Lavers v NSW Education Standards Authority [2023] NSWCATAD 170

Lavers v NSW Education Standards Authority [2023] NSWCATAD 170

The correct and preferable decision was to affirm the refusal of re-accreditation because the Applicant's substantial and serious criminal history, including drug supply offending and offences committed while on bail or parole, was sufficient by itself to make him unsuitable to teach under s 38A(1)(a) of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 (NSW). In any event, his limited evidence of rehabilitation, lack of current teaching practice or training, incomplete disclosure, concerns about boundaries between his personal conduct and professional role, and lack of insight into the seriousness of his offending meant he was not a fit and proper person to teach under s 38A(1)(c)(i). Since he was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Provisional Teacher Re Accreditation / NCAT Merits Review of Respondent's Affirmed Decision
Outcome
The Respondent's decision is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['teacher Accreditation' 'provisional Re Accreditation After Revocation' 'suitability to Teach' 'fit and Proper Person' 'criminal History' 'rehabilitation' 'child Safety, Welfare and Wellbeing']
['administrative Law' 'education Law' 'professional Regulation'] ['teacher Accreditation' 'provisional Re Accreditation After Revocation' 'suitability to Teach' 'fit and Proper Person' 'criminal History' 'rehabilitation' 'child Safety, Welfare and Wellbeing']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review of Refusal of Provisional Teacher Re Accreditation / NCAT Merits Review of Respondent's Affirmed Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the correct and preferable decision was to affirm, vary or set aside the NSW Education Standards Authority's refusal to provisionally re-accredit the Applicant as a teacher." "Whether the Applicant's criminal and disciplinary history made him unsuitable to teach under s 38A(1)(a) of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 (NSW)." 'Whether the Applicant was otherwise not a fit and proper person to teach under s 38A(1)(c)(i) of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 (NSW).' "Whether the Applicant's rehabilitation, Working With Children Check clearance and explanations for past offending justified re-accreditation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The correct and preferable decision was to affirm the refusal of re-accreditation because the Applicant's substantial and serious criminal history, including drug supply offending and offences committed while on bail or parole, was sufficient by itself to make him unsuitable to teach under s 38A(1)(a) of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 (NSW). In any event, his limited evidence of rehabilitation, lack of current teaching practice or training, incomplete disclosure, concerns about boundaries between his personal conduct and professional role, and lack of insight into the seriousness of his offending meant he was not a fit and proper person to teach under s 38A(1)(c)(i). Since he was not...

Court Disposition

The Respondent's decision is affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's decision is affirmed."]