An experienced figure within the education sector who avoided conviction for criminal offending is now fighting to keep her job, saying she loves teaching and being suspended would “devastate” her.
She was then prosecuted by the tribunal’s Complaints Assessment Committee, which laid its charges as a result of the offending which occurred over the course of a year.
This week she appeared before the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal, which suppressed both her name and the exact nature of what she had done, to argue her case against what could potentially be suspension of her practising certificate.
She told the hearing how she had recently started a new job in a different part of the country and that a suspension would have a huge impact on her life.
Her new employer was aware of her background and was fully supportive of her continuing in the position.
“I’m a born and bred teacher. That’s all I wanted to be,” she said.
She explained how tough the last few years had been, and that teaching had kept her going, and had given her purpose and meaning.
She said she could have stepped out of teaching and got another job at the time of the criminal proceeding, but she didn’t want to.
“I love teaching and suspension would devastate me.”
“I can’t afford a suspension. Financially, I can’t afford it,” she said.
She also said she was able to fill growing gaps in teaching because many were leaving to head overseas.
“There’s a struggle to find quality, experienced teachers in New Zealand. There’s an exodus of teachers out of New Zealand to Australia and the gaps aren’t being filled,” she said.
Counsel for the prosecution, Jessica Ah Koy said a penalty needed to be robust enough to reflect the nature and the gravity of the offending.
A representative supporting the woman said she was genuinely remorseful for the offending, and that it would not be repeated.
She said the woman had been an “exemplary teacher” in recent years and had contributed greatly to the profession, including that she had lifted students beyond expectations.
The woman had also worked hard to identify the background of the offending, she had been open and honest with her employer throughout the process, had engaged in counselling and her personal circumstances had now changed considerably.
“She is not going to do anything to jeopardise herself now,” the representative said.
Citing case law, the woman’s representative said there was only one case similar which had resulted in censure. She said that proved censure was robust enough to meet the purposes and obligations of those deciding on a penalty.
Ah Koy opposed a non-publication order because the offending was already publicly known and the woman was named at the time of her court proceedings.
“People are aware. In this case, the horse had already bolted.”
However, a representative of the school where the woman now worked argued in favour of name suppression to avoid scrutiny of the school.
They said describing the horse as “having bolted” was not true as the offending occurred in a different region and was possibly not widely known.
The tribunal would release its decision in due course.
By Tracy Neal
Open Justice multimedia journalist
