Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2022
  4. TJS v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2022] QCAT 214

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

TJS v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2022] QCAT 214

TJS v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2022] QCAT 214

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

TJS v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 214

PARTIES:

TJS

(applicant)

V

DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML206-20

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 June 2022

HEARING DATE:

28 January 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

The decision of the Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General made 8 May 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) and to issue a negative notice is confirmed. 

CATCHWORDS:

CHILDRENS MATTER – BLUE CARD – REVIEW – where applicant seeks a review of the decision to issue a negative notice – where applicant has extensive history of traffic offences – where applicant has experienced and perpetrated domestic violence – whether exceptional case exists – whether not in the best interests of children to issue a positive notice

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13(2)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3(b), s 9(1), s 17(1), s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24, s 66

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 221, s 226, s 353, s 354, s 360

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 180 ALR 593

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

DL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 61

JA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 215

LB v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 140

McKee v McKee [1951] AC 352

Perry and Browns Patents (1930) 48 RPC 200

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

YR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 139

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Ms J Capper, in-house solicitor

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

  1. [1]
    TJS is studying to be a nurse but requires a positive notice and a blue card to complete a placement that forms the final practical component of her studies.  
  2. [2]
    On 8 May 2020 the Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (“Blue Card Services”) decided to refuse TJS’s application for a blue card, with the effect that she was issued with a negative notice. The decision-making process involved a consideration of TJS’s traffic and domestic violence history and a finding by Blue Card Services that TJS’s case is an “exceptional case” in which it would not be in the best interests of children for TJS to hold a blue card.
  3. [3]
    By an application for review filed 4 June 2020, TJS asks the tribunal to review the decision of Blue Card Services to refuse TJS’s application for a positive notice and blue card and to issue a negative notice.
  4. [4]
    The role of the tribunal in these proceedings is to review the circumstances afresh and to produce the correct and preferable decision.[1]
  5. [5]
    The role of Blue Card Services is to assist the tribunal in making that decision,[2] rather than taking an adversarial role or to defend the decision under review.
  6. [6]
    The requisite standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, albeit to a sliding scale whereby the more serious the consequences, the higher the standard of “reasonable satisfaction” is needed for an application to succeed.  This principle was espoused by Justice Dixon in Briginshaw v Briginshaw:[3]

The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding, are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.  In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be provided by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect references.

  1. [7]
    The following decision and the reasons for it are published in a de-identified format as the tribunal in these proceedings has previously ordered so.[4] 

Does the tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this application?

  1. [8]
    The tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with matters if empowered to do so by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”) or by an enabling Act[5] and its review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the enabling Act to “review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act”.[6] 
  2. [9]
    The Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (“the WWCA”) provides a regime for the issuing of positive and negative notices which in turn govern whether a person can hold a blue card. Blue cards are not transferrable, meaning that, even if the holder of a blue card does not intend to work with children, they may nonetheless work with children.  
  3. [10]
    Under sections 353 and 354 of the WWCA, TJS is an eligible person who can apply for a review of a decision to issue a negative notice on the basis that hers is an “exceptional case”.
  4. [11]
    I am satisfied that the decision is one the tribunal has jurisdiction to review.

What factors need to be considered in making the tribunal’s decision?

  1. [12]
    The WWCA provides:

5 Object of Act

The object of this Act is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland through a scheme requiring—

  1. (a)
    the development and implementation of risk management strategies; and
  1. (b)
    the screening of persons employed in particular employment or carrying on particular businesses.

6 Principles for administering this Act

This Act is to be administered under the following principles—

  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.
  1. [13]
    As early as the decision in McKee v McKee[7] Viscount Simonds noted that in laws governing children, their welfare and best interests are the paramount consideration “to which all others yield”.
  2. [14]
    A child-related employment decision must be reviewed under the principle that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount.[8]
  3. [15]
    The WWCA obligates Blue Card Services to issue a positive notice unless the applicant’s case is determined to be an exceptional one. Relevant to the current application, section 221 of the WWCA refers to persons who are charged but not convicted or offences, or are convicted of offences that aren’t serious offices:
  1. (1)
    Subject to subsection (2), the chief executive must issue a positive notice to the person if—
  1. (a)
    the chief executive is not aware of any police information or disciplinary information about the person; or
  1. (b)
    the chief executive is not aware of a conviction of the person for any offence but is aware that there is 1 or more of the following about the person—
  1. (i)
    investigative information;
  1. (ii)
    disciplinary information;
  1. (iii)
    a charge for an offence other than a disqualifying offence;
  1. (iv)
    a charge for a disqualifying offence that has been dealt with other than by a conviction; or

Note for subparagraph (iv)—

For charges for disqualifying offences that have not been dealt with, see sections 208, 217 and 240 (in relation to prescribed notices), and sections 269, 279 and 298 (in relation to exemption notices).

  1. (c)
    the chief executive is aware of a conviction of the person for an offence other than a serious offence.
  1. (2)
    If subsection (1)(b) or (c) applies to the person and the chief executive is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a positive notice, the chief executive must issue a negative notice to the person. 
  1. [16]
    The expression “exceptional case” is not defined in the WWCA. In Cabal v United Mexican States,[9] Justice Kirby expressed the view that that for something to be unusual and extraordinary it “is necessary to depart from [the normal] rule”.
  2. [17]
    Justice Moore said in K v Cullen[10] that “exceptional” implies something out of the ordinary and that the test is to compare “the circumstances of the case and what might be thought to be usual circumstances”.
  3. [18]
    Justice Fullagher in Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions[11] adopted the warning of Justice Luxmore in Perry and Browns Patents,[12] 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”.
  4. [19]
    Where a person has been charged with, or convicted of, an offence, the tribunal must have regard to suitability factors set out in section 226 of the WWCA in determining whether an “exceptional case” exists:

226 Deciding exceptional case if conviction or charge

  1. (1)
    This section applies if the chief executive—
  1. (a)
    is deciding whether or not there is an exceptional case for the person; and
  1. (b)
    is aware that the person has been convicted of, or charged with, an offence.
  1. (2)
    The chief executive must have regard to the following—
  1. (a)
    in relation to the commission, or alleged commission, of an offence by the person—
  1. (i)
    whether it is a conviction or a charge; and
  1. (ii)
    whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence; and
  1. (iii)
    when the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed; and
  1. (iv)
    the nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children; and
  1. (v)
    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. (b)
    any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 318 or 319;
  1. (c)
    any report about the person’s mental health given to the chief executive under section 335;
  1. (d)
    any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 337 or 338;
  1. (e)
    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. [20]
    The application before the tribunal “must” therefore be decided “having regard to” the matters specified in section 226(a)-(d) and to anything else reasonably considered relevant.
  2. [21]
    The Appeal Tribunal in Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2)[13] said that:

The prescribed matters should not be considered in isolation. There may well be other factors that are relevant to determining whether a case is an exceptional one. Ultimately the determination is a matter of discretion on a consideration of the merits of the case, having regard to those factors that must be taken into account.

TJS’ life story

  1. [22]
    According to her Life Story,[14] TJS is the middle of three children, with a brother who is four years older than her and a sister who is eighteen months younger. She has additional half-siblings to later relationships of her father.
  2. [23]
    TJS’s childhood was one of upheaval, the family having to move frequently due to her father’s behaviour of perpetrating extra-familial sexual assault and engaging in extra-marital relationships and physical assaults. He was incarcerated for sexual assault when TJS was a child.
  3. [24]
    TJS’s father also regularly perpetrated domestic violence upon her mother, including physical assaults upon her with a weapon. Her mother was often forced to flee the home with the children, with her father giving chase, and they slept in their car for safety.
  4. [25]
    When her parents’ relationship ended when TJS was ten years of age, her mother then had to work long hours to support her children as a single mother.  The children were consequently often left unsupervised.
  5. [26]
    TJS’s older brother physically assaulted her during their childhood and sexually assaulted her on one occasion. Her grandfather attempted a sexual assault, as did a visitor to their home.  
  6. [27]
    TJS’s brother entered juvenile detention and spent a period in out-of-home care, and as an adult has been incarcerated. 
  7. [28]
    When she was eighteen years of age TJS met BSE, her now former partner, and fell pregnant within two months. She gave birth to her two sons fifteen months apart, now aged eleven and nine.
  8. [29]
    BSE perpetrated domestic violence against TJS during their relationship, and after it ended.  On one occasion, when she was pregnant, he pressed down on her stomach “trying to kill” the baby. On another, he threw a water bottle at her eye and forced her to leave the house while the children were sleeping. Once, when TJS was crossing the road with the children, he tried to run them over with the car.  He has also hit their eldest son in the head and face.  
  9. [30]
    Ms Cullen is a forensic psychologist who, following interviews with TJS on 3 February 2021 and 10 February 2021, prepared a report dated 4 March 2021[15] for the purpose of the proceedings. TJS reported to Ms Cullen that at times her ex-partner’s violence was “severe” and that he “threatened the children as well”.
  10. [31]
    BSE uses crystal methamphetamine and was incarcerated many times for drug and traffic offences during their relationship, and after it ended. He has made several suicide attempts.
  11. [32]
    When the relationship ended, TJS moved in with her mother, Ms A, and stepfather, Mr B. This arrangement continued after her brother also moved into the home upon his release from prison. However, TJS felt unsafe living with her brother, who continued to use drugs and to perpetrate domestic violence upon her. Ultimately TJS, with the support of her stepfather, made a formal complaint to police, obtained a Protection Order against her brother, and sought alternative accommodation in a domestic violence shelter. She ultimately secured private rental accommodation where she now lives with the two children.
  12. [33]
    TJS has a distant relationship with her brother and her father due to their abuse. She enjoys a close relationship with her sister, mother, and her stepfather, all of whom gave evidence in support of her application.
  13. [34]
    In 2019, BSE was spending time with the children, but TJS stopped the visits when it became clear to her that BSE was using ice and that the children were being neglected whilst in his care.
  14. [35]
    As at 24 July 2020, when the Life Story was written, BSE was again incarcerated and not spending time with the children. TJS said the following about this:

[BSE] is now in gaol for the 4th time, and I don't think he is going to grow up anytime soon.

  1. [36]
    Ms Cullen’s report notes that, as at February 2021:

[2.35] Her ex-partner currently has nil access to the children because of …concerns about his being able to provide a safe environment and he does not know where they live…

[5.9] [TJS] has, to her credit, distanced herself from her father, her brother and her ex-partner in order to provide a safe, healthy and non-offending environment for herself and her sons.

  1. [37]
    However, BSE was released from prison within weeks of this statement being made. In her updated Life Story dated 3 May 2021, TJS says:

My sons are happy, healthy, and well… They have been spending every weekend with their dad since the 12th March 2021. It warms my heart to see how happy they are to have a present and active father in their lives. Co-parenting is going well so far.

  1. [38]
    TJS said in the hearing that she feels like she’s “stealing their happiness” and “is a bd person” if she says no to the children when they want to spend time with BSE.

TJS’s criminal (traffic) history

  1. [39]
    TJS has not been charged or convicted of a serious or disqualifying offence.
  2. [40]
    TJS had, prior to the first hearing, never held a drivers’ licence, although by the adjourned hearing she had, to her credit been granted a provisional drivers’ licence.
  3. [41]
    Nonetheless, she has an extensive traffic history,[16] with her offences spanning between 27 November 2009 and 23 January 2018 and including (but not limited to):
    1. (a)
      Failure to pay correct fare;
    2. (b)
      Failure to produce learner’s licence as required;
    3. (c)
      Using a vehicle with a label issued for another vehicle;
    4. (d)
      Disqualified driving (convicted on 1 September 2011, 27 April 2012, 11 June 2018);
    5. (e)
      Driving on a traffic island (convicted on 11 June 2018);
    6. (f)
      Unlicensed driving (convicted on 19 May 2011 and 7 March 2017);
    7. (g)
      Careless driving (convicted on 7 March 2017);
    8. (h)
      Failing to display learner driver plates; and
    9. (i)
      Exceeding the speed limit (convicted on 26 March 2014).
  4. [42]
    The offences have attracted penalties that include fines of up to $6,500, extensive periods of licence disqualification, enforcement orders, community service orders and terms of imprisonment, albeit with immediate release on parole.
  5. [43]
    The most concerning of TJS’s traffic offences include:
    1. (a)
      Two occasions of failing to stop her vehicle – namely, evading police – on 29 March 2013 and again on 23 January 2018; and
    2. (b)
      Driving with a passenger under the age of sixteen in the front seat, with no seatbelts fitted and other seats available (1 January 2010).

Evading police

  1. [44]
    Regarding the event on 29 March 2013, the police brief[17] indicates;
    1. (a)
      At approximately 9:50pm on 29 March 2013, police observed a vehicle with at least four occupants exceeding the speed limit and activated emergency lights and sirens to intercept the vehicle.
    2. (b)
      The driver of the vehicle continued driving for approximately 400 metres at a speed of approximately 85km/h in a 70km/h zone, before a passenger turned and looked at the police vehicle, indicating the occupants were aware that police were following.
    3. (c)
      Police deactivated lights and sirens and observed the vehicle turn into a highway and accelerate heavily, to a speed exceeding 130km/h.
    4. (d)
      Police later attended the home address of the registered owner, who informed police that her daughter’s boyfriend was driving the car.
    5. (e)
      After several unsuccessful enquiries were conducted to establish the driver, police charged the registered owner, TJS’s mother, with evading police and court matters were mentioned on four previous occasions before a hearing on 23 March 2014, at which point TJS attended court and admitted to police that she was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence.
    6. (f)
      TJS gave evidence in a police interview that she was aware police were behind her and trying to pull her over however that she was scared as she was driving with a suspended license.
    7. (g)
      When asked by police why she only came forward at the last moment, she said she did not want to tell her mother that she was the driver at the time of the offence and when her mother realised the seriousness of the charges before the court she decided to come forward with the information.
    8. (h)
      It transpired that TJS’s sister, a minor, was a passenger in the vehicle at the time.
  2. [45]
    Regarding the event on 23 January 2018, the police brief indicates:
    1. (a)
      At approximately 9:25am, a vehicle was detected by police, using automatic number plate recognition scanners, to have registration plates which were cancelled and belong to another vehicle.
    2. (b)
      Police activated lights and sirens to intercept the vehicle, which came to a stop, however as police approached the vehicle the female driver accelerated before police were able to speak to her.
    3. (c)
      Police attempted to intercept the vehicle again, at which point the vehicle turned into another street where it was blocked in congested traffic. Police, using lights and sirens, were directly behind the vehicle stopped in traffic, and attempted to stop the vehicle and driver by verbal commands.
    4. (d)
      As police were next to the vehicle, the driver made an intentional right turn over a raised traffic island and accelerated heavily, actively avoiding police.
    5. (e)
      Later, police received information about the suspect driver including a mugshot and were able to identify the driver as TJS. On 16 February 2018, police attended the workplace of TJS to identify her and speak to her about the alleged offences at which time she was uncooperative with police and refused to answer any questions.
    6. (f)
      In the lead up to this offence, TJS was in fortnightly contact with Queensland Corrective Services. This contact did not prevent her from re-offending.  
  3. [46]
    TJS committed another driving offence shortly after on 13 February 2018 in which she again failed to stop for police.  
  4. [47]
    Due to her traffic offences and convictions for them, TJS has had three episodes of parole with Queensland Corrective Services:[18]
    1. (a)
      between 11 June 2018 and 6 March 2019 for driving when disqualified;
    2. (b)
      between 7 March 2017 and 19 February 2018 for driving without due care and attention; and
    3. (c)
      between 26 March 2014 and 28 July 2014 for driving when disqualified.
  5. [48]
    According to a Benchmark Assessment Report created by Queensland Corrective Services on 18 July 2018,[19] TJS said of the January and February 2018 evasion incidents that:

…the police called off the pursuit after a brief period due to the speeds she was reaching causing danger to other drivers on the road.

…she was trying to get to work on both occasions and did not want to take the extra time to use public transport to get there she would have been late. She admits she has a horrific traffic history and states she is now learnt very valuable lessons.

  1. [49]
    Of her traffic offences TJS told Blue Card Services that[20] (my emphasis added):

If there is anything I am most ashamed of in my life, it would be my traffic history. It’s disgraceful and I’m quite embarrassed about it. At the time I committed the offences I was surrounded by negative influences - particularly my ex-boyfriend.  I was also struggling financially and raising two sons on my own.  As you now know I wasn’t in a good place therefore I began making poor choices that challenged my moral beliefs.  If I could turn back the time and fix the mistakes I made, I would.  But unfortunately, life is not that easy.  I realise how wrong it was for me to commit such offences and accept that I deserve the consequences that came with it. There were no children or other people involved, I wasn’t under the influence of drugs or alcohol and I have NOT and will NOT find myself behind the wheel ever again until I am legally allowed to drive again.

  1. [50]
    Ms Cullen’s findings support the evidence given by TJS with respect to her remorse regarding her traffic history:

[5.7] …at the times of her offending, she considered her actions to be misdemeanours rather than crimes. She made snapped a chart judgements that the consequences of apprehension would be worse than the consequences of evasion and, further, that the latter course of action would not cause substantial harm.

[5.8] During clinical interview, [TJS] did not engage in any minimisation of her offences. She has now had almost three years to reflect upon them and their consequences. She expressed embarrassment, regret, and remorse about her driving record, about the potential harm she could have caused, and about the continuing impact that not having a licence has upon her children. She has seriously considered each instance of illegal driving and has proposed practical ways to mitigate the risks of engaging in such behaviour in the future. Importantly she has accepted the limitations of the current situation. For example, she requested family members drive her to and from appointments for this assessment, even though considerable distances were involved.

  1. [51]
    TJS’s statement made January 2020, that “there were no children or other people involved” in her offences is of some concern. TJS drove unlicensed with a minor in the vehicle. On several occasions she has driven, unlicensed at excessive speeds and evaded police with passengers in her vehicle. On every occasion that TJS drove unlicensed, drove carelessly, evaded police and breached other road rules, she put the lives of her passengers and other road users, including pedestrians at risk.  That she did not appreciate this shows a lack of insight and does not weigh in her favour.  However, her later views expressed to Ms Cullen and in the hearing suggest she now acknowledges the risk of harm to others of her traffic offences and expressed genuine remorse for those behaviours.
  2. [52]
    To her credit, TJS has since achieved her drivers’ licence, satisfying the licensing authorities that she should be able to do so well in advance of the due date for her disqualification period ending.   

Domestic and family violence

Incident in 2013

  1. [53]
    On 18 February 2013, following a neighbour’s report of a disturbance, police were called to the home TJS shared with BSE, where they observed a vehicle with a shattered window parked in front of the residence. Located near the window was a broom and a stiletto shoe.  TJS answered the door to police, informing them that she had had an argument with her boyfriend and that he had left in his vehicle.  However, upon conducting a search, BSE was located within the home. Police observed several damaged chairs.  The children, who were then very young, were also home.  TJS was responsible for the damage to the vehicle and BSE for the chairs, with the incidents occurring during an argument between them about the behaviour of the children.[21]
  2. [54]
    TJS says she was not aware that police had filed cross-application for a domestic violence order until the material was disclosed to her during these proceedings. 
  3. [55]
    Annexure C to her statement of 24 June 2021 contains the following statement by her:

My sons were sound asleep in bed with the door shut. Their safety and wellbeing were not put at risk from either myself or my ex-partner.  

  1. [56]
    In the hearing, TJS said of this incident that it was a long time ago and she could not remember all the details, but that her children “would have cried out if they had heard”.
  2. [57]
    These statements show a concerning lack of insight by TJS as to the risk of emotional harm to children by exposing them to family and domestic violence.  It is not true that during a physical altercation of their parents, in which a window is smashed, and furniture is thrown whilst the children are present in the home, the safety and wellbeing of children are not put at risk.
  3. [58]
    Blue Card Services share a similar view, submitting that:[22]

To suggest that her children, who on the material were aged approximately two and three years at the time, were unaware of the incident, despite it being heard by neighbours and involving property being damaged, demonstrates a concerning lack of insight into how the applicant’s actions may have affected her children.

  1. [59]
    Blue Card Services submits that insight is particularly important with children, as children are entirely dependent upon the adults around them having insight into their actions and their likely effect on children.

The children’s father

  1. [60]
    In her Life Story, TJS makes some concerning statements about the behaviour of BSE towards or in the presence of her children, including:
    1. (a)
      BSE shows more affection to her youngest son and makes it clear that he is BSE’s “favourite”.  This unequal treatment has impacted her eldest son, to the extent that TJS says this treatment “made my poor son feel unloved” which was “so heartbreaking to watch”.  Further that “everyone noticed it and would point it out”. TJS says she had to constantly remind BSE that he had two sons, not one.
    2. (b)
      TJS said that after she and BSE separated, her eldest son blossomed and became more confident in himself when not exposed to BSE’s behaviours.
    3. (c)
      When he was released from prison in 2019, TJS reached out to BSE’s girlfriend to organise a meeting to talk about visitation for the boys.
    4. (d)
      TJS says she did this because BSE was in the habit of picking the boys up from school without her permission, and she did not want that to happen again.
    5. (e)
      TJS says she met with BSE, “laid down the rules and gave [BSE] the benefit of the doubt to prove that he loved the boys enough to do what was right by them”. 
    6. (f)
      TJS said she was relieved to see that BSE appeared to be happy with her new partner, and clean. She says that at that time “I honestly thought he would be a good father for the boys this time around, but he soon proved me wrong”.
    7. (g)
      The children informed TJS that BSE was driving illegally with the children, showing them guns and that they were witnessing fights between BSE and his girlfriend. Further, the boys would sleep all day and be up all night.  This led TJS to form the view that BSE was back on ice.
    8. (h)
      One of the boys returned home to TJS reporting that the other had an infection spreading onto his face.  TJS messaged BSE’s partner but she did not reply.  The following day, TJS said collected her remaining son and observed that his eye was infected with the infection was spreading onto his face.
    9. (i)
      TJS then stopped her sons from visiting BSE, and he was subsequently incarcerated.  
    10. (j)
      On 24 July 2020 TJS said of BSE that “I don't think he is going to grow up anytime soon”. 
  2. [61]
    TJS has said that her children are her world and that she could “never intentionally put them in any danger”.[23]
  3. [62]
    As mentioned, Ms Cullen reported that as at February 2021:

Her ex-partner currently has nil access to the children because of [TJS’s] concerns about his being able to provide a safe environment and he does not know where they live.  

  1. [63]
    However, in her Life Story Update dated 30 May 2021 TJS reported that:

My sons are happy healthy and well. They have been spending every weekend with their dad since the 12th of March 2021. It warms my heart to see how happy they are to have a present and active father in their lives. Co-parenting is going well so far.

  1. [64]
    In the adjourned hearing on 28 January 2022, TJS denied that she ever said that the boys were spending every weekend with their father, conflicting with her earlier written statement.
  2. [65]
    On cross-examination, TJS said the following about her children spending time with BSE:
    1. (a)
      BSE’s girlfriend would reassure her the children were safe however this is the same person who previously lied to TJS about her ex-partner’s drug use. When questioned as to why she would now believe BSE’s girlfriend given her previous dishonesty, TJS said that she “gives people chances”.
    2. (b)
      BSE has been in prison since his March 2021 release, including for a high-speed car chase, footage of which had been watched by her children on the Internet, however, this has not prevented her from allowing her children to spend time with BSE. 
    3. (c)
      The children were in the care of BSE during the December 2021 hearing. When asked whether TJS had ongoing concerns about the children’s wellbeing with BSE, she said that the children want to see their dad and that she is “confident at the moment that he won’t expose them to harm”.

Evidence of witnesses who support the applicant

TJS’s mother

  1. [66]
    In a letter dated 30 April 2021[24] Ms A said that:

As she started university [TJS] came under the influence of the wrong people, one of whom is the father of her two children. It was this influence that ultimately led to the driving record she has today and the DV report against her. At the age of nineteen she was trapped into a life dependent on someone who had, and still has, little, if any regard for authority and the law. At that time, she was too young, too naïve and too immature to see that the influences around her were dragging her down and providing no solution to the toxic life she was bleeding.

…[TJS] learned from the mistakes and pitfalls of the past. She is determined to live her life in total contrast to that which she was then leading. …[TJS] started to look for advice from myself and my husband.

During the time she has spent with us [her] attitude to life has changed significantly. She has re-reconnected with her faith, takes the boys to church regularly, and praise for guidance. [She] had volunteered at one of her son’s primary school tuckshop…, where she was positive and enthusiastic about what she did, and would have continued had it not been for her lack of a blue card.

[TJS] readily asks us for advice and is honest when discussing the problems in her life. She continues to grow as a person in more positive ways in this influence is reflected in the behaviour and attitude of her children. She now acknowledges that despite the appalling influences on her life at the time and despite the pressure on her to conform to others’ standards, her actions were ultimately her decision. I see this as a true sign of repentance and growing maturity.

…I neither support nor condone her actions but recognise that the DV report shows there was no danger to her children, neither was there any violence against any person.

  1. [67]
    In the hearing, Ms A gave the following further evidence:
    1. (a)
      she acknowledged and regretted what she described as her own failures as a mother, and said that she was not there for her children to support and encourage them and was not aware of struggles TJS faced;
    2. (b)
      she said that when she was struggling as a single mother “everything was a mess at the time, including myself”;
    3. (c)
      she acknowledged the risks to her daughter of allowing her son to move back into her home but said that it was hard to reject her children as a mother when they were in need and she found it difficult to treat her children differently;
    4. (d)
      most of the time, her husband dealt with her son and his behaviour towards TJS because she was at work;
    5. (e)
      she had "a lot of worry" about her son being around her grandsons and had also worried about the safety of her grandchildren in 2018 when TJS first moved in;  and
    6. (f)
      she believes the children will tell her if there were any issues or concerns with their father and that TJS shouldn’t “let the kids suffer” but refusing to allow them to spend time with BSE.

TJS’s step-father

  1. [68]
    Mr B has known TJS since and before his marriage to her mother, Ms A, in November 2017.
  2. [69]
    In a letter dated 30 April 2021[25] Mr B said that:

In the time that I have known [TJS] it is apparent that her first priority in life is to provide a stable and secure environment in which to raise her two children. This is a task she is compelled to undertake as a sole parent, because her former partner has proven himself to be unable, and I believe, and unwilling, to accept his responsibilities in this regard.

[TJS] has, and continues to be, prepared to both seek and act upon advice provided to her. When’s she suggested resuming her nursing studies, which she discontinued due to the unsupportive environment in which she found herself, she was encouraged to do so by both her mother and myself. We were, and still are, happy to assist where possible to see her break free from a dysfunctional and miserable passed to a positive and settled future

I have read the decision of blue card services and am aware of the reasons [TJS] has a negative notice. I am fully aware of, and disappointed, by her driving history and the DV Report filed against her in 2013. The DV Report does not in any way tally with the behaviour I have witnessed from [TJS]. I do however note that:

  1. The report to police was made by neighbours, not her then partner.
  2. The report was against property not people – a totally different proposition.
  3. At no time was there any danger to the children, who were in a bedroom and did not witness the incident. Further the report says “there has been no physical violence or threats”.
  1. [70]
    In the hearing, Mr B gave the following further evidence:
    1. (a)
      that BSE expresses a desire for limited access to the children and the children want access to him, therefore, access is done in a “controlled manner”, which he explained involved the children staying at their paternal grandparents’ home, rather than with BSE;
    2. (b)
      BSE “isn’t the best influence on the lads” but he “has rights as a parent”;
    3. (c)
      the boys visit BSE’s house but “do not stay overnight”;
    4. (d)
      TJS always talks to the boys about the choices BSE has made in his life and their impacts;
    5. (e)
      the boys are asked “Do you want to make the same choices?” to which they reply “no”; and
    6. (f)
      the boys are asked “Do you want to see him?” to which the boys reply “yes”.
  2. [71]
    In response to questions put to him by Blue Card Services about whether the children had been, to his knowledge, exposed to harm or risk of harm from family and domestic violence Mr B said the following:
    1. (a)
      He is not aware of any physical abuse of the boys, but when asked about the incident involving slapping of the eldest child expressed the view that “slapping isn’t abuse”.  He said using a belt or hitting would be abuse.
    2. (b)
      He is not aware of any emotional abuse of the children. 
    3. (c)
      He does not recall violence being perpetrated by his step-son in front of grandchildren.
    4. (d)
      He agrees the children may have witnessed verbal abuse but, not by the applicant, although possibly the verbally abuse directed at the applicant by her brother.
    5. (e)
      Regarding the domestic violence incident in 2013, when asked if children witnessing, by sight or by hearing, that incident would be harmed, he said it depends on whether it’s a “one off” and went on to explain that, in his view, if children witness multiple occurrences of domestic violence that is “less harmful” than a one-off occasion because “they became used to it”. He emphasised that the children were “not injured in any way by it”.
  3. [72]
    In Mr B’s view, TJS was denied a blue card on account of having a lack of respect for authority as a younger person and he says she has since “embraced authority”, respects road rules, has returned to the Church and has adopted a different lifestyle within a better network of support.

TJS’s sister

  1. [73]
    In a letter dated 2 May 2021[26], Ms C, younger sister to TJS, said as follows:

[TJS] is still very caring and nurturing towards children. My two daughters adore her. She is actively present in their lives and is someone I can depend on to care for my children, and I have other responsibilities to tend to.

[TJS] ensures the safety and well-being of my daughters are protected and I am thankful for that. Despite our rough upbringing, she never allowed it to affect her behaviour towards children. She sees the good in everyone and tries her best to lend a helping hand whenever she can.

I’ve supported [her] through the difficult times in her life including her moments of weakness in regards to her traffic behaviour. I tried talking to [her] about her irresponsible choices at the time of her offending but she didn’t listen. However, she eventually came to her senses after disconnecting from negative influences and taking time to self-reflect on her lifestyle. I can attest that [she] has made the necessary changes to redirect her life in a positive direction. She listens to advice from her family, studies hard to attain a secure career, works hard to afford living expenses, relies on a faith to get her through challenges, and continues to take care of her sons.

  1. [74]
    In the hearing she gave evidence that:
    1. (a)
      she warned TJS about the risks of her traffic offending and “after the second conversation she came to her senses”;
    2. (b)
      regarding the domestic violence incident 2013, she recalls TJS being in shock, knowing she had made the wrong choice and regretted it straight away;
    3. (c)
      the children communicate openly with Ms A and with Ms C and she believes they would express any concerns they had about BSE; and
    4. (d)
      regarding the risk of living with her brother, she warned TJS that their brother would “hurt them after he hurts you”, meaning the children, if she did not leave her mother’s home with her children.

Ms Cullen, psychologist

  1. [75]
    Ms Cullen was asked to comment on:
    1. (a)
      the extent to which TJS has insight into her offending behaviours and its impact on society, the victim(s) and her children;
    2. (b)
      risk factors or triggers present in TJS’s life which could contribute to a risk of further offending behaviours;
    3. (c)
      protective factors present to reduce the risk of further offending behaviours; and
    4. (d)
      percentage strategies engaged by TJS to reduce her risk of further offending.
  2. [76]
    Ms Cullen assessed TJS’s risk of reoffending as “low”, identifying two risk factors:
    1. (a)
      her criminal history (medium risk) due to the number of previous convictions and penalties applied; and
    2. (b)
      her family/marital history (low risk) due to her sibling, father and ex-partner possessing criminal records.
  3. [77]
    Ms Cullen observed that:
    1. (a)
      TJS demonstrates a degree of impulsivity. Her failure to appreciate the seriousness of her behaviour at the time of committing her offences was a significant contributor to the commission of the offence.  She has an “elevated super optimistic criminal thinking style”, meaning she has isolated instances of overconfidence and unrealistic plans, consistent with her driving behaviour and her evasion of police.
    2. (b)
      Whilst BSE influenced TJS’s driving behaviour to an extent, the lack of appropriate role modelling in her family is a more significant contributor to her behaviour and underlying beliefs about the world (namely, the normalisation of rule-breaking and law-breaking behaviour in her family).
    3. (c)
      TJS knows the difference between right and wrong but at the time of offending considered her actions to be misdemeanours rather than crimes.  
  4. [78]
    Ms Cullen identified the following protective factors:
    1. (a)
      Education: TJS has made satisfactory progress in high school, and at no time was suspended or expelled, committed to a nursing degree in which she has achieved good grades;
    2. (b)
      Support network: TJS has support from non-offending family members, including child-minding and transport, financial and emotional support. Her stepfather is particularly supportive. TJS told Ms Cullen that her intention is to:

…purposely surround myself with positive influences who will have a positive impact on the choices I make and who will continue to help me be a better me; and

  1. (c)
    TJS’s employment history, her engagement in pro-social leisure/recreation activities and the absence of any drug/alcohol problems.
  1. [79]
    Ms Cullen gave evidence at the adjourned hearing in which she explained her findings regarding “super optimism” as a concern that TJS takes an overly optimistic view of situations, using the example of her belief in a successful outcome in these proceedings, and said that TJS adopts a “she’ll be right” attitude.  When asked how being overly optimistic affects decision-making she said that on the positive side, having strong self-belief can lead to achievement and confidence but on the downside, it may also mean a person does not properly consider the barriers, obstacles and risks and consequences of a particular course of action.
  2. [80]
    TJS asked Mr Cullen whether it is a good thing to be optimistic, to which Ms Cullen replied, without reservation that “we need people with strong self-belief”. She mentioned that TJS has faced serious challenges and shown remarkable persistence despite the obstacles and barriers she has faced, which is true.
  3. [81]
    However, Ms Cullen said there needs to be a balance: a person needs to see the bright side but also needs to consider limits and problems as well in any given situation.
  4. [82]
    In response to questions by Blue Card Services on issues of family and domestic violence, Ms Cullen said that this was not the focus of her report, which was directed to the criminal and traffic offending behaviours, but did say that she understood, at the time of her interviews, that TJS had stopped BSE’s access to the children because of risky behaviour and drug use.  There was no discussion surrounding BSE recommencing his contact with the children because Ms Cullen understood that the decision to cease his contact with the children was “fairly final”.
  5. [83]
    Therefore, Ms Cullen expressed “surprise” to hear that BSE had recommenced spending time with the children shortly after Ms Cullen consulted with TJS. She qualified this by saying that she did not know the context of the decision made to recommence time, for example, whether BSE had changed his behaviours, whether time is supervised etc so she could not comment on whether TJS had failed to act protectively in allowing contact to recommence.
  6. [84]
    Among the preventative strategies suggested by Ms Cullen, TJS confirmed that she has not taken up the recommendation that she engage in further therapy although she has expressed her willingness to in her Life Story of 24 July 2020 or her submissions made 3 May 2021.
  7. [85]
    Whilst a willingness to engage in therapy is a protective factor, the failure to engage in that treatment is a significant risk factor.

Discussion and findings

Criminal history/traffic offences

  1. [86]
    None of the charges against TJS involved a disqualifying or serious offence, and they were not committed against children, but did involve a minor and did put a minor at risk.  There have been no offences since 2018.
  2. [87]
    In JR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[27] three years had passed between the offending conduct by an applicant who was a mother and a recently registered psychologist who needed a blue card to continue her employment.  Between 2012 and 2015 the applicant had been involved in offences including stealing and driving under the influence, and in 2016 and 2017 she was involved in incidents in which three of her children were exposed to domestic violence.
  3. [88]
    Between 2017 and when the matter was heard in August 2020, the applicant had graduated from university with a psychology degree, obtained employment helping others, and had developed an extensive support network, tendering in evidence statements in support from family, friends and colleagues.
  4. [89]
    The tribunal found in her case that the applicant, whilst having made great progress, needed more time to demonstrate her ability to always act in the best interests of children, deciding that her case was exceptional because she needed to show she will always act protectively towards her children, over an extended period.   It was simply “too early to be satisfied that JR has developed her skills and attitudes sufficiently to take responsibility for her own actions and the protection of children”.[28]
  5. [90]
    In Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2),[29] Ms Lister had been accused of misconduct and neglect in working with intellectually impaired children, including serious incidents that amounted to assault and deprivation of liberty.  When the review decision was before the tribunal, six years had passed without incident, during which time Ms Lister had continued to care for adults with an intellectual impairment.
  6. [91]
    The tribunal found that, if Ms Lister had been found to have insight, the passage of time between her convictions and her application would be a protective factor.
  7. [92]
    The tribunal adopted the reasoning of the former Children Services Tribunal[30] about the role that insight plays in such applications:

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 upon the adults around them having insight into their actions and the likely effect on children.

  1. [93]
    However, the Appeal Tribunal was reluctant to draw the conclusion that the risk is reduced by the passage of time without incident because Ms Lister continued to minimise and justify her conduct, displayed a lack of remorse and genuine change and continued to assert no harm was done to a child.
  2. [94]
    Since her last offence in 2018, TJS has made considerable progress to better her situation, by obtaining her drivers’ licence, keeping a clean traffic record, undertaking study, and maintaining employment whilst relying on public transport and walking at considerable effort and inconvenience. She re-engaged with her Church and has surrounded herself with more positive relationships.
  3. [95]
    She is well-supported by her mother, stepfather, and her sister in her endeavours, and I am satisfied that this network can provide guidance and support to TJS if she needs it to confront the triggers for her past driving offence transgressions.
  4. [96]
    TJS expressed shame, embarrassment, and deep regret over her past traffic offending behaviour, and I believe she well understands the hardship she and her family would face if she were to lose her licence again.
  5. [97]
    The offences were committed over an eight-year period and four years have now passed since her last offence.  During the period in which the offences occurred, TJS was not motivated to rehabilitate by the ongoing involvement and influence of Queensland Corrective Services, by the fact of her mother being falsely accused of and charged with one of her offences, nor by the urging of her younger sister to change her ways. The ongoing ability of TJS to self-regulate and of her support network to successfully influence her in the absence of targeted therapy is therefore of some concern. 
  6. [98]
    On the evidence, TJS’s offending was less likely to be triggered by the influence of her former partner and her impulsivity, and more likely result from her tendency to be irrationally optimistic, and her upbringing in a home where her father and her brother were habitual lawbreakers.  She has ceased contact with her father and her brother, but has not engaged with the forward therapy recommended by Ms Cullen to overcome her optimistic decision-making tendencies and the ingrained influence of her early familial influences.  Caution must therefore be exercised in accepting that TJS has effectively and reliably addressed the triggers that lead to her offending behaviour.
  7. [99]
    Even if I accept TJS’s evidence that she has learned from her past, the decision-making processes (failure to recognise risk) that lead to the offences and her behaviours (avoiding responsibility for those choices) after committing the offences cannot be overlooked and should not be minimised. At least one of her driving offences directly put a child at risk and exposed a child to law-breaking when she drove unlicensed and evaded police with her younger sister in the vehicle.
  8. [100]
    Blue Card Services submit,[31] correctly in my view, that:

The majority of the applicant’s offending has involved her driving a vehicle in an irresponsible manner and disobeying lawful instructions by police on public roads and highways. The offending continued despite repeated intervention by police and the courts. Her extensive and ongoing offending demonstrates a clear contempt for the law and those in authority, raising concerns about her ability to act in the best interests of children and young people who may be in her care and to present as a positive role model.

The applicant’s offending also demonstrates impulsivity, poor decision-making and lack of judgement, particularly as a mature adult and a parent responsible for the welfare of others. She has persistently flouted traffic rules, thus significantly risking the safety of other road users, including children. In this regard the respondent notes the applicant conceded, during cross-examination at the hearing, that her children were in the car with her at times, including on school runs. The applicant further stated that the vehicle she drove illegally did not belong to her, and as such she was unaware of their registration status or whether they were insured.

The effect applicant’s offending indicates a level of unsafe driving practices which raises concerns about her ability to provide a safe and protective and caring environment for children and to model safe behaviour.[32]

Family and domestic violence and the risk of harm to children

  1. [101]
    The incident of domestic violence in which TJS smashed a car window during violent argument with her partner did not involve children, but it did occur when the children were home and able to hear and perhaps see it.  TJS appeared somewhat dismissive of this risk, which is of some concern.
  2. [102]
    More concerning is the decision-making process around TJS allowing her children to spend time with their father upon occasions when he is released from prison, which is a current decision-making process she is engaging in. 
  3. [103]
    TJS submitted no evidence that BSE had engaged in parenting programs or therapy to address his unsafe behaviours towards the children, his unsafe driving practices, drug addiction or his perpetration of domestic violence upon TJS and others.  There was no evidence put to the tribunal that, other than relying upon reports of risk of harm by the partner of BSE, or the children themselves, of any protective strategies or reliable mechanisms having been put in place to give any reasonable comfort that the children are safe in BSE’s care. Mr B had assumed that the children were staying with and being supervised by their paternal grandparents when spending time with BSE and seemed surprised to discover in the hearing that this was not the case, and that the children were spending unsupervised time in BSE’s home.  Ms Cullen was surprised to hear that the children had recommended spending weekends with BSE.
  4. [104]
    Blue Card Services submit that children observe and model the behaviours of the adults around them and that the applicant’s current decisions to allow her children to be cared by BSE given her intimate knowledge of his behaviours, violence and the risks he poses to the children is highly concerning.
  5. [105]
    In LB v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[33] onwards, the applicant had continued contact with a former partner who had perpetrated domestic violence upon her.  The tribunal found that:

[28] The Chief Executive submits and I accept that the charges and the totality of the evidence raises the possibility of a risk to children such that it would not be in the best interests of children for LB to be issued with a Clearance at this time given the paramount principle of the WWC Act. The evidence before me raises a concern in relation to how LB manages situations of conflict particularly with her now ex-partner.

…

[30] The evidence is that LB has not had further sessions with another practitioner (although she is seeking to do so) and her current support structures were not well explained. In my view this presents a risk as to her ability to provide a safe and protective environment for children currently. These are matters which LB can continue to address to support a future application to the Chief Executive to cancel the negative notice

  1. [106]
    Blue Card Services submit, and I agree that, the applicant’s reliance on her young children to tell her if they are being harmed or at risk of harm in the care of her former partner is highly concerning.  While the applicant stated at the hearing that she asks the children for the truth and reminds them of the importance of honesty, and Ms C and Ms A both also gave evidence that they felt the children openly communicated with them, TJS also said that the children “know not to say certain things around me because I’d stop them seeing their Dad”.  Relying on phone tracking and reports by the children are “after the fact” mechanisms and do not prevent the risk of harm in the first place. 
  2. [107]
    In short, the applicant seems to have taken few, if any, steps to mitigate the risk of harm to her children in permitting them unfettered access to weekends with BSE upon the occasions of his release from prison. 
  3. [108]
    The applicant’s reliance on her children, her former partner and the former partner’s girlfriend to tell the truth in circumstances when she knows that the children will conceal things, that the girlfriend has lied and that her former partner has committed serious offences and high risk behaviours, including abuse of TJS and of the children – without any evidence of therapy or rehabilitation strategies - seems based upon her belief in giving people chances, and her tendency towards optimistic decision making as observed by Ms Cullen rather than upon a genuine assessment of risk of harm to her children.

Is TJS’s case exceptional?

  1. [109]
    The tribunal has observed that “a person’s behaviour takes on greater magnitude when viewed in the context of protecting children”.[34]
  2. [110]
    Working with children includes an obligation to act responsibly and to protect them, including from potentially stressful or threatening situations.[35]  It is relevant therefore to consider the impact of an applicant having failed to provide a protective environment over an extended period to her own children.[36]
  3. [111]
    The process of deciding whether an applicant’s case is exceptional, is not intended to impose punishment on a person who has a criminal history, but rather “to put gates around employment to protect children from harm”.[37]
  4. [112]
    Children depend on adults to have insight into their actions and their likely effect.[38]
  5. [113]
    All offences, whether offences against children or not, can have impact on children because:

It can be harmful for children to become aware people they respect don’t obey the law because it can create confusion for them as they try to develop a sense of right and wrong.[39]

  1. [114]
    The evidence before the tribunal indicates that TJS has faced and overcome personal difficulties in her life and made positive changes that have enabled her to achieve higher education and her driver’s licence against considerable odds. 
  2. [115]
    Despite this, the totality of the evidence before the tribunal satisfies me that TJS has not acted protectively in relation to her own children, and that she does not have the requisite insight to reliably assess risks and consequences of harm in situations involving children.
  3. [116]
    I am not satisfied that the best interests of children are served by issuing TJS with a positive notice.   Her case, therefore, is an exceptional one.
  4. [117]
    As required by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), I have had regard to TJS’s human rights, including the right to a fair hearing and not to be punished more than once for her offences, however, in the circumstances I am satisfied that any limitation on these rights is consistent with the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the human rights, interests and wellbeing of children[40] and with the paramount nature of those interests.

What is the “correct and preferable” decision? 

  1. [118]
    As TJS’s case is exceptional, she should not be issued with a positive notice.
  2. [119]
    The correct and preferable decision is to confirm the decision of the Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General made 8 May 2020 that TJS’s case is “exceptional” and that a negative notice be issued accordingly.

Footnotes

[1]  Section 20 of the QCAT Act.

[2]  Section 21, ibid.

[3]  (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 362.

[4]  Direction made 4 January 2021 pursuant to section 66(1) of the QCAT Act.

[5]  Section 9(1) of the QCAT Act.

[6]  Section 17(1), ibid.

[7]  [1951] AC 352 at 365.

[8]  Section 360 of the WWCA.

[9]  (2001) 180 ALR 593.

[10]  (1994) 126 ALR 38.

[11]  [1983] VR 1.

[12]  (1930) 48 RPC 200.

[13]  [2011] QCATA 87 at [16].

[14]  Annexure A to the Statement of TJS filed 2 June 2021 (Life Story is dated 24 July 2020).

[15]  Annexure I to Annexure E to the Applicant’s Statement of Evidence filed 2 June 2021 (Exhibit 1).

[16]  BCS60-64.

[17]  At BCS24-27.

[18]  NTP-13 to NTP-89.

[19]  NTP-70 to NTP-76.

[20]  Statement to Blue Card Services dated 20 January 2020 (BCS-44).

[21]  NTP-3 to NTP-10 – Form DV1 Application for a Protection Order.

[22]  Respondent’s Submissions dated 4 February 2022 at [62].

[23]  Statement to Blue Card Services dated 20 January 2020 (BCS-43).

[24]  Annexure E to the Applicant’s Statement of Evidence filed 2 June 2021 (Exhibit 1).

[25]  Annexure D to the Applicant’s Statement of Evidence filed 2 June 2021 (Exhibit 1).

[26]  Annexure F to the Applicant’s Statement of Evidence filed 2 June 2021 (Exhibit 1).

[27]  [2020] QCAT 332.

[28] JR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 332 at [38] citing JA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 251, [49].

[29]  [2011] QCATA 87.

[30]  Ibid at [52] citing Re TAA [2006] QCST 11 [97].

[31]  Submissions filed 4 February 2022, at paragraphs 44 and 45.

[32] DL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 61, [54].

[33]  [2021] QCAT 140 at [28] and [30].

[34] YR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 139 at [23] per Member Hughes.

[35] JA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 215 at [48]-[50].

[36] JR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 332

[37] Lister, at [60] citing Queensland Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 14 November 2000, 4391, (Anna Bligh).

[38] Peri v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 56, [49], citing with approval Re TAA [2006] QCST 11.

[39] CW v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 219, [67]

[40]  Section 13(2)(b), Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

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

  • Shortened Case Name:

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

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCAT 214

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Lember

  • Date:

    09 Jun 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
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 180 ALR 593
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 180 ALR 593
Cite 2 - (2001) 180 ALR 593
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 3 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 4 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 5 - [2011] QCATA 87
CW v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 219
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 219
DL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 61
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 61
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 61
JA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 251
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 251
JR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 332
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 332
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 332
Cite 3 - [2020] QCAT 332
K v Cullen (1994) 126 ALR 38
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1994) 126 ALR 38
LB v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 140
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 140
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 140
McKee -v- McKee (1951) AC 352
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1951) AC 352
Cite 2 - (1951) AC 352
Peri v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 56
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 56
Perry and Browns Patents (1930) 48 RPC 200
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1930) 48 RPC 200
Cite 2 - (1930) 48 RPC 200
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GK [2015] QCAT 215
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 215
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 215
Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd's Patent Extension Petitions (1983) VR 1
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1983) VR 1
Cite 2 - (1983) VR 1
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11
YR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 139
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 139
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 139

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.