Key Takeaways
- Ankui Gui, a relief teacher, engaged in repeated inappropriate physical contact with young children at two early‑childhood centres in New Zealand.
- The conduct included kissing a 3‑year‑old on the lips (twice) and kissing the hand of a 4‑year‑old, as well as nuzzling a child’s chest.
- At least one child reported feeling uncomfortable, prompting parental and centre intervention.
- Gui claimed cultural differences and language barriers explained his behaviour, but the Tribunal found he had been repeatedly warned and continued the misconduct.
- The New Zealand Teacher’s Disciplinary Tribunal cancelled his registration, censured him for serious misconduct, and imposed an 18‑month public‑register annotation with conditions for any future teaching return.
- His employer, Jitbug, affirmed its commitment to child safety, outlining a seven‑step vetting process that had been completed before Gui’s engagement.
Background of the Case and the Accused Teacher
Ankui Gui worked as a relief teacher in early‑childhood settings in New Zealand, most notably at New Shoots Hobsonville in 2021 and later at another centre referred to as Pascals. Although his name had been subject to interim suppression during a prior hearing in 2024, that restriction has since lapsed, allowing the details of his conduct to become public. Gui’s role involved providing temporary teaching support, which brought him into regular contact with preschool‑aged children across the two centres.
Alleged Incidents at New Shoots Hobsonville (2021)
The Tribunal heard that Gui kissed a 3‑year‑old boy on the lips on two separate occasions while employed at New Shoots Hobsonville. In addition, he was observed nuzzling his head into the chest of a 3‑year‑old girl who was standing on a wooden box in the playground. These actions were described by witnesses as physical affection that crossed professional boundaries expected of early‑childhood educators.
Colleague and Parent Testimonies
A former colleague testified that she had seen Gui kiss the 3‑year‑old boy on the lips twice, confirming the pattern of behaviour. The father of a 4‑year‑old girl provided evidence that his daughter, who does not usually discuss teacher conduct, reported feeling uneasy after Gui tickled her and then kissed her hand. This disclosure led the father to raise the matter with centre management, triggering an internal review.
Further Incidents at Pascals (Second Centre)
Despite being warned about the inappropriateness of his actions while at New Shoots, Gui continued similar conduct at Pascals. The Tribunal noted that he engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a young child who was not even enrolled as a learner at that centre, indicating that his behaviour extended beyond the immediate classroom setting and reflected a broader disregard for professional limits.
Cultural Explanation and Language‑Barrier Claims
Gui told the Tribunal that he accepted some aspects of the conduct but maintained that his actions were not intended to be harmful or sexually improper. He argued that physical affection is expressed differently in his culture and expressed regret for not appreciating New Zealand’s professional boundaries sooner. Additionally, Gui raised concerns that language barriers hindered his understanding of feedback from colleagues, suggesting that miscommunication may have contributed to the persistence of the behaviour.
Tribunal Findings and Chair’s Remarks
Chair Jamie O’Sullivan of the New Zealand Teacher’s Disciplinary Tribunal concluded that Gui’s conduct was neither isolated nor accidental but demonstrated “a concerning pattern of inappropriate physical contact with multiple children across two early childhood centres.” While the Tribunal did not view the actions as sexual in nature, it found that Gui failed to grasp why the behaviour was wrong, especially given that he had trained in New Zealand and had been spoken to repeatedly during the relevant period.
Disciplinary Outcomes and Conditions
As a result of the findings, Gui’s teacher registration was cancelled and he was censured for serious misconduct. The Tribunal annotated the public register for 18 months and stipulated a number of conditions Gui must satisfy should he ever seek to resume teaching in New Zealand. O’Sullivan emphasized that the decision marks the Tribunal’s disapproval and serves as a warning to others in the profession about maintaining appropriate boundaries with children.
Response from Employer (Jitbug) and Safety Procedures
Jitbug operations manager Shefali Patel informed NZME that, upon learning of the incidents, the company immediately launched an internal review and stood Gui down while the process proceeded. Patel reiterated that child safety and wellbeing are of utmost importance at Jitbug, highlighting a seven‑step safety‑checking protocol that includes identity verification, reference checks, and police vetting—all of which were completed satisfactorily before Gui’s engagement. She affirmed the organisation’s commitment to upholding high standards of professionalism, care, and child safety across all services.
Reporter Attribution
The account of the hearing and subsequent developments was reported by Brianna McIlraith, a Queenstown‑based journalist for Open Justice who covers courts in the lower South Island. McIlraith has been a journalist since 2018 and maintains a strong interest in business and financial reporting, bringing a careful, factual approach to the coverage of this disciplinary case.