Uproar over payout to teacher who had affair

The teacher who played victim

April 8, 2004

Now that Nicki Shackle is an adult, an articulate 19-year-old university student, it is tempting to forget how her relationship with her live-in partner began. The reasonable thing would seem to be just to let the lovebirds live in peace, and not send cameras to hound them in the street so she has to hiss "you people are scum".

But when she first met 53-year-old Jeff Sinclair, Nicki was just 15 and he was her English teacher at Baulkham Hills High School, a married father of three. Regardless of how much in love they may be today and who seduced whom (they have said it was mutual), it does matter that a teacher embarked on an intimate personal relationship with a student he was entrusted to look after.

It certainly matters to Nicki's devastated parents, Judy and Steve Shackle, who were cut out of their eldest daughter's life after they complained to the school about Sinclair's improper interest in her.

Despite all the lip service paid to child protection in recent years, the Shackles have had to battle a particular permissive mindset, in education, legal and media circles, that excuses Sinclair's behaviour, regards them as too strict and views the relationship as "forbidden love" rather than abuse.

In fact, judging by the recent decision of the Workers Compensation Commission awarding Sinclair generous benefits, you would think he was the victim.

It makes for surreal reading. The compensation arbitrator, Bruce McManamey, found that Sinclair suffered a "psychological injury" because of the way the Department of Education handled the allegation that he had developed a "close personal relationship with a student".

McManamey awarded him $28,000 in back pay to the date of his sacking last August plus $317.20 a week from January 21 this year "to date and continuing".

The commission found that Sinclair first met Nicki when he was judging the school's junior writer's prize for major works in 1999, when she was 14, and he was so impressed by her work he showed it to his wife, Sabina, also a teacher. The next year he began helping her write poetry. She confided in him about "the difficulties she was having with her parents" and he confided in her about the death of his son four years earlier.

"There is no evidence that by February 2001 [when Sinclair was removed from the school] there was any sexual relationship or any intimacy which would be the precursor to such a relationship. At that stage Ms Shackle viewed [Sinclair] more as a father figure and [he] was doing no more than providing guidance to a student."

Well, Judy Shackle had evidence she gave to the school that there was more to the relationship. She said yesterday that her suspicions began when she read her then 15-year-old daughter's diary with numerous entries about Sinclair, first described as Mr S, then Jeff and finally J, with the words: "We are in love."

Judy told the school of her concerns in May 2000 but was reassured it was just a "schoolgirl crush".

The Shackles' ongoing suspicions were confirmed in February 2001 when they found "60 or 70 pages" of sexually explicit emails between their daughter and Sinclair. (Sinclair told 60 Minutes last year he doesn't know who sent the emails. "They weren't sent from my email address and they don't have my name in them or anything like that.")

The emails formed part of the Education Department's investigation of Sinclair and some, which were revealed on 60 Minutes, indicate an intimate relationship.

Nicki's email: "I think of you and I melt. I love you." Sinclair's email: "Love you like you wouldn't believe. Always miss you, can feel you, taste you." Nicki: "I can taste you, your tongue, your sweat, your lips." Sinclair: "There's the poetry ... and your breasts, let's not forget them. I certainly haven't."

While the Education Minister, Andrew Refshauge, is appealing against the commission decision and has called it "totally unacceptable", it seems that his department did not provide sufficient evidence.

McManamey complained that it had "not sought to tender any of the material which formed the basis of the investigation". He said it was a difficult investigation because Nicki would not co-operate "and in fact denied the allegations".

McManamey said Sinclair was treated unreasonably because he was told only that he had "developed a close personal relationship with a student", which Sinclair found "quite confusing". "There are many relationships between teachers and students which could be described as close and personal which nonetheless are not improper conduct," McManamey wrote.

The decision to transfer Sinclair to non-teaching duties during the investigation was also "not reasonable". He "was placed in the position of not being able to assist Ms Shackle in what was for her a personally very difficult time".

But the fact that Sinclair and Nicki are in a relationship today would seem to justify Judy and Steve Shackle's suspicions of four years ago. The Shackles feel betrayed by the commission's decision and are still grieving over the estrangement from their daughter.

It was Sinclair's decision to embark on a relationship with his student. And yet, somehow, he continues to be extraordinarily successful at portraying himself as the victim.

Even his 50-year-old wife, Sabina, told Woman's Day last year that he was "a very good man ... a wonderful teacher and talented poet, not a creep ... Jeff is the victim in this". After Sinclair rang Sabina in February 2002 and told her "he wanted to be with Nicki", she blamed Nicki, not her husband. "This is how I was rewarded for the concern, kindness and generosity I showed to a girl I thought was seriously troubled."

She said it was the investigation by the Education Department that changed Sinclair "from being a normal, caring, loving father and husband to someone who behaved oddly. He suffered immense trauma ... He does not deserve what has happened to him. It is a travesty beyond belief."

It sure is.