The student’s evidence was that he and the teacher initially shared “flirty jokes” with each other, before later messaging over social media platform Instagram and arranging to meet outside of school.
Over two to three months in 2019, the teacher provided tequila to the student once, and cigarettes on five other occasions.
The pair had sex in the teacher’s car three times.
The teacher sent emails to the tribunal at the beginning of the process denying all of the allegations. But she didn’t participate in the tribunal’s September hearing, which only heard testimony from the student.
“[The student] was clear and consistent and showed no signs of trying too hard or making things up, and we note that he made concessions where due in [the teacher’s] favour,” tribunal deputy chair Tim Mackenzie wrote in his decision.
The tribunal sided with the student’s testimony and found the charge of serious misconduct against the teacher was proven.
“There is little that need be traversed given the seriousness of the conduct. Sexual relationships with students are at the upper end of the serious misconduct cases that come before the tribunal.”
The tribunal ordered the teacher’s registration be cancelled and that she be censured.
After the decision was made but before it was released to the public, the teacher emailed the tribunal in early November querying why she wasn’t involved in the hearing.
“My availability due to work and family commitments have been ignored. The information that has been recorded in this report is false and upsetting,” she wrote.
Days later, she told the tribunal she had been working 70-hour weeks in her new job, and alleged the tribunal had not contacted her. She also addressed the allegations.
“As I have stated, every allegation against me in this matter is false. When I was first contacted on social media by students using false accounts in an attempt to blackmail me, I went to the school for help. I received none.
“I do not know what the students’ aim was in this, but they did threaten to spread rumours about me.”
She asked for permanent name suppression, saying her children who also attended the school would be harmed should her identity be made public.
The tribunal replied to the teacher with a chronology of all attempts to contact her over the previous three years. She didn’t respond.
“This is not a case where the information was not actually received. Rather, we consider that she has simply not placed sufficient weight or importance on dealing with the charges against her. She is variously too busy or simply doesn’t engage,” Mackenzie ruled.
The tribunal then recalled the decision - not as a result of the teacher’s contact, but because the Complaints Assessment Committee raised concerns that naming the teacher could identify the student involved.
The teacher was then granted permanent name suppression, alongside the school and the student.
The tribunal considered the matter closed but reminded the teacher of her right to appeal to the District Court.
