Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2021
  4. TAW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2021] QCAT 166

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

TAW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2021] QCAT 166

TAW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2021] QCAT 166

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

TAW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 166

PARTIES:

TAW

 

(applicant)

 

v

 

Director-general, department of justice and attorney-general

 

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML443-19

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 May 2021

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McDonnell

ORDERS:

  1. The Tribunal confirms the decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General made on 13 November 2019 that this is not an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 225 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
  2. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of information which may enable the identification of the applicant, witnesses, any child and any complainant.

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 – blue card – where issue of negative notice – application for review – where applicant has conviction for a serious offence – where applicant has charge for disqualifying offence – where all offending occurred more than 20 years ago – whether 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)

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

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 225, s 226, s 360

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

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87

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

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28

FMA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 210

Re TAA [2006] QCST 11

TNC v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489

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

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

G Carrington, Legal Officer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    TAW, a 54 year old male, seeks a working with children clearance under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘WWC Act’), to enable him to be a kinship carer.
  2. [2]
    TAW has a conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do such harm, a serious offence under the WWC Act,[1] and a charge for attempted murder, a disqualifying offence under the WWC Act,[2] on his criminal history.
  3. [3]
    Where a person has been convicted of a serious offence as defined in the WWC Act, the chief executive must issue a negative notice unless satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the applicant to be issued with a positive notice.[3] The chief executive was not satisfied TAW’s case was exceptional and issued a negative notice on 13 November 2019.
  4. [4]
    TAW seeks a review of the decision that his is not an exceptional case within the meaning of s 225 of the WWC Act.
  5. [5]
    TAW is not a disqualified person[4] and sought review of the decision within the prescribed period. [5]
  6. [6]
    The Tribunal is required to decide the review in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) and the WWC Act.[6] The purpose of the Tribunal’s review is to produce the correct and preferable decision,[7] on the evidence before it and according to law. The review is to be undertaken under the principle that the welfare and the best interests of a child are paramount.[8]
  7. [7]
    The object of the WWC Act is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland.[9] The principles under which the WWC Act is to be administered are:

(a) the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount;

(b) every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[10]

  1. [8]
    It is not the intention of the WWC Act to impose additional punishment on a person who has police or disciplinary information, but rather is intended to put gates around employment to protect children from harm.[11]
  2. [9]
    For the present purposes, a negative notice must be issued unless the Tribunal is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children if a working with children clearance was issued.[12]
  3. [10]
    The term ‘exceptional case’ is not defined in the WWC Act. What might be an exceptional case is a question of fact and degree, to be decided in each case on its own facts 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.[13]

  1. [11]
    The Appeal Tribunal has taken the approach that changes in a person’s circumstances that simply amount to them living in a law-abiding manner as society expects and functioning at a level expected of a person at their stage and age in life, are generally considered to be the ‘ordinary course’ and not exceptional.[14]
  2. [12]
    In determining whether there is an exceptional case when a person has been convicted of an offence the Tribunal must have regard to the matters set out in s 226(2) of the WWC Act. The matters listed in s 226 are not exhaustive. Rather, s 226 ‘merely specifies certain particular matters which the [Tribunal] is obliged to consider in deciding the application.’[15]
  3. [13]
    ‘Conviction’ is defined in Schedule 7 of the WWC Act to mean ‘a finding of guilt by a court, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court, whether or not a conviction is recorded’.
  4. [14]
    The Tribunal has a broad discretion to exercise when considering the merits in each case. Neither party bears an onus in determining whether an exceptional case exists.[16]
  5. [15]
    The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) commenced on 1 January 2020. As these proceedings were commenced in December 2019, prior to the commencement of the Act, the provisions of that legislation do not apply to this review.[17]

Consideration of s 226(2) of the WWC Act

  1. [16]
    The matters listed in s 226(2) of the WWC Act must be considered by the Tribunal and are addressed below.

Whether the offence is a conviction or a charge

  1. [17]
    TAW has two convictions for building breaking and felony and one conviction for each of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do such harm, enter building/land with intent to commit offence-T1 and destroy or damage property <=$2000-T2.[18]
  2. [18]
    He also has a charge for attempted murder, of which he was acquitted. The facts of this charge are the same as those relevant to TAW’s conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do such harm. TAW pleaded guilty to this lesser charge.
  3. [19]
    The evidence in relation to the charge has not been tested. That he was acquitted is not determinative of his suitability to work with children. It is not for the Tribunal to determine TAW’s guilt or innocence in respect of the charge but to determine whether an exceptional case exists.
  4. [20]
    The Tribunal considered the relevance of charges against an applicant which did not result in conviction in Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian[19] in which case the Members stated:

It is not this Tribunal’s function to adjudicate upon whether the applicant is, in fact and at law, guilty or not guilty of the non conviction charges in question. The relevant function involves an analysis and evaluation of risk. It is not concerned with the proof of offences which the applicant may have committed previously, but with the prevention of future potential harm Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protections v Grinrod (No 2) (2008) WASCA 28 at paragraph 84.

  1. [21]
    The circumstances giving rise to the charges must be considered by the Tribunal. I agree that in undertaking this review it is necessary to consider the totality of the evidence, not merely the charges.[20]

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

  1. [22]
    Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do such harm is a serious offence under the WWC Act.[21] This reflects the seriousness with which Parliament considers offences of this nature when assessing a person’s eligibility to hold a working with children clearance.
  2. [23]
    Attempted murder is both a serious and a disqualifying offence under the WWC Act.[22] TAW has not been convicted of this offence.
  3. [24]
    The nature of the 1985 charge and conviction are at the highest level of seriousness in the consideration of a person’s eligibility to be entrusted to provide a protective environment for children in activities regulated by the WWC Act.
  4. [25]
    TAW’s other offences are neither serious not disqualifying under the WWC Act but are still intended to be taken into account in assessing TAW’s eligibility to hold a working with children clearance.

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

  1. [26]
    TAW’s offending and alleged offending occurred in 1985 and 2000. The significant gap in TAW’s offending conduct suggests that the passage of time should not be considered a determinative factor in deciding whether this is an exceptional case.

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

  1. [27]
    No evidence regarding the circumstances leading to the convictions for building breaking and felony were provided to the Tribunal.
  2. [28]
    On 12 July 1985, TAW was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do such harm and acquitted of the offence of attempted murder. Documents received from the police[23] indicate that on 15 January 1985, aged 18, TAW struck a 17-year-old complainant with his car before crashing into a tree. TAW left the scene and the complainant was taken to hospital. The complainant suffered fractures of both legs, a fractured pelvis, head injuries and other secondary injuries.
  3. [29]
    Witnesses to the incident told police they considered TAW had deliberately driven off the road, mounted the footpath and intentionally hit the complainant. TAW spoke with police and admitted to driving the car and hitting the complainant. TAW told police he had been looking for the complainant in relation to a disturbance involving the complainant and TAW’s father. He denied intentionally running the complainant down and stated it was an accident as he lost control of the vehicle when he thought someone threw something at it.[24]
  4. [30]
    In relation to this offence TAW told the Tribunal that:
    1. (a)
      By the age of 14, his mother had died. His father had lost his business, having committed himself to caring for his seriously ill wife. TAW said his father became emotionally distant, depressed and withdrawn as a result of his wife’s death, leaving TAW to fend for himself. TAW said he became extremely lonely and deeply depressed and missed his mother;[25]
    2. (b)
      Later in his teens, encouraged by his girlfriend, he became involved with a group engaged in criminal activity. He said his life spiralled out of control. While he thought he was making friends, they were taking advantage of his skills with motor vehicles. He became involved in ‘petty’ crime. While initially oblivious, he became aware of their drug use. He did not approve of this and sought to distance himself from the group, although his girlfriend remained involved;
    3. (c)
      After he and his girlfriend separated, the group started threatening TAW. Two of the group who were particularly intimidating came to his home and ‘roughed up’ his father. Upon learning of this TAW said he became angry, ceasing to think rationally. He went out in his car to look for them;
    4. (d)
      While out he calmed down, realising this was a mistake, so headed home to his father. On the way he drove past the home of someone associated with the group. He denied taking this route purposefully but rather said it was on his way home. Observing a crowd outside the house he turned the car around to go back to see if he could locate one of the men he had been looking for. He said one of the people he had been looking for ran at his car and threw a brick through his car window. He braked suddenly, lost control of the car, hit a tree and was thrown through the windscreen. He said he was set upon by the crowd which was subsequently distracted by someone else, enabling TAW to escape; and
    5. (e)
      Police came to his home, informed him of the complainant’s injuries and he cooperated with their enquiries. He was charged with attempted murder, but this charge was reduced. He told the Tribunal he felt the reduced charge was justified. He pleaded guilty.
  5. [31]
    It is of concern that the complainant was aged 17. However, I observe that TAW was 18 years of age at the time. TAW admits to searching for the complainant on the night of the offence and to turning the car around and going back to see if the complainant was at the house but says that hitting him was an accident that occurred because a brick was thrown through his car window.
  6. [32]
    That his 1985 offending was an accident is inconsistent with the conviction. I am unable to go behind the conviction or give weight to evidence which is inconsistent with it. TAW acknowledged that there was no excuse for his conduct and regrets the impact his actions had on his victim and his family. Confronted with a similar situation today, he said he would walk away.
  7. [33]
    On 17 April 2000, TAW was convicted of enter building/land with intent to commit offence-T1 and destroy or damage property <=$2000-T2. Police documents indicate that on 25 March 2000 he and a co-offender attended the complainant’s address and yelled abuse from outside the residence. TAW was observed to be holding a baseball bat and the co-offender was observed to be holding a small metal torch. They smashed the two front windows of the house and the wall of the house causing a hole in the side of the house. They got back into their car and drove away. The complainant told police that the co-offender was her ex-partner and TAW was a friend of the co-offender. TAW and the co-offender admitted to police to causing the damage and provided police with the weapons they used when committing the offences.[26]
  8. [34]
    TAW told the Tribunal that in relation to the 2000 offending, his friend’s (I will call him S for convenience) ex-girlfriend was associating with a man S suspected of being a paedophile and who had showered with his four-year-old son. S asked TAW to go to S’s ex-girlfriend’s house, ostensibly to talk with the man. TAW said he did not realise until they got to the house that S had a baseball bat in the car. S damaged the house and TAW told him to stop. TAW said he did not have the bat, which is inconsistent with the police information. So that S did not lose custody of his children for taking such action, TAW said he took the blame, which is inconsistent with information provided by the police[27] that S also admitted to causing the damage and was charged.
  9. [35]
    TAW said he has not spoken to his co-offender for years and said that if he was in the same situation today, he would part company with the person.
  10. [36]
    By designating the 1985 offence as serious and the charge as disqualifying, Parliament has demonstrated their relevance to employment that may involve children. Having been convicted of a serious offence the presumption is that TAW should not be issued with a working with children clearance unless it is an exceptional case.
  11. [37]
    The violent and retaliatory nature of TAW’s offending in 1985 and 2000 raises concerns regarding his ability to make appropriate behavioural choices, exercise restraint and resolve conflict in a calm and non-violent manner. Children rely upon adults responsible for their care to be able to manage conflicts in an appropriate manner and are entirely dependent upon the adults around them to exercise proper judgement and restraint.

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. [38]
    TAW has received periods of suspended imprisonment and good behaviour bonds for his offending. In addition, for his 1985 offending he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment, which was suspended upon his entering into a good behaviour bond, required to undertake 240 hours of community service and disqualified from driving for two and a half years.
  2. [39]
    The courts’ reasons for imposing these penalties are not known to me.

Any information about the person given to the chief executive under sections 318, 319, 335, 337 or 338 of the WWC Act or section 138ZG of the Disability Services Act 2006

  1. [40]
    No information was given under these sections.

Anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission, of the offence that the chief executive reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person

  1. [41]
    Other factors relevant to the offending or alleged offending reasonably considered to be relevant are discussed below.

What has changed for TAW?

  1. [42]
    In Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram[28] the Appeal Tribunal considered that changes in a person’s circumstances which simply amount to them living in a law-abiding manner as society expects and functioning at a level expected of a person at their stage and age in life are generally considered to be the ordinary course and not exceptional. I accept this.
  2. [43]
    TAW and his wife have raised their own five children. In addition, since about 1993, they have taken in and cared for dozens of children who have, for various reasons, been unable to live with their own families. This has always occurred quite informally. TAW said he endeavoured to stop these children making the same mistakes he did.
  3. [44]
    TAW acknowledged that raising children can be challenging and feels that he has handled this stress well while raising his own children, grandchildren and the other children for whom he and his wife have cared. Further, he acknowledged that caring for children who have experienced trauma might be difficult and frustrating. He would utilise a calm, sensitive and nurturing approach to caring for such children.[29]
  4. [45]
    TAW seeks a working with children clearance to enable him to become a kinship carer for two of his nieces. I consider this a protective factor.
  5. [46]
    TAW spoke of his support network comprising his family and friends. He clearly has the support of his wife, who attended the hearing as a support person. A number of his family and friends provided statements and some were available for cross examination.
  6. [47]
    D, one of TAW’s daughters,[30] provided a brief statement and was available for cross examination. She said she had read the respondent’s reasons for refusal but was only aware of TAW’s 1985 offending. She described a kind-hearted and loving man who was firm but fair in his discipline and who was always there for her during her own personal difficulties. She said it was a regular occurrence that there were other children living in their home. If children arrived unexpectedly at mealtimes her parents would give up their own meal to ensure that these children were fed. She spoke of a specific instance involving her own friend who, due to difficulties she was experiencing at home, lived with D’s family.
  7. [48]
    Four of the children cared for by TAW and his wife over the years provided statements.[31] They all spoke of being taken in by the family and provided with a loving, supportive and kind environment and of being given a home by them. They spoke of TAW warmly and credited him with the success they have each achieved in their own lives. Two were available for cross examination and were aware of TAW’s 1985 offending. The others were not apparently aware of TAW’s criminal history.
  8. [49]
    J, who has known TAW for about 12 years, was taken in by TAW and his wife when he was 17, homeless and unemployed.[32] Without that support he believes he would not now be married and have his own business. He had read the respondent’s reasons but could recall only the 1985 offending as behaviour of concern. He said that this conduct is not consistent with the man TAW is today.
  9. [50]
    L knew TAW through one of TAW’s children. L had no family support and was living in his car.[33] TAW and his wife took him in, providing him with a home. He spoke of the calm rational manner in which TAW approached parenting. TAW provided support to L when he was dealing with a difficult situation with his own father. They have spoken of TAW’s 1985 offending which L believes influenced the advice TAW has given him over the years. He could not recall if he had read the respondent’s reasons. He now considers TAW a close friend and credits him with enabling L to achieve success in his own life.
  10. [51]
    He said that TAW is embarrassed by his offending conduct and, appreciating the long-term impacts of this conduct on his life, has endeavoured to utilise this experience, particularly when providing support to the children in his life.
  11. [52]
    TAW, to his credit, has not offended since 2000. He is living a life absent of crime and offending behaviour. The witnesses for whom TAW cared as children gave evidence of a responsible, kind, calm and well-respected father figure who was a significant positive influence on their lives. Even those who have long since left his daily care rely upon his support and wisdom today. I accept that since his offending TAW has made a significant positive contribution to the lives of numerous children in addition to his own, offering them a safe home and support. Those aware of the 1985 offending said they did not recognise the man portrayed by that offending. However, I afford their evidence less weight as they had no knowledge of the 2000 offending.
  12. [53]
    W, TAW’s sister-in-law, and the mother of the nieces requiring care, had not read the reasons.[34] She had been told of the 1985 offending and was aware of ‘some lesser offences’ on TAW’s criminal history. She said that the conduct indicated in 1985 does not reflect the man she knows. She described TAW as a man who will walk away if he is becoming annoyed. She considers that no child would be in danger in his care. While she was aware that TAW and his wife have cared for other children over the years, she has not witnessed this firsthand as she lives some distance away. I accept her evidence but give it limited weight due to W’s limited knowledge of TAW’s criminal history.
  13. [54]
    Dr R, a consultant psychiatrist, provided a medical report.[35] It was not apparent Dr R had read the respondent’s reasons. His knowledge of the 1985 offending was not consistent with the information provided by the police. Further, he believed TAW had not offended since then. He said that there was no evidence that TAW was a risk to children and indicated that TAW had developed strategies over the decades since his offending. He did not say what these strategies were nor the matters they were intended to address. It was not apparent whether TAW has consulted with Dr R on a single occasion or multiple times. He was not available for cross-examination. In the circumstances, I afford his evidence limited weight.
  14. [55]
    TAW said he can now recognise when he is reaching his limits and spoke of strategies that he has implemented to cope with high stress situations, including listening to music, walking, building models and working on his classic car. He said that he learnt these strategies after the 1985 offending but was unable to convince his friend not to take action in 2000.

Is TAW remorseful for his offending conduct and has he developed insight?

  1. [56]
    The possession of insight is recognised as an important protective factor, as noted by the former Children’s Services Tribunal in Re TAA:

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.[36]

  1. [57]
    TAW expressed remorse for his 1985 offending conduct. He said that his conduct in 2000 was not that of a good role model for children. He had not considered the impact of his conduct on the occupiers of the house in 2000. He agreed that as a 34-year-old man at the time of this offending he should have known his behaviour was inappropriate but suggested that as the occupants of the house were drug users and one of them had apparently inappropriately touched a child, this was not a relevant consideration. It is of concern that after 20 years TAW has not developed further insight. Conduct of this nature is not desirable in the holder of a working with children clearance.
  2. [58]
    TAW presented as a quiet and unassuming man. While proud of the children he has raised and supported, he did not appear to consider that his actions in caring for the children who were not his own were unusual. It was simply that these children needed help and support and he could provide it, so he did, providing them with a home and enabling them to become productive and contributing members of society. He sought to impart the lessons he learnt from his offending conduct to those for whom he cared. It was evident he wished to ensure that they benefitted from his care and personal experience.
  3. [59]
    This behaviour suggests insight into the effect of such conduct on the offender’s future, which is a protective factor. However, it was not apparent that this insight extended to the impact of such conduct on the victims. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that TAW has demonstrated genuine insight into the effects and appropriateness of his behaviour.

Is this an exceptional case?

  1. [60]
    In undertaking this review and determining the correct and preferable decision the welfare and the best interests of a child are paramount.[37] The presumption is that TAW is not issued with a WWC clearance unless his is an exceptional case.
  2. [61]
    A blue card is transferable, allowing the holder to work in any child-related employment or conduct any child-related business regulated by the WWC Act. Thus, the Tribunal must take into account all possible work situations open to the applicant, not just the purpose for which a blue card is presently sought. Once issued, a blue card is unconditional and fully transferable across all areas of regulated employment and business.
  3. [62]
    The Tribunal accepts that the offences noted are the only entries recorded on TAW’s criminal history. Although he has not engaged in any concerning or offending behaviour for more than twenty years, due to the significant gap in his offending the passage of time is not determinative of whether or not his case is an exceptional case.[38] This risk factor must be considered in the context of all the relevant circumstances.
  4. [63]
    Although TAW’s criminal history is limited, the serious nature of his offending is of concern. TAW’s early offending was likely influenced by his youth and immaturity. However, there is no such justification for his subsequent offending when he was a mature adult.
  5. [64]
    In view of my findings, despite the positive influence TAW has had on the lives of the many youths for whom he has cared, I am not satisfied that this is an exceptional case for the purposes of exercising the discretion under s 225 of the WWC Act. I am satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is that TAW’s case is not an exceptional case under s 225 of the WWC Act.

Non-publication

  1. [65]
    I consider it is not in the public interest to identify TAW or the witnesses before the Tribunal, as to do so could lead to the identification of children in care.  Accordingly, these reasons are to be published in a de-identified format. Pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act the Tribunal orders that publication of information that may enable the applicant, witnesses, any child and any complainant to be identified is prohibited. 

Orders

  1. [66]
    The Tribunal confirms the decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General made on 13 November 2019 that this is not an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 225 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
  2. [67]
    The Tribunal prohibits the publication of information which may enable identification of the applicant, witnesses, any child and any complainant.

Footnotes

[1]  WWC Act, Schedule 2.

[2]  WWC Act, Schedule 4.

[3]  WWC Act, s 225.

[4]  WWC Act, s 17.

[5] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 33(3) (‘QCAT Act’).

[6]  Ibid, s 19(a).

[7]  Ibid, s 20.

[8]  WWC Act, s 360.

[9]  Ibid, s 5.

[10]  Ibid, s 6.

[11]  As stated in Queensland, Parliamentary Debates, Queensland Parliament, Commission for Children and Young People Bill Second Reading Speech, 14 November 2000, 4391 (Anna Bligh).

[12]  WWC Act, s 225.

[13] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, [31] citing Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98, [22].

[14] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27, [47].

[15] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492, [42].

[16] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28.

[17] Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 108.

[18]  Ex 8, BCS13.

[19]  [2010] QCAT 243, [58].

[20] TNC v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489.

[21]  WWC Act, Schedule 2.

[22]  Ibid, Schedule 2 and Schedule 4.

[23]  Ex 8, BCS16.

[24]  Ex 8, BCS16.

[25]  Ex 1.

[26]  Ex 8, BCS51.

[27]  Ex 8, BCS51.

[28]  [2014] QCATA 27.

[29]  Ex 2.

[30]  Ex 10.

[31]  Ex 3, Ex 4, Ex 7, Ex 8 BCS41.

[32]  Ex 7.

[33]  Ex 3.

[34]  Ex 6.

[35]  Ex 5.

[36]  [2006] QCST 11, [97]. See also Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87.

[37]  WWC Act, s 360.

[38] FMA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 210, [8].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

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

  • Shortened Case Name:

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

  • MNC:

    [2021] QCAT 166

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member McDonnell

  • Date:

    10 May 2021

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
Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Grindrod (No 2) (2008) WASCA 28
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) WASCA 28
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 Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 87
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
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCATA 27
Cite 2 - [2014] QCATA 27
Cite 3 - [2014] QCATA 27
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 28
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 28
FMA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 210
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 210
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 210
Kent v Wilson (2000) VSC 98
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) VSC 98
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11
TNC v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 489
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 489
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

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
SS v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 3922 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.