provided false attendance records to conceal his unauthorised absence. RIS stated that TXU regularly covered for him when he was late as he hated detention. However, there was no evidence of falsified documents other than on the one occasion.

[27] When RIS told TXU that another student, MNS, was stating that TXU and RIS go to TXU's office to have sex, TXU both condoned and threatened violence against student MNS. When RIS stated that he wanted someone to 'fuck the bitch up' (referring to MNS) TXU stated, 'Yeah well get in line cause I'm going to destroy that cunt' and 'It's ok I can destroy her mean girl style. It hurts for longer'. When RIS asked if he planned someone to bash MNS would TXU let it slide, she not only appeared to agree but also told him not to wear his uniform.

[28] TXU also threatened RIS and GHL telling them if anyone found out about her communication with RIS, they would be the ones who got in trouble and referenced having friends in high places, including police officers, who could get them in trouble. The Tribunal also accepts on the evidence that as part of these threats TXU threatened RIS with educational repercussions by threatening to take his QCE points away. While neither TXU nor RIS made admissions about this, GHL provides evidence about this incident. The evidence is uncontested and is consistent with TXU's other actions of threatening MNS, when MNS was talking about TXU's inappropriate relationship with RIS.

[29] This conduct clearly falls well below the standard of behaviour expected by the teaching profession and the community, and a disciplinary ground is clearly established.

[30] As the Tribunal has found that a ground for disciplinary action has been established, the Tribunal must determine what sanction is appropriate. As TXU is now a former teacher, the sanctions available are under s 161 of the Act. Nothing flows from the sanctions now being under s 161 as opposed to s 160, due to her registration not being renewed. Given the significance of the misconduct, had TXU still been an approved teacher her licence would have been cancelled and the same orders made.

[31] In terms of the purpose of any sanction the Tribunal is mindful that as noted in Queensland College of Teachers v HMJ,[14] that:

The purpose of disciplinary action is not to punish a teacher. Instead, it is to further the objects of the QCT Act. Those objects include upholding the standards of the teaching profession, maintaining public confidence in the profession, and protecting the public by ensuring that education is provided in a professional way. 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'.[15]

[32] The QCT's position on sanction is that a notation be made pursuant to section 161(2)(d) of the Act requiring that should TXU reapply for registration or permission to teach, the application must include an independent psychologist's report addressing TXU's knowledge in relation to her various legal obligations and expectations and the psychologist's assessment of the risk of TXU engaging in a similar type of behaviours in the future. QCT state that a three-year suspension is the appropriate penalty for this misconduct and due to the period TXU has already been suspended they do not seek any further prohibition period on her reapplying for her licence. QCT also seek costs incurred during the proceedings in the amount of $7,758.00.[16]

[33] TXU agrees with a notation being made requiring an independent psychologist's report and that there should be no further prohibited period, but disputes cost should be ordered due to delay, unfairness and prejudice.[17]

[34] In terms of delay, QCT was notified of the concerns about the teacher's conduct on 7 April 2021 and authorised an investigation on 13 May 2021. The investigation was concluded, and a decision made to refer the matter to the Tribunal on 7 July 2022. It then took until 8 March 2024 for the referral to the Tribunal to be made.[18] No real explanation has been provided by QCT as to the reason for the delay.

[35] The Tribunal accepts as asserted by TXU that delay is a relevant consideration in determining penalty but does not find that there was any particular prejudice to TXU in presenting their case and defending the allegations caused by the delay. There was no delay between the conduct and the complaint or investigation so the events would have still been fresh in TXU's mind when interviewed. Most of the evidence in this matter is electronic communications between TXU and RIS so is not affected by delay.

[36] The only prejudice which could be argued is that the delay caused TXU to be suspended longer than necessary or appropriate, noting that TXU has been suspended since 30 July 2021, meaning that four years and seven months have transpired. The Tribunal does not find that there was a prejudice to TXU by this.

[37] In making a determination as to misconduct and the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decision by a practice and conduct body of which the Tribunal is aware of (which includes any past relevant decisions of the Tribunal itself).[19]

[38] In their submissions to the Tribunal, both QCT and the respondent teacher identified previous cases to help the Tribunal with guidance in relation to the appropriate sanction in this matter. Both parties refer to Queensland College of Teachers v NRR and Queensland College of Teachers v REC. QCT also rely on Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher XBW[20] however TXU states the case of XBW is not helpful and distinguishable due to TXU being significantly younger and less experienced; XBW involved the teacher attending the student's workplace and indicting they wanted to start a relationship; and XBW did not accept the allegations. TXU relies on Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher WBJ.[21]

[39] A brief summary of the cases relied upon by the parties is as follows:

(a) Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher XBW ('XBW')[22] which concerned a 49-year-old teacher with 25 years of experience who sent inappropriate communications to a year 12 student. The teacher was head of a department and the student's English extension student. After the student graduated, communication became sexually explicit and the teacher expressed a desire for a relationship with the student. The Tribunal cancelled his registration and made a prohibition order of three years and six months from the date of the decision, being a total period of six years and required a psychological report on reapplying to teach.

(b) Queensland College of Teachers v NRR ('NRR')[23] which concerned a teacher who used electronic messaging to instigate and actively maintain contact with three former students. The nature of the communications contained reference to drugs, alcohol and steroid use, intimate and sexual communications and the exchange of intimate and/or sexual images. The teacher had driven a student in his car, gone to her residence and on one occasion kissed her. The Tribunal made a prohibition order of two years and nine months from the date of his suspension and required a psychological report on reapplying to teach.

(c) Queensland College of Teachers v REC[24] which concerned a young 22-year-old relief teacher who exchanged intimate and sexual images with a 16-year-old student over a two-month period. He had taken the student in his vehicle, kissed her and attended her house on two occasions, but no other sexual contact occurred. The respondent teacher cooperated with the process, assisted with an agreed statement of facts, demonstrated remorse and insight and had engaged in counselling soon after the suspension. The Tribunal made a 12-month prohibition order and required a psychologist's report on reapplying to teach.

(d) Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher WBJ[25] which concerned a 27-year-old teacher who had been registered for four years who engaged in overfamiliar and romantic text messages and emails that were indicative of a relationship with the student including telling the student she loved him and arranged to meet the student at the park and at her house. The Tribunal prohibited the teacher from reapplying to teach for three years from the date of the suspension and required a psychologist's report on reapplying to teach.

[40] There are other Tribunal cases which involve inappropriate and sexualised communication which have not led to a sexual relationship with the student and the Tribunal has also considered the following cases:

(a) Queensland College of Teachers v NBC[26] which concerned a 34-year-old teacher who engaged in inappropriate and sexualised communication with multiple students, both in person and on messaging apps including asking for sex. He communicated from his personal email and sent inappropriate and sexually explicit photographs of himself to the student. He took a student in his car, during which he rubbed her leg and attempted to hold her hand. There were ongoing and clear signs of grooming. The conduct did not extend to sexual conduct with any student; however, he did make attempts to do so, but the students resisted the advances. The Tribunal prohibited the teacher from reapplying to teach for six years and six months from the date of the suspension, ordered he pay costs of $2,500 and required a psychologist report on reapplying to teach.

(b) Queensland College of Teachers v DRR[27] which concerned a 29-year-old teacher who engaged in text and email communication with a 17-year-old student, which continued for four months. The messages were personal and intimate and included the teacher sending sexually explicit photographs and attempting to arrange to meet the student for sex. However, no sexual intercourse occurred. The Tribunal made a 30-month prohibition order from the date of the decision and required a psychologist report on reapplying to teach.

(c) Queensland College of Teachers v IOP[28] which concerned a 24-year-old teacher who communicated with two 17-year-old students via messaging apps and sent and received sexually explicit photographs to two students and requested they send photographs. Some of the explicit photographs were taken by the teacher whilst at school and some messages referenced the teacher getting sexually aroused by seeing the student at school. The Tribunal prohibited the teacher from applying to teach indefinitely.

(d) Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong[29] which concerned a teacher who had been found to exhibit grooming behaviour of three minors, under the age of 12 years, including allowing special favours and buying gifts. No sexual contact occurred. The Tribunal made a five-year suspension order from the date of the decision.

(e) Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BMT[30] which concerned a teacher who engaged in inappropriate and overfamiliar communication, with a student. The conduct included exchanging phone numbers with two students, taking a student in her vehicle, allowing a student to attend her residence and exchanging text messages which were overfamiliar with no educational context including discussing past relationships, a student's sexual relationship with her boyfriend (which she then failed to report) and supplying condoms. The teacher had an earlier incident of misconduct for which she got a reprimand for. The teacher had engaged with a psychologist and an OT and there was no suggestion the teacher sent any sexually explicit images or made any sexual advances towards the student. The Tribunal made a four-year suspension order.

(f) Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ,[31] the teacher communicated with a vulnerable year 12 student in a highly sexualised way, hugged her and touched her leg with his leg. The teacher had a pastoral role in the school and with the student in question and was aware of the student's vulnerability, which were considered aggravating factors. The teacher downplayed the seriousness of his conduct by insisting that the emails were merely 'roleplaying'. The teacher was prohibited from reapplying to teach for four years from the date of his suspension.

(g) Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher EKR[32] which concerned a teacher who was 42 years old and had two years of teaching experience. The teacher made overly familiar comments to a student which made the student feel uncomfortable and on the last day of school tried to 'friend' the student on social media platforms and sent messages expressing his love for the student. The teacher was prohibited from reapplying to teach for four years from the date of his suspension and required a psychologist report on reapplying to teach.

[41] 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.[33]

[42] We have considered the various previous decisions of the Tribunal drawn to our attention and others of similar matrix as referred to above. However, as is to be expected, no two matters are the same and while there are similarities in some of these cases, there is no case drawn to our attention where the conduct is directly on point with this case. There are a number of similarities with the case of XBW in terms of the teacher having significant experience, holding a position of authority as head of a department, being a direct teacher for the student and the communication occurring while the teacher was directly teaching the student. It is accepted that the teacher in XBW was older with more experience and breached boundaries by attending the workplace of the student and appeared to be seeking and/or engaging in a romantic relationship with the student, as opposed to the flirtations, sexualised messages in this case. However, there is no evidence in XBW of any discussions or encouragement of drug use, there was no evidence of any specific vulnerability of the student, no threats of retaliation and no other breaches of education policies.

[43] In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal has taken into account the nature of the conduct, the impact of the conduct on the students, the antecedence, experience and remedial action taken by the teacher and community expectations.

[44] Teachers hold a special position of trust arising from the nature of their work. They 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, is an expectation that it will not be breached.[34] Teachers exercise powers that have a significant impact on the lives of students and how teachers behave towards a student may influence that student for life. Consequently, the community expects these powers to be exercised appropriately.[35] As part of that, teachers are expected to be honest, trustworthy and maintain a professional relationship with and keep a professional distance from students.[36]

[45] In this case Teacher TXU has breached this trust and expectation on multiple occasions in different ways including:

(a) Not maintaining professional boundaries by communicating directly student RIS in relation to issues not relating to school matters;

(b) Engaged in sexualised communication with RIS and sending and receiving photographs of each other, some of a sexualised nature where the student or teacher were in a state of partial undress;

(c) Engaging in conversation about drug use and condoning or encouraging that use, as well as referencing her own use and suggesting there was other teachers who used drugs with her;

(d) Condoning or encouraging RIS's sexual activity with another underage student;

(e) Breaching departmental policy and mandatory reporting obligations by failing to report the sexual activity between RIS and GHL who was under the age of consent;

(f) Falsifying school records to hide RIS's absence from school;

(g) Threatening harm to student MNS in retaliation for them discussing her inappropriate contact; and

(h) Threating academic repercussions for RIS including being unable to graduate if he reported her inappropriate conduct.

[46] TXU was an experienced teacher, being 35 years old and registered for a period of nearly 15 years at the time of the inappropriate conduct. As head of the senior school, she held a position of trust and authority and was also student RIS's direct teacher. Given her experience teaching she should have been thoroughly aware of the appropriate professional conduct and boundaries that must exist between teachers and students and knew or ought to know her behaviour was not acceptable.

[47] The evidence demonstrates that this was ongoing disregard of educational policies and procedures, appropriate boundaries and appropriate conduct. TXU's requests to RIS not to tell anyone and her threats of retaliation when she thought RIS, MNS or GHL were going to expose her conduct are demonstrative that she was aware that what she was doing was wrong, but she did it anyway.

[48] When TXU's misconduct was first raised by another parent, TXU lied to her direct line manager and principal about her conduct, allowing the conduct to continue. During this period, she told RIS about her discussions with the principal and other teachers, and encouraged RIS not to tell anyone, to delete pictures and if he hears any rumours to 'shut it down'. She also discussed threatening disciplinary action/detention to students who were discussing her misconduct.

[49] The threats of retaliation made against MNS, GHL and RIS have to be considered an aggravating factor in this matter, which is not present in most of the other cases of a similar nature. While there is no evidence that TXU did take retaliatory action against a student, that she was prepared to threaten it is clearly an abuse of the power bestowed to her as a teacher. When RIS discussed a plan to harm MNS, TXU not only endorsed the plan but counselled RIS on how to avoid repercussions by not wearing his uniform. In relation to RIS and GHL she sought to intimidate them into silence by telling them she had influential friends, including police officers, and they would be the ones who got in trouble with the police if they said anything. In relation to RIS, TXU also threatened to use her power and authority to threaten his educational future.

[50] Given the inherent vulnerability of young people, there is a power imbalance between teachers and students which must not be exploited. There is a clear disparity in age, maturity and life experience between TXU and RIS. In addition, as Head of Department TXU held a position of significant authority with regard to the students' educational outcomes, which makes her threats against GHL and RIS more significant.

[51] The specific vulnerability of the student and the potential for harm is also a relevant consideration. RIS was known to have particular vulnerabilities and TXU's breach of professional boundaries and communications only sought to further enhance those vulnerabilities and to normalise illicit drug use and excuse non-attendance. While there is no information about any particular vulnerabilities relating to GHL or MNS, TXU failed to report potential harm to GHL (as a result of the underage sex) and threatened and condoned violence towards MNS. GHL did have adverse effects on her as a result of TXU's conduct. She described being scared of possible repercussions from TXU and the impact it may have on her schooling, because TXU was the highest person in authority for their grade and she had friends in high places and said they would get in trouble with the police if they told anyone.

[52] It is accepted that there is no prior discipline history for TXU, and she has taught for 15 years with no prior concerns. She provided a reference from a colleague at her school which spoke about how TXU's contribution to the education of students at their school was exemplary and she had introduced an initiative to have an event designed to promote a drug and alcohol-free celebration after the year 12 formal.

[53] In contrast to her past positive works, however, she expressed pro-drug ideology with RIS, a young person known to have vulnerabilities to illicit drug use. This included discussing her own drug use, a desire to use drugs to unwind/sleep after a hard day at work and being 'close to getting messed up at work'. This clear brings the profession into disrepute.

[54] TXU was not entirely candid or cooperative with the investigation when the conduct was discovered. She initially denied the conduct to her immediate supervisor and the school principal. She largely refused to answer questions in the investigation on the grounds that it may incriminate herself, in line with her right against self-incrimination, but in the questions she chose to answer, she was not always truthful. She stated that she was not aware of any confirmed drug use by RIS, and he never discussed any drug use with her, which was clearly untrue.[37]

[55] To her credit however TXU indicated relatively promptly after the referral to the Tribunal was made that she did not dispute five of the six allegations and now does not dispute any of the grounds. She has agreed to the matter proceeding on the papers which has reduced the impact on potential witnesses and has made the proceeding more efficient.

[56] To her credit TXU has undertaken the Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries for Teachers program, with a completion date of 23 April 2024. The course coordinator speaks very highly of her, including that she engaged fully throughout the session and was able to openly and critically reflect upon the incident/relationship that gave rise to the complaint. She took responsibility for her actions and was very open to listening, sharing and reflecting on her behaviour.

[57] TXU has also drafted a statement of remorse dated 9 October 2024. While the statement acknowledged that she failed to uphold her responsibility and was regretful for her action and the impact it had on students involved and their family and broader community, other than broad brush statements, she does not indicate what her understanding is of the harm she caused or the impact of her actions. The letter appears to minimise her actions referring to the conduct as 'over involvement with a student'. She makes no reference to her discussion about drugs, her flirtatious or sexualised comments, her threats of retaliation or her breaches of departmental polices and falsification of attendance records. It is also noted that while the conduct occurred in 2020, the investigation was in 2021-2022, the letter was only completed in late 2024 after the matter was referred to the Tribunal who were tasked with determining if a disciplinary action was made out, and, if so, what sanction to impose.

[58] TXU states she has sought counselling services on her own volition with a focus on self-reflection and the development of healthy coping mechanisms. She asserts that this is demonstrative of rehabilitation and insight. However, there is no evidence of any counselling provided to the Tribunal so limited weight can be put on this aspect.

[59] While there are some concerns with the genuineness of the remorse demonstrated in the statement, the Tribunal accepted that the statement and the Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries course combined does tend to show some remorse and insight. However, one of the concerns for the Tribunal is that there is no explanation as to why this conduct occurred. TXU provided no explanation either in the interview or her material filed in the Tribunal as to why she acted in such a way that so seriously contravened her obligations and responsibilities as a teacher, given she asserts this is not reflective of her entire career and she was usually dedicated, competent and passionate about teaching. Given her significant teaching history and previous unblemished history, to breach professional boundaries to such an extent, coupled with falsifying records and threatening students, seems to be an extraordinary change in conduct. Without understanding how or why this conduct occurred, it is difficult to fully assess whether TXU has real insight, remorse and will make sustained changed to ensure she does not pose a risk to students.

[60] In the present case, considering all of the circumstances and above factors, the Tribunal does consider this a serious breach of trust requiring a significant penalty. The community at large would reasonably expect that their vulnerable teenage children are able to attend school without professional boundaries being breached in the manner that TXU has acted. The penalty needs to send a clear message to the respondent teacher, and the teaching community as a whole, that engaging with students in this way and sending and receiving images and discussing and encouraging drug use and sexual activity and sharing personal details from a teacher's life is completely inappropriate and a clear breach of trust which will result in lengthy suspensions from teaching. It is important the penalty demonstrates the Tribunal's strong disapproval of TXU's behaviour, both in the communication with the student but also the threats of retaliation and breach of departmental policy and falsifying of an attendance record in order to deter others and allow TXU to reflect on why it is not appropriate and its impact on the student and her profession.

[61] The respondent teacher's registration is already cancelled and in all of the circumstances, particularly noting this conduct was not just a significant boundaries violation and inappropriate behaviour in terms of the sexualised and drug related communication, but breach of a departmental policy, falsifying records and threats of retaliation against students, the Tribunal considers that the respondent teacher should be prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for five years. The three years proposed by QCT is too short. The Tribunal considers that the period should commence from the date of the respondent teacher's suspension, that is 30 July 2021, meaning TXU is unable to seek permission to teach until 30 July 2026.

[62] Given the circumstances of the case including the concerns about insight and the significance of the boundary violations and inappropriate behaviour, the Tribunal considers it appropriate, pursuant to s 161(2)(d), to impose a notation about the teacher be entered in the register that, any application for registration or permission to teach must include a psychologist's report. The report must demonstrate TXU's understanding of her responsibilities, provide the results of any risk assessments completed and the psychologist's professional opinion regarding the likelihood, if any, of TXU engaging in conduct that would be contrary to the need to protect children and young people from physical, psychological or emotional harm.

[63] In providing the report, it will be important that the psychologist has a full understanding of the matter and the behaviour constituting misconduct so the respondent teacher should ensure the psychologist is provided with copies of the Tribunal's orders and reasons for decision; and the referral of disciplinary proceedings under s 97 of the Act. TXU must bear all costs associated with obtaining this treatment, assessments and report.

[64] The QCT sought TXU pay costs of $7,758.00 to QCT, pursuant to section 161(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, for the expenses occurred by the QCT in the proceedings before the Tribunal. QCT have provided a breakdown of the costs, which consist of $1,758 for the investigation and $6,000 for barrister costs for the Tribunal proceedings.

[65] The respondent teacher disputes that there should be an order as to costs and relies on an argument in relation to delay.

[66] Section 161 empowers the Tribunal to 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;

[67] The starting point for costs in the Tribunal is that each party must bear their own costs.[38] However, the Tribunal may make an order requiring a party to pay all or a stated part of the costs of another party to the proceeding if the Tribunal considers the interests of justice require it to make the order.[39] There have been divergent views expressed in the decisions of the Tribunal as to whether it is in the interest of justice to award costs in these type of discipline matters.

[68] Section 102(3) sets out the factors the Tribunal may have regard to in determining whether to award costs. In considering these factors in relation to this matter:

(a) There is no evidence that the respondent teacher acted in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged QCT in the proceeding. While she initially disputed one allegation, she ultimately accepted all allegations and agreed to the matter being determined on the papers.

(b) The matter is neither more nor less complex than equivalent disciplinary matters.

(c) In relation to the relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties to the proceeding; clearly the Tribunal has found that the allegation made has been substantiated and the ground for disciplinary action established and as such the QCT's position was strong.

(d) Section 102(3)(d) does not apply as this is not a review matter.

(e) There is no information about the respondent teacher's financial circumstances. It is noted that the respondent teacher has not worked as a teacher for over three years. She has however not raised any issues of hardship in relation to the suggestion of payment of costs.

(f) In relation to other relevant factors, it is accepted that QCT is funded by registration fees of approved teachers in Queensland and not from consolidated revenue for the State of Queensland and there is the argument that it would be unreasonable to expect approved teachers in good standing to subsidise the respondent's misconduct'.

(g) TXU state the delay should be a relevant factor as to why costs should not be paid. There is however no real link between the delay and costs. The delay did not escalate the costs either to QCT or TXU.

[69] In the circumstances of this matter, particularly the strength of the claim and the funding arrangements of QCT, the Tribunal agrees that is it in the interest of the justice for TXU to contribute to the costs involved in the proceedings. However, noting the majority of the allegations were not contested and TXU ultimately acknowledged all grounds of disciplinary action, the Tribunal does not find that TXU should pay all costs.

[70] The Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the interested of justice for TXU to pay the costs of the investigation, noting the strength of the claims against her. However, it is unclear why there was a need for the QCT to engage a barrister, particularly given TXU confirmed she was not contesting all but one allegation relatively promptly after the matter was referred to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not find that the interest of justice requires TXU to pay the barrister costs of QCT.

[71] Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the respondent teacher to pay costs of the investigation in the amount of $1,758.

[72] QCT state that balancing concerns about the need for protection of the subject student's identification with the proper administration of justice in disciplinary proceedings, and the deterrent nature of same, a partial non-publication order should be made which prohibits publication of any information concerning the identity of the students, third parties, and the High School involved. However, such order should not prohibit publication of the respondent's teacher's name.

[73] TXU states that there is no practical utility in prohibiting publication of information which identifies the former students and/or school without also prohibiting identification of her name as the teacher. She asserts that if she is identified and her name is published, it is likely to lead to identification of the relevant school and the students involved, particularly, given the location she worked.

[74] It is noted that a prior determination was made on 20 August 2021 that it would be contrary to public interest for information to be published that would identify the teacher, or any complaint, or the school. It is considered by the Tribunal that a permanent order should now be made under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) to protect the identity of students RIS, GHL and MNS.

[75] It is accepted that in the interests of open justice, proceedings are ordinarily published in full to ensure the proceedings are subject to public scrutiny and to maintain the integrity and independence of the courts,[40] and that offending teachers should not be able to hide behind a non-publication order, to protect them from the public being aware of their misconduct. However, in this case, given the need to protect the identity of the students involved, and given the location where TXU taught, the Tribunal finds that it is a realistic possibility that if TXU is named, it may lead to the identity of the school and/or students.

[76] Both parties agree that there should be sharing of information for very particular purposes under the Act, including to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under sections 285, 285AA, 285B, and 287 of the Act, and to allow Teacher TXU to provide the decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements. It would also be important for TXU to be able to provide material to the psychologist to enable this treatment, assessment and report. The order is made having regard to these submissions.

[77] In the circumstances of the present case, a non-publication order is appropriate. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes a non-publication order, in similar terms to the order made on 20 August 2021, prohibiting disclosure of any information that may identify the respondent teacher, a relevant complainant/student, or the relevant school, and having necessary exemptions for compliance with this order and purposes under the Act.

1. The disciplinary ground in section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
2. The respondent teacher is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach until 30 July 2026.
3. Pursuant to section 161(2)(d) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) that a notation be entered into the register that if the respondent teacher makes any application for registration or permission to teach, the application must include an independent psychological report, satisfactory to the Applicant, which addresses the following:

(a) The respondent teacher's general suitability to teach and work in a child-related field;

(b) Whether the psychologist is satisfied the teacher has adequately understood and addressed the following matters:

(i) differentiating between personal and professional relationships;

(ii) the legal obligations of teachers and tutors;

(iii) the concept, and importance, of professional boundaries;

(iv) the development and maintenance of professional standards and professional boundaries when working with students and how to actively determine and implement professional boundaries with individual students;

(v) an awareness of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate communication and behaviour with students;

(vi) the impact of inappropriate communication, conduct and relationships upon students, families, schools and the profession;

(vii) the need to protect children and students from physical, psychological and emotional harm;

(viii) risk assessment and early identification of potentially problematic situations and venues;

(ix) how to achieve realistic solutions to avoid the risk of harm to students;

(x) the power granted to a teacher;

(xi) the extent and nature of trust invested in a teacher by students, colleagues, parents and the community;

(xii) conduct that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the teaching profession; and

(xiii) the importance of full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.

(c) The results of any risk assessments completed and the psychologist's professional opinion regarding the likelihood, if any, of the respondent teacher engaging in conduct that would be contrary to the need to protect children and young people from physical, psychological or emotional harm.

(d) Confirmation that the psychologist was provided with copies of:

(i) the Tribunal's orders and reasons for decision; and

(ii) the referral of disciplinary proceedings under section 97 of the Act.

1. The respondent teacher must bear the costs of obtaining and providing the psychologist's report.
2. Pursuant to section 161(2)(b) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) the respondent must pay $1,758.00 towards the applicant's costs.
3. Under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding or as allowed in Order 7, and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent teacher, a relevant complainant, or the relevant school, other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations pursuant to sections 285, 285AA, 285B, and 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
4. The respondent teacher may provide a copy of this decision to:

(a) any psychologist in order to comply with Order 3; or

(b) to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements.

[1] Affidavit of Chad Wayne Hill, filed 8 March 2024 at Exhibit D.

[2] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher TXU OCR233-21.

[6] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 9 ('QCAT Act'); The Act s 111A(2).

[8] Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59.

[9] Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709, [34]-[36]; The Act s 233.

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

[14] [2016] QCAT 447.

[16] Applicant's written submissions in relation to grounds, sanction and non-publication filed 13 September 2024, para 4; Application written submissions in reply filed 16 October 2024, para 1.

[17] Respondent submission in response: disciplinary grounds, sanction and non-publication and costs dated 10 October 2024.

[18] Attachment to Application, para 10-12, 16-17; Applicant's written submissions in reply dated 16 October 2024 [4]-[5].

[20] [2019] QCAT 240.

[21] [2024] QCAT 187.

[22] [2019] QCAT 240.

[23] [2021] QCAT 152.

[24] [2020] QCAT 178.

[25] [2024] QCAT 187.

[26] [2015] QCAT 246.

[27] [2012] QCAT 671.

[28] [2022] QCAT 241.

[29] [2010] QCAT 709.

[30] [2024] QCAT 94.

[31] [2018] QCAT 117.

[32] [2023] QCAT 136.

[33] Queensland College of Teachers v WAS [2015] QCAT 61, [38].

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

[36] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher Max [2013] QCAT 436.

[37] Affidavit of Chad Wayne Hill dated 4 March 2024, Exhibit E, Annexure 14, pages344-345 at line 248, 260.

[40] Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89.