Queensland College of Teachers v VRR [2024] QCAT 47

1. The respondent must bear all of the costs of, and associated with, compliance of the Tribunal's orders.
2. Publication is prohibited, pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), other than to parties to this proceeding, of information that may identify the respondent, any child or witness, or school, other than to the extent necessary to enable the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations and as provided under the QCT Act.

EDUCATION - EDUCATORS - DISCIPLINARY MATTERS - GENERALLY - where teacher inflicted severe physical and emotional harm upon her own child - where teacher charged with serious offences but charges were withdrawn - whether ground for disciplinary action - appropriate sanction - whether teacher should ever be permitted to re-apply for registration

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), ss 92(1)(h), 158(2)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(2)

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

• [1] The respondent is a former teacher. As a consequence of being charged with serious offences relating to violence perpetrated against her daughter, the respondent's teacher registration was suspended and has since lapsed.
• [2] The charges were subsequently withdrawn. Nevertheless, although contesting whether the evidence establishes ongoing domestic violence, the respondent accepts a ground for disciplinary action is made out in that the respondent 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.[1]

• [3] The respondent also accepts a sanction in the range proposed by the Queensland College of Teachers ('QCT') is appropriate. The proposed sanction included that the respondent be precluded from re-applying for registration as a teacher or permission to teach for a period of four to five years from the date of the suspension of her teacher registration (19 September 2018) and that any application for registration or permission to teach be accompanied by an independent psychological report satisfactory to the QCT.
• [4] In view of the violent nature of the incident that gave rise to the charges, we are satisfied the ground for disciplinary action is made out and that a sanction along the lines proposed by the QCT is appropriate. The level of violence involved, and the absence of evidence of insight into the unacceptable nature of the conduct, persuade us that a five-year prohibition on re-applying for teacher registration-the upper end of the range proposed by the QCT and accepted by the respondent-is appropriate.
• [5] In addition to the agreed orders, we also consider the psychologist's report required to accompany any application for registration or permission to teach must include the psychologist's professional opinion regarding the likelihood, if any, of the respondent engaging in conduct contrary to the need to protect children and young people from physical or psychological harm. The QCT supported this proposed addition to the orders. The respondent did not take up the opportunity to make submissions regarding the proposed addition of this order.
• [6] Our reasons for these decisions follow.

• [7] The respondent was charged with torture and assaults causing bodily harm while armed, arising out of an incident involving her then 11-year-old daughter on 17 September 2018. It was alleged the respondent struck the child with a belt, coat hanger, and wooden spoon numerous times causing pain and severe bruising to the child's back and upper arms.
• [8] One count of unlawful assault ('domestic violence offence') and four counts of unlawful assault causing bodily harm armed with an offensive instrument ('domestic violence') were presented to the District Court on 17 May 2019.
• [9] However, on 5 November 2019, the Crown entered a nolle prosequi and the respondent was discharged. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions provided the following advice regarding the context of the withdrawal of the charges:

The case featured many difficulties and our office attempted to progress the matter through all available avenues. Notwithstanding the evidentiary issues, the criminal proceedings was (sic) impacting negatively on the family.

To that end, [the respondent] signed an undertaking to not apply for a teaching position for a period of 2 years and our office discontinued the proceedings.

• [10] The child was removed from her parents' care, but subsequently returned home. In the context of urging that she be allowed to return, the child recanted some of her allegations and/or made inconsistent statements. Additionally, as submissions filed on behalf of the respondent pointed out, because the charges were withdrawn evidence of witnesses was never tested. That evidence included the child's reference to previous punishment involving striking with a vacuum cleaner which the child was said to have damaged and statements of another child from which the QCT submitted an inference that the 17 September 2018 incident was not isolated, but part of ongoing domestic violence, could be drawn.
• [11] We accept an incident of severe violence - which involved the respondent striking the child multiple times with a belt, wooden spoon, and coat hanger and resulting in extensive bruising - occurred. That is consistent with statements made by the child as recorded in a transcript of interview and is supported by medical evidence. The respondent, in her affidavit and submissions filed in this proceeding, did not deny the allegations.
• [12] In that regard, a specialist paediatrician with long experience in medical aspects of child protection examined numerous photographs of the child. His report describes a horrifying array of injuries, summarised as follows:

My conclusions are that:

a. [the child] had many bruises that were confluent with overlapping edges that makes it difficult to say with certainty how many bruises or impacts she suffered.

b. In my opinion there are at least 48 separate impacts that caused the bruises, and many more impacts may have occurred.

c. There are patterned bruises that suggest specific implements were used to cause the bruising, with the appearance of bruising consistent with the use of a wire coat hanger, a leather belt, a belt buckle . . . and a wooden spoon . . .

• [13] The severity of the attack-which, on the child's account was accompanied by demeaning verbal abuse is not denied by the respondent-was also out of all proportion to the child's conduct which was said to have involved the child, then aged only 11 years, taking money from one of her sisters. To be clear, in so observing we do not suggest there are any circumstances in which it would be acceptable for a child to be attacked in this way.
• [14] The repeated nature of the assaults evidenced by the large number of bruises suggests this is not a case where a parent, under stress, has acted out of character by striking a child and then has immediately been seized with regret and remorse. Indeed, there is no expression of remorse in the respondent's affidavit which focusses mainly upon the financial impact on the respondent of being unable to be employed as a teacher. Rather, the large number of bruises establishes that it was a sustained attack that must have proceeded for a considerable period of time.
• [15] Those circumstances make it unlikely, in our view, that the incident was of an isolated nature; that is, that no other violent punishments were administered by the respondent on other occasions. Additionally, there are statements from witnesses capable of supporting a conclusion or inference that violent punishments had occurred on other occasions.
• [16] However, in view of the untested nature of the evidence, and the seriousness of the allegation, we are not prepared to make a positive finding that the respondent was engaged in ongoing domestic violence.

• [17] Even having regard only to the 17 September 2018 incident, there can be little doubt the respondent's conduct in carrying out the sustained, violent and demeaning attack on her then 11-year-old daughter is not behaviour that is consistent with the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. The respondent did not submit otherwise and, as already noted, accepts that a ground for disciplinary action is made out.[2]

• [18] In view of the extreme nature of the respondent's conduct, and notwithstanding the QCT's submission regarding the appropriate sanction, we have given serious consideration to whether the respondent should ever be entrusted again with responsibility for the care and education of children. Community expectations would, we believe, regard such behaviour as utterly unacceptable and inconsistent with the standard of conduct required of a teacher in or outside the classroom.
• [19] Despite these reservations, we are persuaded that a sanction involving prohibition on re-applying for registration for a period of five years and requiring any application to be accompanied by a psychologist's report specifically addressing the likelihood of further unacceptable conduct occurring, is appropriate.
• [20] In so deciding, we have taken into account that:

(a) the QCT, which is responsible for regulatory matters regarding teachers, proposed and supports such orders and did not submit that a permanent prohibition on the respondent re-applying for registration is appropriate;

(b) the expiry of the five-year prohibition on applying for registration does not mean the respondent is entitled to be registered as a teacher; rather, if the respondent re-applies for registration, the respondent will need to satisfy the QCT it is appropriate that she again be permitted to teach.

(c) the psychological report to accompany any application for re-registration must be independent and acceptable to the QCT;

(d) the additional condition we have imposed will require the psychologist to specifically address whether there is any risk of unacceptable conduct recurring;

(e) consideration of any application for registration the respondent may lodge will include the respondent's conduct on 17 September 2018 and subsequently;

(f) the child safety authorities have, so far as the evidence indicates, had no further cause for engagement with the respondent's family;

(g) the respondent otherwise has, so far as the evidence indicates, an unblemished record as a teacher and provided favourable referee reports.

• [21] Under s 66(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal may make a non-publication order if it considers that is necessary in the interests of justice. We are satisfied it would not be in the interests of justice for the victim child in this case to be identified. The Tribunal's orders therefore include a non-publication order.

[1] Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ('QCT Act'), s 92(1)(h).

[2] Section 158(2) of the QCT Act requires the Tribunal to have regard to any relevant previous decision of which the Tribunal is aware. We have taken into account decisions brought to our attention in the parties' submissions. None of those decisions concern circumstances directly comparable to the current matter but nor do they cast any doubt upon whether the circumstances of this case establish a ground for disciplinary action. For the reasons already observed, we consider there can be no doubt such a ground is established in this case, and the respondent did not submit otherwise.