Former Riverstone High School student Jarrad O'Hanlon told The Sunday Telegraph he felt no remorse over the 2011 incident which ended the twenty-year career of teacher Stephen Krix.
The teacher was in a new position on probation at this public school. Only a few months into the job and he received serious warnings about incidents he was involved in. Three incidents in total culminated in his dismissal.
Daily Telegraph - The other incidents of misconduct included Mr Krix blocking the path of three students as they tried to run out of his classroom.
89 What I find actually happened is that the three boys had misbehaved; Mr Krix had told them they were not leaving the classroom; they made a bolt for it; he stood in the doorway to prevent them getting out and to give effect to his decision that they should stay behind. When they reached him he grasped at them to attempt to prevent them leaving; the boys, thrown off balance by being held onto - to use his words - by Mr Krix, fell over each other and through the doorway. At that point Mr Krix said either 'bloody idiots' or 'stupid idiots'. The boys suffered some minor knocks in the falling over but I have no doubt Mr Krix had no intention of hurting them.
90 Mr Krix was no doubt right in directing the boys to remain in the classroom, as hey had misbehaved and disrupted his class. He was not, however, entitled to physically restrain them when they attempted to leave. He had been told by his Head Teacher, Ms Fairweather, as early as March 2012 that 'teachers cannot block classroom doorways and they should not obstruct students trying to leave the class' even if there were a disciplinary issue involved: Fairweather affidavit para [42].
91Further, and importantly, by that date he had specifically been directed not to have unnecessary physical contact with students.
92I find Allegation 2(l) made out. It was of itself misconduct and it occurred after the lawful direction Mr Krix had been given on 9 May not to have unnecessary physical contact with students, the breach of which was further misconduct.
Daily Telegraph - The third happened when Mr Krix's students kicked flammable liquid at each other - leaving one with serious burns - after he left the scene of the science experiment to stop a student stealing petrol from his car.
96 On the evidence, Mr Krix had containers of flammable materials in his utility. At one point he saw a student trying to take a can of fuel from the utility. He left the experiment and returned to his utility to prevent this occurring. He retrieved the material the student was attempting to take, and secured his utility tarpaulin.
97 While he was away from the immediate site of the experiment doing this, some students who were not meant to be present, as they were not in Mr Krix's class, were kicking at the pots of flaming liquid. They egged each other on until one boy kicked a pot over; the flaming liquid spilled on three boys. One boy, John Harris, was seriously hurt. He suffered significant burns when his clothing was set alight. The other two were not hurt.
98 It is not to the point that the students involved were not Mr Krix's students. It is not to the point that another teacher had left the students unattended. Mr Krix was in charge of a potentially very dangerous experiment. It was incumbent on Mr Krix to control the experiment and control the students. Mr Krix under no circumstances should have been absent from the immediate site of the experiment while flammable fuels were burning and accessible. He already knew by July that he was at a school where unruliness was to be expected; he had had the experience, for example, of two earlier incidents with Jarrad O'Hanlon.
99 To turn his back on flaming petrol while students - and year 9 boys at that - stood around them was grossly negligent in a teacher. That there was unsecured fuel in his utility on school grounds was also inappropriate, but the central error was to leave the obviously dangerous experiment unattended, even for a minute.
100Mr Krix said in his account of the matter to the Department 'none of the students were misbehaving until that fateful minute'.
101 However, on the evidence Mr Krix brought in his own case that is simply not true.
102 Aaron Dyball, a student brought as a witness in Mr Krix's case, gave evidence in an affidavit that Mr Krix, before going to his vehicle, twice observed students to be kicking at the troughs of flammable liquid and twice told them not to do so. On that evidence, for Mr Krix to then turn his back on the students and go to his vehicle, knowing students were already kicking at troughs of burning flammable material, was a gross failing of his duty of care to the students.
103 That evidence also reinforces the conclusion to which I have been forced, that is, that Mr Krix's account of a number of important matters cannot be accepted. The proposition advanced by Mr Krix that 'none of the students was misbehaving until that fateful minute' is simply, on the evidence, false.
104 Mr Krix also said in his submission to the Department, 'You can be sure that no such injury could ever result again from me running a demonstration of this nature as I would implement additional risk minimisation measures.' That is in part the point. Mr Krix had a direct legal obligation to do everything to protect the welfare and safety of the students. If there were additional safety measures that could have been taken, as both in my view and, from his submission in Mr Krix's view, there were, they should have been taken at the time.
105The Year 9 student John Harris suffered serious burns, but the seriousness of the burns are not the measure of Mr Krix's error. It would have been as serious an error if nobody had actually been burned. The seriousness of the burns suffered was simply evidence of how dangerous and negligent Mr Krix's conduct was. In a classroom teacher it was, I am obliged to say, inexcusable.
106In his oral evidence Mr Krix conceded that he did not give his Head Teacher a risk assessment. He conceded that he did not order the chemicals through the science faculty but procured them himself.
107I find Allegations 3 (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) (g) and (h) made out at the required level of proof. I find that they constituted misconduct.
lNg!nU~$(KGrHgoOKiQEjlLmZ!24BJ1JGMh6DQ~~_7.JPG?set_id=81 "vampire-teddy"){kind=avatar}
