Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2022
  4. BRM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General - [2022] QCAT 156

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

BRM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General[2022] QCAT 156

BRM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General[2022] QCAT 156

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

BRM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2022] QCAT 156

PARTIES:

BRM

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

CML126-20

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2022

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2022

HEARD AT:

Townsville

DECISION OF:

Member Pennell

ORDERS:

  1. 1.The decision of the Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General dated 23 March 2020 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 substituted with the decision that the applicant’s case is not an exceptional case
  2. 2.The publication of the contents of any document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal and any evidence given to the Tribunal by the applicant and any witness is prohibited to the extent that it could lead to the identity of the applicant or any member of the applicant’s family or any witnesses in these proceedings

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – GENERALLY EVIDENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – the applicant seeks a positive notice and blue card – respondent assessed the applicant’s case was exceptional – negative notice issued – the applicant has convictions for drug offences, affray and possession of an unlicensed firearm – the applicant’s criminal history is associated with prior illicit substance abuse – whether an exceptional case exists – whether the applicant displays insight into his past criminal offending – whether the applicant’s current personal circumstances and rehabilitative attempts are such that his case is not an exceptional case – application of the paramount principle of the best interests of children

EVIDENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – NON PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE – ORDERS – NON PUBLICATION OF IDENTITY – the Tribunal exercising   its own initiative to de-identify the applicant, members of the applicant’s family and other witnesses – the publication of the applicant’s identity or the identity of any witnesses would be contrary to public interest 

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 6, s 19(c), s 20, s 20(1), s 24(1), s 66, s 66(1), s 66(3), s 145, s 152

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 226(1), s 226(2), s 353, s 354, s 360

Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Grindrod (No 2) [2008] WASCA 28

Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott (No 2) (2008) WASCA 171

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

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

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

FGC v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 350

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

HAM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 28

Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98

Perry and Browns Patents (1930) 48 RPC 200

Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions [1983] 1 VR 1

Re TAA [2006] QCST 11

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATIONS:

 

Applicant:

Self represented

Respondent:

C A Davis, Solicitor, In-House Advocacy Officer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. [1]
    The applicant (‘BRM’) applied for a positive notice and blue card for child related employment.[1]  The respondent subsequently carried out a background check and established that he had a Victorian criminal history (‘police information’).  The respondent then wrote to BRM and advised him the police information raised concerns about his eligibility to hold a blue card.[2]  He was invited to respond to the information by outlining his version of the events.  He was also invited to provide any other information or references that he considered necessary.  No additional information or other submissions were received from BRM.
  2. [2]
    At a later date, the respondent wrote to BRM and advised him that he was assessed as being ineligible to hold a positive notice and a blue card.  Subsequently, a negative notice was issued.[3]  BRM now seeks a review of the respondent’s decision. 

The respondent’s decision and reasons

  1. [3]
    The Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘Working with Children Act’) provides that because the respondent has the responsibility of deciding whether or not there is an exceptional case for BRM; and is aware that BRM has been convicted of or charged with an offence; there are particular matters which the respondent must have regard to.[4] 
  2. [4]
    Those matters include inter alia whether BRM was convicted or charged; whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence.  Consideration must also be given to when the offence was committed, the nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or the operation of a business that involves or may involve children.  In the case of a conviction being recorded, the penalty imposed by the court is also a relevant consideration.  A discretion is also afforded to the respondent to consider anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission of an offence that the respondent reasonably considers to be pertinent to the assessment of BRM.[5] 
  3. [5]
    Because the Tribunal now stands in the shoes of the respondent’s decision maker, those conditions just explained are relevant to my assessment of BRM.
  4. [6]
    The police information revealed that BRM had convictions for the offences of affray; the handling, receipt or or disposal of stolen goods; unlicenced possession of firearm; cultivating cannabis; possessing a drug of dependence (prescription medication) and trafficking in a drug of dependence (prescription medication). 
  5. [7]
    In addition, there were charges for trafficking in cannabis; possession of cannabis and possession of a drug of dependence (prescription medication) preferred against BRM, although he was never convicted of those offences as the charges were discontinued. 
  6. [8]
    Concerns exist about BRM’s convictions that involved in what the respondent described as violent and intimidating behaviour, as well as drug related offending.  His conviction in 2007 for affray involved him brandishing a firearm whilst intoxicated.  His latter drug offence included the cultivation and possession of cannabis.[6]  The harmful nature of cannabis, along with the principle that children are entitled to be cared for by adults who do not engage in violent and anti-social behaviour or drug use, or related activities are relevant considerations of BRM’s eligibility to hold a blue card.  Positive role models are particularly important for children because drugs, violence and anti-social behaviour has the propensity to affect a child's perception of what is appropriate behaviour in the community.[7]
  7. [9]
    The respondent considered that those features just described predicated that an exceptional case existed in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to be issued to BRM. 
  8. [10]
    In justification of that decision, the respondent noted BRM’s recorded criminal history with convictions for those matters already discussed.  Of great concern to the respondent was BRM’s conviction for affray, particularly given that the offence related to a demonstration of violent, threatening and intimidating behaviour when he brandished a firearm whilst intoxicated.  His behaviour on that occasion resulted in police having to evacuate approximately twenty members of the public from a neighbouring residence.  The respondent considered his behaviour on that occasion had a direct relevance to his eligibility to work with children because it suggested that he was unable to judge appropriate behaviour and resorted to intimidating or threatening behaviour for no particular or identifiable reason.[8]
  9. [11]
    Noting that when invited to make submissions, BRM declined to provide any supporting information or references, and in the absence of any response, the respondent was unable to conclude the circumstances or triggers that led to his offending were no longer present to the satisfaction that he was not likely to act in the same manner and re-offend in the future.[9]
  10. [12]
    A noted observation of the police information is quite a number of years had elapsed since BRM last offended.  Although the passage of time is not a determinative factor, it is however a relevant consideration because the clear intention of the legislation is that the historical charges preferred against BRM remain significant in any assessment of his eligibility to hold a blue card.[10]

The Tribunal’s role and discussion about an exceptional case

  1. [13]
    The respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to BRM is a reviewable decision pursuant to the Working with Children Act.[11]  Because he was not a disqualified person, the Working with Children Act (as the enabling Act) afforded BRM the discretion to apply to the Tribunal, within the prescribed period, for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue him a negative notice.[12]
  2. [14]
    The Tribunal is obliged to hear and decide a review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits of the matter, with the purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision based on those merits.[13]  That purpose is undertaken with the Tribunal stepping into the shoes of the original decision maker and applying the principle that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount.[14] 
  3. [15]
    When arriving at the correct and preferable decision,[15] the Tribunal can either confirm or amend the respondent’s decision; or set aside the respondent’s decision and substitute that decision with its own decision;[16] or set aside the respondent’s decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the respondent with the directions the Tribunal considers appropriate.[17]
  4. [16]
    The test imposed upon the Tribunal to reach the correct and preferable decision in child related employment decisions is extremely rigorous.  In arriving at the correct and preferable decision, the focus is appropriately on whether there is a potential risk to children and any decision made must be according to the principle of the legislation.  Afterall, the overarching feature of the Working with Children Act is that it is protective legislation in respect to children and young people.  

Exceptional Case

  1. [17]
    In consideration as to whether an exceptional case exists and applying the provisions of the Working with Children Act, I am mindful of the frequently referenced principle that the legislative intent of the Working with Children Act is not to punish BRM twice; it is about implementing the paramount principle in regard to protecting children from future abuse.[18] 
  2. [18]
    Notwithstanding the legislative intent, in reaching a conclusion in regard to child related employment matters, regard must be given to the context, intent, purpose and design of the Working with Children Act as it applies the protection of children.[19]  The Working with Children Act speaks about an exceptional case and although that term is not defined within the legislation, it has been the subject of prior discussions in many jurisdictions, including the Tribunal’s own appeal jurisdiction.  The term is said to be a question of fact and degree to be decided in each individual case and is necessarily a matter of discretion.[20]
  3. [19]
    In Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions [1983] 1 VR 1, the Supreme Court of Victoria observed the frequently cited definition of exceptional case which arose out of a warning given by Luxmoore J in Re Perry and Brown's Patents (1930) 48 RPC 200 that it would be unwise to lay down any general rule about what an exceptional case is, discretion should be used.[21]  This approach has since been adopted in Queensland where the Court of Appeal in Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492 endorsed those comments just referred to.[22]
  4. [20]
    In reaching the correct and preferable decision, the Tribunal is required to weigh up the competing facts and apply the balance of probabilities principle.  As it is often observed in child related employment matters, a determination of whether an exceptional case exists or not is made after evaluating all the available evidence without any party bearing the onus of proof that an exceptional case exits.[23] 

BRM’s case

  1. [21]
    BRM told the Tribunal that he currently holds a blue card issued in the Northern Territory relating to him working in child related employment, and he had previously held a blue card issued in Victoria, although the Victorian blue card has since expired. 
  2. [22]
    Since 2018 he has been employed by a national based company which carries out mechanical services works and fire services in many schools and institutions Australia wide, including in Queensland.  As such, he is required to be issued with a positive notice and a blue card. 
  3. [23]
    BRM said that if he was not issued with a blue card, then his employment status was in jeopardy.  That is, he may lose his current position within his employment and be moved into another role; pressure will be placed upon his future employment prospects and career development; and there will be financial stresses considering his family situation with his fiancé expecting their first child in June. 
  4. [24]
    Pausing at this point and observing those things just mentioned, those issues are not something the Tribunal should place great weight upon or be overly concerned about.  Although I acknowledge and accept it is important for BRM to obtain a blue card so he can maintain his current level of employment, the ultimate issue is whether an exceptional case exists. Regard must be given to the paramount principle as provided by the Working with Children Act.  That is, the best interests of children is a consideration that I must apply; and any hardship or prejudice suffered by BRM if he was issued a negative notice is irrelevant to the determination of what is the correct and preferable decision.[24] 
  5. [25]
    Returning to BRM’s case, he argued that the entries on his Victorian police information occurred at a time when he was experiencing an illicit drug problem.  He lacked direction, motivation and a purpose in his life during that time of his life.  He is now a more mature person, more settled in his life and has a focus on caring for his future wife and child.
  6. [26]
    He pointed out that those entries into the police information occurred quite some time ago, that is, twelve and fifteen years ago, and added that I should consider the penalty imposed by the courts as a reflection of the nature and seriousness of the offending.
  7. [27]
    His police information consists of entries relating to two specific incidents.  In April 2007, the neighbouring house to where BRM lived was listed for sale and was open for inspection.  A number of people had attended for the inspection. BRM walked out of his house and into the front garden with an air rifle in one hand and a bottle of wine and the other. He was intoxicated at the time. He loitered around his front yard brandishing the firearm and yelling loudly towards the people attending the open house. Most of his comments were directed towards the real estate agent and although there were no direct threats made, his actions were clearly intended to disrupt and cause fear into those people looking at the house. He eventually went back inside his own house.  The police later attended and arrested him.
  8. [28]
    When BRM later appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates Court, he pleaded guilty to the offences arising from that incident.  He was placed on a twelve month community based order and ordered to perform 250 hours of unpaid community work.  Convictions were recorded and the firearm was forfeited. 
  9. [29]
    It seems that he completed the conditions of his community based order and in the passing of fifteen years since that time, he not committed any offence, or behaved in any way of the like nature.
  10. [30]
    The second entry on BRM’s police information relates to events in February 2012 when police executed a search warrant on premises where he lived with other people. Located at those premises was a greenhouse containing five cannabis plants.  Also found was a small amount of cannabis, a small amount of the liquid drug, gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and a small clear bag containing forty-one Xanax tablets. 
  11. [31]
    BRM was charged with a range of offences arising out of the execution of the search warrant including the offences of cultivating cannabis, possessing a drug of dependence (prescription drug Xanax), and trafficking a drug of dependence (prescription drug Xanax). He later appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates Court where he pleaded guilty to those offences and was fined a total of $750 for all offences.  No convictions were recorded.
  12. [32]
    Arising out of the execution of search warrant, BRM was also charged with trafficking in cannabis, possession of cannabis and possessing a drug of dependence.  Those charges were later withdrawn when he pleaded guilty to the earlier mentioned charges.
  13. [33]
    I note that when offenders are punished by the courts and penalties imposed for offences, the presiding judicial officer has the benefit of hearing all of the relevant facts,[25] including the offender’s antecedents and submissions on what should be the appropriate penalty imposed. My observations of the penalties imposed for those offences referenced above are that although at first blush the offences are recorded as significantly serious in nature, the penalties imposed suggest that the presiding magistrate placed BRM’s offending at the lesser end of seriousness.
  14. [34]
    In discussing his past history, in particular his police information, BRM said that quite some time ago he had unfortunately experimented with drugs and alcohol.  He accepted that at that time he often used those substances to excess.  His drugs use commenced in high school, and he excessively used cannabis for a period of time. 
  15. [35]
    There was a lack of emotional and psychological support from his family and peers and along with his experimentation with alcohol and drugs, this led to not only the abuse of those substances, but also those substances ultimately being linked to his offending.  He admitted and accepted that his motivation at that time to engage in that type of behaviour was due to a lack of direction in his life as a young person, and a lack of responsibility.     
  16. [36]
    In contrast, his main support is now derived from his partner, and his work colleagues with whom he has a good personal relationship.  He is about to become a father for the first time in June 2022, and this has focused his life on his parental responsibilities.  He has the added benefit of his work colleagues who support him, and to his knowledge those friends do not engage in the use of illicit substances or excessively use alcohol.     
  17. [37]
    He described his own present use of alcohol as being ‘very rare’.  He occasionally consumes alcohol, usually on weekends but never to excess.  In regard to his drug use, he said that although at the time of his criminal behaviour he did use drugs to excess, that is no longer the case.  His last use of drugs was when he smoked cannabis on a trip to a resort island in 2015. 
  18. [38]
    In regard to his use of prescription drugs, his previous use could be described as rarely or hardly ever using that drug.  His last association with prescription drugs was over ten years ago.  He provided to the Tribunal copies of negative drug tests which supported his proposition that he was not using illicit substances.[26] 
  19. [39]
    Considering the evidence of his supporting witnesses, FMB, WAC and LFD and what they individually said about their knowledge of BRM, I accept BRM’s evidence that illicit drugs is no longer an issue in his life.  I also accept that he has taken significant rehabilitative steps to distance himself from any use of illicit substances, save for a lapse whilst on a trip to the resort island when he used cannabis.          
  20. [40]
    In discussing the entry on his police information relating to the possession of a firearm, I note that he was extremely apologetic for behaving in the way that he did, he said he meant no harm.  He went on to say that during the night before that incident, he had consumed a number of ecstasy tablets followed up with more tablets on the morning of the incident. The firearm was an air rifle, he was heavily intoxicated, and he had been shooting beer cans in his backyard.  He acknowledged and accepted that the people who were next-door would have been very concerned about his behaviour and significant trauma could have been caused to others by his actions.
  21. [41]
    My observations of the facts relating to the firearm incident are that BRM was at that time a much younger person who lacked maturity and insight as to the impact of his behaviour on his own future, and also the adverse impact on others.  I am satisfied that since that time, his maturity has improved, albeit within a few short years he was charged with drug offences. 
  22. [42]
    In respect to those drug offences, although the narrative of the wording of the charges suggests a great deal of seriousness is attached to his offending, when matched against the penalty imposed of a community based order and a relatively small fine, I am of the view that his offending arose from his association with the lifestyle he was otherwise captured in at that time. 

Supporting evidence

  1. [43]
    BRM relied on the evidence of FMB, WAC and LFD, who are his work colleagues and his supervisor.  FMB, WAC and LFD were all aware of the entries on BRM’s police information and the reasons given by the respondent for issuing a negative notice to him.
  2. [44]
    FMB has known BRM for about six years. He considered that BRM was a person of integrity and described him as being reliable, honest, friendly, helpful, courteous and considerate.  He has never witnessed BRM use any threats or intimidation towards any other person and although BRM occasionally consumes a few beers while watching football, he has never seen BRM lose control or get into any trouble because of alcohol.  Nor has he ever seen BRM use illicit substances.
  3. [45]
    WAC told the tribunal that he has known BRM since early 2018 and for a period of three years he was BRM’s direct supervisor.  Ultimately, WAC was of the opinion that the BRM recorded in the police information is not the same person he now knows.
  4. [46]
    LFD is the director of performance and planning at the company where BRM is employed.  LFD has known him since he commenced work in early 2018.  LFD said that BRM has always been open and honest within his communications with his employer and there have never been any issues in regard to his work performance or attitude towards others within the workplace.  He considers BRM to be an exceptionally hard worker who loves his job and is well respected by his work colleagues and the company’s management.
  5. [47]
    It is clear from the evidence given in support of BRM that he was considered to be a valued employee and someone who has the respect and admiration of the management of the company for which he works.  It appears from the comments made by his supporters that BRM displays a significant improvement and maturity and insight when taking into consideration his past behaviours.

Conclusion

  1. [48]
    When arriving at the correct and preferable decision, and at the forefront of any consideration of whether an exceptional case exists is the prevention of potential future harm or risk to children.  Any analysis and evaluation of the risk must be based on all the evidence and other material properly before the Tribunal at the time the review hearing.[27]  What is to be at the forefront of the decision is the principle of preventing any potential future harm to the welfare and best interests of children.[28]  Notwithstanding those principles, the establishment of a potential future risk of harm can only come about if the evidence supports a nexus of a current risk to children to the issuing of a positive notice and blue card to BRM.[29]
  2. [49]
    In regard to BRM, he has a criminal history.  I consider to be the most significant entries were his involvement in illicit drugs ten years ago, as well as a concerning incident involving an air rifle fifteen years ago which resulted in him being charged with affray and possession of a firearm whilst unlicenced.  A consideration is whether the commission of those offences gives rise to BRM’s case being exceptional.
  3. [50]
    What I consider to be an important development in BRM’s overall management of his life since then, in particular since commencing his current employment in 2018 is the level of insight that he now possesses into the impact his past behaviours had on other.
  4. [51]
    As discussed on many previous occasions by this Tribunal, the principle arrived at in Re TAA is a guide of what should be considered with respect to the issue of insight.    The former Children Services Tribunal helpfully explained that –     

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.[30]

  1. [52]
    Based on the available evidence, for determination is whether the merits of BRM’s case sufficiently negates or overrides any consideration that his case is exceptional.  Having given due consideration to the facts, features and the evidence of this matter, I am satisfied that considerable insight is now displayed by BRM into his past behaviour.  All of that leads to some comfort that he is now aware of the consequences of not having insight into his behaviour, and the potential which the use of alcohol, drugs and intimidatory behaviour poses to the future risk to children should he be issued with a positive notice and blue card.
  2. [53]
    Overall, I am satisfied that facts and circumstances of this matter do not provide evidence to support the existence of a nexus of a current risk to children if a positive notice and blue card were to be issued to BRM.

Non-publication decision

  1. [54]
    Review hearings in regard to child related employment decisions pursuant to Working with Children Act must always be held in private.[31]  Notwithstanding that, there is no provision within the legislation for the de-identification of a party to the proceedings.  
  2. [55]
    The Working with Children Act is an enabling Act that confers the review jurisdiction on the Tribunal.  Because the legislation is silent on the issue of de-identification of parties, that responsibility falls within the ambit of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).[32] 
  3. [56]
    Because neither of the parties applied for a de-identification order, the QCAT Act allows for the Tribunal to exercise a discretion to de-identify the contents of a document or other thing produced to the Tribunal;[33] evidence given before the Tribunal; or information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified.[34]
  4. [57]
    Being mindful of the sensitive nature of child related employment proceedings and applying the appropriate regard to the principles just outlined, I am satisfied that the publication of the contents of any document or other thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal in these proceedings, and any evidence given to the Tribunal by any witness should be prohibited to the extent that it could lead to the identity of BRM, or any member of his family or any non-party to the proceedings.

Footnotes

[1]  Application made 19/06/2019.  Respondent’s material, BCS-6 to BCS-9.

[2]  Letter dated 25/11/2019.

[3]  Negative notice issued 23/03/2020.  Respondent’s material, BCS-26 to BCS-27.

[4] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 226(1).

[5] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 226(2).

[6]  In Queensland, cannabis is defined within Schedule 2 of the Drugs Misuse Regulations 1987 (Qld) as a dangerous drug. 

[7]  Respondent’s material, BCS-4.

[8]  Respondent’s material, BCS-5.

[9]  Respondent’s material, BCS-5.

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

[11] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 353 and 354.

[12] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 354; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 6.

[13] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20.

[14] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19(c); Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 360.

[15] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20(1).

[16]  If the Tribunal decides to set aside an exceptional case decision, the Tribunal’s decision does not take effect until the end of the period within which an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision may be started; or if the Chief Executive appeals the Tribunal’s decision, the appeal is decided or withdrawn.  This overrides the provisions of the Queensland Civil, and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 145 and 152 that provides for the effect of an appeal on the decision of the Tribunal. 

[17] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 24(1).

[18]  Queensland Parliament Hansard, 14/11/2000 at page 4391.

[19] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, [31] citing the determination of Hedigan J in Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98, [22].

[20]  The approach applied by Fullagar J in Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions [1983] 1 VR 1 in adopting the warning of Luxmore J in Perry and Browns Patents (1930) 48 RPC 200 that it would be most unwise to lay down any general rule with regard to what is an exceptional case.  All these matters are matters of discretion.  This was adopted by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492, [34] and cited by the Tribunal in FGC v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 350, [18].

[21] Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions [1983] 1 VR 1.

[22] Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492, [34].

[23] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28, [19].

[24] Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott (No 2) (2008) WASCA 171, [23]

[25]  Depending on which jurisdiction, the presiding judicial officer may be a Magistrate of  Judge.

[26]  Exhibit 1.

[27] Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott (No 2) (2008) WASCA 171.

[28] Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Grindrod (No 2) [2008] WASCA 28, [84].

[29] HAM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 28, [10].

[30] Re TAA [2006] QCST 11, [97].

[31] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 361.

[32] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66.

[33] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(3).

[34] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(1).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    BRM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • Shortened Case Name:

    BRM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCAT 156

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Pennell

  • Date:

    28 Apr 2022

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
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) WASCA 28
Cite 2 - (2008) WASCA 28
Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott No.2 (2008) WASCA 171
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) WASCA 171
Cite 2 - (2008) WASCA 171
Cite 3 - (2008) WASCA 171
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
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 3 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 4 - [2004] QCA 492
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
FGC v Commisisoner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 350
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 350
Cite 2 - [2010] QCAT 350
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
HAM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 28
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 28
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 28
Kent v Wilson (2000) VSC 98
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) VSC 98
Cite 2 - (2000) VSC 98
Perry and Browns Patents (1930) 48 RPC 200
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1930) 48 RPC 200
Cite 2 - (1930) 48 RPC 200
Cite 3 - (1930) 48 RPC 200
Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd's Patent Extension Petitions [1983] 1 VR 1
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1983] 1 VR 1
Cite 2 - [1983] 1 VR 1
Cite 3 - [1983] 1 VR 1
Cite 4 - [1983] 1 VR 1
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11

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.