QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BL [2022] QCAT 253	
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS	

(applicant)	

	v	
	tEACHER BL	

(respondent)	

APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR145-22	
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters	
DELIVERED ON:	28 June 2022	
HEARING DATE:	28 June 2022	
HEARD AT:	Brisbane	
DECISION OF:	Member Browne	
ORDERS:	1.	The suspension of the registration of Teacher BL as a teacher is continued.
2.	Other than to the parties to this proceeding and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify Teacher BL, any relevant school, complainant, student or third party, other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).	
CATCHWORDS:	EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – suspension of teacher – where Queensland College of Teachers suspended the teacher’s registration – whether suspension should continue – whether non-publication order should be made
Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 7, s 49, s 50, s 53, s 54, s 285, s 285AA, s 285B, s 287, Schedule 3
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2016] QCAT 511
Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT 048	
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)	

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]	Teacher BL has been registered in Queensland as a teacher since 2008. 
[2]	On 13 June 2022, the Queensland College of Teachers (the College) suspended BL’s registration under s 49 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) after receiving notification from the Department of Education pursuant to s 76 of the Act of an investigation into BL’s conduct towards multiple female students.
[3]	The conduct giving rise to the investigation by the Department included multiple allegations that BL breached his professional boundaries by being overfamiliar and engaging in inappropriate physical contact with multiple female students. The Department suspended BL’s employment on full pay pending the outcome of investigations.
[4]	The College later suspended BL’s teacher registration pursuant to s 49 of the Act having formed the reasonable belief that BL poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
[5]	The College has referred the continuation of the suspension to the Tribunal to decide whether to continue the suspension. Section 53(3)(b) of the Act requires the Tribunal to continue the suspension unless satisfied the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
[6]	The Tribunal must now decide whether BL does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
[7]	The QCT Act does not define the term ‘unacceptable risk of harm’. The QCT Act defines ‘harm’, amongst other things, as being ‘any detrimental effect of a significant nature’ on a child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing resulting from a single act, omission or circumstance; or a series or combination of acts, omissions or circumstances.
[8]	I find that in order to be satisfied based on the evidence before me that there is an identified risk of ‘harm’, the harm must be significant, rather than minor, and the degree of risk of the harm occurring must be unacceptable. The standard of proof to be adopted by the Tribunal in this matter is the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, commonly referred to as the ‘Briginshaw standard’. 
[9]	The consequences that follow a disciplinary proceeding such as this are serious. The Tribunal should not reach a conclusion or make a finding based on inexact or flimsy evidence. 
[10]	I accept the approach taken by the Tribunal in Queensland College of Teachers v LDW, that said the determination of any identified risk as ‘unacceptable’ involves a balancing exercise by the Tribunal between the protection of students from harm by the conduct of the teacher on the one hand; and the potential harm to the teacher of having an unjustified suspension of his or her registration on the other hand.
[11]	In the present matter, BL has filed submissions in compliance with the Tribunal’s directions.  BL acknowledges the opportunity to make submissions but declines to do so.
[12]	The College has filed relevant material in support of the referral and the continuation of the suspension.  The alleged conduct giving rise to the charges, as detailed in the material received from the College, involves a number of students at the school where BL was a teacher and the students were either in his class and/or attended his classroom during break times.
[13]	All of the complainant students are female and it is alleged that BL provided preferential treatment to female students over male students. For example, it is alleged he wrote a personal letter titled ‘To My Lovely Lady’ to a female student. Further to that, BL permitted one or more female students to skip a lesson and stay in the classroom with him during his non-contact time and encouraged the students to lie to a teacher about their whereabouts during the lesson. BL is also alleged to have permitted female students to hug him, sit on his lap, touch and/or play with his hair and amongst other things gather around his desk in close proximity to him and be alone with him in his classroom during break times. 
[14]	There are further allegations involving an invasion of space by BL of female students by sitting next to them on the couch/lounge located in the classroom, so that their bodies are touching, BL physically touching female students with his hands on their head, arms, shoulders, backs, legs and thighs. Further to that, BL is alleged to have psychically picked up a female student by the waist and placed female students on his lap while seated at his desk and to have psychically swung multiple female students around in the playground with his hands, while he was on playgrounds duty and to have hugged multiple female students.
[15]	During a school camp involving year 4 students, BL is alleged to have permitted female students to climb on him and touch him in the swimming pool and BL is alleged to have engaged in inappropriate physical contact with them in the swimming pool. BL is also alleged to have sat on a wooden bench while watching a movie so that he was close to a female student so that their bodies were touching and held hands with the student after the movie while walking back to the cabins. 
[16]	There is also an allegation involving BL and his treatment of a male student with Autism Spectrum Disorder which made it difficult for the student to concentrate. It is alleged that BL knew about the student’s condition and yelled at him in a threatening manner on multiple occasions in the classroom and on the basketball court in the presence of another teacher. BL’s conduct is alleged to have made the male student cry and shake.
[17]	I have considered all of the material and submissions filed. I am not satisfied that BL does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The alleged conduct is serious as detailed in the College’s material involving multiple allegations made by female students and a male student with Autism Spectrum Disorder. I am satisfied on balance that the allegations include conduct which may cause psychological and emotional harm to the complainant students. The complainant students are vulnerable and there are multiple allegations of inappropriate touching by BL. In respect of the allegation involving BL’s treatment towards the male student, the student was witnessed to be hysterical, crying, red faced and shaking as a result of the conduct. Further to that the allegations arise from a number of complaints by students at the school where BL was teaching. 
[18]	In continuing Teacher BL’s suspension for the purposes of s 55(2) of the Act, the Tribunal must give BL notice of its decision and the reasons for it. BL may apply within 28 days of the notice of this decision to the Tribunal for review of the decision under s 55(6) of the Act. If BL elects to do so, further material may be provided to the Tribunal in support of the review of the decision that Teacher BL does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
[19]	I am not satisfied that Teacher BL does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. I therefore order that the suspension of Teacher BL’s registration as a teacher is to continue and I order accordingly. 
[20]	It is necessary to make a non-publication order in this matter under s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) that involves serious allegations concerning a number of complainant students. Relevantly, the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified. 
[21]	I am satisfied that it would not be in the public interest for information to be published that would identify Teacher BL, any relevant complainant, student, school or third party, other than to the extent necessary for the College to meet its statutory obligations under sections 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Act. I order accordingly.