Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2015
  4. LBG v Public Safety Business Agency - [2015] QCAT 515

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

LBG v Public Safety Business Agency[2015] QCAT 515

LBG v Public Safety Business Agency[2015] QCAT 515

CITATION:

LBG v Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 515

PARTIES:

LBG (Applicant)

v

Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML023-15

MATTER TYPE:

Children’s matters

HEARING DATE:

18 May 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane with video-link to the Island

DECISION OF:

Member Murray

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The Public Safety Business Agency decision to refuse to cancel a negative notice is set aside.
  2. The applicant be issued a Blue Card.
  3. Pursuant to Section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the Tribunal prohibits the publication of any information that would identify the Applicant or his relatives in this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

CHILDREN’S MATTER – BLUE CARD – Indigenous issues – remote community - where conviction of offence is other than serious offences - whether an exceptional case exists – where there is domestic and family violence. Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) s 221, s 226, s 167, s 168, Schedule 2 & 3; QCAT Act 2009, s 20, s 24 & s 66.

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

LBG represented by Dr Berry Zondag, solicitor Kunkuri Laka Wellesley Islands Aboriginal Law, Justice and Governance Association Inc.

RESPONDENT:

The Public Safety Business Agency represented by Peter Reid.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On 13 May 2010, the applicant, LBG, lodged an application for a Blue Card with the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (CCYPCG) now overseen by the Public Safety Business Agency (PSBA).
  2. [2]
    On 17 March 2010, the CCYPCG refused his application and issued a negative notice.
  3. [3]
    On 15 April 2011 LBG lodged an application with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) to review the CCYPCG’s decision that the applicant’s case was an ‘exceptional case’ in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the applicant to be issued with a positive notice and blue card.
  4. [4]
    On 19 December 2011, the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CCYPCG to issue the applicant with a negative notice[1].
  5. [5]
    On 10 April 2014, LBG applied to the PSBA for the cancellation of a negative notice.
  6. [6]
    On 15 December 2014 the PSBA refused the application to cancel a negative notice.
  7. [7]
    On 3 February 2015 the applicant lodged an application with the Triubnal to review the PSBA’s decision.

Why the PSBA says the applicant should not have his negative notice cancelled

  1. [8]
    The PSBA set out its reasons not to cancel LBG’s negative notice on 11 December 2014. The PSBA’s process for deciding the assessment is governed by the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000. The paramount consideration to be considered is a child’s entitlement to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing. It is to this consideration that all others must yield[2].
  2. [9]
    The PSBA outlined its considerations in relation to section 226 of the Act.
  3. [10]
    Whether a case is exceptional is a matter of discretion, to be determined by looking at the circumstances of each individual case. In assessing whether LBG’s case is exceptional, the CEO must have regard to –
  • The paramount consideration in making an employment screening decision under the Act,
  • Factors required to be considered under the Act, and
  • Anything else, which is relevant to the decision.
  1. [11]
    In particular, LBG has an extensive criminal history, commencing in 1976 with his last court appearance in 2008. None of the offences are “serious offences” under the Act. Therefore, the test applied by the PSBA is set out in Ss 221(1) and 221(2) of the Act.  It provides that where the applicant has been convicted for an offence other than a serious offence, the Chief Executive Officer must grant the application, unless satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children to grant the application.
  2. [12]
    There are 34 convictions during this period. The PSBA set out its concerns about a number of these offences that concern –
  • Stealing with violence;
  • Assault charges; including occasioning bodily harm armed with an offensive instrument, aggravated assault on a female and common assault;
  • One charge of rape that a nolle prosequie was entered and the applicant was discharged, and
  • Domestic Violence Orders and breaches.
  1. [13]
    The PSBA considered that the applicant’s choice to resort to a high degree of violence over a protracted period suggests he has difficulty managing his anger and does not demonstrate he has effective strategies in place for any future situations should they arise.
  2. [14]
    LBG attended alcohol rehabilitation programs in 2006 but relapsed. Further, little information was available in support of the applicant’s participation in anger management courses and rehabilitation programs. 
  3. [15]
    There were times that LBG failed to report to his Probation and Parole Officer due to him attending funerals, he had problems with his family, or no reason was provided[3].
  4. [16]
    LBG only relatively recently completed Court ordered supervision under the terms of his parole.
  5. [17]
    During his last period of supervision, LBG failed to report as directed without reasonable excuse on five occasions. Despite this, he did not commit any further offences during the period.
  6. [18]
    The PSBA submitted that due to LBG’s lengthy alcohol abuse the Tribunal could not be satisfied the risk of future alcohol abuse and associated violence has been satisfactorily addressed.
  7. [19]
    The PSBA submitted that the passage of time does not detract from the seriousness of the offences.
  8. [20]
    The PSBA acknowledged some protective factors that support LBG such as the fact he has not been convicted of any offences since 2008 and has the support of his wife of 30 years.
  9. [21]
    Further, there was no evidence to suggest LBG has used alcohol since 2008 at his own realisation about the effects it was having on his life and family.
  10. [22]
    He has support from his previous employer and together with his wife; LBG is involved in the care of children other than his own.  He is involved in many community activities and holds positions on a number of boards, including land councils.
  11. [23]
    LBG has maintained employment.
  12. [24]
    The PSBA remained concerned that the applicant had little involvement in rehabilitation and there were no references provided from counsellors.
  13. [25]
    The material from the Department of Communities, Child Safety provided under a Notice to Produce about LBG’s history of involvement, showed an incident in 2010 that calls into question his behaviour in dealing with children.
  14. [26]
    Of note, there appeared to be notifications recorded in 1992 and 1995 concerning neglect of his children while LBG and RH (his wife) were drinking heavily and fighting.  A child concern report was recorded in 2006 when LBG’s child was in the home during a domestic violence incident when police attended the house. LBG had assaulted RH. No follow up by the department occurred.
  15. [27]
    Of further note was a matter that occurred in August 2010 when it was alleged LBG slapped his son across the back of his head when his son teased LBG when his football team was losing. The matter did not appear to be finalised until 2013 when a child concern report was recorded and approved by the Recognised Entity. It was reported that all persons in the household were sober. No follow up occurred.
  16. [28]
    It was submitted by the PSBA that insufficient time had elapsed since his last offence and ceasing his consumption of alcohol for the original decision to be changed.

The applicant’s case for a negative notice to be cancelled

LBG’s life story

  1. [29]
    LBG is a 56 year old Indigenous man living in a remote community. The people of this tribe are the original inhabitants of a particular nearby Island. This tribe of people has a history that is separated from that of the Island. The cultural development of the people has been separate from other tribes in the area for 5000 years. They have a different language and culture from the other tribes in this area.  LBG speaks the tribe’s language and English is his second language.
  2. [30]
    He had a number of siblings, but his older sister died tragically in 1999. A younger brother also passed away.
  3. [31]
    LBG attended the Mission school to grade eight.
  4. [32]
    LBG acknowledged he has had severe problems with alcohol in the past “that resulted in me doing a lot of harm to my wife and our relationship.  This is well documented in my criminal history for which I am quite ashamed. I used to be a heavy drinker and would become violent when under the influence”.
  5. [33]
    LBG has been married to his wife RH, for 30 years. She is a member of the largest tribal family in this remote community.  They have adult children and infant grandchildren together.
  6. [34]
    RH’s infant relative has been informally placed with them since his birth.  They regard him as their own child.
  7. [35]
    LBG is an elder. He is on the board of an Indigenous community Corporation that represents its people who own the infrastructure on a particular Island. He is a trustee of a Land Trust. He is on the Board of a large Regional Aboriginal Corporation.

The applicant’s submissions

  1. [36]
    LBG and his solicitor Dr Zondag told the Tribunal that his long criminal history was unacceptable and concerning.  He was ashamed at what he had done particularly the pain and hurt he caused to his wife RH.  He found it hard to talk about those times, he said “he couldn’t recall a lot of it” and what he did remember “was very painful and shameful”. He said, “I was a bad guy. I can’t go there and talk about it. It makes me upset, what I did to RH”.
  2. [37]
    In 1976, the local Government introduced a Canteen or a pub on the Island and LBG said this was when all the problems with alcohol developed quickly. He was ashamed to say that he can be seen as an example of the social ills that developed from those days where drinking became almost an obsession for many people on the Island. He said he wasn’t drinking every day, he would binge drink once or twice a week on 12 full strength stubbies of beer.
  3. [38]
    LBG said he did attend programs through his Probation and Parole with ATODS and KASH. He attended most of the Ending Family Violence Program and all of the Ending Offending Program. He said he didn’t remember any course well that he started because he was still drinking. However he said he found ATODS and KASH he attended in a residential setting in a group was beneficial. 
  4. [39]
    LBG accepted that alcohol and anger management courses are important to attend but that no programs are offered on the Island, there are no counsellors and regional towns some distance away, conduct courses.
  5. [40]
    LBG said he came to the realisation after his last court appearance in 2008 that alcohol was going to kill him and ruin his family. He said he and his wife made a decision together to stop drinking; it was “self will”. They do not allow any alcohol in their home and they turn away intoxicated people from their house.
  6. [41]
    LBG said once he stopped drinking he didn’t feel angry and he no longer got into trouble with the police. He said it was always alcohol that triggered the violence.
  7. [42]
    He said he is growing older and doesn’t want to drink grog and have that sort of life anymore.
  8. [43]
    LBG said some things have turned his life around and helped him to remain committed to his decision not to drink. RH has a blue card and works at the school and Child Safety has placed children with them. He said that currently there were eight people in total, including children, living in their three bedroom house.
  9. [44]
    He has become actively involved with some young relatives, taking them hunting and fishing and teaching them traditional ways. This responsibility he takes very seriously. One of the boys asked him to go to his school to see him involved in activities, this makes him feel proud and want to do the right thing by him. He also wants LBG to get a blue card so he can be more involved with him at his school.
  10. [45]
    Of most importance, RH’s relative committed suicide and his infant son came to live with them. He said they have raised him like their own child.
  11. [46]
    LBG worked at the local State School in 2011 as a teacher’s aide, teaching students about their culture, showing them “better ways to live” and talking about how alcohol ruins lives and causes violence towards women in the community. He loved the job and the responsibility and respect that came with it.  He said he got on well with kids and his role was to teach them about their culture and traditions. He said he also helped with reading and talking with the parents of the students, telling them they have to send their kids to school. He said not getting a blue card so he could remain in this position was a terrible disappointment.
  12. [47]
    He wants to return to the position and considers he can offer something to the students.  He said he has turned his life around and wants to steer young people away from alcohol and abuse.  He wants to tell them his experience and show them it is possible to have a better life. “You don’t have to stay in a life like that – it’s a strength to show children at school they can have a better life and not do what I did”.
  13. [48]
    LBG said he wants to earn more money and contribute to his family and help his wife by paying the rent and this job pays more than he currently earns working with furniture.
  14. [49]
    LBG could not provide examples of how he now handles conflict or stress apart from when a student threw a chair in the classroom and it hit LBG.  He said he didn’t become angry with the student, who later apologised to him.  He said he and RH don’t fight anymore but they still disagree about things.  He said if RH says something that upsets him, he walks away.
  15. [50]
    LBG said he has a good relationship with his local doctor and would talk to him if he felt stressed, unsettled or had mental health concerns.
  16. [51]
    He accepted he did not do the right thing by his own children.  He said the children would run across the road to their grandmother’s house when there was trouble at home, like when their parents were drinking and fighting. 
  17. [52]
    LBG said he did the wrong thing to his son in 2011 and he would never hit him again.  He said he wasn’t drinking at the time. He said he would handle the situation differently now, he would “treat him like a winner, give him an ice-cream or cuddle him up”.
  18. [53]
    LBG is proud to hold positions on the councils and boards. He has attended a leadership course and some training and learned how to stand up for his people and he has represented the people of the region. Dr Zondag said community elders and leaders would not put LBG forward for nomination if they didn’t think he was worthy.
  19. [54]
    Dr Zondag said that LBG has continued to abstain from alcohol and offending since the Tribunal last considered LBG’s situation in 2011. He spoke to the protective and risk factors outlined in this decision. He said the protective factors have been strengthened over the past four years. LBG has remained in employment.
  20. [55]
    LBG attended a Men’s Group but it no longer exists.  He said there are few resources on the Island such as drug and alcohol programs and there are no counsellors. He said the critical point when he stopped drinking was not through any rehabilitation but at a realisation that he and his wife came to at the same time and made a decision together.  He said he didn’t seek any further programs because they simply are not available on the Island. Further, a lot of courses are not culturally appropriate for some Indigenous people and they find them foreign.
  21. [56]
    Dr Zondag said LBG has shown strong resolve to have stayed with his commitment to abstain from alcohol. Home brew remains a large community problem on the Island, the courts are full each day with people appearing on these offences. He said there would be up to 200 charges concerning 65 people appearing the following day in court. There is no solution as yet to deal with this situation but full prohibition is key.

Evidence from witnesses

  1. [57]
    Four witness provided statements and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal.
  2. [58]
    All witnesses spoke well of LBG and said he has stopped drinking altogether since late 2008 or early 2009 and turned his life around. They said he was a valued member of various councils and boards and an elder and community leader. They are aware of his criminal history.
  3. [59]
    BJ was the principal of the local school between 2011 and 2014 he is now at another school. He said LBG was working at the school in 2011 as a teacher’s aide until he received his negative notice. He said he was well engaged with the students in the classroom, helping to manage behaviour and he talked to kids about their culture.  He said he “could see no risks at all in LBG working with children and young people.” He considered LBG very suitable to work with young people and he would have no hesitation in allowing any of his own grandchildren spending time with him. If he was still the principal at the school “he would give him a job in an instant”.
  4. [60]
    BJ said LBG was good at talking with kids and their parents and getting kids to attend school.  He has never seen him lose his temper or become aggressive in tense situations or where conflict arose. He didn’t know him well socially, but he would sometimes yarn with him on the street or get some fish from him. He has not seen him drink alcohol.
  5. [61]
    BJ said given LBG’s background he has well and truly shown he has the capacity and willingness to change and the passion to keep on track, and he has been successful at doing this.  “It’s a very powerful message, you don’t have to live your life this way, and you can change your life for the better.” He spoke passionately about the need for there to be good role models for Aboriginal children and families and he said LBG does this very well.
  6. [62]
    RH said she and LBG have been together for 30 years and they have a number of children and grandchildren together and their infant relative. She has forgiven LBG for the pain and hurt he caused to her. She confirmed they made a decision together to stop drinking and not gone back on it. She said they now have a good relationship and get on well. She doesn’t remember a lot that happened over the years when they were drinking but that LBG bashed her and alcohol was a big factor in it.
  7. [63]
    RH has a blue card and she works at the school as a teacher’s aide. She said when LBG was in that job he was calm with kids, he would teach them about their culture and if kids were not attending school he would go and get them and bring them to school.  She said he got along well with parents and they would listen to him. She said they don’t allow any alcohol or any person who has been drinking, in their home “we push them away”.
  8. [64]
    RH said they have their grandchildren living in their home and Child Safety places kids with them sometimes.  She said these children also help them to stay off alcohol, as they want to care for them and look after them well, particularly when their infant nephew came to live with them in 2010. It was a terrible shock for the whole family and “we love him and treat him like our own”.
  9. [65]
    RL is RH’s mother. She has known LBG all his life. She told the Tribunal that the years he and RH were drinking were terrible times and she worried constantly about her daughter and the abuse she received from him when he was drunk. She said the children often came across to her when the fighting and drinking went on and she looked after them. RL said LBG has turned his life around and given up drinking. She said she was pleased once the Canteen closed as the introduction of alcohol destroyed the community and home brew has remained a problem. RL said she has never has been a drinker. She said she has never seen LBG drink or been in trouble with police since about 2008.
  10. [66]
    RL said LBG was unusual or different from a lot of other blokes who can’t give up the alcohol, but “he has stayed strong”.
  11. [67]
    KR is a member of the Community Justice Group and an elder in the community.  He is also LBG’s cousin. He confirmed he has not seen LBG drink alcohol or be violent to anyone since about 2008. KR said he also no longer drinks alcohol. He said LBG is a good role model and shows others how you can change, give up the grog and make a better life for yourself.  He has seen LBG take young people, RH and his kids hunting and fishing and showing them their cultural and traditional ways.

Discussion of the evidence; is the applicant’s case exceptional?

  1. [68]
    The Tribunal is in the position of standing in the shoes of the decision maker and can consider the matter afresh and proceed by way of hearing de novo. It may consider any new evidence and in doing so, can affirm, amend or set aside the original decision and substitute its own decision[4].
  2. [69]
    The standard of proof on which the Tribunal must be satisfied is the balance of probabilities. However, there is no onus of proof on either the applicant or the respondent[5].
  3. [70]
    As the applicant has a criminal history, the Tribunal must take into account the factors (s 226 of the Act[6]) that include the nature of the offences and charges, when they occurred, the relevance to child-related employment and any court-imposed penalty.
  4. [71]
    The Act is not intended to impose an additional punishment on a person who has a criminal history.  It should be noted that in this instance the applicant’s criminal history does not include any “serious offence” or “disqualifying offence” as defined by the Act[7]. In these circumstances, the Triubunal must issue a positive notice unless safisfied that this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests for children for the applicant to have a negative notice cancelled and a postive notice issued[8].
  5. [72]
    The Tribunal must consider whether the applicant’s case is an exceptional one. Whilst the Act does not define ‘exceptional case’, the central focus of the Act is the protection of children. The paramount principle which must be administered is that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount. The Tribunal accepts that when considering if this is an “exceptional case”   “(t)he proper approach to it is… to consider its application in each particular case, unhampered by any special meaning or interpretation”.[9]
  6. [73]
    LBG wants a blue card for employment at the school, although the Blue Card is transferable and can be used across other areas of employment that concern children and young people. He wants to work with young people; help to keep them at school and connected with their culture. He feels he can offer something to them and their families and show them not to choose alcohol and to make a better life for themselves, just as he has done.
  7. [74]
    The Tribunal in 2011 was troubled when considering LBG’s review of the decision of the CCYPCG to issue a negative notice, by his criminal history as it involved alcohol related violence. Further that this offending continued after undergoing some rehabilitation.
  8. [75]
    The Tribunal noted an aggravating feature of the applicant’s criminal history related to offences prohibited by either the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984 or Liquor Act 1992. Her Honour Justice McMurdo’s comments were also noted in relation to the over-representation of Aboriginal children in child protection cases where neglect is linked to heavy drinking and the deep effects this has on the well-being of these children.
  9. [76]
    The Tribunal had considered protective and risk factors and found the risks outweighed the protective factors and found LBG’s history posed an …unacceptable risk to children who would be looking to him as a role model…his previous offending behaviour and its recency, coupled with (the Island’s) recent history. The Tribunal consequently confirmed the decision of the Commissioner.
  10. [77]
    The notion of an “unacceptable risk” is no longer a factor identified in s 226 of the Commission Act[10] relevant to the exercise of discretion to determine whether there is an exceptional case. Since the 2011 decision, the Appeal Tribunal in Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC[11] determined that the approach taken in the family law jurisdiction to consider whether the evidence establishes an “unacceptable risk‟ to children is not supported by the wording in the Commission Act. The President of the Appeal Tribunal, in endorsing the findings made by Philippides J in Maher[12] case, stated:

… [We] are not persuaded that the legislature intended to give it a meaning, which was special, or unusual. It is a term of common use in everyday language. The proper approach to it is that, with respect, adopted by Philippides J: to consider its application in each particular case, unhampered by any special meaning or interpretation.

  1. [78]
    The Tribunal is informed by the decision of Philippides J in Maher, which requires that the Tribunal must seek to balance the risk factors against the protective factors.
  2. [79]
    LBG’s criminal history, the alcohol related violence particularly concerning domestic violence and the effects it would have had on his children still remain concerning for this Tribunal’s consideration of LBG’s suitability to hold a Blue Card. With these matters in mind, it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the risks continue to outweigh the protective factors and whether the applicant’s case is an exceptional one.
  3. [80]
    The Tribunal can consider new evidence of remorse and insight into the offending behaviour, involvement in and attitude to rehabilitation and whether anything has changed since LBG last came before the Tribunal in 2011.
  4. [81]
    In the past four years the risk factors cited by the Tribunal have remained, apart from (c). These are facts of LBG’s life that can’t be changed along with the current social concerns of his community; LBG -
  1. has an extensive criminal history involving domestic violence and alcohol;
  2. His offending behaviour continued after periods of rehabilitation;
  3. He did not undertake training or counselling,
  4. Home-made alcohol remains a social problem on the Island.
  1. [82]
    LBG completed various Community Service Orders in April 1982, July 1995, June 1997, November 1997 and April 2006. His attendance was poor and his attitude showed resistance in the earlier years. However, in 2006, his attendance was satisfactory, his attitude was positive and it was reported he was fully compliant with the requirements of his order.  He was ordered to reside at KASH as another Island was closed for the period of the wet season and he took part in unpaid community service, drug and alcohol counselling and satisfactorily attended other rehabilitation programs[13].
  2. [83]
    Counselling, training and rehabilitation programs don’t exist on the Island. LBG did attend a course through KASH in a residential facility that offered counselling about alcohol and its effects that he found helpful.  He was truthful and said he didn’t particularly gain a lot of insight from any rehabilitation or counselling program, he found it foreign to his culture.  However, there is strong evidence to show that he has stopped drinking alcohol since about the end of 2008 and he did this with his wife RH.  They made a decision together to stop drinking once and for all.
  3. [84]
    LBG attended a leadership program in May 2010 and he attended some training through the Land Council and Boards of which he is a member.  He said he has gained some insight through this training about being a good community leader and a strong advocate for the community. This has also been helpful in keeping him strong and committed to his decision to remain sober and law abiding.
  4. [85]
    It would seem home-made alcohol remains a social problem on the Island but LBG has been able to resist this for seven years.
  5. [86]
    In the past four years the protective factors (a), (b),(d), (e) and (f) cited by the Tribunal in 2011 have remained. In fact, they have strengthened. LBG-
    1. Has a job to go to at the local school;
    2. Has sworn himself off alcohol;
    3. Is involved with a Men’s group;
    4. Live with his family;
    5. Is regarded as a community leader;
    6. Shows some remorse for this past.
  1. [87]
    The Men’s group no longer operates on the Island (c).
  2. [88]
    LBG has now stayed away from alcohol for seven years.  
  3. [89]
    LBG and RH have remained together for 30 years, RH has forgiven him, they have a good relationship now, it’s very different to the one they had when they were both drinking. They remain committed to their adult children, grandchildren, great nephew and any other child who may be placed with them.
  4. [90]
    LBG is a member of his tribe’s Corporation, a trustee of the its Land Trust and served terms on the board of this Trust and is currently on the board of a Regional Aboriginal Corporation, which is the entity that holds all native title rights for particular Islands.  He is also a board member of a Land Council.  He holds these positions with pride.
  5. [91]
    LBG struggled to express his feelings about his criminal history, actions and past behaviour. Providing evidence in the courthouse by video link to Brisbane Tribunal hearing room may have contributed to this. However his written material and through his solicitor he did express his shame and the pain he feels for RH and his family.  He said he couldn’t recall a lot of what happened, probably due to the effects of alcohol on his memory.
  6. [92]
    BJ’s evidence was compelling. He said he feels as strongly now as he did four years ago when he gave evidence to the Tribunal about his dealings with LBG. He said he would re-appoint him “in an instant” and what a “powerful message LBG brings to the students and community” about turning his life around, staying away from alcohol and making better choices for a better life. He said LBG was calm with the students, successful in getting them to attend school, teaching them about their culture and working with their families to keep them at school. He holds no concerns whatsoever for LBG’s involvement with children and young people. BJ was passionate that LBG is quite extraordinary in how he has turned his life around and had positive effects on the students and their families.
  7. [93]
    LBG did not provide an independent psychological report but that’s because there are no psychologists available on the Island.
  8. [94]
    Data made available from Dr Zondag and the Community Justice Group indicate that home-made alcohol and criminal offending remain social problems on the Island. “Residents from the Island are incarcerated 30 times as high as that probability is for the age adjusted average Queenslander population and three times as high as the average Queensland Indigenous rate”[14]. Recidivism rate also remains disproportionally high. However, LBG remains sober and committed to his decision to abstain from alcohol and offending.
  9. [95]
    The Tribunal finds the protective factors have strengthened in the past four years. They outweigh the risk factors and the Tribunal is sufficiently satisfied that LBG’s case is, to the requisite standard, not one properly categorised as ‘exceptional’.
  10. [96]
    In the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the Respondent’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application to cancel the Negative Notice. Instead, the Tribunal orders that the PSBA’s decision be set aside and a Blue Card should be granted to the applicant.

Non-publication order

Neither party made an application for a non-publication order under s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administration Tribunal Act 2009.  However the Tribunal is satisfied that the name of the applicant and his partner and witnesses should be de-identified as it is contrary to Section 159 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 that sets out that information must not be published if it identifies a person or witness party to a proceeding under this Act.

Footnotes

[1] [2011] QCAT 729.

[2] Section 6 Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)

 

[3] Department of Justice and Attorney-General (14 May 2015) under a Notice to Produce, Probation and Parole information. 

[4] QCAT Act Ss 20 & 24

[5] McDonald v Director General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57

[6] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)

[7] S 167, s 168 and Schedules 2 and 3 of the Act.

[8] S 221 of the Act.

[9] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291

[10] Now Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)

[11] CCYPCG v FGC [2011] QCATA 291 at [33].

[12] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004]  QCA 492

[13] Department of Justice and Attorney-General (14 May 2015) under a Notice to Produce, Probation and Parole information. 

[14] Junkuri Laka Community Justice Group submission 22 September 2014 page 2 (PSBA-087).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    LBG v Public Safety Business Agency

  • Shortened Case Name:

    LBG v Public Safety Business Agency

  • MNC:

    [2015] QCAT 515

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Murray

  • Date:

    19 Jun 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Loogatha v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2011] QCAT 729
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCAT 729
McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) FCA 57
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1984) FCA 57

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.