Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2018
  4. Platt v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2018] QCAT 1

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

Platt v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2018] QCAT 1

Platt v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2018] QCAT 1

CITATION:

Platt v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QCAT 1

PARTIES:

Michael Edward Platt

(Applicant)

v

Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML102-17

MATTER TYPE:

Blue Card

HEARING DATE:

20 October 2017

HEARD AT:

Toowoomba

DECISION OF:

Member McLean Williams

DELIVERED ON:

9 January 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the Applicant’s case is exceptional within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 is set aside, and replaced by the Tribunal’s decision that the Applicant’s case is not an exceptional case.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – review of decision by respondent to issue a negative notice

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS -application for review of a decision under the  Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000; whether the Applicant’s case is an ‘exceptional case’ warranting departure from the general rule that a positive notice must be issued

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

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

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (If any):

 

APPLICANT:

Self-represented

RESPONDENT:

Ms Haatsari Maruda, Departmental Advocate

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On 13 January 2016 Mr Michael Edward Platt made an application under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (‘Working with Children Act’), to be issued with a Blue Card.  At that time, as now, Mr Platt was working as a volunteer for Teen Challenge Care Queensland (“Teen Challenge”).  It is to be noted that Mr Platt’s volunteer work at Teen Challenge is, at this stage, confined to working with those who are already over 18 years of age.
  2. [2]
    Now aged 25, Mr Platt has prior criminal convictions.  These relate to events that transpired in 2012, and 2014.  Those offences occurred during an epoch when Mr Platt was in the grip of drug addiction, particularly to the prescription medication OxyContin. 
  3. [3]
    On his 23rd birthday on 7 June 2015 Mr Platt came to realise that drugs were destroying his life and things needed to change.  Having reached that important crossroad, Mr Platt enrolled in a residential program conducted by Teen Challenge, in an effort to overcome his drug addictions.  Mr Platt was successful.  In the process Mr Platt also found a faith calling, and is now very heavily involved in Christian ministry work.  Mr Platt now wishes to pursue a career as a drug and alcohol counsellor working with young people, and feels that his own recent past experiences will be useful to that endeavour.  In order to pursue this vocation Mr Platt requires a blue card.  Hence he applied for one. 
  4. [4]
    The fact of prior criminal convictions was a matter revealed to Blue Card Services as part of Mr Platt’s application for a blue card.  On 26 May 2016 Blue Card Services wrote to Mr Platt, providing him with a copy of the brief of facts that had been presented by the police to the Magistrates Court on each of the occasions in 2013 and 2014 when Mr Platt had been dealt with for his offending behaviours.  Mr Platt was invited to make a submission in response to that information, to show why he should now be deemed eligible for a blue card, in light of those convictions. 
  5. [5]
    Mr Platt made a detailed submission.  As part of that, he provided a number of character references from people who have known him, and who are aware of his past convictions.  Notably, these included character references from the very people whom had been the victims of his most serious offences.  All of the referees attested to his suitability to be issued with a blue card.  Yet none of that information was persuasive to Blue Card Services.
  6. [6]
    On 21 March 2017 Blue Card Services wrote to Mr Platt, advising that they had considered his submission and the enclosed references, yet had still determined to issue a ‘negative notice’, meaning that Mr Platt was deemed ineligible for a blue card, and thus ineligible to work with children.  The letter of that date also informed Mr Platt of his right to seek a review of the decision before QCAT. 
  7. [7]
    On 19 April 2017 Mr Platt commenced an Application for Review before QCAT seeking a review the decision by Blue Card Services on 21 March 2017 to issue a negative notice.  The matter was ultimately heard before me, at Toowoomba, on 20 October 2017. 
  8. [8]
    Having now heard far more evidence about this case than was previously considered by Blue Card Services, I am of the view that this is not an exceptional case.  Below are my reasons for reaching that conclusion.

Legal Framework

  1. [9]
    As was noted by Carmody J in RPG v Public Safety Business Agency,[1] the blue card system aims to ensure child safety by allowing only eligible adults to work with, or care for, other people’s children.  The blue card system is administered by the Agency known as Blue Card Services within the Department of Justice and Attorney General.  The major statutory function of Blue Card Services is to engage in a screening process to determine who will and will not be issued with a blue card, by issuing either a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ notice.[2]             
  2. [10]
    Those who obtain a positive notice may then go on to obtain a blue card, and may work with children.  Those who are given a negative notice may not apply for, or start, or continue in, regulated employment.[3]  In the ordinary course, a positive notice must be issued to a person if the chief executive is not aware of any police or disciplinary information about the person, or a conviction of the person for any offence.[4]
  3. [11]
    As indicated at the commencement of these reasons, Mr Platt is a person with some criminal convictions, albeit not for offences amounting to what are termed by the Working with Children Act to be ‘disqualifying offences’.[5]  As such, Mr Platt is a person caught by the operation of s 221(1)(c) and s 221(2) of the Working with Children Act, such that a positive notice may be issued, albeit not automatically.  Section 221 provides:
  1. (1)
    Subject to subsection (2), the chief executive must issue a positive notice to the person if-
  1. (a)
    the chief executive is not aware of any police information or disciplinary information about the person; or
  1. (b)
    the chief executive is not aware of a conviction of the person for any offence, but is aware that there is 1 or more of the following about the person-
  1. (i)
    investigative information;
  1. (ii)
    disciplinary information;
  1. (iii)
    a charge for an offence other than a disqualifying offence;
  1. (iv)
    a charge for a disqualifying offence that has been dealt with other than by a conviction; or
  1. (c)
    the chief executive is aware of a conviction of the person for an offence other than a serious offence.
  1. (2)
    If subsection (1)(b) or (c) applies to the person and the chief executive 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.

[emphasis included]

  1. [12]
    The term ‘exceptional case’ as used in s 221(2) is an undefined term in the Working with Children Act.  Accordingly, what might be an exceptional case becomes a question of fact and degree, to be decided in each case on its own facts, by having regard to:

…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.[6]

  1. [13]
    Section 226 of the Working with Children Act does however require that certain matters must be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not there is an exceptional case.  Section 226 provides:
    1. (1)
      This section applies if the chief executive-
      1. is deciding whether or not there is an exceptional case for the person; and
      2. is aware that the person has been convicted of, or charged with, an offence.
    2. (2)
      The chief executive must have regard to the following –
      1. In relation to the commission, or alleged commission, of an offence by the person –
      1. whether it is a conviction or a charge; and
      2. whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence; and
      3. when the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed; and
      4. the nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children; and
      5. in the case of a conviction – the penalty imposed by the court and, if the court decided not to impose an imprisonment order for the offence or not to make a disqualification order under section 357, the court’s reasons for its decision;
      1. Any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 318 or 319;
      2. Any report about the person’s mental health given to the chief executive under section 335;
      3. Any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 337 or 338;
      4. Anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission, or the offence that the chief executive reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person.
  2. [14]
    On 21 March 2017 the chief executive determined that Mr Platt’s application for a blue card was an ‘exceptional case’, such that Mr Platt was issued with a negative notice.  Now, before QCAT, the purpose of the review is for the Tribunal to produce the correct and preferable decision, after a fresh hearing, on the merits.[7]  In so doing, the objects[8] of the Working with Children Act must be upheld.  That fact is reaffirmed by s 360, which provides that a child-related employment decision is to be reviewed under the principle that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount.
  3. [15]
    It becomes necessary to consider the circumstances and context of Mr Platt’s offending behaviour and to consider the matters set out in s 226 of the Working with Children Act in light of that offending behaviour.  Section 226 is not an exhaustive list of considerations and does “not expressly or impliedly confine the [Tribunal] to considering only matters specified therein”. Rather, the matters set out in s 226 are “merely certain particular matters which the [Tribunal] is obliged to consider in deciding the application”.[9]

Mr Platt’s offending behaviour

  1. [16]
    Mr Platt gave evidence before the Tribunal regarding his offending behaviour in an honest and forthright manner.  I accept his evidence in its entirety, much of which was corroborated by the evidence of his mother and stepfather, who were the primary victims of Mr Platt’s most significant and concerning criminality.
  2. [17]
    The majority of Mr Platt’s childhood was spent in Nanango.  Mr Platt informed the Tribunal that he had an abusive and manipulative father who was heavily addicted to OxyContin. When aged about 8, Mr Platt’s mother Michelle escaped from that abusive relationship, taking her son with her.  The abuse and family disharmony caused considerable upheaval in Mr Platt’s childhood and this, in turn, appears to have caused Mr Platt to suffer from symptoms of anxiety throughout his childhood and adolescence. 
  3. [18]
    By the time that Mr Platt was aged about ten, his mother had remarried to Mr Platt’s now stepfather, Mr Trevor Dent.  Mr Platt reports having a very good relationship with his stepfather.    This was subsequently confirmed in evidence by Trevor Dent, and also by his mother, Mrs Michelle Dent.  Notwithstanding, Mr Platt still wished to have some relationship with his father.  When Mr Platt was aged about 12, his father, an invalid pensioner and long term OxyContin addict, moved to Brisbane.  Commencing from about the age of 13 Mr Platt re-engaged with his father, and the arrangement became one in which Mr Platt would spend virtually all of the school holidays with his father, in Brisbane.  During these visits Mr Platt’s father would regularly administer OxyContin to Mr Platt, telling him that it would help with anxiety, and other various minor ailments and injuries. 
  4. [19]
    By the time that Mr Platt was aged about 15 he moved to reside with his father permanently in Brisbane, ostensibly in order to further his education.  Mr Platt’s father then only increased the frequency with which he administered OxyContin to his son and this, in turn, led Mr Platt to begin to experiment with other drugs including alcohol, ice and marijuana.  By the age of 18 Mr Platt says that he had become heavily addicted to both ice and OxyContin, and had fallen into a state of severe depression, and psychiatric ill-health, all the while still living under the manipulative control of his father, who was an enthusiastic proponent of rampant drug use, and thus under the more or less constant influence of both prescription and illegal drugs.  Mr Platt informed that he had tried many times to give up drugs, yet each time was cajoled by his father into returning to the pattern. 
  5. [20]
    By about 20 years of age - and by now realising that his unhealthy relationship with his father had become a significant contributor to the problem - Mr Platt made arrangements to return to Nanango to live with his mother and stepfather.  As best as he can now recall Mr Platt says this was in the later half of 2012.  Once back in Nanango Mr Platt attempted to go cold turkey from all drugs.
  6. [21]
    However, only approximately two weeks after returning to Nanango Mr Platt’s father telephoned him from Brisbane, and told him to ‘look inside the keyboard’ of his computer.  Unbeknown to Mr Platt, his father had stowed an ‘emergency’ supply of OxyContin inside the keyboard.   Having reached him at a very vulnerable time this was just enough to tempt Mr Platt back over the edge, and have him start using drugs again.  Mr Platt’s father then started to regularly send more drugs to him in Nanango via the mail, such that Mr Platt again relapsed into frequent drug use.  Mr Platt says that his restarting the use of drugs, coupled with the complete absence of any effective mental health treatment at that stage whilst in Nanango made him very unstable.  Eventually, in November 2012, his girlfriend of the time broke up with him by telephone from Brisbane, and this sent Mr Platt into a downward spiral of destructive drinking and drug taking. 
  7. [22]
    There are only two substantive events now comprising Mr Platt’s criminal history. The first and most significant of these events took place in the immediate aftermath of the breakdown of Mr Platt’s relationship with his then girlfriend.  On 13 November 2012 Mr Platt spent an entire day drinking very heavily before eventually returning to his mother’s home late in the evening.  Initially, Mr Platt’s mother and stepfather engaged with him in conversation.  Yet Mr Platt went on to become irrationally angry when they announced that they were tired, and wished to go to bed.  Mr Platt attempted to block them from leaving the kitchen. Mr Platt’s parents were able to escape to the bedroom, locking themselves inside.  Then, in an angry rage, Mr Platt broke down the door and commenced to attack his mother and stepfather, using a bedroom lamp as a weapon.  A violent scuffle ensued and Mr Platt’s parents were able to retreat back into the dining room and kitchen where Mr Platt followed continuing his attack.  At one stage during this scuffle Mr Platt seized some kitchen knives and commenced to wield these and swipe with them towards his mother and stepfather, before at least one of these knives was thrown at them.  Mr Platt’s mother and stepfather were able to flee outside the house and the police were called. Mr Platt was then detained by the police and charged with the offences of assault occasioning bodily harm, and threatening violence. 
  8. [23]
    Mr Platt was dealt with for these offences by the Magistrates Court at Kingaroy and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order.  The intensive correction order was later revoked, and Mr Platt was instead placed on 9 months probation.
  9. [24]
    Mr Platt’s other offending behaviour occurred on 7 May 2014, when aged 21.  Whilst heavily intoxicated, Mr Platt had attended the Kingaroy Hospital seeking mental health treatment.  Yet, acting irrationally and incoherently Mr Platt promptly left the hospital, refusing further treatment, such that the hospital staff were sufficiently concerned to notify the police about his irregular and unpredictable behaviour.  A short time afterwards the police found Mr Platt slumped over the steering wheel inside an open bus, one that had been parked up on the side of the road, displaying a ‘for sale’ sign.   According to the police charge sheets Mr Platt was at that time intoxicated, obstreperous, and difficult.   Because the owner of the bus did not wish to press charges, Mr Platt was not charged with unlawful entry to a motor vehicle, but was still charged with obstructing police and creating a public nuisance.  A conviction was recorded and Mr Platt was fined $350 for these offences.  Because he was already on probation for the 2012 offences, the 2014 offences also lead to charges relating to breaches of Mr Platt’s probation conditions.  These offences make up the other offences revealed in Mr Platt’s criminal history.
  10. [25]
    Mr Platt says that he had something of an epiphany on his 23rd birthday (7 June 2015) realising that he had to escape from drugs and the negative influences of his father.  He realised too that he would require professional assistance to deal with his problems of addiction.  On 7 July 2015 Mr Platt entered a residential program at the Teen Challenge New Life Men’s Centre at Toowoomba and began a 12 month drug rehabilitation program.  Mr Platt successfully graduated from that program on 8th July 2016, yet has stayed on at Teen Challenge as a living-in volunteer.  In addition, Mr Platt has become heavily involved in Christian ministry work at the New Hope Church and, in February 2017, commenced a diploma in leadership at iSEE College in Brisbane as a preliminary to undertaking a Diploma of Ministry at iSEE College in 2018.  Mr Platt has abstained from all drugs since before his 23rd birthday.

Witnesses

  1. [26]
    Evidence was received before the Tribunal from the following witnesses: Mr Trevor Dent (stepfather); Mrs Michelle Dent (mother); Ms Jane McCollum (Drug Counsellor/Educator Teen Challenge); Mr Craig Lyons (Case Worker, Teen Challenge); Mr David Hilton (Registered Secondary Teacher and Mentor); Olutade Ayoko (Principal of iSee College); Pastor Kane (Ben) Neideck, (New Hope Church, Toowoomba).  In addition, there are variously written reports and/or references from Ms Anita Baills (Clinical Psychologist), Pastor Colin Ryan (Empower Church, Toowoomba), Reverend Marius Kruger (Uniting Church, Highfields), and Mr Craig Lyons (Case Worker, Teen Challenge). 
  2. [27]
    I do not here propose to traverse all of the evidence given by these people before the Tribunal.  Suffice to say that each of them were aware of Mr Platt’s past drug addiction and were able to testify to the redemption that he has since undergone.  Each of them understood the significance of the blue card system and the nature of these proceedings.  Those with experience in dealing with drug dependence and the treatment of addicts in recovery were very firm in stating that Mr Platt had made a remarkable and significant turnaround in his life, such that the risk of his returning to drug abuse was now improbable.  Each of the witnesses testified that Michael Platt had undergone a complete rehabilitation and was a suitable candidate for a blue card.  I accept all of that evidence.  None of it was contradicted.

Section 226(2) matters

  1. [28]
    Section 226(2) of the Working with Children Act requires that in cases where a person has been convicted of, or charged with, an offence that regard be had for certain matters identified therein:

Whether the offence is a conviction or a charge

Mr Platt has convictions for assault occasioning bodily harm, threatening violence, obstructing a police officer and committing public nuisance.  Each of these offences arose in the circumstances that have been described in these reasons.  In addition he has convictions for breach of probation that arose in consequence of the incident in May 2014 having occurred whilst he was already on probation for the offence that occurred on 13 November 2012.

Whether the offence is a serious offence, and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence

None of the offences committed by Mr Platt are either ‘serious’ or ‘disqualifying’ for purposes of the Working with Children Act.

When the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed

The offences were all committed between November 2012 and May of 2014.  At the time Mr Platt was aged 20 and 21 and still in the early stages of attempting to deal with problems of addiction.  He has been abstinent from all drugs for more than two years and has committed no offences sine May 2014.

The nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children

Mr Platt was convicted of offences of violence in 2012 that arose during an incident in which Mr Platt was emotionally distressed and intoxicated.  If Mr Platt were to act in this way again, or to be at any observable risk of acting in this way again then that would be a factor that would be of relevance to the question of his suitability for work with children.  There is however no evidence, nor any suggestion, that Mr Platt is at risk of acting in this manner again.

In the case of a conviction the penalty imposed by the court and if it decided not to impose an imprisonment order for the offence, or decided not to make a disqualification order under section 357, the Court’s reasons for its decision

In relation to the 2012 offences Mr Platt was originally sentenced to imprisonment by way of an intensive correction order.  This was later revoked (for reasons going to the practicality of supervising that intensive correction order) and Mr Platt was re-sentenced and placed instead on a 9-month probation order.  Mr Platt was convicted of breaches of probation on 3 April 2014 and then again on 9 October 2014.

Any information about the person given under section 318 (from the Director of Public Prosecutions) or section 319 (from Corrective Services relating to sexual offender orders) of the Act

No information has been placed before the Tribunal

Any report about the person’s mental health status given under section 335 (from a registered health practitioner) of the Act

No information has been placed before the Tribunal.

Any information about the person given under section 337 (from the Mental Health Court) or section 338 (from the Mental Health Review Tribunal) of the Act

No information has been placed before the Tribunal.

Anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission, of the offence that is reasonably considered to be relevant

In reasons for decision dated 21 March 2017 when deciding that an exceptional case existed the Director of Screening Services within Blue Card Services opined that the “strength of applicant’s rehabilitation has not been tested over time in the community” and that there had “not been a sufficient period of continuing post-rehabilitative non-offending to balance the identified risk factors at this time”.  Yet, the decision now under review was made seven months prior to my reconsideration of these same issues.  Having heard directly from Mr Platt and each of his impressive witnesses I am amply satisfied that there has now been sufficient time to test the strength of the Applicant’s rehabilitation and to demonstrate Mr Platt’s ongoing resolve and positive behaviour.  In this regard I further note Ms Maruda’s closing oral submissions that the evidence heard before the Tribunal reveals that Mr Platt has now very clearly removed himself from the negative influences of his old associates, particularly that of his father, who is now a virtually house-bound invalid.

  1. [29]
    The decision of the Respondent that the Applicant’s case is an exceptional one within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children Act is set aside and is replaced by the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.

Footnotes

[1] [2016] QCAT 331, [18] – [19].

[2] Working with Children Act, s 220.

[3] Working with Children Act, s 257.

[4] Working with Children Act, s 221.

[5] ‘Disqualifying offences’ are defined in s 168 of the Working with Children Act.  A  ‘Disqualified Person’ (s 169) may not even apply for a blue card: s 174.

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

[7] QCAT Act, s 20.

[8] Working with Children Act, s 5.

[9] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492, per Philippides J.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

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

  • Shortened Case Name:

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

  • MNC:

    [2018] QCAT 1

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member McLean Williams

  • Date:

    09 Jan 2018

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
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
RPG v Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 331

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Murray v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QCAT 562 citations
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.