Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2017
  4. NPJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2017] QCAT 315

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

NPJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2017] QCAT 315

NPJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2017] QCAT 315

CITATION:

NPJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2017] QCAT 315

PARTIES:

NPJ

(Applicant)

 

v

 

Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML118-15

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Quinlivan

DELIVERED ON:

18 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The order of the Tribunal dated 21 December 2015 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – working with children – Blue card – where the appeal tribunal returned the matter to the tribunal for provision of adequate reasons– whether an exceptional case exists in which it would not be in the best interest of children for the applicant to hold a positive notice and blue card

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 221, s 228

Education and Care Services National Law Act (Queensland) 2011 (Qld)

Education and Care Services National Law (Queensland), s 182

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303

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

Re, TAA, [2006] QCST 11

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

NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 523

NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 161

APPEARANCES:

 

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    These reasons relate to an application by NPJ for a review of a decision made by the CEO, Public Safety Business Agency (PSBA) on 24 April 2015 to issue a negative notice to the Applicant. On 21 December 2015, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CEO, PSBA.[1]
  2. [2]
    A chronology of the events in this matter is as follows:
    • From 2011 the Applicant and his wife worked with children in Family Day Care. In September 2012 they both obtained a Certificate III in Children’s Services. Around May 2013 they were issued with Certificates of Approval as Educators by the Department of Education and Training (the Department).
    • 14 April 2014 - the Applicant was issued with a warning by his supervisor, the Coordinator of Future Kids, because he had left four children who were under his care under the supervision of his wife at the Logan Central library.
    • 24 April 2014 - the Applicant was issued with a positive notice and a Blue card by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, PSBA.
    • 20 January 2015 - the Applicant again left children who were in his care without adequate supervision in a Public Library while he left the premises for more than 40 minutes. He misled the Investigating Officers in his initial version of events by denying leaving the library premises and attempting to minimise his unacceptable conduct.
    • 2 February 2015 - the Applicant was issued with a Prohibition Notice under s 182 of the Education and Care Services National Law[2] (National Law) because the Department was satisfied that, at the time, there was an unacceptable risk of harm to a child or children if the applicant was allowed to continue to provide education and care to children.
    • 16 February 2015 - the PSBA was provided with disciplinary information regarding the Applicant containing details of the Prohibition Notice.
    • 3 March 2015 and 17 March 2015 - the PSBA invited the Applicant to make submissions about his disciplinary information and why the PSBA should not cancel his positive notice.
    • 19 March 2015 - The Applicant applied to QCAT for a review of the decision to issue the Prohibition Notice. This application formed proceeding OCR046-15.
    • 24 April 2015 - the PSBA re-assessed the Applicant's eligibility to continue to hold a Blue Card. The Applicant was issued with a negative notice.
    • 21 May 2015 - the Applicant applied to QCAT for a review of the decision by PSBA to issue the negative notice. This application formed the current proceeding, CML118-15.
    • 29 September 2015 - an agreement was reached between the Applicant and representatives of the Department in proceeding OCR046-15, the review of the Prohibition Notice. As a result, the Applicant withdrew his application for review of that decision. The Applicant complied with the terms of the agreement to the satisfaction of the Department. 
    • 27 October 2015 - the Tribunal conducted a review hearing in relation to the decision of the PSBA to issue a negative notice, in proceeding CML118-15.
    • 20 November 2015 - the Department issued a “Notice of cancellation of prohibition notice” under s 186(1) of the National Law to the Applicant. The Department confirmed that it was satisfied that there was not a sufficient reason for the prohibition to remain in force.
    • 21 December 2015 - the Tribunal confirmed the decision by the PSBA to issue a negative notice to the Applicant.[3]
    • 9 March 2016 - the Applicant filed an Amended Application for Leave to Appeal the decision of the Tribunal.
  3. [3]
    On 18 August 2016, the QCAT Appeal Tribunal ordered as follows:[4]
  1. The appeal is allowed on grounds 1 and 3.
  1. The reviewable decision of the Tribunal in CML118–15 dated 21 December 2015 is set aside.
  1. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law in light of these reasons and by reference to any additional evidence of any relevant change in circumstances and/or further submissions that might be necessary; in particular, as to the significance of the cancellation of the prohibition notice at the reconsideration date.
  1. The application for leave to appeal on grounds 2, 4, 5 and 6 is refused.
  1. The Public Safety Business Agency is invited to reconsider its decision to issue a negative notice to NPJ.
  1. [4]
    The Appeal Tribunal stated:[5]

That the decision-maker should have adequately explained his reasoning process in reaching the ultimate inference and disclosed clearly what he did and did not take into account, including the disciplinary information, and how much weight the intervening disciplinary information had in the case. The nature of the enquiry he was conducting, its purpose and the tribunal's power of review called out for a more detailed, considered assessment.

  1. [5]
    In relation to Order 5 of the Appeal Tribunal decision, on 27 October 2016, the Director, Screening Services Unit, Blue Card Services, Department of Justice and Attorney General (formerly the PSBA) advised the Tribunal that she had reconsidered the decision under review and had decided to confirm the original decision of the PSBA.
  2. [6]
    On 17 January 2017, the Tribunal made Directions for the filing of any further materials upon which the parties intended to rely. On 17 February 2017, the Applicant filed an affidavit in support of his application. The Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (the new formal respondent in blue card applications)[6] did not file any further material.

What did the decision-maker take into account?

  1. [7]
    The Appeal Tribunal stated that:[7]

…in deciding whether there was an exceptional case for the Applicant, the reviewer should have enquired more deeply into the reasons why the Department no longer considered the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children and took the action of setting aside its own protective order.

  1. [8]
    On 20 November 2015, the Department advised the Applicant that a decision had been made to cancel his Prohibition Notice.
  2. [9]
    Ms McCoy, the Acting Executive Director, Early Childhood Education and Care confirmed that, on 29 September 2015, the Applicant and the Department agreed that he would withdraw his Application for Review to QCAT in respect of the Prohibition Notice.[8]
  3. [10]
    On 28 October 2015, the Department received an email from the Applicant attaching a statement of attainment from ACE Community Colleges indicating that he had successfully completed the required courses. Ms McCoy was satisfied that this information demonstrated that he had complied with the Agreement.[9]
  4. [11]
    On 17 November 2015, the Department received an email from the Applicant attaching a signed copy of an Enforceable Undertaking. Ms McCoy accepted this as evidence that the Applicant had further complied with the Agreement. She accepted this undertaking for the purposes of
    s 180 of the National Law.[10]
  5. [12]
    Ms McCoy stated, in the reasons for the decision to cancel, that the Prohibition Notice was issued because the Regulatory Authority had formed the view that the Applicant may be “an unacceptable risk of harm to a child or children” if he were allowed to continue to provide education and care.[11] She then stated that the actions taken by the Applicant demonstrated that if he were allowed to provide education and care, he no longer posed “an unacceptable risk of harm to a child or children in his care”.[12]
  6. [13]
    She stated that the actions that the Applicant had taken were as follows:[13]
    1. Repeated expressions of remorse throughout the external review process about his conduct on 20 January 2015;
    2. Completion of further education about his responsibility as a family day care educator, from the Certificate 3 in Early Childhood Education and Care, namely:

CHCECE 002 – “Ensure the health and safety of children” which included elements on the supervision of children to ensure safety and the minimisation of risks

CHCLEG001 – “Work legally and ethically” which included elements on how to identify and respond to legal requirements and how to identify and meet ethical responsibilities

  1. Offering an Enforceable Undertaking to the Department in which he undertook that he will ensure that all children being educated and cared for by him as part of a Family Day Care Service are adequately supervised by him or another educator properly approved under the National Law at all times the children are in his care.
  1. [14]
    The starting point for the Tribunal in the first hearing and decision had been the material originally supplied by the Applicant in his Application and his subsequent evidence at the oral hearing. The consistent theme presented by the Applicant in that material and evidence focussed on the impact that the decisions by the Department of Education and Training and the PSBA would have on his livelihood and family. Throughout the proceedings, the Applicant sought to minimise his own responsibility for the concerns that had arisen and to demonstrate his willingness to do anything he could to get his positive notice, and subsequently his Blue card, restored.
  2. [15]
    This was exemplified in his engagement with the Department of Education and Training where he readily undertook two courses and signed an enforceable undertaking to meet the requirements of the Department.
  3. [16]
    At the commencement of the oral hearing the Respondent’s representative submitted that the aim of the proceedings was to achieve “the correct and preferable decision” with a focus on whether the Applicant had insight into his behaviour and the risks of his behaviour for children in his care. Part of this assessment would involve identifying what the Applicant had done to address those risks.
  4. [17]
    In the Applicant's Statement of Evidence (filed before the original hearing), he submitted that he had applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision because he considered that he had significant evidence of his suitability and did not pose “an unacceptable risk of harm to children”.[14]
  5. [18]
    He indicated[15] that the Department of Education and Training had no objection to his holding a Blue card.
  6. [19]
    What the Applicant did not address before the first hearing was his insight or understanding of the potential consequences and risks associated with his previous failure to ensure that children in his care were being properly supervised on at least two occasions.
  7. [20]
    The Appeal Tribunal pointed out that it was significant that the Department that is primarily responsible for protecting children against risks saw that its responsibility was being adequately discharged by an enforceable undertaking.[16] Therefore, the Appeal Tribunal held, if the Tribunal was going to take a different position in reaching its own independent conclusion (as this Tribunal did in its original decision), it should have clearly explained why, so that the Applicant and the Department would know for sure rather than have to guess.
  8. [21]
    On 27 October 2016, the Director, Screening Services Unit, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (being the Unit that is now tasked with assessing a person’s eligibility to obtain a Blue card and hold a positive notice) accepted the Appeal Tribunal’s invitation to reconsider its decision to issue a negative notice. The Respondent confirmed the original decision[17] of the PSBA.
  9. [22]
    The Appeal Tribunal also pointed out that the Department of Education and Training had advised the Tribunal that:[18]

What it once regarded as an unacceptable risk for the reasons given – including, no doubt, the disciplining effect of the enforceable undertaking – had been reduced to the point of acceptability from its point of view. That action and its consequences and reasons deserved more attention in the review, the purpose of which was to reach the correct and preferable decision at the time it was conducted. What difference (if any) the cancellation made, it should have been more fully investigated and given reasoned treatment in the reviewer's written decision.

Discussion

  1. [23]
    The Appeal Tribunal further stated that “it is dangerous - even though convenient - to draw favourable inferences in areas dealing with children, but also where at stake is a person's entitlement under the legislation to a positive notice where there is no exceptional case”.[19] The Appeal Tribunal found that in this case the applicant’s application and his status as a suitable “safe enough” risk to work with children required more consideration and reasoning than it was given on review by the Tribunal.
  2. [24]
    The legislation provides that if the Chief Executive is aware of disciplinary information in relation to a person and is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the Chief Executive to issue a positive notice, the Chief Executive must issue a negative notice to the person.[20]
  3. [25]
    Section 228(2) requires the Chief Executive, or in this case the Tribunal on review, to have regard to the following:
    1. the decision or order of the decision-maker relating to the disciplinary information and the reasons for the decision or order;
    2. any decision or order of an entity hearing and deciding a review of or appeal against a decision or order mentioned in paragraph (a) and the reasons for the decision or order;
    3. the relevance of the disciplinary information to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children;
    4. anything else relating to the disciplinary information that the chief executive reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person.
  4. [26]
    In his affidavit dated 17 February 2017, the Applicant submitted[21] that he has shown insight into his behaviour on 20 January 2015 and admits that his actions on that day were unacceptable.
  5. [27]
    In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient insight into his behaviour that led to the Prohibition Notice and subsequent Negative Notice and this continues to be the Tribunal’s main concern.
  6. [28]
    In the decision of Re TAA,[22] the former Children's Services Tribunal stated:

The issue of insight into the harm caused in these incidents is a critical matter for the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the view that good insight into the harm that has been caused is a protective factor. A person aware of the consequences of his actions on others is less likely to re-offend than a person who has no insight into the effect of his actions on others. This is particularly important with children because they are entirely dependent on the adults around them having insight into their actions and the likely effect on children.[23]

  1. [29]
    The Applicant continued to seek to justify his behaviour rather than outline what he has learned about the risks involved and possible consequences in not properly supervising children in his care and the consequences that may flow from his actions.[24]
  2. [30]
    The Respondent submitted at the hearing that a protective factor for the applicant was that he had demonstrated remorse for leaving the children unattended. I am satisfied that he has expressed that he is sorry for his actions. However, he has not expressed any insight into the potential consequences of those actions. If anything, the Applicant has gone to greater lengths to emphasise the impact that losing his Blue card has had on his wife, his family and himself. This is not a factor that the Tribunal can take into account.
  3. [31]
    I accept that the Applicant has completed courses about ensuring the   health and safety of children and working legally and ethically with children. He has provided details of what these courses address. However, I am not satisfied that he has demonstrated that he understands what the expectations are when supervising children to ensure their safety and to minimise the risks associated with their care. His evidence does not demonstrate how he would identify and meet his ethical obligations in the future if he were to obtain a Blue card.
  4. [32]
    Considerable emphasis was placed by the Applicant on the Enforceable Undertaking he provided to the Department. An “enforceable undertaking” does not of itself demonstrate any insight or understanding about his responsibilities.
  5. [33]
    It is understandable that the Applicant would provide such an undertaking in the circumstances. It was a pre-requisite for him to return to his work as an educator of children. It is, however, not an option that is available to the Tribunal under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld). The Tribunal cannot impose conditions on the issue of a positive notice or Blue card, including conditions that an undertaking be complied with. The Tribunal must determine the issue of whether the case is an “exceptional” one.
  6. [34]
    Throughout the course of these proceedings, I have only been able to identify limited evidence that the Applicant has reflected on the impact or the consequences that his actions might have had on the children in his care or any children that he may care for in the future should he be granted a positive notice. In my view, this results in ongoing concerns about his insight and whether this is an “exceptional case”.
  7. [35]
    The test that was applied by the Department of Education and Training relates to whether the Regulatory Authority considers that there may be an unacceptable risk of harm to a child or children if the person were allowed to remain on education and care service premises, or to provide education and care to children.
  8. [36]
    The Tribunal, when assessing the applicant's suitability for a positive notice and a Blue Card, must determine whether there is an “exceptional case” such that it would not be in the best interests of children for the Chief Executive to issue a positive notice. If the Tribunal is satisfied that it is an exceptional case, then it must issue a negative notice to the person.
  9. [37]
    In FGC,[25] the Appeal Tribunal stated that:

…(i)t is to be accepted that phrases like ‘exceptional case’ must be considered in the context of the legislation which contains them, the intent and purpose of that legislation, and the interests of the persons whom it is here, quite obviously, designed to protect: children.

There is, however, nothing in the Commission Act which gives apparent support to the special meaning or construction suggested in OAA  and, in the Qld Supreme Court, Philippides J has said that: ‘… it would be most unwise to lay down any general rule with regard to what is an exceptional case… All these matters are matters of discretion’.

  1. [38]
    Further, the Appeal Tribunal stated that the proper approach is that outlined by Philippides J, “to consider its application in each particular case, unhampered by any special meaning or interpretation”.[26]
  2. [39]
    In Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor,[27] the Queensland Court of Appeal accepted that the Tribunal was required to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved.[28] The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken by the former Children Services Tribunal of identifying and balancing potential risk factors and potential protective factors when considering circumstances amount to an exceptional case.
  3. [40]
    Throughout the Applicant’s most recent affidavit,[29] he has sought to clarify the issues of concern. In paragraph 12, he acknowledges that his understanding of the situation on 10 April 2014 was wrong. At paragraphs 13 and 14 he points out that he was given a warning letter before he had an opportunity to provide a written explanation about what had occurred on 10 April 2014 and that he did not immediately understand the significance of the warning that he had been given.
  4. [41]
    He states that once he had time to read and understand the significance of the warning he wrote back to Future Kids to explain what had happened. By way of reflection, he says “looking back on it I know I should have written that I left my children with a fellow educator who was also my support educator”.[30] This does not address the concern that the Tribunal has about his insight into his responsibilities when caring for children.
  5. [42]
    The Applicant also refers to an issue raised at the hearing by the Respondent as to whether children being hungry was an “emergency” situation. Again, the Applicant explained in detail the circumstances surrounding the incident. However, he failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation that he allowed to occur and he did not address the possible consequences when one of the children ran off and was actually returned by a Security Guard.
  6. [43]
    The Applicant pointed out that he did not have a strong grasp of the English language. He submitted that the transcript of the hearing demonstrates that at most he has a basic understanding of English. It is correct that he made a genuine attempt at the hearing to address simple questions but that he required the assistance of a translator for some matters. He submits that his difficulties within English provided further context to his understanding of the undefined term “emergency situation”.
  7. [44]
    The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant found these proceedings difficult and challenging. However, the issue for the Tribunal to address remains whether this is an “exceptional” case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the Applicant to hold a positive notice and a Blue card.
  8. [45]
    In his affidavit, the Applicant readily acknowledges that he previously misled the investigators.[31] He challenges the situation he was placed in and the failure of the investigators to offer him either an interpreter or a support person when he was interviewed. He highlights that his job was an important part of his life and he was very worried about losing his job.[32]
  9. [46]
    The Applicant commenced proceedings against the Department of Education and Training seeking a review of their decision to issue the Prohibition notice. It was as a consequence of the agreement reached in those proceedings that he successfully completed the courses.
  10. [47]
    In the context of these proceedings, the Appeal Tribunal proposed that consideration should be given to the significance of the cancellation of the Prohibition notice by the Department when the Tribunal reconsiders its decision. In his affidavit the Applicant sets out under the heading “Significance of the cancellation of the Prohibition Notice” details of the outcome of those proceedings.[33]
  11. [48]
    He submits that the matters that he has addressed demonstrate that he has shown that he has insight into his behaviour on 20 January 2015 and he admits that his actions were unacceptable.[34] He then submits that he has clearly shown the steps that he has taken to better educate himself regarding supervision of children to ensure safety and the minimisation of risks and better inform himself of the legislative and ethical requirements of childcare.[35] I am not satisfied that he has shown insight into the issues that have arisen. He has not addressed the issue of whether this is an “exceptional case”.
  12. [49]
    He pointed out that the Department no longer considered that he posed an “unacceptable risk of harm” to a child or children due to him having undertaken the required actions. In my view, the relevance of the disciplinary information regarding the Applicant is that it initially identified and then confirmed that the Applicant lacks insight into his responsibilities when working with children.
  13. [50]
    I am satisfied that the elements of the courses would be relevant to ensuring children's safety and minimising risks. The Applicant was given ample opportunities in his oral evidence and subsequently in his written material to outline what he had learned from the courses but he was only able to demonstrate limited understanding. He expressed in his words at the hearing that he “just knows what is right and wrong now”.

Conclusion

  1. [51]
    The difficulty with this matter is that the Applicant appears to be a good person who has gone to considerable lengths to gain employment in his chosen field. This matter would not have come before the Tribunal except for at least two incidents which occurred on 10 April 2014 and
    20 January 2015. The Applicant was issued with a positive notice and a Blue Card on 4 July 2014, shortly after the first incident.
  2. [52]
    The Department issued the Prohibition Notice on 2 February 2015 and cancelled it on 20 November 2015. The Prohibition Notice was issued because the Department considered that the Applicant was “an unacceptable risk” to continue as an educator.
  3. [53]
    The Tribunal first became aware at the hearing on 27 October 2015 that the Department proposed to cancel the Prohibition Notice. In his statement received by the Tribunal on 12 August 2015, he submitted that the Department had no objection to him holding a Blue card.[36]
  4. [54]
    There is a clear difference between the test which is applied when determining whether a Prohibition Notice should be cancelled under the National Law and the test to be applied under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 when deciding whether an “exceptional case” exists.
  5. [55]
    The Tribunal has previously rejected the argument that principles brought across from the family law jurisdiction involving “an unacceptable risk of harm” should be resorted to in order to interpret what is meant by the phrase “exceptional case”.[37]
  6. [56]
    The Prohibition Notice was the catalyst for these proceedings. Without that notice, the Tribunal may never have been aware of the Applicant's actions. However, once the Tribunal was seized of the matter then it must deal with it in accordance with the provisions of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 with particular reference to s 228 of that Act.
  7. [57]
    In these circumstances, I remain of the view that this is an “exceptional case”.  Therefore the order that I make is:
    1. The order of the Tribunal dated 21 December 2015 is confirmed.

Non-Publication

  1. [58]
    An order was previously made by the Tribunal prohibiting publication of the name of the applicant and any details likely to identify his wife and his children. That order continues in force and for that reason these reasons have been de-identified.

Footnotes

[1] NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 523.

[2]  Applying in Queensland as the Education and Care Services National Law (Queensland) by virtue of the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2011 (Qld).

[3] NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 523.

[4] NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 161.

[5]  Ibid, [14].

[6]  By virtue of the Public Safety Business Agency and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016 and the Administrative Arrangements Amendment Order (No. 1) 2016.

[7] NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 161, [14].

[8]  Notice of cancellation of prohibition notice, 20 November 2015, [8].

[9]  Ibid, [8].

[10]  Notice of cancellation of prohibition notice, 20 November 2015, [8].

[11]  Ibid, [9].

[12]  Ibid, [10].

[13]  Ibid, [10].

[14]  Statement of Evidence of NPJ, filed on 12 August 2015, [43].

[15]  Ibid, [32].

[16] NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 161, [15].

[17]  Letter from Director, Screening Services Unit, Blue Card Services, DJAG, 27 October 2016.

[18] NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 161, [16].

[19] NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 161, [17].

[20] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000, s 22.

[21]  Affidavit of NPJ, filed 17 February 2017, [38].

[22]  [2006] QCST 11.

[23]  Ibid, [97].

[24]  See particularly Affidavit of NPJ, filed 17 February 2017, [12], [13], [16], [19], [23].

[25] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, [31] - [32].

[26]  Ibid, [33].

[27]  [2004] QCA 492.

[28]  Ibid, [30].

[29]  Affidavit of NPJ, filed 17 February 2017.

[30]  Ibid, [16].

[31]  Affidavit of NPJ, filed 17 February 2017, [24].

[32]  Ibid, [25] - [27].

[33]  Ibid, [32] - [37].

[34]  Ibid, [38].

[35]  Ibid, [39].

[36]  Statement of Evidence of NPJ, filed on 12 August 2015, [32].

[37] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, [28] - [36].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    NPJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

  • Shortened Case Name:

    NPJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

  • MNC:

    [2017] QCAT 315

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Quinlivan

  • Date:

    18 Sep 2017

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 Eales [2013] QCATA 303
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCATA 303
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 3 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 4 - [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 3 - [2004] QCA 492
NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 161
6 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCATA 161
Cite 2 - [2016] QCATA 161
Cite 3 - [2016] QCATA 161
Cite 4 - [2016] QCATA 161
Cite 5 - [2016] QCATA 161
Cite 6 - [2016] QCATA 161
NPJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 523
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 523
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 523
Cite 3 - [2015] QCAT 523
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 3 - (2006) QCST 11

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
NPJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 1711 citation
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.