Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2021
  4. RD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2021] QCAT 253

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

RD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2021] QCAT 253

RD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2021] QCAT 253

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

RD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 253

PARTIES:

RD

(applicant)

v

Director-general, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML010-20

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

27 July 2021

HEARING DATE:

19 July 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McDonnell

ORDERS:

  1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General made on 5 December 2019 that this is an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.
  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 convictions for violent offending – where not categorised as serious or disqualifying offences under the Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) – whether applicant had adequately addressed mental health, substance abuse and anger management issues – whether an ‘exceptional case’ warranting departure from the general rule that a working with children clearance must be issued – application of factors in s 226 of the Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13, s 48, s 58

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 221, 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

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

Re TAA [2006] QCST 11

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

V Dam of Dam Lawyers

Respondent:

D Taylor of Counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    RD is 31 years old and applied for a positive notice and a blue card under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘WWC Act’) to enable him to advance in his chosen career as a personal trainer.
  2. [2]
    As a result of RD’s criminal history the respondent proposed to issue a negative notice so invited RD to make submissions about whether or not there was an exceptional case for RD. RD provided material in response.
  3. [3]
    The respondent issued a negative notice on 5 December 2019 and RD seeks a review of the decision that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of s 221(2) of the WWC Act.
  4. [4]
    RD is not a disqualified person[1] and sought review of the decision within the prescribed period. [2]
  5. [5]
    The review is to be determined in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) and the WWC Act.[3] The purpose of the Tribunal’s review is to produce the correct and preferable decision,[4] on the evidence 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.[5]
  6. [6]
    The object of the WWC Act is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland.[6] The principles under which the WWC Act is to be administered are:
  1. (a)
    the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount;
  1. (b)
    every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[7]
  1. [7]
    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.[8]
  2. [8]
    For the present purposes, a working with children clearance must be issued unless the Tribunal is satisfied it is an exceptional case, in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to be issued.[9]
  3. [9]
    The term ‘exceptional case’ is not defined in the WWC Act. Thus, 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.[10]

  1. [10]
    As these proceedings were commenced in the Tribunal after the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’) the provisions of that legislation are relevant to this review.
  2. [11]
    The Tribunal previously made an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable the applicant and nominated others to be identified.[11] This decision is to be published only in a de-identified format.
  3. [12]
    Despite previous directions of the Tribunal, arrangements had not been made for RD’s witnesses to attend or be otherwise available for cross examination. RD elected to proceed with the scheduled hearing.

Consideration of s 226(2) of the WWC Act

  1. [13]
    In determining whether there is an exceptional case when a person has been convicted of, or charged with, 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.’[12]
  2. [14]
    The matters listed in s 226(2) of the WWC Act are addressed below.

Whether the offence is a conviction or a charge

  1. [15]
    For the purposes of the WWC Act, RD has convictions[13] for contravene a direction or requirement, grievous bodily harm, common assault, commit public nuisance, assaults occasioning bodily harm and unauthorised dealing with shop goods.
  2. [16]
    RD also has a charge for the offence of serious assault of working corrective services officer. The prosecution offered no evidence in relation to this charge.[14]

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

  1. [17]
    None of the offences on RD’s criminal history are serious offences[15] or disqualifying offences[16] under the WWC Act. However, Parliament intended that all offences on a person’s criminal history be able to be considered in assessing their eligibility to hold a blue card.

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

  1. [18]
    RD’s offending occurred between 2008 and 2013, and in 2018. The recurrence of offending after a period of non-offending is a risk factor in my assessment.

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

  1. [19]
    On 1 March 2010 RD was convicted of contravene direction or requirement for his conduct on 17 January 2010. While the details of this offending are unknown, it seems likely that it was associated with a conviction for disqualified driving on the same day.[17]
  2. [20]
    On 10 March 2010 RD was convicted of grievous bodily harm in relation to events which occurred in May 2008. Sentencing remarks[18] indicate that:
    1. (a)
      the offence occurred in the middle of the day at a bus stop in the presence of members of the public. RD was with two co-offenders;
    2. (b)
      there was an exchange between the victim and one of the co-offenders, and the victim may have acted belligerently towards a co-offender. A co-offender began punching the victim and RD became involved in the fight. Her Honour noted that it was not the case that RD was going to the assistance of a friend in need;
    3. (c)
      RD pushed the victim and while the victim was on the ground RD kicked him in the chest. Her Honour noted ‘this was a particularly cowardly thing to do on your part’;
    4. (d)
      It was not clear who delivered the serious blow which caused the grievous bodily harm. RD was sentenced on the basis that he was a party to the offence, rather than as the person who struck the blow;
    5. (e)
      When police arrived, RD ran into a shopping centre. He was apprehended shortly afterwards and admitted kicking the victim; and
    6. (f)
      The victim required surgery including the insertion of screws for a broken jaw. While he recovered from his physical injuries the victim suffered ongoing emotional and psychological trauma.
  3. [21]
    On 17 August 2010 RD was convicted of common assault. The police brief[19] indicates that on 15 January 2010:
    1. (a)
      RD attended a medical centre for an appointment. He became upset after waiting for some time and approached the receptionist to aggressively complain before leaving the medical centre;
    2. (b)
      He returned some hours later with two male associates. He entered the medical centre and called for the receptionist to come outside;
    3. (c)
      The receptionist met RD at the door. An argument ensued and RD ‘rushed’ at the receptionist. The receptionist was pushed away by RD;
    4. (d)
      RD and an associate attacked the receptionist, punching him several times. The receptionist defended himself as he was struck;
    5. (e)
      A member of the public intervened;
    6. (f)
      RD and his two associates fled on foot and RD was apprehended by security; and
    7. (g)
      The receptionist sustained a laceration to the inside of the lower lip and pain and tenderness to his arms, chest and head.
  4. [22]
    On 31 October 2011 RD was convicted of commit public nuisance. The police brief of facts[20] indicates that in the early hours of the morning of 15 October 2011 police observed RD punching another man with closed fists, in a violent and aggressive manner. During the fight the two men displayed no regard for the safety and welfare of other customers in the shop. Police intervened. RD stated that he knew what he had done was wrong and that he had lashed out in defence of a female companion.
  5. [23]
    On 30 April 2014, RD was convicted of assaults occasioning bodily harm. The sentencing remarks[21] indicate that:
    1. (a)
      The offence was committed in the early hours of the morning, in May 2013;
    2. (b)
      The complainant and his female cousin were walking along a street. RD and two other males were sitting on some steps as the complainant and his cousin walked past. RD made rude and abusive comments to the female. She told him to leave her alone. His Honour noted that the verbal exchange was initiated by RD ‘in the most abusive terms’;
    3. (c)
      The complainant, who was protective of his cousin, responded verbally to RD. The complainant looked away and when he looked back, he was punched a number of times by RD, who tackled him to the ground;
    4. (d)
      RD continued to punch the complainant while he was on the ground. The assault ceased only when police intervened;
    5. (e)
      His Honour observed that RD was the instigator and aggressor in the attack. RD was intoxicated at the time of the offence; and
    6. (f)
      The victim suffered bruising and swelling around the right eye, nausea, headaches, and a pre-existing jaw injury was exacerbated.
  6. [24]
    On 28 June 2018 RD was convicted of unauthorised dealing with shop goods (maximum $150) on 12 April 2018, to which he pleaded guilty. RD told the Tribunal that he refuelled his motor vehicle at a service station, realised he had forgotten his wallet, left without paying intending to get his wallet, but forgot to return to pay for the fuel. He attributed his conduct to a very stressful day at work. There is no indication of any violence being involved in this offending.
  7. [25]
    RD had a traffic and non-TORUM history between the years 2007 and 2018,[22] with 24 infringements, including disqualified driving, drive/attempt to put into motion/in charge M/V under influence liq (<0.15) and drive under the influence of drugs (other than a relevant drug).
  8. [26]
    RD’s criminal history comprises instances of violent, aggressive and anti-social behaviour. The holder of a working with children clearance is expected to behave in a manner which protects and promotes a child’s safety and wellbeing. Children are entitled to be cared for by adults who do not engage in violent or offensive behaviour. RD’s conduct in the course of his offending raises concerns about his ability to judge appropriate behaviour and to be an appropriate role model for children. RD’s offending conduct is a risk factor in my assessment of his eligibility to hold a working with children clearance.

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. [27]
    RD’s offending attracted penalties including fines, restitution, probation and terms of imprisonment, both suspended and actual. Convictions were recorded for all offences except contravene a direction or requirement.
  2. [28]
    The sentencing remarks for the grievous bodily harm conviction indicate the following matters were taken into account:
    1. (a)
      Following the offence RD was diagnosed with a serious mental illness and was on significant medication although was in remission at the time of sentencing. While in prison RD was more likely to suffer depression and prison was likely to be a greater burden on RD due to his mental illness;
    2. (b)
      His youth at the time of offending – RD was 18;
    3. (c)
      There was no suggestion that RD was suffering any mental illness or was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offence;
    4. (d)
      RD’s timely plea and lack of a criminal record; and
    5. (e)
      That RD was a party to the offence.
  1. [29]
    The sentencing remarks for the assaults occasioning bodily harm conviction[23] indicate the following matters were taken into account:
    1. (a)
      RD was the aggressor, initiating the whole incident;
    2. (b)
      He was 23 at the time of the offending;
    3. (c)
      He had a criminal history with relevant prior offending, including grievous bodily harm, common assault and public nuisance. The periods of imprisonment as a result of his previous offending did not deter RD from further offending;
    4. (d)
      RD had consulted with a psychologist since the offending and the psychologist’s report indicated there were prospects for RD’s rehabilitation;
    5. (e)
      RD has undertaken study and obtained employment as a personal trainer;
    6. (f)
      RD had not reoffended for over a year, at the time; and
    7. (g)
      He had more recently been drinking to excess.
  2. [30]
    The court’s reasons for imposing the remaining penalties are not known to the Tribunal.

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

  1. [31]
    No information was given under these provisions.

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. [32]
    Other factors relevant to the offending or alleged offending reasonably considered to be relevant are discussed below.

What does RD say about his offending conduct?

  1. [33]
    RD told the Tribunal that his offending occurred in the context of him defending a loved one or because he was heavily intoxicated. He said his recollection of the circumstances of his offending was poor, due in part to the time elapsed since his offending and in part to his intoxication at the time of his offending.
  2. [34]
    He told the Tribunal he regrets his past conduct and that he has changed since that time.

What has changed for RD since his offending conduct?

  1. [35]
    RD told the Tribunal that during his most recent incarceration he decided to change his life, change his friendship group, pursue a career in personal training and find a long-term partner. He studied and obtained his first stable employment in 2013. He told the Tribunal he made new friends who were a positive influence and learnt not to respond to situations with anger. He is now in a long-term relationship, is drug free and only consumes alcohol on special occasions such as weddings. He remains employed and focussed on his career. RD said he has reconciled with his family and sees them regularly.
  2. [36]
    RD provided statements from three character witnesses.[24]
  3. [37]
    GG was available for cross examination. He could not recall having read the respondent’s reasons and was aware only of RD’s grievous bodily harm conviction. He has known RD personally for more than 15 years. His knowledge of RD in a professional capacity is limited to RD being his personal trainer. He said RD’s attitude had completely changed over the years so that he now actively avoids confrontation and described a situation which RD had recounted to him where RD walked away rather than becoming confrontational. As GG was unaware of most of RD’s offending and had no knowledge of any offending since the conviction for grievous bodily harm I afford his evidence limited weight.
  4. [38]
    The other two witnesses were not available for cross examination and the extent of their knowledge of RD’s criminal history was unclear. Accordingly, I afford limited weight to their evidence.
  5. [39]
    RD self-reported changes in his life but there is limited independent evidence of his drug abstinence and the other purported changes he has made.

Has RD adequately addressed his mental health issues?

  1. [40]
    RD said that he started using cannabis aged about 15 or 16 and became a heavy user. He said he stopped using cannabis when he was about 20. During this time, he also used ecstasy and subsequently he used cocaine two or three times at the age of about 21. He said he has not used drugs for more than 10 years.
  2. [41]
    He admitted to past drug addiction and was treated for a drug induced psychosis in hospital in August 2009.[25] His diagnosis was recorded as ‘mania with psychotic symptoms’ and ‘cannabis dependence’.[26] RD also told the Tribunal that he had a ‘little bit of a problem with alcohol’ which he depended upon more after he stopped using drugs. However, he said he did not regularly drink to excess, only becoming intoxicated a few times. He admitted to a connection between alcohol consumption and his offending conduct. That there is a connection is also apparent from the 2014 sentencing remarks.
  3. [42]
    At the time His Honour had the benefit of a psychologist’s report which, in respect of RD’s future risk to the community, observed:

[RD’s] risk to the community would be mitigated if he continues to use the anger management strategies he has learned in counselling, continues with intensive psychological therapy on a weekly basis, limits his association with friends who drink alcohol, limits his involvement around drinking at bars and clubs, and obtains meaningful employment.[27]

  1. [43]
    The psychologist also considered RD would benefit from attending the Atox program to address his problems with alcohol. RD denied participating in the therapy recommended or in the Atox program.
  2. [44]
    In the Court ordered parole completion summary[28] in April 2015 it was reported that while having completed only one session, RD stated he did not believe he required further counselling to deal with his mental health and substance abuse issues. His psychologist reported at that time that:

anger, alcohol abuse and relationship problems with his family in particular his mother, were not addressed due to his non-attendance ….Of concern is that this is his third supervision order for a violent offence and he is yet to adequately address his criminogenic needs.[29]

  1. [45]
    Dr R, RD’s psychologist, provided a report to the Tribunal dated 15 July 2020.[30] He has consulted with RD sporadically from 2011 to 2016 and then again in 2020. He observed:
    1. (a)
      By comparison with RD’s situation when consultations commenced in 2011, RD had made substantial progress in the management of drug induced psychosis, depression, aggression issues, alcohol and substance issues;
    2. (b)
      He did not consider RD a threat to society or children; and
    3. (c)
      He recommended RD continue his counselling sessions to avoid any relapse.
  2. [46]
    Dr R had not been provided with the respondent’s reasons for refusal of RD’s blue card, although it was apparent on the material Dr R had some knowledge of RD’s criminal history. Dr R was not provided with the directions of the Tribunal indicating the matters which any medical report should consider. As he was not available for cross examination, his opinions and the nature of the progress he considered RD had made could not be explored. In the circumstances I place only limited weight upon Dr R’s report.
  3. [47]
    RD told the Tribunal that his consultations with Dr R in 2020 were to deal only with the issue of traffic anxiety arising from a motor vehicle accident. RD did not indicate an intention to resume counselling to avoid any relapse as recommended by Dr R.
  4. [48]
    Submissions for RD were made to the effect that RD’s violent offending occurred more than 10 years ago and that the turning point in his life was 2013 to 2014. However, he offended again in 2018 due to having a stressful day at work.
  5. [49]
    Given RD’s history of drug and alcohol abuse and the evidence in relation to his mental health and anger management, medical evidence is, in my view, critical. On the evidence available I am not satisfied that RD has adequately addressed his anger management, substance abuse and mental health issues.

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

  1. [50]
    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.[31]

  1. [51]
    While RD has not engaged in violent offending for more than eight years, prior to that he had engaged in repeated violent offending over a period of four years, for which he received numerous custodial sentences. RD has not engaged in any concerning or offending behaviour for about three years.
  2. [52]
    The passage of time is not determinative of whether or not a case is an exceptional case.[32] This risk factor must be considered in the context of all the relevant circumstances.
  3. [53]
    RD minimised his offending by saying that generally his offending occurred in the context of becoming involved in friends’ fights and defending those that he loved and that he ‘does not go out of his way to create problems or drama.’[33] When challenged, he said he felt he was defending his friend in the course of the conduct which led to the grievous bodily harm charges and that for the other offences he was heavily intoxicated.
  4. [54]
    That he was defending his friend is not consistent with the sentencing remarks,[34] and it is of concern to the Tribunal that RD maintains this narrative today. On the material available I am unable to reach a finding that RD has developed genuine insight. I accept RD regrets his offending conduct.

Human Rights

  1. [55]
    In undertaking this review the Tribunal is acting in an administrative capacity and consequently is a ‘public entity’ for the purposes of the HR Act. Pursuant to s 48 of the HR Act, the Tribunal must interpret statutory provisions in a way that is compatible with human rights, and in undertaking this review is required to conduct itself in accordance with s 58 of the HR Act.
  2. [56]
    RD’s human rights including his rights to a fair hearing,[35] not to be tried or punished more than once,[36] and to privacy and reputation[37] were considered by the Tribunal.
  3. [57]
    This review does not constitute a retrial as the Tribunal’s role is not to determine RD’s guilt. Rather, the Tribunal’s function is to review the respondent’s decision that RD’s case was an ‘exceptional case’ in which it would not be in the best interests of children for him to be issued a working with children clearance. The object of the WWC Act is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children in Queensland through a scheme ‘…to screen persons who work, or wish to work with children, to ensure that they are suitable persons to do so’.[38]
  4. [58]
    I have also considered the right of every child to ‘the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child’.[39] I am satisfied that this decision is compatible with human rights and that to the extent that there are any limitations on those rights, those limitations are reasonable and justifiable in accordance with s 13 of the HR Act.

Is this an exceptional case?

  1. [59]
    In undertaking this review and determining the correct and preferable decision the welfare and the best interests of a child are paramount.[40] The question to be determined is whether, exercising its discretion, the Tribunal considers it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children to issue a working with children clearance.
  2. [60]
    The Tribunal must take into account all possible work situations open to RD, 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. [61]
    RD is to be commended for the positive steps he has taken in his life, undertaking studies to pursue his chosen career and maintaining stable employment. However, I am not able to be satisfied on the evidence that RD has developed genuine insight or has adequately addressed his mental health, substance abuse and anger management issues. He has reoffended while under stress, albeit the offending conduct was not violent.
  4. [62]
    After consideration of all the evidence, the findings of fact, the risk and protective factors, and the relevant matters in the WWC Act, including s 226(2), in exercising my discretion, I am satisfied that this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to be issued. I am satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is that RD’s case is an exceptional case under s 221(2) of the WWC Act.
  5. [63]
    I confirm the decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General made on 5 December 2019 that this is an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

Footnotes

[1]WWC Act, s 17.

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

[3]Ibid, s 19(a).

[4]Ibid, s 20.

[5]WWC Act, s 360.

[6]Ibid, s 5.

[7]Ibid, s 6.

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

[9]WWC Act, s 221.

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

[11]Directions of Member Kent made 12 August 2020 and 29 January 2021.

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

[13]WWC Act, Schedule 7 (definition of ‘conviction’).

[14]Ex 6, BCS16.

[15]WWC Act, Schedule 2.

[16]Ibid, Schedule 4.

[17]Ex 6, BCS57.

[18]Ex 6, BCS17-19.

[19]Ex 6, BCS53-54.

[20]Ex 6, BCS49.

[21]Ex 6, BCS20-23.

[22]Ex 6, BCS55-58.

[23]Ex 6, BCS21-22.

[24]Ex 3,4 and 5.

[25]Ex 7, NTP1-2.

[26]Ex 7, NTP180.

[27]Ex 6, BCS22.

[28]Ex 7, NTP383-384.

[29]Ex 7, NTP384.

[30]Ex 2.

[31][2006] QCST 11, [97]. See also Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87.

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

[33]Application to Review a Decision filed 2 January 2020.

[34]Ex 6, BCS17.

[35]HR Act, s 31.

[36]Ibid, s 34.

[37]Ibid, s 25.

[38]WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190, [17] (Thomas J).

[39]HR Act, s 26(2).

[40]WWC Act, s 360.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

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

  • Shortened Case Name:

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

  • MNC:

    [2021] QCAT 253

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member McDonnell

  • Date:

    27 Jul 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
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
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
WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [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.