Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2018
  4. OTO v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2018] QCAT 113

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

OTO v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2018] QCAT 113

OTO v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2018] QCAT 113

CITATION:

OTO v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QCAT 113

PARTIES:

OTO

(Applicant)

v

Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML241-17

MATTER TYPE:

Children's matters

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2018

HEARD AT:

Bundaberg

DECISION OF:

Member Milburn

DELIVERED ON:

16 April 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Hervey Bay

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the applicant’s case is ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of section 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside and replaced with the tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.  
  2. Other than to the parties to the proceeding, the tribunal prohibits the publication of the names of the applicant and any witnesses appearing for the applicant.  
  3. The decision of the tribunal is to be delivered to the parties by email.

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 WELFARE 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 (Qld); where the applicant has been convicted of serious offences under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) – whether the applicant’s case is an ‘exceptional case’, warranting departure from the general rule that a negative notice must be issued – application of factors in s 226 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)

NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – where the tribunal prohibits the publication of the names of the applicant and any witnesses appearing at the application – where to publish would be contrary to the public interest

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19(3), s 20(1), s 20(2), s 24(1), s 66(2)

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 226, s 360

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

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

(2002) 56 NSWLR 476

TAA, Re [2006] QCST 11

Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243

WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190

APPEARANCES:

 

APPLICANT:

Self represented

RESPONDENT:

Mr I McCowie, Government Legal Officer for the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    The applicant applied to the respondent for a blue card under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (WWC Act) (the application).
  2. [2]
    On 3 September 2017, the respondent rejected the application and issued a negative notice under the WWC Act. The applicant requested this tribunal review that decision.

The tribunal conducts a merits review

  1. [3]
    The tribunal must hear and decide a review of a decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits (the review).[1] The purpose of the review is to reconsider the application and produce the correct and preferable decision.[2] The tribunal has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision.[3] The tribunal conducts the review within the same legislative framework as the primary decision-maker and has the power to confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision, or set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker.[4]
  2. [4]
    In conducting the review, the tribunal does so by administering the principles contained in the WWC Act. The tribunal administers the WWC Act under the following principles-
  1. (a)
    the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount;
  2. (b)
    every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child's wellbeing.[5]
  1. [5]
    The tribunal must have regard to these principles in the context of reviewing child related employment decisions.[6]

The relevant law

  1. [6]
    A blue card authorises a person to work with children in any environment, whether supervised or not. The WWC Act provides that screening of persons in employment, or carrying on businesses, is required to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland.[7]
  2. [7]
    The object of the WWC Act is to promote and protect the rights, interests and well-being of children in Queensland through a scheme, “… to screen persons who work, or wish to work with children, to ensure they are suitable persons to do so”.[8]

Common ground

  1. [8]
    At the hearing, it was common ground that the respondent denied the applicant a blue card based on her criminal convictions (for drug related matters and assault matters) and the applicant’s previous substance abuse.

Exceptional case

  1. [9]
    The tribunal must have regard to the considerations prescribed by section 226 of the WWC Act in determining whether an exceptional case exists. The considerations listed in section 226 are not an exhaustive list.[9] Courts and tribunals have not established any general rules with respect to what is an exceptional case.[10] Each case is determined on its merits, and the tribunal should not take a prescriptive approach.[11]

Risk factors and protective factors

  1. [10]
    The tribunal must consider protective factors and risk factors in deciding whether a case is exceptional.[12] The appropriate test it is not whether there is no risk. The tribunal is to undertake an analysis and evaluation of risk.[13] The weight the tribunal applies to each relevant factor depends upon the circumstances of the individual case and may vary accordingly.

Childhood

  1. [11]
    The applicant gave evidence at the hearing.
  2. [12]
    She had disrupted schooling and did not complete grade 10. She moved often but had, and has, loving parents. Her strong bond with her family has continued. At times, she has been away from her family but there has never been a rift. She has two brothers (BTO and DTO), She has a good relationship with both, but a particularly close relationship with one (BTO). She can discuss ‘anything’ with BTO.
  3. [13]
    After completing her schooling, at the age of 16 years, she left family in Brisbane and moved to Darwin with her then boyfriend. He was abusive, and at the age of 18 years she returned to her family.
  4. [14]
    The applicant began drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis from an early age. She did not consume any other illicit drugs. She said that her cannabis use was at night (at home) after work. In response to a question about why she used drugs, she responded to the effect that ‘everyone was using drugs’. She did not disclose that she used cannabis to her family (other than brother BTO). A lot of people knew that she was using cannabis, but no one tried to stop her. For a couple of years, the applicant was able to stop smoking cannabis.
  5. [15]
    At age 22 (in 1990) she met and married a man called XAM. They started a fishing business. But according to the applicant, her husband ‘drank their business away’. He was very abusive to her when he was drunk.
  6. [16]
    In about 1992, the applicant confessed that she started smoking cannabis once again. At that time, she did not have a big social group. She and her husband (along with a friend) were ‘fishing all the time’. She suffered a lot of stress because her husband was drinking. She described him as a ‘full-on’ alcoholic. Her husband also smoked cannabis, and she said that she resumed smoking cannabis ‘because of stress’. 
  7. [17]
    They had two sons – in 1992 and 1994.

Criminal History

2001 – Drugs matter before the Supreme Court

  1. [18]
    The applicant said that her husband was involved in drug offending. She said that she was very stressed and did not believe that smoking cannabis was the only way to cope. On one occasion, in 2001, her husband took delivery of 4.7 kgs of cannabis and shortly after, the police arrived. Police also found a water pipe, a growing cannabis plant, and a clip seal bag containing about 20 g of cannabis seeds. Police estimated that the street value of the cannabis was about $30,000. She told police and the court that it was ‘for personal use’. She was very surprised as to the amount, as they never previously possessed anything like that quantity. Previously they only possessed ‘a few ounces’. They were not producing.
  2. [19]
    She provided information that assisted police with enquiries about other matters.
  3. [20]
    This made her reconsider her involvement with drugs. She tried to stop but she found this difficult because of her high stress levels.
  4. [21]
    The applicant gave evidence that during this time her husband was an alcoholic and ‘he just did what he wanted to do’.

2003 Sarina Magistrates Court

  1. [22]
    On 3 February 2003, the applicant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs and possession of utensils and pipes in the Sarina Magistrates Court. On 9 January 2003, police attended at the applicant’s home to execute a search warrant. The applicant’s children were present at the time. The applicant produced a plastic shopping bag with some green leafy material that she identified as marijuana, and police located a further quantity of green leafy material and a water pipe in the premises. Police located a total of 199 g of marijuana. The applicant told police and the court that she was a heavy user. At the hearing, the applicant said that she used the cannabis at night – away from the house and away from the children. She also said that she did not consume cannabis when caring for children.
  2. [23]
    Because of the conviction, the applicant faced breach proceedings before the Supreme Court in Mackay. The court extended the operational period of the suspended sentence that it had imposed on 5 June 2000 by a further 12 months.
  3. [24]
    Shortly after, the applicant left her husband.

2004 Assault

  1. [25]
    After separation from her husband, the applicant was convicted of common assault in the Mackay Magistrates Court. On 1 October 2004, the applicant attended at her husband’s caravan to collect her son. A verbal dispute arose, and the applicant struck her husband on the right-hand side of his face with her left fist twice before throwing coffee over him. When questioned by police, the applicant said the complainant agitated and annoyed her and she simply lashed out at him. The court imposed a fine of $450 and did not record a conviction.
  2. [26]
    According to the applicant, the reason she went to the caravan was that her son was staying over with her husband, and her son had contacted her to express his concerns.
  3. [27]
    Following that incident, the applicant had no further contact with her husband (although she continued to allow the children to see him).

2014 Magistrates Court

  1. [28]
    On 31 March 2014, the applicant was convicted in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court of possession of dangerous drugs, possession of a thing used in the commission of a crime, and possession of utensils and pipes that had been used for drug related purposes. When executing a search warrant at the applicant’s home, the applicant declared to police a clip seal bag containing 9.5 g of cannabis, digital scales on top of the cupboard in the applicant’s bedroom, and a home-made bucket-bong in the laundry. The applicant admitted that she owned the cannabis and she smoked it for her personal use. The court imposed a fine of $600 for all offences, without recording a conviction.
  2. [29]
    In explaining the event, the applicant said that ‘people from her past fishing days turned up one Saturday night’. The applicant told the tribunal that they had the cannabis which she refused to smoke. She asked them to leave and she intended to dispose of the cannabis on the following Monday, but police arrived at her residence on the Sunday, before she had an opportunity to do so.
  3. [30]
    The applicant said that she has no further contact with these people and to ensure that they did not attempt to contact her in the future, she changed her telephone number.
  4. [31]
    The applicant told the tribunal that her children (then in their 20s) had no contact with the drugs. Her daughter was in her room.
  5. [32]
    The applicant told police that she smoked it for her personal use (although she told the tribunal that was not true). The applicant explained that given the police found the drugs in her home and in her possession, she made an admission, feeling that not to do so would be futile. The tribunal deals with this application based on the facts of the conviction. That is, that the applicant had consumed the cannabis.
  6. [33]
    The applicant did express remorse and acknowledge that she was ‘stupid for letting them in the house’.

Cannabis

  1. [34]
    Although the applicant says that she has not consumed cannabis since 2003, the tribunal does note her admission, and subsequent conviction, in 2014 that establishes that she had smoked cannabis at least in 2014.
  2. [35]
    The applicant says that until 2014, her children did not know that she had smoked.
  3. [36]
    Prior to that the applicant says she would smoke away from children; and never in house, and never in their presence. The applicant says she did not expose her children to her habit. She shielded them from that (and, she says, to the abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband).
  4. [37]
    The tribunal accepts that the applicant did attempt to shield her children from her consumption of cannabis. The tribunal also accepts her statement of remorse and acknowledgement that the unauthorised use of cannabis is wrong.
  5. [38]
    The tribunal accepts that the applicant no longer consumes cannabis. Some support for her ability to overcome the long-term use of substances is demonstrated by her ability to stop smoking cigarettes.
  6. [39]
    The tribunal accepts that the applicant did not want her children to see the abuse, yelling and violence that she says her ex-husband perpetrated.
  7. [40]
    The tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that if anyone now arrived with drugs, would tell them to leave or she would phone the police.
  8. [41]
    The tribunal also accepts that the applicant has counselled her children not to take drugs; and not to drink alcohol to excess.
  9. [42]
    The tribunal also accepts the applicant’s statement that she has not replaced the use of drugs with ‘anything else’.
  10. [43]
    The tribunal accepts the applicant’s expressed and considerable remorse, where she acknowledged that she had been a persistent user of cannabis.

Current partner

  1. [44]
    The applicant met her current partner in 2005. They have a daughter together. He is a protective factor. They appear to have a very good relationship.

Associates

  1. [45]
    The tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that she has discontinued contact with former ‘associates’ who were a negative influence.

Stress

  1. [46]
    The tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant that at her worst, when married to her ex-husband, her stress levels were intense.
  2. [47]
    The tribunal also accepts the evidence of the applicant that she is now settled, which has caused her a considerable decrease in stress levels. Consequently, she now has ‘no need for marijuana’.
  3. [48]
    The recent denial of her blue card and consequent loss of employment has been a form of stress to her, but she has not succumbed to these pressures by turning to illicit substances.
  4. [49]
    Despite the difficult circumstances, she says that she is no longer stressed. She is proud of her partner and their relationship. She says that her children are a great motivation to her. She described her children as being ‘great achievers’, and that makes her proud.
  5. [50]
    In 2014, she told her children about her association with illicit drugs in the past. The tribunal accepts that her children were shocked to receive this advice from their mother as it appeared to be out of her character at that time. 

Reflections on Criminal History

  1. [51]
    Reflecting on her criminal history, the applicant says that she is embarrassed. In her words, she describes the use of illicit drugs as ‘crazy’, and she acknowledges the horrific negative effects of the use of illicit drugs upon society.
  2. [52]
    She acknowledges that if she was to use cannabis, it could adversely affect her ability to make decisions. She has resolved not to reoffend and will never return to ‘that life’.

Supports, Strategies and Goals

  1. [53]
    She is now a grandmother. Her son, his partner and their child moved in with the applicant. She enjoys the support of her partner, her family, and her friends.
  2. [54]
    The applicant wants to return to work. The applicant enjoys work and wants to return to work, which she describes as a further protective factor. The applicant secured her job in 2013 and only stopped work because blue card services did not renew her blue card. During the hearing, the applicant spoke enthusiastically about her work, where she arrived at 4 am and left by 8 am. Her job was to clean rooms and toilets at a school.
  3. [55]
    The applicant felt that having her employment gave her purpose in life. She had no complaints about the work and she was highly reliable. She said that she always arrived early and had not had a sick day in 5 years.

The witnesses for the applicant

  1. [56]
    The applicant called evidence from BMR (her partner), LTT (her friend), BTO (her brother) and MRO (her son).

BMR

  1. [57]
    The witness provided a statement dated 22 January 2018. He has been the applicant’s partner for 14 years.
  2. [58]
    He was present at their home during incidents in January 2014. The applicant’s former acquaintances ‘turned up’. That disappointed the witness because he said that he and the applicant had left Sarina ‘to get away from those things’. He went out to shop, and upon return, the acquaintances were gone. However, the police arrived, and they found marijuana. They took the applicant to the police station and they charged her with possession. He was shocked, because he did not know it was in the house.
  3. [59]
    The witness said that he had decided with the applicant to put a stop to the use of cannabis ‘way back’. The last time that he knew of the applicant using cannabis was prior to her pregnancy to him, which resulted in the birth of their daughter. They made the decision together and since that time he was not aware that the applicant had used cannabis at all.
  4. [60]
    He said that the applicant copes with stress through her ‘strong character’. She deals with stressors by ‘releasing steam’ and by talking through issues, but not by resorting to drugs.
  5. [61]
    He said that his partner does not drink alcohol. She has been a non-drinker since he has known her.
  6. [62]
    After the police incident in 2014, the applicant had some open discussions about the use of cannabis with their children. While they discouraged the use of cannabis, they told their children to ‘do as they see fit – but do not bring drugs home’. To his knowledge, his children do not use drugs at all.
  7. [63]
    The witness said that to his knowledge, the applicant has not spoken with counsellors, but she is strong-willed and the applicant ‘says what she thinks’. According to the witness, the applicant does not allow anyone to ‘get over her’.
  8. [64]
    The witness went on to say that the applicant deals with stressful situations well. In circumstances where others may become upset or flustered, she keeps busy – e.g. by doing housework.
  9. [65]
    He said that the applicant interacts with children very well.
  10. [66]
    The applicant said that as a family they are doing well. The applicant is doing very well, and she has completed courses in aged care.

LTT

  1. [67]
    The witness said that she met the applicant through a mutual friend. She has known the applicant for 11 years. They are very good friends. She sees the applicant every couple of weeks. They often speak to each other by telephone.
  2. [68]
    The witness became aware of the applicant’s offending behaviour ‘when she was young’ and then again in 2014. The witness said that the applicant explained that when people arrived she asked them to leave, saying that children were in the house, and she wanted to have no more contact with them. The offending behaviour surprised the witness, because she had never seen the applicant drinking or using drugs. The applicant had previously told the witness that she stopped using cannabis by 2003/2004, when her daughter was born.
  3. [69]
    The witness said that over the 11 years she has known the applicant, she has not really changed, although she has matured. She described the applicant as a strong and independent person, without any identifiable weakness. She said that the applicant loves her kids.
  4. [70]
    She has never seen the applicant lose control. She said that the applicant has a strong support network of family and friends. She is hard working and does her job well.
  5. [71]
    The witness said that she has never seen the applicant do anything wrong and certainly nothing that would ever threaten children. If given a blue card, the witness said that she would have no concerns about the applicant’s involvement with children.

BTO

  1. [72]
    The witness is the applicant’s brother. They are very close, and he sees his sister approximately three times per week.
  2. [73]
    He said that his sister has been consistent over the years. She is hard-working, and he does hope that she is given her blue card, so she can work, as ‘she needs this to support her family’. The applicant has ‘gone downhill’ since losing her job. She was devastated when she lost the blue card. She went on the dole. She did not want to do that.
  3. [74]
    He thought that the refusal relates to the applicant’s criminal history, involving an assault and drug related charges. He was very surprised about the charges in 2014, because to his knowledge the applicant had not had any involvement with cannabis since leaving her husband many years ago. The witness said that his sister had a very difficult time when she was with her husband. During the early 2000s, she would call on him for help. Police tried to protect her and the kids.
  4. [75]
    He understood, and indeed supported, the actions of his sister in relation to the assault matter involving her ex-husband. He said that his sister ‘gave it back to him’ which ‘he deserved’. The witness said that his sister’s husband was a negative influence, and he was regularly associated with use of cannabis, but worse was his use of alcohol to excess, especially on weekends. The witness said that what is now happening to his sister is unfair in his mind because all her problems are associated with the actions of her husband.
  5. [76]
    Since leaving that relationship, his sister has given him no indication of any involvement with drugs. He said that she needed the drugs as a way of coping with stress. He was aware that she was previously using cannabis but said that to his knowledge she did so at night, to relax.
  6. [77]
    He is confident that his sister has not used drugs for many years. He said that if she resumed with drugs he would notice.
  7. [78]
    He says that to his knowledge his sister has not been involved in any major conflict for some time. If she has issues, she ‘talks it out’. The witness spoke highly of his sister’s integrity and cited her honesty, commitment to family, and commitment to work as protective factors. He said that she is a very good mother and a very proud grandmother, who would do anything to protect her children. His sister’s weakness was trusting the wrong people, but that was many years ago.

MRO

  1. [79]
    The witness is the applicant’s son. He and his partner and child live in the applicant’s home. He said that his mother is caring and protective. He described his father as ‘a bit of an alcoholic’.
  2. [80]
    He told the tribunal that his mother took steps to protect him and his brother from their father.
  3. [81]
    The events of 2014 surprised him. He was in the house when police arrived and found cannabis. He said that on the previous day people that he had never seen before arrived at the house without invitation and his mother ‘kick them out’. He said that while his mother said that the cannabis was hers, he was not aware of any exposure to the drug by her. He had never seen any indication of drug use by her previously or since then.
  4. [82]
    When police arrived, his mother apologised and said, ‘this should not happen in a family home’.
  5. [83]
    He has seen his mother respond to stressful situations and said that she is tough and she ‘takes it on the chin’. He said that his mother has many strengths. She is caring, kind-hearted and attends to her grandson ‘for hours without drama’.

What risk factors exist in this case?

  1. [84]
    In coming to its decision, the tribunal must consider any potential risks to children and determine the likelihood of materialisation of a risk event.[14]
  2. [85]
    The tribunal acknowledges that the applicant does have a criminal history that demonstrates a lengthy history of cannabis use with drug offending spanning from 1990 through to 2014. The tribunal accepts that the applicant was likely a heavy user of the drug until 2003. The tribunal acknowledges that the applicant was in possession of, and through her admission to police and the court used, cannabis in 2014. However, it appears to the tribunal that that was an extraordinary circumstance and not indicative of the progress that she has made since 2003.
  3. [86]
    The tribunal acknowledges that the imposition of a suspended sentence in 2001 did not deter the applicant from ongoing drug offending at that time.
  4. [87]
    The tribunal does note the conviction for common assault but is of the view that that was an extraordinary circumstance and the applicant is unlikely to repeat it.

What protective factors exist in this case?

  1. [88]
    The applicant demonstrated insight by acknowledging the adverse effects on herself and society generally of the use of illicit drugs.
  2. [89]
    The applicant has a strong support network, including her loving partner, children, grandchildren, and friends. She has meaningfully sought out and obtained work, which she delights in completing, and has taken it upon herself to increase her skills and employability through adult learning.

Insight

  1. [90]
    Good insight into the harm that an applicant has caused is a protective factor.  In TAA, Re,[15] the former Children Services Tribunal stated:

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.

  1. [91]
    The tribunal rejects the respondent’s submission that ‘insufficient time has passed since the 2014 offending for the tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant has mitigated the risk of resuming the use of cannabis’.[16]
  2. [92]
    The tribunal is of the view that the applicant has gained valuable and sustained insight into the triggers for her drug offending and that she has disassociated from the people who had contributed to her offending behaviour.
  3. [93]
    The tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant, her partner, her son, and her friend. The tribunal acknowledges that the adult’s son gave evidence that the applicant took steps to shield him and his siblings from domestic violence and abuse in the household from the applicant’s former husband, thereby demonstrating protective behaviour. The tribunal notes that there have been no instances of violence since 2004. The tribunal is of the view that the applicant has demonstrated sustained and meaningful change in her behaviours.
  4. [94]
    The tribunal is of the view that the events of 2014 were contrary to the lifestyle of the applicant generally. The tribunal does not consider this event as indicative of a continuation of a formal lifestyle, or commencement of a return to the use of illicit drugs.
  5. [95]
    The tribunal notes that the applicant has been honest with authorities and has taken responsibility and blame. The tribunal accepts that the applicant’s involvement with cannabis was for personal use in 2001, 2003 and 2014.

Conclusion

  1. [96]
    The tribunal is mindful of the fact that a blue card is ‘fully transferable’. The holder of a blue card can undertake a wide range of child related activities.  The blue card is unconditional in its effect, allowing the holder to undertake things such as homestays involving children. The tribunal must make its determination by reference to what activities the holder of a blue card could conceivably undertake and not what activities the holder of the blue card intends to undertake in relation to child related activities.
  2. [97]
    The tribunal is not to consider the impact of its decision upon the applicant.  The sole focus must be upon children.
  3. [98]
    The tribunal is to determine the question on the balance of probabilities, based on the gravity of the consequences involved.
  4. [99]
    The tribunal considers the protective factors outweigh the risk factors in this case. This is not an exceptional case. It would be in the best interests of children for the tribunal to overturn the decision of respondent.  

Non-publication order

  1. [100]
    In this case, the publication of the name of the applicant or any witnesses would be contrary to the public interest and contrary to the interests of justice.[17] This case involves matters of domestic violence.

Footnotes

[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20(2)

[2] Ibid s 20(1)

[3] Ibid s 19(3)

[4] Ibid s 24(1)

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

[6] Ibid s 360

[7] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) s 5

[8] Ibid, s 5(b) and WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190, per Thomas J at [17]

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

[10] Ibid

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

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

[13] Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243, at paragraph 58

[14] Commission for Young People v V (2002) 56 NSWLR 476

[15] TAA, Re [2006] QCST 11 at paragraph 97

[16] Respondent's outline of submissions dated 5 March 2018, at [28(f)]

[17] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66(2)

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

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

  • Shortened Case Name:

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

  • MNC:

    [2018] QCAT 113

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Milburn

  • Date:

    16 Apr 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
Commission for Young People v V (2002) 56 NSWLR 476
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 56 NSWLR 476
Cite 2 - (2002) 56 NSWLR 476
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
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 3 - [2004] QCA 492
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11
Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 243
Cite 2 - [2010] QCAT 243
WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCATA 190
Cite 2 - [2015] QCATA 190

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.