Queensland teacher suspended for allegedly holding a gun to a student’s head
A teacher who allegedly held a gun to a child’s head in Queensland was suspended from his job.
The decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal revealed that the unidentified teacher allegedly pushed a child in front of his daughter and held a gun to her head.
In his ruling, senior magistrate Ned Aughterson said charges had been laid against the teacher and police said they had CCTV footage of the alleged incident on December 1.
The teacher, referred to as KUF in the decision, is accused of being armed with the aim of mass attack and creating fear.
He cannot be identified because it could reveal the child involved. Similarly, the school where he works is subject to a non-publication order, as is any information that could reveal the identity of a witness.
The Queensland Teachers College suspended the teacher on December 4 last year.
In their application to extend the suspension, the university argued that the teacher posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
In his submission, the teacher argued that the trial should be dismissed, saying it was “unreasonable to take punitive measures” until a decision was made in the criminal case, adding that the police report stated that no children were physically injured.
The teacher also argued that the allegations of carrying a firearm were false, that his criminal record was clean, and that his release on bail proved that he was not a risk.
In response, the college submitted that the suspension under section 49 of the Education (Queensland Teachers’ College) Act placed the interests of children ahead of the interests of teachers and that the court could rely on untested evidence due to the urgent nature of such suspensions.
The court argued that bail was based on separate assessments and did not mean the teacher posed no risk to children.
Augerson agreed. He said the purpose of the suspension was not to punish the teacher, but to protect the children.
The teacher said in his decision that the children may not have suffered any physical harm, but did not address the psychological damage that the incident could have caused.
“This reflects the teacher’s lack of insight into the nature of the potential harm that could be caused to children,” he said.
Aughterson said the onus was on the teacher to provide evidence that he posed no threat to children, and bail was not conclusive evidence of that.
The teacher was given 28 days to apply for a review of the decision.
Start your day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
