Queensland College of Teachers v TXU [2026] QCAT 392

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Queensland College of Teachers v TXU [2026] QCAT 392 PARTIES: QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS (applicant) v TXU (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: OCR174-24 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters DELIVERED ON: 17 August 2026 HEARING DATE: 23 February 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Wilson, Presiding Member Oliver Member Cradduck ORDERS: The Respondent is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach until 30 November 2026 Other than to the parties to this proceeding and their legal representatives, the respondent’s medical practitioners for the purposes of seeking advice, treatment or assistance, and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent, the relevant school, a student or former student, or any complainant or witness who provided a statement to the College or participated in an interview other than to the extent necessary for the College to meet its statutory obligations and as provided for under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The respondent may provide a copy of this decision and the reasons to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements. CATCHWORDS: EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – GENERALLY – where a teacher was involved in an inappropriate and overfamiliar relationship with a student – where sexual intercourse took place shortly after the student’s graduation – whether a ground for disciplinary action is established – whether the teacher’s conduct satisfies the standard of behaviour generally -- 1 of 16 -- 2 expected of a teacher – whether a sanction is appropriate – whether a non-publication order should be made Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3, s 92(1), s 115, s 158, s 233, Schedule 3 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 3, s 5(2), s 9(4), s 11, s 13, s 15, s 25, s 26(2), s 34, s 48 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3 s 66(2) Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Queensland College of Teachers v ATL [2020] QCAT 59 Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194 Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin [2024] QCAT 298 Queensland College of Teachers v FPD [2023] QCAT 240 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MXQ [2025] QCAT 60 Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59 Queensland College of Teachers v TXU [2026] QCAT 127 Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ [2019] QCAT 283 Queensland College of Teachers v YRA [2025] QCAT 524 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] On 8 July 2024 the Queensland College of Teachers (‘the College’) filed with the Tribunal an Application or referral – disciplinary proceeding dated 8 July 2024 (‘the Referral’) to conduct a hearing and decide whether a ground for disciplinary action was established.1 [2] Section 66(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) permits the Tribunal to make a non-publication order if it considers the orders necessary for the reasons listed therein. A non-publication order was previously made in this matter when the Tribunal continued the suspension of the respondent’s registration as a teacher.2 [3] The College sought a non-publication order in the following terms: Other than to the parties to this proceeding and their legal representatives, and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the student or former student, another teacher, third-party, or school, other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations and as provided for under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The respondent may provide a copy of this decision and the reasons to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements. 1 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ss 115, 158 (‘the Act’). 2 Queensland College of Teachers v TXU [2026] QCAT 127; OCR233-21 dated August 2021. -- 2 of 16 -- 3 [4] In disciplinary matters concerning behaviour by teachers with students it is usual for a non-publication order to be made to protect the interests of affected students. Notwithstanding the effluxion of time since the end of the subject conduct, there is potential for further harm should information be published that identifies the students in these proceedings. Those matters relevant to the exercise of the discretion are set out in section 66 of the QCAT Act. As set out below, the non-publication order is continued. [5] The College originally sought the following orders under the Act: (a) The grounds for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(f) of the Act are established; and (b) TXU is prohibited from reapplying for teacher registration or permission to teach indefinitely. [6] Section 92 of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action in practice and conduct matters against a relevant teacher. ‘Relevant teacher’ is defined to include an approved teacher or a former approved teacher.3 ‘Former approved teacher’ means a person who is a former registered teacher or a former holder of a permission to teach.4 [7] The College particularly relies upon section 92(1)(f), which provides: the person behaves in such a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. [8] The Tribunal has previously accepted, and we agree, that: (a) the standard is a fluid one and informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave;5 (b) teachers 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, an expectation that it will not be breached;6 (c) teachers exercise powers that have a significant impact on the lives of students. How teachers behave towards a student may influence that student for life. Consequently, there is a community expectation that these powers will be exercised appropriately;7 and (d) the standard applies to behaviour of a teacher both in their capacity as a teacher and behaviour which occurs outside of a school setting or with recent former students.8 3 The Act sch 3 (definition of ‘relevant teacher’). 4 Ibid (definition of ‘former approved teacher’). 5 Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MXQ [2025] QCAT 60, [13] citing Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59. 6 Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194, [34]; Queensland College of Teachers v Duffin [2024] QCAT 298, [20]. 7 Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194, [34]. 8 Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59, [14], [35]. -- 3 of 16 -- 4 [9] The standard of proof applicable to the Tribunal is the balance of probabilities on the Briginshaw standard which is set out in Briginshaw v Briginshaw.9 [10] In Queensland College of Teachers v XYZ,10 the Tribunal said: The Briginshaw approach is based on the principle that a court in a civil action should not lightly find that a party has engaged in criminal conduct. The standard of proof does not vary – the civil standard remains the applicable standard. However, in applying the Briginshaw principles we must proceed cautiously in light of the gravity of the allegations made against the respondent and we must be satisfied that the relevant evidence has a high probative value, commensurate with the seriousness and the consequences of the alleged conduct. [11] The behaviour allegedly engaged in by the respondent occurred between mid-2019 to March 2020 while the respondent was a teacher at a Queensland secondary school. He was 26 years old at the material times, and had a little over two years’ experience as a teacher. Student X was taught by the respondent during 2017, 2018 and 2019. At the time of the behaviour the subject of the allegations, student X was in year 12 and aged 18, and there was a direct teacher/student relationship. [12] Student X had certain vulnerabilities, which were known to the respondent, in that she had mental health concerns, particularly that she was experiencing feelings of depression. [13] The respondent has not engaged with the proceedings in the Tribunal. He has not filed any response, witness statements or submissions. This lack of engagement is a concern, however it is noted that the respondent did participate in the school authorities’ investigation, to which we will refer. [14] The College alleges 15 grounds for disciplinary action. Those grounds, and our findings in relation to each ground, are as follows: Allegation 1 Between mid-2019 and 20 September 2019, the respondent met with student X at the local library and the squash centre car park, and failed to advise the school principal or administration. [15] An investigation report was prepared by a senior investigator at the College, dated 22 September 2020. That report records an interview conducted with student X in May 2020, the year after she graduated. The transcript of the interview records that student X discussed her mental health with the respondent, noting that the discussion occurred after school had finished one day in 2019. Annexure 37 to the senior investigator’s report is a copy of a handwritten letter by student X showing the extent of the relationship between her and the respondent and demonstrating that student X disclosed mental health concerns to the respondent. It is not disputed that the respondent did not report to the principal of the school the mental health issues raised by student X with the respondent. The respondent and student X have both admitted to the College that such discussions had taken place.11 9 (1938) 60 CLR 336. 10 [2019] QCAT 283, [41]. 11 Affidavit Hill exhibit B, page 403/34, 598 – 599/86. -- 4 of 16 -- 5 [16] We find that allegation 1 is established. Allegation 2 During 2019 the respondent engaged in inappropriate electronic communication with student X, including: (a) commencing prior to July 9, 2019, played a game with student X known as ‘8 Ball’ and exchanged messages via this application; (b) from (at least) 1 July 2019 exchanged text messages with student X; and (c) from about July 2019 exchanged messages with student X via the encrypted application Telegram. Allegation 2 (a) Commencing prior to July 9, 2019, played a game with student X known as ‘8 Ball’ and exchanged messages via this application; [17] Both the respondent and student X made admissions that they played the game 8 Ball and exchanged messages via that application. Those admissions were made by student X during her interview with the College investigator. The respondent admitted playing 8 Ball with student X during his oral submission in the course of the College investigation. We find that allegation 2(a) is established. Allegation 2(b) From at least 1 July 2019, the respondent exchanged text messages with student X. [18] The mobile phones of both the respondent and student X have call records which confirm text messages sent and received between them. The College submits that any private communication between student and teacher is inappropriate, which we accept. We find that allegation 2(b) is established. Allegation 2(c) From about July 2019 the respondent and student X exchanged messages via the encrypted application Telegram. [19] This allegation is not disputed by the respondent, as set out in the transcript of the respondent’s interview with the College investigator. Student X also confirmed exchanging messages with the respondent using the Telegram application. [20] We are satisfied that allegation 2(c) is established. Allegation 3 On 9 July 2019 the respondent was alone with student X in the church kitchen and had a private conversation with student X, who was sitting on a kitchen bench with the respondent standing about a metre in front of her. [21] The respondent’s former spouse gave a written statement that, when she entered the kitchen on the day in question, the respondent was alone with student X, who was sitting on a bench about a metre from the respondent. They were ‘deep in conversation’. [22] When questioned about this specific matter student X recalled helping the respondent in the kitchen, but did not specifically recall sitting on the bench and having a -- 5 of 16 -- 6 conversation with him. The respondent admitted to having a private conversation with student X in the kitchen on the date in question. He stated that he had a conversation with student X, who was sitting on a bench, probably ‘a metre and a half away’. He then said that he ‘removed myself and sat diagonally away from her’, suggesting that, initially, the conversation occurred as alleged. [23] We are satisfied that allegation 3 is established. Allegation 4 [24] There are effectively two allegations rolled up in allegation 4. The allegations are: (a) On unknown dates between mid-2019 and 20 September 2019, the respondent met up with student X, including at the local library and a squash centre car park; and (b) Whilst meeting up with student X on unknown dates between mid-2019 and 27 September 2019, including at the library and squash car park, engaged in sexualised physical contact including kissing. [25] The respondent admitted in an interview with the College investigator that he ‘ran into’ student X at the squash centre car park. The respondent further advised the investigator that he had arranged to meet student X at the library to give her some ‘options, in regard to things that [she could] read’ regarding symptoms and matters regarding depression (mental health). Student X confirmed in an interview with the College investigator, that student X and the respondent had communicated about the meetings in question. That corroborates the allegation that the meetings occurred. We are satisfied that the first limb of allegation 4 is established, i.e. at meetings at the library and squash centre car park. [26] The respondent denied that any sexualised physical contact occurred during the meeting at the library and squash car park. [27] Student X denied any sexualised contact during the meetings with the respondent, when interviewed by the College investigator. The respondent also denied any sexualised conduct ‘because I was still her teacher. There was never any advance from either her or I’. The evidence in support of the allegation is provided by a friend (at the time) of student X. The evidence quoted in the investigator’s report is not specific, and is not based on any observations made by the friend herself. She states ‘… she told me that they kissed’. [28] We are not satisfied that the second limb of allegation 4, of sexualised physical contact including kissing when meeting up at the library and the squash car park, is established. Stated shortly, imprecise hearsay evidence from a party who did not witness any incident firsthand, but relies upon matters allegedly told to her by student X, which was subsequently denied by student X, is not a sufficient basis for a finding that the allegation is established. Allegation 5 On about 1 September 2019, while camping at Rainbow Beach, the respondent met alone with student X around or after midnight. [29] Student X denies that such a meeting took place. The respondent also denies any such meeting. Again, the College relies on a non-specific allegation from student X’s former friend that ‘they met up on the other side of where they were camping, and just like hung out and spoke…’. The transcript of the interview with the friend denies that -- 6 of 16 -- 7 student X told the friend anything about what happened, and the other evidence relied on in support of the allegation appears to refer to references to student X seeming tired the next day, and that at some point during the night in question she was absent from her tent. When asked about that student X stated that she ‘went to the toilet’. [30] Hearsay statements from student X's friend, and generalised observations that student X seemed tired the next day, do not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for a positive finding that the allegation is made out, having regard to the evidentiary standards applicable in relation to serious allegations such as those made against the respondent.12 We are not satisfied that allegation 5 has been established. Allegation 6 Around 9 PM, in/about September 2019 (following the Impact Program at the school), the respondent was seated very close to student X on a bench outside the school library and had a private conversation with student X, who was upset at the time. [31] The respondent denied the allegation. Student X did not recall any such incident when questioned by the College investigator. The evidence in support of the allegation was provided by another teacher at the school, who gave evidence that she saw the respondent sitting on a bench outside the library, consoling a visibly upset student X. The respondent’s colleague provided a statement to the effect that she observed the respondent and student X sitting on a bench together after the school program which occurred on a Friday night and finished ‘about 8:30, 9 at night’. The colleague was not specific about the date when it occurred ‘close to 8 to 12 months ago’, but gave specific details as to observing the respondent and student X on the bench and that the respondent appeared to be trying to console student X. The colleague said that they were sitting very close, but she could not see that they were touching. [32] In summary, student X does not recall this matter, the respondent denies it, and the respondent's colleague has a specific memory. In the circumstances, we are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the incident occurred. [33] We are satisfied that allegation 6 is established. Allegation 7 On or about 24/25 September 2019 whilst seated playing board/card games at a camp, the respondent engaged in over-familiar physical contact by intentionally touching the legs of student X with his legs, under a table. [34] The respondent admitted sitting across the table from student X at some point in the evening, and conceded that it was possible he may have ‘bumped’ student X’s legs, but it was not intentional. Student X denied the allegation. Two independent witnesses gave evidence of having seen the respondent and student X touching their legs together under the table, and each account is consistent. The witnesses say that they observed the respondent and student X touching legs on several occasions. The evidence of the two witnesses is specific and detailed. We prefer that evidence in relation to this allegation. We are satisfied that allegation 7 is established. 12 See e.g. Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336. -- 7 of 16 -- 8 Allegation 8 On 3 October 2019, the Respondent met with student X at a hotel and spent several hours alone with student X. [35] The respondent stayed at the hotel in question on 3 October 2019, as corroborated by a copy of the room booking provided in the investigator’s report. The respondent admitted staying at the hotel and meeting up with student X. However, the respondent denied that he allowed student X up to his hotel room, and states that they sat on a bench outside the hotel ‘to talk about her mental health’. Student X gave a similar version in her statement to the College investigator. Evidence from student X’s former friend, including a message from student X to the friend, included a statement that student X and the respondent ‘got about four hours together in his hotel’. When questioned in interview, student X stated that she lied to her friend about having sexual intercourse with the respondent because she wanted to seem more experienced than she was. (a) Whilst meeting up with student X on 3 October 2019 at the hotel, the respondent and student X engaged in sexualised physical conduct, including cuddling, kissing and sexual intercourse. [36] Applying the Briginshaw standard, we are not satisfied that the College has established that the respondent and student X engaged in ‘cuddling, kissing and sexual intercourse’ on the date in question. There is conflicting evidence and no direct witness to such conduct. On the balance of probabilities, we prefer the denial of the respondent and student X to the somewhat ambiguous text messages included in the College’s evidence in support of this allegation. We are not satisfied that allegation 8(a) is made out. (b) Whilst meeting up with student X on 3 October 2019 at the hotel, the respondent and student X agreed to stop communicating and to delete their message communication, including the Telegram application. [37] The messages provided to the former friend of student X support this allegation, in particular, the statement ‘… It was our last meet up till I grad and we both deleted that app together and deleted our numbers.’ [38] We are satisfied that allegation 8(b) is established. Allegation 9 During October/November 2019 the respondent exchanged messages with Ms ____ (friend of student X) to arrange the student X and the respondent to meet up, including (but not limited to): [39] On 24 October 2019 the messages in question were sent between student X, her former friend, and the respondent. The fact that the messages were exchanged is not disputed. The respondent and student X state that they wished to see each other, but that there was no physical contact whatsoever. [40] We are satisfied that allegation 9 is established, to the extent of its terms, i.e. the exchange of messages. Specifically, we do not find that any particular meeting occurred, which is not the allegation made. -- 8 of 16 -- 9 Allegation 10 Between 3 October 2019 and 29 October 2019 (whilst the respondent was under investigation by the school employing authority) the respondent wrote a note on his mobile phone to/for student X, which included (summary of the information) • It was five weeks since they last spoke • That he wanted to be with her and kiss her • Discussed the investigation. • Mentioned ‘T’ [name deleted] • That he had not heard from her through Telegram in a while. • That he wished he could spend his birthday [with] her [41] Significantly, no such note has been recovered or is in evidence. The College’s case relies upon the recollection of the respondent’s former wife, who in turn relied upon her own recollection. [42] The respondent did not dispute that he made such a note on his mobile phone, but denied that it was intended for anyone. There is no evidence to support the allegation that the note was written to or for student X. Applying the Briginshaw standard, we are not satisfied that allegation 10 is established. Allegation 11 On 6 November 2019 the respondent met up with student X at the squash centre car park. [43] The allegation that the respondent and student X met as alleged is not disputed, and is substantiated through recovered text messages. (a) Whilst meeting up with student X at the squash car park, the respondent accepted a birthday present of lollies in a jar from student X and failed to report this to the school principal or school administration. [44] Student X admitted during the interview that she prepared a jar of lollies for the respondent as a birthday gift, and the respondent admitted in the interview that he received the present. The respondent stated that he did not report the gift to the school principal, because he thought that gifts under the value of $50 did not need to be declared, in accordance with clause 10 of the staff code of conduct. (b) We are satisfied that the respondent accepted the birthday present and failed to report it to the school or the school administration. Allegation 11 (a) is established. Whilst meeting up with student X on 6 November 2019 at the squash car park, the respondent and student X engaged in sexualised physical contact including kissing. [45] The respondent and student X have denied that there was any physical contact when they met at the squash car park on 6 November 2019. The College’s evidence in support of this allegation is the former friend’s statement that student X disclosed to her that she and the respondent ‘would meet up regularly and that they kissed’. The College’s submission, without reference to any evidence specific to the conduct -- 9 of 16 -- 10 engaged in on the day in question, is that ‘it is more likely than not that the respondent did engage in sexualised conduct with student X on this date’. [46] The evidence does not meet the standard necessary to establish a serious allegation such as sexualised conduct, in the absence of any witness to such conduct, and denials from both the respondent and student X. Allegation 11(b) is not substantiated. Allegation 12 On a date between 10 October 2019 and 10 December 2019 at the squash centre car park, the respondent accepted handwritten letters from student X/former student X, (which were highly personal in nature, including student X expressing that she loved the respondent): (a) The respondent failed to advise the school principal or school administration of receiving the letters. [47] The respondent admits that he received handwritten letters from student X in the car park, and failed to advise the principal or school administration that he received those letters. We are satisfied that allegation 12 (a) is established. (b) After the letters were located by the respondent’s former wife, the respondent took steps to conceal the letters by: (i) destroying of/ disposing of the letters; and (ii) deleting messages relating to the letters (sent to other persons by the respondent's former wife) and deleting photos of the letters (taken by the respondent’s former wife). [48] The respondent’s former wife states that she found the handwritten letters in the glove box of the respondent’s car, whereupon the respondent took the letters from her, ‘tore them up and put them in the recycling bin’. The respondent also wanted his former wife to delete photos of the letters which she had taken with her phone. She states that ‘without me knowing he got onto my phone and he deleted them himself from not only the gallery but also the recently deleted folder’. [49] The evidence contained in the former wife’s statement is clear and direct. We are satisfied that allegation 12 (b) is established. Allegation 13 The respondent engaged in inappropriate electronic communication with former student X, including: (a) After 15 November 2019 exchanged messages with former student X via Telegram. [50] Former student X admitted to the College investigator that she had communicated with the respondent via Telegram after she had graduated. The respondent did not specifically deny the allegation. In light of student X’s admission we are satisfied that the respondent did exchange messages with his former student X via Telegram after student X had graduated from the school. Allegation 13 (a) is established. (b) From 6 December 2019 exchanged text messages with former student X. -- 10 of 16 -- 11 [51] Mobile phone records obtained from student X’s phone reveal that student X sent 699 text messages to the respondent between 6 and 17 December 2019, and the respondent sent 701 text messages to former student X during the same period. This messaging occurred after student X had graduated from the school. We are satisfied that allegation 13 (b) is established. (c) On about 22 December 2019, the respondent exchanged messages with former student X in relation to his spouse removing her wedding rings, including (but not limited to): • (former student X) ‘Do you feel a little hurt? Like does it feel more real. That yeah what’s happening between you two is actually real?’ • (respondent) ‘No, I don't feel hurt actually. Yeah it does make it feel more real, though, but I guess that was to be expected.’ … • (respondent) ‘I'm okay :) just wish I could spend time with you…’ [52] The extracted text appears in a screenshot of a text message exchange, which was contained within data obtained from student X’s phone. The exchange is not disputed. [53] We are satisfied that allegation 13 (c) is established. Allegation 14 [54] The College alleges that, from 20 November 2019, the respondent spent time in the company of the former student X, including: (a) On 20 November 2019 driving former student X, to a cinema to see the movie Charlie’s Angels; (b) On 9 December 2019 in the vicinity of Natural Arch at Springbrook; (c) On 4 January 2020; (d) On 23 January 2020 went to the cricket; (e) Allowed former student X to attend at the respondent’s residence including on 14 February, 15 February, 26 February and 28 February 2020; and (f) Allowed former student X to attend at the respondent’s residence and stay overnight including: (i) between 15 December 2019 and 20 December 2019 on three occasions; (ii) on 11/12 January 2020; (iii) on 14 through 15 January 2020; (iv) on 17 January 2020; (v) on 18/19 January 2020; (vi) on 25/26 January 2020; (vii) on 2/3 February 2020; -- 11 of 16 -- 12 (viii) on 8/9 February 2020; and (ix) 20/21 February 2020. [55] These allegations relate to the period after student X had graduated, and, it appears, after the respondent had separated from his spouse. As submitted by the College, it indicates that the respondent and student X had commenced a romantic relationship. [56] We are satisfied that each of the allegations is established, based on the credible evidence contained in the College investigator’s report. Allegation 15 From (at least) late January or early February 2020, engaged in sexualised physical conduct with former student X, including kissing and from (at least) late March 2020 maintained a sexual relationship with former student X. [57] Student X confirmed the sexual relationship from March 2020 in the interview. We are satisfied that allegation 15 is substantiated in its most serious aspect i.e., maintaining a sexual relationship. Comparable proceedings and sanctions [58] In Queensland College of Teachers v ATL13 (‘ATL’) the Tribunal cancelled the teacher’s registration and prohibited the teacher from reapplying indefinitely. In that case, the teacher gained registration in late 2010 and taught from 2011 until the College suspended his registration on 9 July 2018. He had a sexual relationship with one of his year 12 students in 2017 when she was 17 years old, and he was 31 years old.14 He gave her inappropriate and excessive assistance with her assessments because of their relationship. He also engaged in a sexual relationship with another student after she had graduated between August 2014 and December 2017, having taught her in years 11 and 12 in 2012 and 2013. That relationship commenced when she was 18 and he was 28. [59] In our view, the conduct in ATL is even more serious than in this case. ATL made admissions in the proceedings but ‘was far from frank during the interview and ... he lied about several matters’.15 As observed by the Tribunal he had a propensity to pursue relationships with current and former students.16 He accepted most, but not all, of the allegations in the proceedings. There was no evidence ‘of extenuating circumstances, remorse, insight or behavioural change.’17 The Tribunal accepted that Student A had added vulnerability because of her personal circumstances. [60] In Queensland College of Teachers v FPD18 (‘FPD’) the Tribunal prohibited the teacher from reapplying indefinitely. In that case the teacher was first registered as a teacher in December 2009. In 2018 when FPD was 30 years old and had been registered as a teacher for about nine years, he commenced an inappropriate personal and romantic relationship with a year 12 student which progressed to a sexual relationship. FPD engaged in sexual intercourse with the then former student soon 13 [2020] QCAT 59. 14 Referred to as Student A. 15 ATL, [31]. 16 Ibid [79]. 17 Ibid [80]. 18 [2023] QCAT 240. -- 12 of 16 -- 13 after she graduated. Around March 2019 FPD engaged in dishonest conduct. FPD resigned his employment in June 2019 and surrendered his registration about the same time. The application for a disciplinary proceeding was filed in the Tribunal in March 2022 and determined on 26 June 2023. FPD did not substantively participate in the proceedings. He did not provide evidence as to steps taken to change his behaviour. He also declined to participate in the school authorities’ investigation and during the College’s suspension and investigation stages. [61] FPD had been previously interviewed in 2013 regarding professional boundaries where he had similarly formed a relationship with a student which progressed to a sexual relationship once she had graduated. That conduct was dealt with by way of an internal management process. FPD commenced the first inappropriate relationship when he was 24 years old and had been a registered teacher for about three years. In both instances there had been a direct teacher student relationship. [62] In our view, the conduct of FPD is even more serious than that of the respondent. FPD was a more experienced teacher than the respondent at the time of the more recent conduct and following the internal management process addressing his earlier inappropriate conduct, when he was a less experienced teacher, he ought to have been acutely aware of his responsibility to maintain appropriate boundaries. FPD also engaged in dishonest conduct and did not cooperate with investigations and the Tribunal proceedings. [63] In Queensland College of Teachers v YRA19 (‘YRA’) the Tribunal considered the matter of a teacher who obtained registration initially when he was 25 years old. He was employed at the relevant high school between approximately January 2014 through until he was suspended in late November 2019. The Tribunal found that YRA: (a) exchanged mobile phone numbers with the year 12 student; (b) subsequently engaged in inappropriate mobile phone communications with the student by exchanging text messages to the effect that they missed each other, which did not have educational context; (c) during public speaking events (away from the school) spent time alone with the student by leaving the venue and driving the student to an automated teller machine; (d) during a debutante ball asked to dance with the student and engaged in traditional style dancing with the student; (e) from about term three of 2019 kissed the student on more than one occasion, both during school hours and during term three school holidays; (f) in about September 2019 told the student that he loved the student; (g) from or about 12 October 2019 started dating and/or having a relationship with the student; (h) shortly after graduation, during ‘schoolies’, met up with the then former student and engaged in sexualised physical conduct; 19 [2025] QCAT 524. -- 13 of 16 -- 14 (i) approximately a week later stayed with the student for a couple of nights at which time they had sexual intercourse; (j) from about 23 November 2019 maintained a sexual relationship for approximately 10 months; and (k) in early 2020 allowed the former student to move into his residence for a short period of time, including sharing a bed. [64] The Tribunal in YRA was satisfied that the grounds for disciplinary action were established, notwithstanding that several of the allegations did not fall below the standard expected of a teacher. Viewed collectively, the Tribunal in YRA was satisfied that those matters showed the development of an overly familiar relationship between teacher and student, and a course of conduct which facilitated the more serious behaviour which subsequently occurred. YRA cooperated with the investigation (as did the present respondent), and also engaged with the disciplinary proceedings in the Tribunal. As noted, the present respondent has not engaged with the present proceedings. In YRA, the respondent was prohibited from re-applying for registration or permission to teach until 30 November 2026 and a notation or endorsement was directed to be entered in the register. The College received notice of the allegations concerning YRA in February 2020, and YRA’s registration was suspended by the College on 17 August 2020. The continuation of the suspension was ordered by the Tribunal on 14 September 2020. YRA resigned his employment with the Department of Education on 5 February 2021, and on 8 February 2021 YRA surrendered his registration and he became a former approved teacher. [65] In our opinion, there is significant correlation between the matters in YRA and the present proceeding. [66] In YRA, it was submitted by the College that the length of suspension the respondent had served was relevant. In YRA, conduct occurred in 2019 – 2020 (as here), and YRA was suspended from teaching in August 2020. In the present case the similar conduct also occurred in 2019 – 2020, and the respondent was suspended from teaching on 14 April 2020. The College submitted that a period of suspension should be considered if the Tribunal is not minded to prohibit the respondent from applying for registration indefinitely. Orders [67] In our opinion an indefinite prohibition would not be appropriate, having regard to comparable decisions and the respondent’s overall conduct. [68] We would have made an order cancelling the respondent’s registration or permission to teach if the respondent had been an approved teacher. Having regard to previous decisions of the Tribunal, we find that the respondent should be prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach until 30 November 2026, resulting in a period of approximately seven years from when the respondent’s employment was suspended from teaching. Non-publication order [69] We order that: (a) Other than to the parties to this proceeding and their legal representatives, the respondent’s medical practitioners for the purposes of seeking advice, treatment -- 14 of 16 -- 15 or assistance, and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the respondent, the relevant school, a student or former student, or any complainant or witness who provided a statement to the College or participated in an interview other than to the extent necessary for the College to meet its statutory obligations and as provided for under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The respondent may provide a copy of this decision and the reasons to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with any disclosure requirements. What is the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’) application? [70] The HR Act commenced on 1 January 2020. All individuals in Queensland have human rights.20 A human right may only be subjected to reasonable limitations.21 [71] In deciding this application: (a) We are not acting as a public entity because we are not acting in an administrative capacity.22 This is a referral to determine whether a ground for disciplinary action is established and if so, determine the appropriate sanction. This is not a review of a decision made by the College; (b) The HR Act applies to the extent the Tribunal has functions under Part 2 and Part 3, Division 3 of the HR Act;23 and (c) We have interpreted statutory provisions, to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, in a way that is compatible with human rights.24 [72] We accept that this proceeding and the determination of it potentially impacts the respondent’s rights to recognition and equality before the law,25 and a fair hearing26 and we considered them. In coming to our decision, we have considered the documents filed and previously decided cases. While there was some delay between the respondent’s conduct and the Referral being filed, we are not satisfied that there has been any prejudice suffered by the respondent, given our findings of the duration of an appropriate sanction, which takes into account the period of time since the College’s decision to suspend the respondent. [73] We accept that these proceedings and our decision potentially impacts other rights, in particular the right to privacy and reputation.27 We have considered the respondent’s human rights and are satisfied that the decision is compatible with the respondent’s human rights as any limitations on those rights are reasonable and justifiable. We have also considered a competing right, namely every child has the right, without discrimination, to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child.28 Any limitation of the respondent’s human rights is consistent with the objects of the Act,29 the legislative framework that prioritises 20 HR Act s 11. 21 Ibid s 13. 22 Ibid s 9(4)(b). 23 Ibid s 5(2)(a). 24 Ibid s 48. 25 Ibid s 15. 26 Ibid s 34. 27 Ibid s 25. 28 Ibid s 26(2). 29 The Act s 3. -- 15 of 16 -- 16 the safety, welfare and best interests of the children and students30 and the objects of the QCAT Act.31 30 Ibid s 233. 31 QCAT Act s 3. -- 16 of 16 --