Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2022
  4. AA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2022] QCAT 443

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

AA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2022] QCAT 443

AA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2022] QCAT 443

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

AA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 443

PARTIES:

AA

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML161-20

MATTER TYPE:

Children’s matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2022

HEARING DATES:

10 May 2021 and 15 October 2021.

HEARD AT:

Cairns

DECISION OF:

Member Stepniak

ORDERS:

  1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the applicant’s case is not “exceptional” within the meaning of s 225 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.
  1. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the publication of any statements, documents or other materials relating to these proceedings is prohibited to the extent that such could identify or lead to the identification of the applicant, any child, witness, or third party in these proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

CHILDREN’S MATTER – BLUE CARD – where applied for blue card - where issued a negative notice – where convicted of offences including a ‘serious offence’ – where applied for negative notice to be cancelled – where decision not to cancel negative notice – where seeks review of decision to not cancel negative notice – whether an ‘exceptional case’

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT – BLUE CARD SCREENING – where deciding whether an ‘exceptional case’– where as a public entity tribunal required to make decisions compatible with human rights and to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision – where decision limits certain human rights – whether decision that not an ‘exceptional case’ compatible with human rights.

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) ss 355, 411, 414, 419, 421.

Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986.

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ss 4, 8, 9, 13, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 34, 58.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 66, 90.

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 5, 6, 15, 167, 168, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 228 229, 311, 318, 319, 335, 337, 338, 360; Chapter 9, Part 1 Division 9; Schedules 2; Schedule 4; Schedule 7.

Briginshaw v Briginshaw & Anor [1938] HCA 34

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303

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

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

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

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

HF [2020] QCAT 482

JF [20220] QCAT 419.

Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98.

LCA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2017] QCAT 244.

Luang v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2019] QCAT 302.

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh [1995]

PJB v Melbourne Health & Anor (Patrick’s Case) [2011] VCS 32.

Re FAA [2006] QCST 15.

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

RPG v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331.

TNC Chief Executive Officer, and Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489.

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

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self represented.

Respondent:

Mr David Taylor, Legal Officer, representing Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    AA (“the Applicant”) is a 34-year-old man of Torres Strait Islander background. He lives with his partner TK, and TH, his daughter from an earlier relationship. He has two other daughters from previous relationships with AB.
  2. [2]
    The Applicant was brought up as one of 11 children. He recounts his parents’ unstable relationship, domestic violence, alcohol abuse and long absences by his father.[1]
  3. [3]
    In high school he and fellow students committed crimes and were apprehended on a number of occasions. In May 2003, aged 15, the Adult committed and was later convicted of attempted robbery with actual violence and in company, the most serious of his juvenile offences. He was placed on probation for 6 months.
  4. [4]
    Although he was expelled from high school, he enrolled at TAFE in 2003, and completed years 11 and 12.
  5. [5]
    Over the next few years, he describes his life as being ‘a mess’,[2] as he moved between ‘trouble’ in Cairns and fruit picking in Bowen.
  6. [6]
    The Applicant’s daughter, TH was born in June 2008, during his 2-year relationship with AH. The Adult states that he and AH argued a lot but that their arguments never became physical.[3] However, the volatility of this relationship and concerns for the welfare of the child elicited the interest of the Department of Child Safety and led to a provisional protection order being issued under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989.[4] The Applicant says that he ‘couldn’t cope with the responsibility of raising a family and feeling “trapped”’[5] and would ‘drink alcohol and smoke drugs to escape reality’.
  7. [7]
    When he was 21, and only 7 months after the birth of his daughter, the Applicant says, he ‘hit rock bottom’. While on a ‘bender of drinking and drug use’ over a number of days in January 2001, he committed and pleaded guilty to, enter premises and commit an indictable offence and to deprivation of liberty, particularly serious offences, and a focal point of this review. He continues to say that he [does] not remember ‘taking any part in the nightmare that occurred that Night.’[6] He pleaded guilty to avoid going to trial on even more serious charges, and was sentence to 18 months imprisonment and served 9 months in a correctional centre.
  8. [8]
    Upon his release he returned to live with AH and their child TH but soon left to work on Thursday Island. Over the next four years the Applicant and AH shared the care of their daughter TH.
  9. [9]
    In August 2013 the Adult says he let his guard down,[7] and committed a serious offence. He was convicted of Assault occasioning bodily harm and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
  10. [10]
    In 2012 the Applicant met AB, who in March 2015 gave birth to WB, his second daughter in March 2015.
  11. [11]
    Later in 2015, the Applicant commenced a new relationship with TD, a single mother. This relationship lasted for 2 years.
  12. [12]
    While on Thursday Island in 2018, the Applicant attempted a reconciliation with AB, the mother of his second daughter, WB, during which the Adult’s third daughter CB was conceived. She was born in July 2019.
  13. [13]
    ‘Later in 2018’, the Adult met TK, his current partner, a single mother of four other biological children, and a long-term foster carer.
  14. [14]
    In order to be permitted to live as an adult member of a foster carer’s household, the Applicant applied for a working with children clearance and blue card from blue card services.
  15. [15]
    The Adult had previously been denied a blue card. On 21 November 2013, in response to his application by the Adult, the Applicant was issued a negative notice denying him a blue card. In the reasons for issuing the negative notice, the Executive Director notes that the Applicant had been invited to, but had not lodged any submissions or references to support his application.[8]
  16. [16]
    On the 14 March 2019, the Applicant lodged an application for a blue card as an adult member of an approved carer’s household,[9] which in view of the negative notice issued in 2013, was an application to cancel the negative notice. 
  17. [17]
    In the course of assessing the Adult’s eligibility to be issued a blue card, the outcome of a National Police Check Results Report dated 1 April 2019 disclosed an updated criminal history, that concerned Blue Card Services.[10]
  18. [18]
    As required by the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (‘WWC Act’), in proposing to issue the Applicant with a negative notice, the Respondent was required to invite the Applicant to make submissions on whether he should be issued a working with children clearance and blue card,[11] or more specifically, as discussed below, ‘whether or not there is an exceptional case.’[12]
  19. [19]
    The Applicant provided a statement, [13] as did his partner, TK.[14] References were also submitted by OS[15] and MT[16] who knew the Applicant through a Rugby Club.
  20. [20]
    Considering all relevant available information, the Respondent reassessed the Applicant’s eligibility to be issued a working with children clearance and blue card.  In the decision, dated 18 March 2020, the Respondent refused to cancel the negative notice and provided the Applicant with reasons for the decision and other relevant information.[17]
  21. [21]
    On 20 April 2020 the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) received an application seeking the ‘cancellation of a negative notice’ and asking the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to review the Respondent’s decision that the Applicant’s case ‘is not an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the executive to issue a working with children clearance to the [Applicant]’.[18]
  22. [22]
    The hearing of this review was conducted on 10 May 2021 and 15 October 2021.

The Relevant Law

  1. [23]
    The Tribunal is required to undertake this review in accordance with the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (‘WWC Act’) and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2019 (‘QCAT Act’)[19] The decision under review was made under the WWC Act, and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions made under that Act (‘reviewable decisions’)[20] is conferred on the Tribunal by the WWC Act (the ‘enabling Act’). [21] 
  2. [24]
    The List of the WWC Act’s reviewable decisions includes the decision, ‘whether or not there is an exceptional case for the person, if because of the decision … [the Respondent] refused to cancel a negative notice’.[22]
  3. [25]
    The WWC Act provides that a person in respect of whom such a decision was made may apply to the Tribunal for a review of such a reviewable decision.[23]
  4. [26]
    This review is not an appeal of the earlier decision by Blue Card Services. Instead, the QCAT Act provides that in such a review the Tribunal ‘has all the functions of the decision-maker for the decision being reviewed’,[24] and ‘must hear and decide a review of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.’[25] The Tribunal is to take on the role of the earlier decision maker ‘to produce the correct and preferable decision’.[26]
  5. [27]
    In a ‘fresh hearing on the merits’, the Tribunal considers not only the evidence available at the time of the initial review, but also any additional or more recent evidence relevant to the Tribunal’s review of the reviewable decision.[27]

What Makes a Case ‘Exceptional’?

  1. [28]
    The application, filed on 28 April 2020, asks the Tribunal to review the Respondent’s decision that the Applicant’s case, ‘is not an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance’.[28]
  2. [29]
    As outlined below. the WWC Act provides that in a case such as the Applicant’s, where the decision maker is aware of a conviction for an offence that for the purposes of the WWC Act constitutes a ‘serious offence’,[29] the decision maker, ‘must issue a negative notice’.[30] However, if the decision-maker is satisfied that the case is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interest of children for the respondent to issue a working with children clearance, the Respondent, or on review the Tribunal, must issue a ‘working with children clearance’.[31] As the Respondent was satisfied that the Applicant’s case was not an ‘exceptional case,’ the Respondent was required to issue a negative notice.
  3. [30]
    Consequently, the role of the Tribunal is to determine whether it is satisfied that for the purposes of the WWC Act, the Applicant’s case is ‘an exceptional case’.
  4. [31]
    The WWC Act restricts the decision maker’s decision options.[32] The Tribunal can only either confirm the Respondent’s decision that the case is not an exceptional case (in which case, the Tribunal would affirm the Respondent’s decision that the Applicant is to be issued a negative notice), or it can find that the case is exceptional, set aside the Respondent’s decision and substitute its own decision that the case is an exceptional case.[33]
  5. [32]
    As the WWC Act does not define the meaning of ‘exceptional case’, the term must be given its ordinary meaning but within the context of the Act. As Justice Hedigan states in Kent v Wilson, the determination of the meaning of ‘exceptional case’ calls for a consideration of ‘the context of the legislation… the intent and purpose of the legislation and the interests of the persons whom it is designed to protect’.[34] 
  6. [33]
    Determining what renders a case exceptional is clearly assisted by the express object of the WWC Act, as set out in section 5(b) –

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. (b)
    the screening of persons employed in particular employment or carrying on particular business.[35]
  1. [34]
    Also of assistance is section 6 of the WWC Act, which sets out the following principles under which the Act is to be administered—
  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.[36]
  1. [35]
    The Part of the WWC Act that specifically addresses ‘QCAT Proceedings About Child Related Employment Review’[37], reiterates the principle set out in section 6(a), by stating, ‘A child-related employment decision is to be reviewed under the principle that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount’. [38]
  2. [36]
    Chapter 8, Part 4, Division 9 of the WWC Act is concerned with deciding applications seeking a working with children clearance, which is required for the issuing of a blue card. In this Division the Act specifies the circumstances in which notices of approval or refusal are to be issued[39] and how in certain cases approval or refusal is to be decided.[40]
  3. [37]
    Whether a case falls into a particular category, which in this case is, ‘where the decision maker is aware the person ‘has been convicted of a serious offence,’[41] the decision-maker must issue a negative notice. An exceptional case in this category of cases would be one where the decision maker, is satisfied that ‘it would not harm the best interest of children for the [decision maker] to issue a working with children clearance, rather than the negative notice otherwise required to be issued in this category of cases.[42]
  4. [38]
    It could be said that for this case to be exceptional it must rebut the presumption or be an exception to the expectation that a case containing a conviction for a ‘serious offence’ requires a negative notice to be issued in order to protect the best interests of children.
  5. [39]
    What constitutes an exceptional case clearly needs to be decided on its own facts, or as a ‘question of fact and degree in the whole of the circumstances of each particular case’.[43]
  6. [40]
    Ultimately, whether the Applicant’s case is an ‘exceptional case’ is for the Tribunal to determine, weighing the evidence presented by the parties, and reaching a decision on the balance of probability, while bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved.[44]
  7. [41]
    While such determinations have also been described as ‘matters of discretion,’[45] the decision maker’s discretion is not unfettered.
  8. [42]
    Apart from the considerations addressed above, the WWC Act provides the decision maker with a detailed mandatory guide and check list of considerations in accord with which to determine whether a particular case is exceptional.

Specific Factors that a Decision Maker Must Consider in Deciding Whether a Case is an ‘Exceptional Case’

  1. [43]
    Section 226 of the WWC Act provides that ‘where the decision maker is aware that the person has been convicted of, or charged with, an offence’ the decision maker must have regard to the following specific factors in deciding whether or not the Applicant’s case is an exceptional case.

First: Whether it is a conviction or a charge.[46]

  1. [44]
    The WWC Act defines a conviction as—

A finding of guilt by a court, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court, whether or not a conviction is recorded.[47]

  1. [45]
    The Applicant’s criminal history as at 1 April 2019, provided to the Respondent by the Queensland Police Service[48] reveals a history of offences dating back to 2000.
  2. [46]
    The vast majority of the Applicant ‘s offences were committed between August 2000 and March 2014. As a child appearing before the Cairns Children’s Court, the Applicant was convicted of 22 offences.
  3. [47]
    As an Adult, the Applicant has been convicted of a further six offences.
  4. [48]
    The Applicant also pleaded guilty, to an unknown number of charges, including the 2003 attempted robbery and the 2009 deprivation of liberty – unlawfully detain, constitute.
  5. [49]
    However, the WWC Act defines ‘conviction’ as ‘a finding of guilt by a court, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court, whether or not a conviction is recorded.’[49]
  6. [50]
    Consequently, all of the charges for which the Applicant was found guilty or pleaded guilty irrespective of whether are considered to be convictions for the purpose of the WWC Act, even if the conviction is not recorded.  
  7. [51]
    The Applicant had also been charged with several offences that did not proceed to trial or were withdrawn by the prosecution. One such charge against the Applicant as a juvenile was dismissed on ‘no evidence to offer’. As an Adult, two further charges did not proceed to trial as a nolle prosequi was entered, and a third charge was dismissed on the basis of a ‘no evidence to offer’.
  8. [52]
    Irrespective of not being tested in court, for the purposes of the WWC Act ‘a charge on an offence’ is required to be considered.[50] 
  9. [53]
    The reason why the Tribunal is required to take into account not only convictions but also charges is that the Tribunal is not concerned with criminal liability but rather with all evidence relevant to determining an Applicant’s suitability to work with children. Nevertheless, the distinction between a conviction and a charge may be significant, particularly because as the facts on which a charge is based remain untested, and must therefore be accorded the appropriate evidentiary weight.

Second: Whether the offence is a ‘serious offence, and if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence’. [51]

  1. [54]
    A disqualifying offence is defined in s 16(a) of the WWC Act as
  1. (a)
    an offence against a provision of an Act mentioned in schedule 4 or 5, column 1, subject to any qualification relating to the provision mentioned opposite in column 3…
  1. [55]
    None of the Applicants convictions are for offences classified as ‘serious offences.
  2. [56]
    What constitutes a ‘serious offence’ is defined in Section 15(1) of the WWC Act, as— 
  1. (a)
    an offence against a provision of an Act mentioned in schedule 2 or 3, column 1, subject to any qualification relating to the provision mentioned opposite in column 3; or……
  1. (c)
    an offence of attempting, or of conspiring, to commit an offence of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a); or…….

Attempted robbery

  1. [57]
    The Applicant was convicted of the offence of, attempted robbery - actual violence and in company.
  2. [58]
    While ‘attempted robbery’ is not listed as a serious offence in schedule two or three, of the WWC Act, ‘robbery’ is listed as a serious offence, but ‘only if the offender was or could have been liable as mentioned in section 411(2)’.[52]
  3. [59]
    The following factors listed in s 411(2) increase the penalty for committing robbery from imprisonment for 14 years to imprisonment for life.
  1. (1)
    Any person who commits the crime of robbery is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
  1. (2)
    If the offender is or pretends to be armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument, or is in company with 1 or more other person or persons, or if, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery, the offender wounds or uses any other personal violence to any person, the offender is liable to imprisonment for life.
  1. [60]
    Even though attempted robbery is not directly mentioned, it may be a serious offence if it qualifies as ‘an offence of attempting, or of conspiring, to commit an offence of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a).[53]
  2. [61]
    As its name suggests, attempted robbery qualifies as an offence of attempting to commit robbery, an offence mentioned in paragraph (a)
  3. [62]
    However, robbery as qualified by section 414(2) is quite distinct from robbery, as its significantly higher maximum penalty is significantly higher. Consequently, I must consider whether the Applicant’s conviction for attempted robbery - actual violence and in company qualifies as an offence of attempting to commit robbery as qualified for the purposes of being schedule 2 of the WWC Act.
  4. [63]
    The Applicant was found not only to have attempted robbery, but to have attempted robbery with actual violence and committed the robbery in company. The commission of robbery in company increases the penalty from 7 years to 14 years imprisonment.
  5. [64]
    On that basis I find that the Applicant’s offence of attempted robbery qualifies as a ‘serious offence’ for the purposes of the - actual violence and in company is an offence of attempting to commit robbery, an offence listed in schedule 2 or 3 of column 1 as qualified by column 3.

Burglary

  1. [65]
    The Applicant was originally charged with and pleaded guilty to, Deprivation of Liberty.[54]

Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other person’s will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other person’s personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

  1. [66]
    He was also charged with a significantly more serious offence of ‘enter dwelling with intent by break at night uses/threatens violence whilst armed.’ [55]
  2. [67]
    The ‘enter dwelling with intent’ elements of the offence appear to correspond with those of the crime of Burglary set out in section 419(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899(Qld) (‘CC Act’)—
  1. (1)
    Any person who enters or is in the dwelling of another with intent to commit an indictable offence in the dwelling commits a crime.

Maximum penalty—14 years imprisonment.

  1. [68]
    Burglary is listed as a serious offence in schedule 2 of the WWC Act. However, the corresponding schedule 2, column 3 entry states that the offence of burglary will constitute a ‘serious offence’ ‘only if an offender was or could have been liable as mentioned in section 419(3)(b)(i) of the CC Act.
  1. (2)
    If the offender enters the dwelling by means of any break, he or she is liable to imprisonment for life.
  1. (3)
    If—
  1. (a)
    the offence is committed in the night; or
  1. (b)
    the offender—
  1. (i)
    uses or threatens to use actual violence; or
  1. (ii)
    is or pretends to be armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon, instrument or noxious substance…

the offender is liable to imprisonment for life.

  1. [69]
    The additional elements of the Applicant’s offence satisfy the additional requirements of section 419(3)(b)(i) or (ii) of the WWC Act requirements, making the Applicant ‘liable to imprisonment for life.’
  2. [70]
    If convicted of this offence by up to imprisonment Applicant’s charge would have amounted to an offence punishable for life. On legal advice he agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of ‘enter premises and commit indictable offence’ which only exposed him to a possible maximum 14 years of imprisonment. Sectional 421 (2) of the CC Act reads—
  1. (2)
    Any person who enters or is in any premises and commits an indictable offence in the premises commits a crime.

Maximum penalty—14 years imprisonment.

  1. [71]
    Had the Applicant has been convicted of an offence classified by the WWC Act as a serious offence, the Tribunal’s role would be as set out above for the Applicant’s offence of attempted robbery. However, the issuing of a negative notice, and only in exceptional cases, a working with children clearance is reserved for those who have been ‘convicted of a serious offence’.[56] Nevertheless there is a relevance to the Applicant being charged with a serious offence. The Tribunal is specifically required to consider whether an offence is a serious offence.[57]  It is also required to consider the nature of the offence.[58] As discussed below, the Tribunal may also find relevance in a consideration of evidence offering an explanation for why the charge was withdrawn.
  2. [72]
    If none of the Applicant’s offences were serious offences the Tribunal would be required to issue a working with children clearance.[59] However, if the Tribunal was satisfied the case was an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children to issue a working with children clearance, it would be required to issue a negative notice.[60]
  3. [73]
    While the WWC Act distinguishes between offences deemed particularly serious in the context of WWC Act, it is clear that all offences including those falling outside of these categories and including charges to be considered by the decision maker.

Third: When the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed.[61]

  1. [74]
    According to the Applicant’s criminal history, in 2000, the Applicant was convicted of his first office, ‘Stealing’ when he was 12 years of age. The Applicant committed his most recent recorded offence, contravene direction or requirement, in 2019 
  2. [75]
    Offences committed between 2000 and 2004 were dealt with by the Cairns Children’s Court. According to police records, when aged 12 and 13 in 2000, the Applicant committed four offences – stealing, common assault and two offences of possessing tainted property.
  3. [76]
    He committed a further six offences in 2002, stealing, possessing tainted property, unlawful entry of vehicle with intent to commit an indictable offence, enter premises and commit an indictable offence, and trespass. He was also charged with but not convicted of attempt to enter or in premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and break, as no evidence was presented.
  4. [77]
    In 2003, now aged 15 and 16, the Applicant was convicted of three charges of possessing tainted property, entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, three charges of wilful destruction of property, two charges of attempted robbery actual violence in company and two charges of trespass. These were the most serious offences committed by the Applicant as a juvenile, as they involved him in a planned crimes in company and resorting to violence.
  5. [78]
    The only recorded offence committed by the Applicant in 2004 was unauthorised dealing with shop goods committed on 19 March 2004.
  6. [79]
    No offences are recorded between March 2004 until 11 January 2009 when at the age of 21, the Applicant committed a number of offences that are particularly significant in this review. He was convicted of entering premises and committing an indictable offence, and Deprivation of liberty – unlawfully detain/confine.  While a nolle prosequi was entered, he was also charged with allegedly committing the offences of, enter dwelling with intent by break at night uses/threatens violence whilst armed. These offences carried lengthy jail sentences and were avoided by the Applicant in large measure due to the Court not being aware of his spent but extensive criminal record.
  7. [80]
    In 2011 the Applicant committed the offence of, fail to stop motor vehicle.
  8. [81]
    At the aged of 25, in 2013 the Applicant was charged with stealing but was not convicted as the prosecution had no evidence to offer. However, he was convicted of two offences emanating from a particularly troubling incident on 21 August 2013, namely, assault occasioning bodily harm, and wilful damages.
  9. [82]
    The most recent recorded criminal offence committed by the Applicant was, contravene direction or requirement, on 30 December 2018.
  10. [83]
    The WWC Act requires the Tribunal to consider all offences including those committed or alleged to have been committed a long time ago. While the significance of past offences may be determined by other factors required to be taken into account, when an offence was committed also has a role to play in determining whether a case is an exceptional case.
  11. [84]
    By having regard to, ‘when the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed’[62] the decision maker is able to draw some inferences as to the relevance and significance of each of the prescribed considerations. In tandem with other considerations the Tribunal may conclude that a past offence is highly significant or alternatively of little, if any, significance. 
  12. [85]
    The timing of an offence or alleged offence may also reveal a pattern of behaviour, the role of circumstances, or other factors relevant to the determination of whether the case is an exceptional case.
  13. [86]
    The Applicant’s earliest offences were committed 22 years ago and the most recent three years ago.
  14. [87]
    With regard to the earliest offences, including those committed when the Applicant was a teenager, it could be said that they are distinguishable in that they occurred when he was younger and yet to acquire the judgment and maturity to know better. Similarly, it could also be said that older offences may be viewed as something the Applicant may have once done, but due to the passage of time would not do again.
  15. [88]
    The significance of the earliest offences may, but should not, without closer analysis, be presumed to diminish with time. They may, for example, be significant in helping identify a pattern of behaviour.
  16. [89]
    Not only are the Applicant’s earliest offences very old, they also span a period of at least 18 years. For that reason, their timing could also be said to indicate established traits, attitudes and behaviours that continue to be of concern.
  17. [90]
    Recent offences, on the other hand may suggest that little has changed in that insufficient time has passed for the Applicant to gain the insight and understanding required to minimise ongoing risks. 
  18. [91]
    The Applicant has emphasised that he now leads a different life and hasn’t committed any serious offences for a number of years. However, even if the 2019 conviction were to be considered of little relevance, a period without offending is not conclusive proof of an absence of a risk.  As the Appeal Tribunal held in Lister,[63] ‘the passage of time without further offending, of itself, is not conclusive that the risk of harm to children is reduced.’[64]
  19. [92]
    While each offender and the nature of their offences must be assessed individually to determine the relevance of the timing of their offences what would normally be expected of someone who had committed a ‘serious offence’ is that they will have not reoffended and that they will have acquired some insight and understanding into what they have done and how it impacts others.
  20. [93]
    In this case, in view of the extreme nature of the offences, in order to ‘rebut the presumption’ that a negative notice must be issued, significantly more is required if the Tribunal is to be satisfied that this is a case ‘in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance.’
  21. [94]
    Evidence as to reoffending, remorse, insight gained into triggers of such behaviour and an understanding of the impact of the behaviour on the community and children, commensurate with the gravity of the offences, may provide some guide as to whether the initially presumed risk has been sufficiently addressed.

Fourth: The nature of the offence…and its relevance to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children.[65]

  1. [95]
    Between 2000 and 2004 the Applicant was convicted of 22 offences by the Cairns Children’s Court. Most of the offences were minor and were punished by orders of community service or probation. With the exception of the very first offence of stealing, no convictions were recorded. This period also reveals an escalating criminality, both numerically and in the seriousness of the offences committed.
  2. [96]
    In 2000, the Applicant was convicted of, stealing, and common assault. In 2001 the Applicant was convicted of two counts of possess property that may reasonably be suspected of being tainted property.
  3. [97]
    In 2002, the Applicant was convicted of stealing, possessing property that may reasonably be suspected of being tainted property, unlawful entry of vehicle with intent to commit indictable offence, enter or in premises and commit an indictable offence and break, and trespass and stealing.
  4. [98]
    Only one of the Applicant’s 2000-4 offences is a charge rather than a conviction. In 2002 the Applicant was charged with attempt to enter or in premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and break, but the charge was dismissed on the basis of a no evidence to offer.
  5. [99]
    In 2004, the Applicant was convicted of 13 offences –possess tainted property, four counts of enter or in premises and commit an indicatable offence and break, wilful damage, wilful damage of property, attempted robbery- actual violence and in company, two counts of trespass and unauthorised dealing with shop goods.
  6. [100]
    What is discernible from that period of offending is both the frequency of offending and the increase in the seriousness of the offending.
  7. [101]
    Most of the offences were property offences such as stealing and possession of tainted property. However, by the age of 14, the Applicant began engaging in break and enter into premises offences including in May of 2002, unlawful entry of vehicle with intent to commit indictable offence.
  8. [102]
    Perhaps the most serious and concerning of the offences heard by the Children’s Court took place on 5 May 2003, when the Applicant committed and was later convicted of attempted robbery with actual violence and in company.
  9. [103]
    According to the Police Court Brief[66], Police were informed of ‘several male persons attempting to forcefully gain entry to the complainant’s store’. On arrival, police were informed that just prior to the store closing, the complainant and two other witnesses were engaged in, ‘end of shift cleaning duties’ at the rear of the store. While one of them remained inside the store, and the other two other witnesses were taking bread out of the store into the rear access area, three juveniles ran toward them from a side alley, with one of the juveniles holding a white metal pole in his hand. While trying to run away from the juveniles a witness twisted her ankle and fell. While she was on the ground, she was hit in the buttocks by the juvenile with the metal pole. The juveniles attempted to enter the store by the back door. When one of the witnesses blocked their way she was kicked in the stomach. All the witnesses managed to entered the store and locked the door but the juveniles continued to attempt to enter the premises by kicking the door. A few minutes later the witnesses heard glass breaking.
  10. [104]
    The complainant found that her car, which had been parked behind the shop, had its front passenger window smashed and a large rock on the floor of the vehicle.
  11. [105]
    Police apprehended two of the offenders, one of whom was the Applicant. When interviewed by the police the following day, the Applicant confirmed that he and the two other males met 15 minutes prior to the above events to ‘discuss their plans to break into the takeaway store and steal some money’. He also admitted that they hid and waited for the store to close and that they were willing to challenge and use force on any person to gain access to the rear entry door of the store. However, the Applicant denied hitting the witness on the ground or kicking the other witness in the doorway.
  12. [106]
    When interviewed about the breaking of the car window, the Applicant admitted to helping smash the window of the car by picking up a rock and handing it to one of the other juveniles, who threw the rock smashing the window.
  13. [107]
    With respect to both of the offences, the police state that the Applicant knew that what he did was wrong, but ‘did not appear remorseful for his actions.’ When asked why he was involved in breaking the car window, the Applicant told police that he did it ‘because he was frustrated with not being able to enter the store’.[67]
  14. [108]
    On the first day of the hearing, the Applicant was cross examined about this crime. He doubted that one of the witnesses had been kicked in the stomach, but accepted that it occurred ‘if it says that’ in the police brief.
  15. [109]
    He agreed that he was not remorseful at the time and but added that he has shown remorse since.
  16. [110]
    The relevance of the juvenile offences, is that their number and frequency made them a part of the Applicant’s life. His lack of remorse and apparent lack of care for those affected by his actions apparently became entrenched during his formative years.
  17. [111]
    He was in high school when his most serious offences were committed. He says that it was his school mates who influenced him and that in trying to impress them he ‘started getting into trouble with the law’. He apparently became addicted to the thrill of committing crimes, noting, ‘The adrenaline rush always felt good’.
  18. [112]
    I note that it was being taken home after being detained by police that he says scared him as, ‘I would get a beating from my father and my older siblings.’ In his life story he also mentions being very strong willed and always into mischief, and his father being violent towards other members of the family.
  19. [113]
    When considered in the light domestic violence in the family which included his father being violent with his mother and siblings, it may explain the Applicant’s willingness to resort to violence in adulthood.
  20. [114]
    After completing year 12 at TAFE, the Applicant says he survived on his own, getting into trouble in Cairns and working on a relative’s farm in Bowen.
  21. [115]
    When he was twenty years of age, he began a relationship with AH which he describes as ‘easy going…we would stay up all night drinking and eating.’ Their daughter TH was born in June 2008 and their relationship began to deteriorate. He says ‘We would argue a lot and I would leave her at home with our daughter while I met with mates and would constantly drink and party.’ He says that he was never physical in his arguments with AH, ‘I learnt from my father’s actions and seeing my mother beaten as in pain that I would never raise a hand to a woman.’
  22. [116]
    He states that he and AH would ‘argue every day. I wanted out’. He would ‘drink alcohol and smoke drugs to escape reality.’ It was a ‘bender of drinking and drug abuse’ that set the scene for the Applicant’s most reprehensible offence.
  23. [117]
    In 2009, when 20 years of age, the Applicant appeared before the Cairns District Court and was convicted of two offences, deprivation of liberty – unlawfully detain/confine, and of entering premises and committing an indictable offence.
  24. [118]
    On legal advice he pleaded guilty. The plea enabled him to avoid going to trial on the original charge of, intent by break at night uses/threatens violence whilst armed, and with deprivation of liberty unlawfully detain/confine, which carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Under cross examination the Applicant accepted that he had a knife during with him at the time, an element that would make him liable for the offence with which he was initially charged.
  25. [119]
    According to the police brief of facts,[68] around 3 am on 11 January 2009 a mother was sleeping in her bedroom, with her one-year-old child in the bed with her. She woke to find the Applicant kneeling across her on the bed. He had a t-shirt wrapped around across his face and held a knife against her neck.
  26. [120]
    When she started screaming the Applicant told her to, ‘Shut up, I’ve come to kill you…I’ve got to kill you.’ When the baby began to cry, he said, ‘Shut that baby up or I’ll cut it up.’
  27. [121]
    She struggled with the Applicant and removed the t-short from his face. She recognised him as a neighbour from an apartment on a lower level.
  28. [122]
    She managed to free herself, picked up the baby and ran outside attracting the attention of neighbours. They saw the Applicant walk down the stairs. Not long after police located him at his mother’s address. He told police that he had no recollection of the events and declined to be interviewed.
  29. [123]
    Much of what needs to be said about the Applicant’s reprehensible conduct was expressed by District Court Judge Everson, and summarised below in addressing the reasons why the penalties were imposed. Perhaps most concerning is the Applicant’s lack of remorse and concern for the effect of the events on the mother and child. When cross-examined about who was affected by his actions, the Applicant said that it had ruined his life. Prompted further, he mentioned his partner, friends, family, and work colleagues. When asked, ‘What about the mother and the child being exposed to risk of harm?’ he grudgingly replied, yes.’
  30. [124]
    It is difficult to accept that having committed such a brazen crime and having the calculated awareness to go to his mother’s house and decline to cooperate with the police, that the Applicant would have no recollection of what had occurred.
  31. [125]
    The elements of this crime are not the elements of a crime committed out of character by someone who due to a crumbling relationship has drunk too much. Instead they expose seemingly entrenched traits, lacking in care and respect for strangers and responsibility for his own actions. In the statements written in the course of this and the previous application, the Applicant’s references to this event are largely confined to regrets his actions have had on his life.
  32. [126]
    In 2011 the Applicant was convicted of failing to stop a motor vehicle. In 2013 he was charged with stealing, but the charge was dismissed on no evidence to offer.
  33. [127]
    In November 2013 he was also convicted of two further offences, another assault occasioning bodily harm and wilful damage.
  34. [128]
    Having become intoxicated in town, the Applicant, in the company of his brother and cousin, took a taxi cab to take them to his mother’s house. On the way, the Applicant asked the driver to pull over but vomited in the cab before he could do so. An argument ensued regarding the payment for the cleaning of the cab. In the subsequent altercation with the driver, the Applicant says the car were damaged. According to the police brief of facts, the Applicant assaulted the driver by pushing him over and tearing his turban off his head. He also caused wilful damage by grabbing the driver’s mobile phone from his hand and throwing it to the ground. Corrective Service documents suggests that the Applicant chased the taxi driver down the street ‘banged his head on the road several times, ‘kneed him in the groin’ and ‘punched him 6 or 7 times to the face and head.’[69]
  35. [129]
    The relevance of this offence to working with children is quite clear. The Applicant once again displayed his disrespect for the safety and rights of others. In cross examination, when asked to comment on the effect of his actions he mentioned his younger brother who was with him. Only when specifically asked, ‘What about the taxi-driver?’, he replied, ‘he was pretty shaken up as well’.
  36. [130]
    The Applicant’s account also appears to disclose a theme of blaming others, including, the driver ‘didn’t pull over quickly enough’, and ‘he refused to drive us back to my mum’s address’, ‘he refused to finalise the trip and kicked us out and called the police.’
  37. [131]
    The Applicant’s most recent offence occurred on 30 December 2018, when he was charged with contravening direction or requirement. This involved the applicant in giving a false name when pulled over for a random drug and alcohol test. He was charged with driving without a licence.
  38. [132]
    The Applicant’s traffic record is both extensive and notable. Since 2011, the Applicant has been charged with unlicenced driving, driving an unregistered vehicle, and driving with drugs in system. Yet, the Applicant did not hold a driver’s licence prior to obtaining his learner’s licence in August 2019.
  39. [133]
    That for a period of some 9 years, the Applicant has occasionally driven motor-vehicles, suggests a flagrant disregard for the law.
  40. [134]
    The nature of the Applicant’s offences is of great concern. They reveal straits of dishonesty, lack of respect and empathy for others, unwillingness to take responsibility for actions, and a callous disregard for the law. Perhaps of greatest concern, the Applicant’s responses to being confronted with the offences is for him to see them in terms of how they affect him rather than those who have been his victims.
  41. [135]
    Unless these traits and tendencies are shown to have been addressed and the Applicant has sufficient insight and supports to ensure that these behaviours and attitudes have been left in the past, it cannot be said that it would not harm the best interests of children for him to be issued a working with children clearance.

Fifth, the penalty imposed by the court, and if the court decided not to impose an imprisonment order, the court’s reasons for its decision.[70]

  1. [136]
    On 21 August 2009, the Applicant was sentenced for entering premisses and committing an indicatable offence. He had pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment. The maximum penalty was 14 years of imprisonment.
  2. [137]
    He also pleaded guilty to the offence of deprivation of liberty and sentenced to six months imprisonment.[71] The maximum penalty was 3 years imprisonment.
  3. [138]
    District Court Judge Everson was critical of the Applicant for declining to be interviewed by investigating police despite ‘the overwhelming case’ against him. In this regard the Judge observed that ‘the making of a true confession to police is a significant mitigating factor, which unfortunately was not present in this case.’ The Judge was also critical of the Applicant’s failure to initially plead guilty.
  4. [139]
    Judge Everson also commented on the likely effect of the Applicant’s actions on the victim. He stated, ‘one can only assume your threats upon waking her up in the early hours of the morning to kill her and cut her baby, coupled with the presence of the knife, were quite terrifying.’
  5. [140]
    However, the Judge took into account the Applicant’s plea of guilty at committal, and stated that it was to his credit that he had no criminal history.
  6. [141]
    The Judge also observed that on the basis of the character witnesses spoke of the Applicant’s good character, the Applicant’s lack of criminal record and the Applicant’s extreme intoxication at the time of offending, that ‘the offending was out of character.’ The Judge also observed that the Applicant’s ‘good work history’ was to his credit.
  7. [142]
    Due to the seriousness of the offence committed, and even taking into account the mitigating factors, the Judge held that ‘there is no reasonable alternative to a term of imprisonment.’  
  8. [143]
    In respect of enter a dwelling and commit an indicatable offence, the Applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. In respect of deprivation of liberty, the Applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment to be served concurrently.
  9. [144]
    In addition, the judge imposed a strict parole order.
  10. [145]
    The Judge’s closing remark appears to sum up how the Court perceived the Applicant’s offence—

What you’ve done is, quite frankly, disgraceful and disgusting. I’m giving you another chance here because you’re a young man who has promise. If you behave like an idiot again, you can start to expect to spend long periods in jail. Do you understand that? You’ve been out of trouble in the past so don’t behave like an idiot and jeopardise your future. You look after your de facto, you look after your child and you behave like an adult. Not like some sort of teenage hoodlum. Do you understand.

  1. [146]
    While the Judge did cite some mitigating factors, the relative leniency of the sentence appears to be largely attributable to the Applicant’s plea of guilty, lack of previous record, and that it seemed to be out of character and attributable excessive consumption of alcohol.
  2. [147]
    The Applicant’s lack of a criminal record appeared to be a key factor in the Judge’s sentencing. That the Judge was not aware of the Applicant’s extensive criminal history, is attributable to the Applicant’s prior convictions being not recorded and his one recorded also not appearing in his criminal history as it was ‘spent’ following the expiration of the rehabilitation period of five years as the Applicant had been dealt with as a child.[72]
  3. [148]
    In contrast to the sentencing Judge, the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 does not apply to the consideration of the Applicant’s criminal record in in matters concerning Regulated employment under the WWC Act.[73] Consequently, in these proceedings, the Applicant’s entire criminal history is available and able to be taken into account. 
  4. [149]
    Perhaps an even more compelling reason as to why this penalty does not reflect the seriousness of the offence relates to the already discussed guilty plea which enabled the Applicant to avoid a trial and possible conviction for an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
  5. [150]
    The Tribunal is unaware of the reasons why the courts imposed the particular penalties for the Applicant’s other convictions.  2013

Sixth, Information about the person received by the Respondent.[74]

  1. [151]
    The Tribunal is unaware of any information about the Applicant that has been was provided to the Chief Executive by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by Corrective Services under section 318 or 319 of the WWC Act.[75] No report about the Applicant’s mental health is known to have been given to the Chief Executive under section 335 of the WWC Act.[76] And, no information about the Applicant was to the Tribunal’s knowledge been given to the chief executive under sections 337 or 338 of the WWC Act by the Mental Health Court or the Mental Health Review Tribunal.[77]

Seventh, ‘Anything else relating to the commission of the offence that the [decision maker] reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person.[78]

Submissions References and Reports

AA

  1. [152]
    First I turn to the written and oral submissions of the Applicant As requested by the Tribunal the Applicant submitted a document titled, ‘My Life Story’ on 26 October 2020. In addition to what is recounted elsewhere he mentions the 9 months he spent in Lotus Glen Correctional Centre after pleading guilty to Burglary in 2009. He says he spent a further 9 months on parole and was ‘ordered to report to a PO every 2 weeks as well as attend AA and ATODS and I also did a ‘stepping up’ program.
  2. [153]
    The Applicant also mentions the 3 months jail he served for his 2013 conviction. Once again, he served 9 months parole and was ordered to attend AA and some ‘reconciliation courses.’ He states that, ‘It was after I was released from jail that I knew I had to change my lifestyle, people of influence and I did some self- help courses and engaged myself in the community.’
  3. [154]
    Regarding his interest in Rugby, he states that between 2014 and 2018 he continued to play Rugby for his club, and notes that he had been ‘chosen to represent FNQ rugby numerous times and have played all over our state.’ He adds, ‘I’m well known in Qld for my football talent.’
  4. [155]
    As to how he deals with issues that created problems in the past, he states ‘I now resort to using positive strategies to manage conflict and personal issues. Once I used to grab a beer, now I grab a basketball or hit the weights to relieve any negative feelings.’
  5. [156]
    With respect to losing his application to be re-issued a blue card, he notes that his partner TK had her foster children were taken away shortly after he was advised of the outcome of his application. Highlighting the effect on the foster children, he notes that one of TK’s foster children was hit by a car and suffers from a permanent impairment. He wants to be with his mum ‘TK’ as he is not receiving the emotional care he needs. The Applicants states, ‘If I had my blue card, he would be able to live back at home with us and receive the care he craves from being in a family with people who love him.’
  6. [157]
    Regarding his current partner TK, the Applicant observes that—

Since meeting [TK] I have a real sense of understanding how healthy relationships should be. Growing up, I realise now, the people in my life who should have been positive role models to me failed their duty. I did not see or live in a happy loving family unit. I lived with domestic violence, arguing, drinking, abuse. I wasn’t shown love, respect and positive healthy relationships….I have learnt that walking away from problems makes them bigger and causes more drama than just addressing it calmly.

  1. [158]
    Regarding raising children, he says has made him realise that his ‘actions and attitudes play a role in [children’s] lives and future.’
  2. [159]
    He also notes how not being able to retrieve his blue card has affected his working life, stating

I cannot get work that requires a police check. Even a simple lawn mowing job requires a police check. Without a blue card, this will eventually have long term effects on my personal life, my professional career, and my relationship with my partners foster children who I have strong connections to.

  1. [160]
    As to his previous excessive drinking and drug use, he states, ‘I have been drug-free since 2010. I have not been excessively intoxicated since 2013.’
  2. [161]
    He also says, ‘I now think before I act as my past actions have caused consequences that will haunt me forever.’
  3. [162]
    Although contradicted by the Protection Order naming him as respondent on 15 January 2009[79], discussed below, the Applicant states, I have never been in a domestic violent relationship, I have never raised my hand to my partner or my children. Not even as a form of discipline.’ As to violence, the Applicant states that he had not been ‘in any altercation since 2013. I have been physically attacked on and off the footy field but have chosen to walk away many times.’
  4. [163]
    Addressing the steps that he is taking to change his life, he refers to having,

sought counselling from a local pastor here in Cairns and in September 2020. I also completed a ‘fathers’ strengths’ evidence-based program through Mission Australia and the Rock Church. I have also completed modules 1-4 of the pre service foster care training course.

  1. [164]
    Regarding his future, the Applicant states—

I would love to become a foster carer and a youth worker and a football coach when I retire. I see kids these days with no hope and heading down the same road I took. I believe that I can make a difference in their lives before they end up taking the same path I took.

  1. [165]
    Under cross examination on 10 May 2021 the Applicant updated written evidence as to his domestic arrangement, noting that he now lived only with TK’s daughter SC.
  2. [166]
    When questioned about the 2003 incident in which he along with two other juveniles robbed a store armed with a metal pole with which he hit a witness who was on the ground and kicked a female in the stomach to gain access to the store. He questioned whether the female witness had been kicked in the stomach, but was prepared to accept that account if that’s what the police record stated. He also agreed that he had not been remorseful but added that he has shown remorse since.
  3. [167]
    With respect to the 2009 offences, he stated that he did not recollect them as he had been bingeing on alcohol and drugs for a couple of days.
  4. [168]
    When the Applicant was read the Judge’s sentencing remarks and asked whether he accepted them, he reluctantly accepted the statement. He also specifically accepted that he was in possession of a knife at the time of the incident.
  5. [169]
    When asked whether his actions exposed the mother and child to a risk of harm, he grudgingly said yes.
  6. [170]
    Questioned about the 2013 offences, he remembered having a few drinks but not whether he pleaded guilty. When asked whether having pulled the turban off the taxi driver’s head and hit his head against the ground a number of times, he had any regrets or remorse, he replied about the impact the act may have had on his brother.
  7. [171]
    When asked, what about the taxi driver, he replied, ‘he was pretty shaken as well’.
  8. [172]
    The Applicant was questioned about the December 2018 offence when he was pulled over for a Random alcohol and drug test and gave police a false name, he said he was embarrassed. He further noted that did not have any passengers and did not retaliate.
  9. [173]
    Regarding an unlicenced driving offence in 2019, he conceded that had put his children- passengers at risk.
  10. [174]
    The Applicant testified that he abstained from alcohol to now only drinking now and again, once or twice on weekends.
  11. [175]
    He stated that he had been drug free since 2010 and continues to maintain that his cousin had spiked his drink with drugs in 2013, when he was charged with drug driving. When asked in cross examination, the Applicant said aid he didn’t see the point in telling the police.
  12. [176]
    Questioned as to what he had learnt from participation in a 10-week Christian course, the Applicant replied, repenting, reducing and controlling anger
  13. [177]
    Asked what triggers to his problematic behaviour he had identified, he said it was because of his childhood.
  14. [178]
    He also mentioned that he wanted to be a better father, and ‘be himself’.
  15. [179]
    I turn to the written reference/reports and oral evidence of the Applicant’s witnesses.

AC

  1. [180]
    The first witness was AC, a counsellor and family therapist. She first met the Applicant some 12 months ago and had met with him over a three, or four-month period, with two further sessions since her report.
  2. [181]
    She was questioned about the extent to which the Applicant has insight into his offences and their impact on society.  She explained that he does not have full understanding, had not examined the consequences of his actions, did not feel sorry for his behaviours and has not displayed a lot of grief or remorse.
  3. [182]
    In AC’s view, the Applicant has started to understand the consequences of his actions. She conceded that there was room for further progress in his ability to show empathy to people.
  4. [183]
    AC also suggested that he had not examined, and only had a limited understanding of the effect of drugs and alcohol.
  5. [184]
    In conclusion AC stated that the Applicant was now in a much better place.

TK

  1. [185]
    In her reference dated 5 August 2019, TK states that she is 14 years older than [the Applicant] and has been in a relationship with him since 2018. She says that he has been upfront about his criminal history but that the details shocked her. She describes [the Applicant] as a ‘get up and go’ person to whom children flock.
  2. [186]
    She talks of ‘the Applicant’s interest in becoming an approved carer and household member and of her foster care children subsequently being removed.]’
  3. [187]
    She attests to [the Applicant] being—

a changed man from his criminal past’. She describes him as ‘a reliable, hardworking mature man. He is gentle and well mannered. He treats everyone with respect and kindness. I cannot fault him in any way.

  1. [188]
    As to the [the Applicant’s] alcohol consumption she states ‘he drinks rarely and doesn’t drink excessively. His limit will be 3-4 beers on any occasion.’
  2. [189]
    Regarding his parenting skills she notes that ‘he is aware what [the two young girls living with them at the time of the hearing] watching on tv and what they view on social media…and that the girls have a strict routine for chores and bedtime.’
  3. [190]
    Under cross-examination, TK admitted that she had not been aware of [the Applicant’s] negative notice until [the Applicant] received notice of the Refusal of Application to cancel a negative notice.
  4. [191]
    She stated that for the past 2 years she and the Applicant had been living with her daughter, SC, and earlier also with the Applicant’s daughter, TH. She said that she has nothing but positive things to say about his relationship with children.
  5. [192]
    Written references were also received from a number of people.

JC

  1. [193]
    The Adult also submitted a ‘Health Report’ from his counsellor JC. In his ‘counselling report’ titled, ‘Family Therapy Works’ and dated 26 January 2021, JC writes that he is aware of the Applicant’s criminal record, the purpose of current proceedings, that he has been provided with the reasons for the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice and that he has received the Tribunal’s directions regarding information sought.
  2. [194]
    JC outlines his qualifications as a counsellor and family therapist and notes that he has specialised in ‘helping men develop interpersonal skills by focusing on relationship strengths and weaknesses and by focusing on their individual identity. He says that he met the Applicant 3 months earlier in the Strengths program in which he was a facilitator and the Applicant a participant.
  3. [195]
    Following that program, he says that [the Applicant] contacted him for counselling and that they have had 9 counselling sessions to date. JC says that he is ‘confident that [the Applicant] has gained new insight into his past behaviours, personality and identity as he has engaged with the content, challenging his previous ideas about himself…’ He further notes that [the Applicant] has been ‘proactive in exploring deep issues in his life such as the hurt he feels from experiencing the effects of an absent father.’
  4. [196]
    JC reports that the [the Applicant] sees himself as a follower rather than a leader, and that this is how he ‘fell in with a bad group of peers that led him to go the wrong way.’ He further states that it wasn’t until the Applicant’s second jail sentence that he came to realise that ‘he needed to change his life.’
  5. [197]
    JC goes on to explain what [the Applicant] believes has changed his life. It is because, ‘he only seeks positive influences in his life now, changing his friends and developing better interpersonal skills as he endeavours to become a meaningful member in his community’
  6. [198]
    In JC’s view, ‘having formed limited parental guidance led [the Applicant] to make many poor decisions in his life.’ What in JC’s opinion, has changed is that, ‘now he feels more secure in his identity and especially in his current relationship.’
  7. [199]
    JC reports that when asked about his insight into offending behaviours and into their impact on society and children, [the Applicant relied. ‘If I could change it, I would but it’s all in the past now There’s nothing I can do. That’s why I did strengths and I’m doing counselling because I want to be a better man.’
  8. [200]
    JC also notes that when the [the Applicant] was asked about risk factors and triggers to offending behaviour, he spoke of lines he would not cross, concluding, ‘but really I don’t know’.
  9. [201]
    Written references were also provided by a number of former co-workers and three family members. Their evidence is untested by cross examination and consequently, as the Respondent urges, carries less evidentiary weight.
  10. [202]
    Regarding protective factors to reduce risk of further offending behaviours, JC reports that [the Applicant’s] behaviour was, ‘I now know how to stop myself getting angry by just walking away’ He also mentioned that through counselling sessions he has learned some self soothing and calming exercises ‘that I can use on myself if I ever did get angry, but I just don’t get angry anymore’.
  11. [203]
    As for preventative strategies he uses to reduce the risk of further offending, the Applicant is reported to have said that he has a stable life and doesn’t intend to get drunk again but rather to focus on his children. He says ‘Going to jail has scared me’. He also says that he loves his partner, kids and job. He wants to be a better man, ‘I just wouldn’t cross that line again because I know the risk’
  12. [204]
    In conclusion JC states that ‘[The Applicant] is in a much better place now to make better decisions for his life…During the past few months that I have known [the Applicant] he has shown no signs of aggressive ideation and is not believed to be a physical risk to himself or others.’

HL

  1. [205]
    HL’s letter is dated 24 November 2020. In it he confirms that the Applicant ‘has completed the evidence-based strengths program that has run over 6 weeks.’
  2. [206]
    HF explains that he is the strengths coordinator of the federal government and mission Australian funded program, which has run for the past six years. He states that topics discussed in the program include ‘, how to relate, meaningful conversations, quality time, managing challenging behaviours, managing your anger, change, identifying fathering in different seasons, emotional intelligence, reflection, domestic violence, family violence and more.’
  3. [207]
    JL states that the Applicant ‘has attended faithfully…has engaged in the group sessions and has opened up about his journey and challenges during this time and has our full support and we know that as he continues to put in the work he will father well and contribute to community

OS

  1. [208]
    OS, the Head Coach of a Rugby Club, also provided a reference dated 31 July 2019.[80] He states that he has known the Applicant for 10 years through a football club and as a personal friend.
  2. [209]
    He suggests that ‘sports, family and culture are [the Applicant’s] greatest attributes, these passions are displayed in his everyday character and mannerisms and attitude.’ He further states that the Applicant ‘has always displayed a respectful, caring and mentoring attitude to all children who have come through the club.’ He concluded by saying, ‘I have no concerns of [the Applicant] interacting with children of all ages.’

MT

  1. [210]
    The Applicant’s ‘football team mate, MT, wrote a reference dated 21 August 2019. In it he describes the Applicant as a ‘happy go-lucky type of person [who]always offers his help where-ever possible’. He states that he can ‘trust [the Applicant] my kids in his care.’

Other Factors the Tribunal May Consider

  1. [211]
    As this review is by way of a fresh hearing on the merits,’[81] it is not confined to evidence before the original decision maker or to the consideration of factors present at the time of the offence.
  2. [212]
    Information relating to the commission of the offences and relevant to the assessment of the person is secured by, or provided to the Tribunal as mandated or permitted by the WWC Act. While such information may disclose factors of relevance to the assessment of an Applicant’s suitability to be issued a working with children clearance, it may not necessarily also relate directly to a conviction or charge.
  3. [213]
    In Eales,[82] the Appeal Tribunal relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Maher,[83] in holding that while the mandatory considerations are listed in the Act as factors to which the decision maker ‘must have regard’, when determining whether the case is an exceptional case, ‘the factors prescribed under s 226 … are not exhaustive and include factors ‘reasonably considered’ relevant to the ‘assessment’ of the person.’[84]
  4. [214]
    While the criteria for deciding exceptional cases where a party is convicted, as set out in section 226 of the WWC Act appears to confine additional matters to be considered to matters that relate to ‘the commission of the offence that the chief executive reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person.[85] However, a broader approach has come to be adopted.
  5. [215]
    The Appeals Tribunal in Eales[86]set out the basis for the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion as to which factors can be taken into account —

Correctly stated, the discretion to be exercised by the Tribunal, on review is unfettered by any general rule in considering the relevant factors to determine whether in all of the circumstances it is in the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to be issued.[87]

  1. [216]
    The Appeals Tribunal observed that in the Court of Appeal decision in Maher Philippides J suggested that the mandatory considerations listed in s 226 of the WWC Act do not preclude the Tribunal from considering other matters deemed relevant to the assessment of the person ‘even if they fall outside the parameters of the provision.’[88]
  2. [217]
    On the basis of the authorities, I consider that the WWC Act states that the decision maker must have regard to ‘anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission of the [Applicant’s offences]’ that I ‘reasonably consider to be relevant to the assessment of the person’.
  3. [218]
    Where the decision maker is aware of a factor that is relevant to the assessment of the Applicant’s suitability to be issued a working with children clearance, that factor may be considered either under a broad interpretation of the seventh mandatory factor, or as a factor in addition to the factors mandated in section 226(2) of the WWC Act, but required to assess suitability.
  4. [219]
    Some of the evidence considered above, and particularly that given by witnesses and reference writers, while directly relevant to the assessment of the Applicant’s suitability to be issued a working with children clearance, may not have related directly, indirectly or even at all to the assessment of the Applicant’s suitability.
  5. [220]
    While the Tribunal may consider all information relating to the Applicant’s suitability, evidence and references provided by people unfamiliar with the Applicant’s offences of the reasons for why he has been issued a negative notice will, together with any evidence untested by cross examination, be given less evidentiary weight.
  6. [221]
    Having considered all the factors that the WWC Act stipulates must be considered, I turn to address remaining factors relevant to the assessment of the Applicant’s suitability that are unrelated, or only indirectly relate to the Applicant’s offences and charge.

Domestic Violence related Issues

  1. [222]
    In his submissions to the Tribunal, the Applicant has been very clear about never having been in a ‘domestic violent relationship.’[89] However, information obtained from the QPS and the Department of Child Protection suggests otherwise.
  2. [223]
    On 15 January 2009 the Cairns Magistrate Court issued a Protection Order naming the Applicant as the Respondent. In so doing the Court was stating,

The Court is satisfied that the respondent has committed an act of domestic violence against the aggrieved and that the respondent is likely to commit an act of domestic violence again or is likely to carry out a threat to commit an act of domestic violence.[90]

  1. [224]
    This was four days after the Applicant was apprehended and charged with, enter premises and commit indictable offence and deprivation of liberty-unlawfully detain/confine.
  2. [225]
    Child Safety Department ‘Records of concerns’ in 2009, while not disclosing substantiated concerns for the safety of the Applicant’s daughter, TH, do provide information regarding the Applicant’s behaviour at the time.
  3. [226]
    The Child Safety record of concerns dated 5 February 2009[91], refers to a notification received expressing a number of concerns. Firstly, that the Applicant and unnamed person have been in a relationship for two years. That the Applicant’s behaviour has changed and he has ceased work and drinks heavily.
  4. [227]
    The record goes on to state that the Applicant has been physically abusive, and has become angry and has punched an unnamed female in her stomach. It also states that arguments involving the Applicant have been about him ‘sleeping with other women.’ It also mentions that the Applicant has pushed an unnamed person to the ground.
  5. [228]
    Regarding a child named SC, the notifier was aware that the child was not caused any physical harm as the child was not present when police attended the house in response to a domestic violence incident.
  6. [229]
    It is also recorded that the Applicant was arrested and charged with offences, and notes that he is due in court on 13 February 2009 and is currently being transferred to Lotus Glen.
  7. [230]
    In reply to the source of this information[92], the Applicant states, I’ have no recollection of the events of the DV chares or the Deprivation of liberty charges that occurred on these dates.’
  8. [231]
    He goes on to state that he was not served with ‘any paperwork in relation to’ the DVO. He queries how he could have been charged with domestic violence on 15 January 2009 when he was ‘in the watchhouse’ from the 11 January 2009. He adds that ‘Reading through the statements nothing has triggered a memory.
  9. [232]
    Concerns received by Child Safety Officers in March 2016 appear to relate to much earlier events, as the Applicant suggests. In addition, Child Safety Officers note concern regarding ‘possible sexual harm’ to a child but conclude that ‘there is no evidence to support this provided that would warrant a CPIU referral to be actioned.
  10. [233]
    In records relating to concern for the Applicant’s daughter TH on 31 January 2009 Child Safety Officers note an escalation of domestic violence, both physical and verbal observing that QPS involved and the Applicant was charged in regards to threats with a knife and that a ‘DVO was obtained’. It also notes that on one occasion the Applicant was ‘taken to Cairns Base Hospital for Emergency Examination Order under the Mental Health Act.
  11. [234]
    Concerns recorded in 2018, reveal complex issues with the Applicant’s former partners and children. The Applicant’s response is that he did make some inquiries to ensure that his children were safe and looked after.
  12. [235]
    Concerns recorded in 2019 relate to substance abuse by one of the Applicant’s former partners and risk posed to a child.
  13. [236]
    I perceive that the relevance of the above information relates to the Applicant’s unwillingness to accept that his domestic life has not been free of physical and verbal violence, as well as the impact on children of a father who is no longer there. Obligations assumed, and actions taken in the absence of legal obligations, may also be indicative of suitability to work with children

Queensland Corrective Services

  1. [237]
    Information obtained from Queensland Corrective Services[93] has also provided information of relevance to the assessment of the Applicant’s suitability, and shed further light on his offences and offending.
  2. [238]
    Corrective services note that while the Applicant denied any offences as a juvenile and said he could not remember his first offence as an adult, Queensland records show that his criminal history commenced when he was 10 years of age when he was cautioned for a breaking and entering offence.[94] It is also recorded that his record is free of any sexual offences.
  3. [239]
    Correctional Services assess that his second incarceration is due to ‘a continuation of poor decision making’. Somewhat surprisingly in view of the Applicant’s admissions during this review, according to Correctional Services, he had ‘denied any history of illicit drug use.’[95]
  4. [240]
    Other information that the Applicant provided was also clearly inaccurate. For example, he stated that none, or almost none of his friends, had ever committed a crime, been incarcerated or used legal drugs at least once a month. He also advised that he had never been subject to a domestic violence order.
  5. [241]
    An area of concern identified by Correctional services was the Applicant not regarding alcohol as an issue for him. Corrective Services also observed that he had been ‘assessed as having general rehabilitation issues in relation substance abuse and specifically alcohol.’[96] 
  6. [242]
    A completion Summary regarding his Court Ordered Parole Order (2009-2010) discloses that he did not reoffend and ‘demonstrated pro-social values…such as reducing his level of alcohol.’ He was also commended for moving to Thursday Island ‘away from the temptations that Cairns would offer.’[97]
  7. [243]
    In his May 2014, Stepping Up Program Completion Report, notes that—

He is aware that in the past roadblocks to change have been celebrations having a partner who uses, and the availability of alcohol. He would like to be able to have a drink at private celebrations and this is a very high-risk situation for him in the future.[98]

  1. [244]
    The Report also records that the Applicant identified his high -risk situations as—

feeling moody, hanging with using friends, experiencing conflict with others, pressure from family, things going well at footy and an event where others are drinking.[99]

  1. [245]
    In addition, the Report also refers to the Applicant’s ‘relapse prevention plan’, noting that—

He does not have a good understanding of lapse/relapse or signs when he might be getting close to lapsing. However, he has been able to demonstrate a good understanding of high-risk situations or triggers.[100]

  1. [246]
    The materials obtained from Queensland Correctional Service appear to confirm the impressions gained from other sources regarding the Applicant’s suitability.
  2. [247]
    He is shown to be somewhat in denial or untruthful about the extent and nature of his offending and his use of illicit substances. At the same time, he presents himself to be cooperative and willing to take programs to better himself.
  3. [248]
    The Applicant’s response to his excessive alcohol consumption as a trigger remains qualified as he is adamant about being able to drink socially. This appears to be at odds with his recognition of the role alcohol plays in his offending. I note that presently he says that he consumes no more than two drinks on an occasion, while his partner says four drinks.  If the Applicant were to consider occasions in the past when he let his guard down, he may remind himself of where that can lead.
  4. [249]
    It is also of concern to read that in 2014 the Applicant was concerned about being at functions where others drank, yet now accepts that as a norm.
  5. [250]
    I turn to consider the Applicant’s record of traffic offences. The list of offences dating back to 2011 is particular noteworthy as the Applicant did not obtain his learner’s permit until August 2019, and was driving on a P-plate in April 2021, when he submitted his comments on his driving record.
  6. [251]
    The Applicant’s Traffic Record [101] discloses repeated convictions, disqualifications and fines for unlicensed driving. It also contains a conviction for driving an unregistered car, an offence of driving while relevant drug is present, and even when he finally became a learner, a conviction for ‘failing to display L-plates’.
  7. [252]
    Regarding his conviction for drug-driving, the Applicant unconvincingly states that a cousin spiked his beer and that is why he had a positive drug test. He says that he didn’t see the point in telling the police that this happened.
  8. [253]
    After the Applicant was convicted of unlicensed driving in 2019, he says, ‘I knew I had to change my lifestyle.
  9. [254]
    To repeatedly drive without a licence over a period of 8 years suggests a significant disregard for the law and fellow road users. It is not the action of someone wishing to work with children and be regarded as a role model. Once again, I note that the Applicant has failed to identify this as either a repeated infringement of the law or as a relevant issue, tending instead to cite only one 2019 instance of unlicenced driving.
  10. [255]
    Justifications, excuses and explanations offered by the Applicant tend to obscure the facts, which he needs to acknowledge and address. For example, being dishonest with police about his identity can either be explained away, or acknowledged for what it is, lying.

Transferability

  1. [256]
    As the Respondent submits—

The effect of issuing the Applicant a blue card is that the Applicant is able to work in any child-related employment or conduct any child-related business, supervised or unsupervised, regulated by the Act, not just for the purpose for which the Applicant has sought the card.[102]

  1. [257]
    In addition, as noted earlier, the Tribunal’s decision-making discretion is limited to approving the Applicant’s application or refusing the application[103] and consequently lacks the jurisdiction to issue a conditional blue care.[104]
  2. [258]
    On that basis the assessment of the Applicant’s suitability must relate to him undertaking any role requiring a working with children clearance.

Weighing Up the Evidence

  1. [259]
    In determining whether the Applicant’s case is an ‘exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance’ I have considered the specific factors to which the WWC Act specifies I must have regard. I have also considered other factors relevant to the evaluation of the Applicant’s suitability to work with children or take on a role requiring a working with children clearance.
  2. [260]
    I have determined whether the Applicant’s case is exceptional in the context of the Act as a whole and its object,[105] the principles for its administrations[106] and the principle for reviewing a child-related employment decision.[107]
  3. [261]
    The Applicant’s criminal record is extensive and it includes two serious offences, one a conviction, the other a charge. The serious offences were committed and alleged to have been committed when the Applicant was 15 and 21 years of age. The most recent was allegedly committed some 13 years ago.
  4. [262]
    Offences listed as ‘serious offences’ for the purposes of the WWC Act are not placed in that category because they attract longer periods of incarceration.  They have been chosen for that category because a person convicted of such an offence is deemed to   warrant having a negative notice issued to them. 
  5. [263]
    The Applicant’s conviction for attempted robbery qualifies as a serious offence because robbery is listed as a serious offence and serious offence is defined by the WWC Act to include ‘an offence of attempting, or of conspiring to commit an offence listed as a serious offence.[108]
  6. [264]
    Following a plea of guilty the Applicant’s burglary offence was, reduced so as not to qualify as a serious offence for the purposes of the WWC Act.  However, as the Applicant has subsequently admitted to carrying a knife when committing the offence, he ‘could have been liable under s 419(b)(i) or (ii)’[109] and his Burglary offence would also have qualified as a serious offence.
  7. [265]
    Even if I am wrong about the Applicant’s Burglary conviction qualifying as a serious offence for the purposes of the WWC Act, his conviction for attempted robbery does qualify as a serious offence, and mandates that he be issued a negative notice, and only be issued a ‘working with children clearance’ if the Tribunal is satisfied that his case is an exceptional case.
  8. [266]
    The Applicant is commended for the way he appears to have turned his life around. He and his partner TK have testified that they are in a committed and harmonious relationship, that there are children to whom they are committed, that the Applicant drinks alcohol in moderation and walks away from violent confrontation. 
  9. [267]
    It is also true that Applicant has not committed a serious offence since 2013 and has voluntarily enrolled in courses to address some of his long-standing issues.
  10. [268]
    However, this review is not about the Applicant, it is about the welfare and best interests of children and in particular about protecting children from harm and promoting their well being. In part this is achieved by screening those wishing to work with children.
  11. [269]
    Because the Applicant has been convicted of one or two offences categorised by the WWC Act as serious offences, the Tribunal can only set aside the Respondent’s decision if satisfied that the case is an exceptional case. As the Court of Appeal held in Maher,[110] in order to [find] that a case is exceptional, the Tribunal is,

required to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved, that there was an exceptional case, in which it would harm the best interest of children for a working with children clearance to be issued.[111]

  1. [270]
    For this to be an exceptional case, requires evidence of much more than a more mature, stable and law-abiding life.[112] Yet, this in large measure is what the Applicant has presented as his case.
  2. [271]
    There are a number of factors about the Applicant’s case that I find troubling.
  3. [272]
    The Applicant told the Tribunal that he had come to understand the impact his father’s absence had on him. Yet he did not comment on how his own behaviour had impacted his children. The Applicant had partnered a number of women, and left relationships not long after the birth of a child, and in one case during the pregnancy. I do not raise this to accuse or punish the Applicant but rather to note that he has not actually shown an awareness of the impact of his own actions on his children and his former partners.
  4. [273]
    On more than one occasion during cross examination the Applicant was given opportunity (and even prompted) to comment on the effect of his actions on victims of his actions, such as the woman whom he attacked in her bedroom and the taxi driver whom he assaulted. Eventually, he did concede but did not elaborate. The concessions   were given reluctantly and not voluntarily. In order to move forward and show that it would not harm the best interests of children for the Applicant to be issued a working with children clearance, the Applicant will need to acknowledge what he has done.
  5. [274]
    I also note that the Applicant has been less than truthful in his submissions and admissions. Despite his statements to the contrary, I accept that the evidence establishes that he was verbally and physically violent in one or more of his relationships.  The Applicant appears to be in denial and continuing to hide behind not being able to remember because of excessive drinking. Once again it appears that the Applicant focuses on himself rather than the victims of his actions.
  6. [275]
    I am also concerned by the Applicant’s statements suggesting that he is a changed man because of the situation he finds himself in presently. A ‘working with children clearance’ is unlikely to be issued if the Applicant’s suitability to work with children is premised on factors such as the absence of bad-influence friends, or a stable relationship.
  7. [276]
    Evidence was presented about the Applicant’s positive relationships with children. To demonstrate that he would be a positive role model, the Applicant needs to exhibit a clear understanding of issues such as the respectful treatment of women, and respect for the law. For example, the Applicant’s blatant and lengthy disregard for road rules reflects poorly on the Applicant, and would be bound to reveal itself to young people in his care.

Compatibility with Human Rights

  1. [277]
    In addition to the matters the WWC Act requires the Tribunal to consider, in conducting this review and making its decision, the Tribunal is also required to comply with relevant provision of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (the HR Act) .[113]
  2. [278]
    The HR Act imposes certain obligations on ‘public entities.’ When acting in an administrative capacity, courts and tribunals are deemed to be ‘public entities’ for the purposes of the HR Act. [114]  As the Tribunal is held to be acting in an administrative capacity when exercising its review jurisdiction through a fresh hearing on the merits, such as in this review, it is a public entity for the purposes of the HR Act.[115]
  3. [279]
    As a ‘public entity’ the Tribunal, is required to, ‘act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights’,[116] and to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision’.[117] The HR Act goes so far as to say that it would be unlawful for the Tribunal to act or make a decision that does not comply.[118]
  4. [280]
    In addition, HR Act also requires ‘courts and tribunals to interpret provisions, to the extent possible, that is consistent with their purpose, in a way that is compatible with human rights.’[119]
  5. [281]
    A Tribunal’s interpretation of legislation, decision or action is accepted as compatible with human rights if it—
  1. (a)
    does not limit a human right; or
  1. (b)
    limits the human right only to the extent that is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.[120]
  1. [282]
    The HR Act provides a guide to determining, ‘whether a limit on a human right is reasonable and justifiable.’[121] Section 13(2) the HR Act lists the following factors as ones that ‘may be relevant’ to the Tribunal’s determination —
  1. (a)
    The nature of the human right;
  1. (b)
    The nature and purpose of the limitation, including whether it is consistent with a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.
  1. (c)
    The relationship between the limitation and its purpose, including whether the limitation helps to achieve the purpose;
  1. (d)
    Whether there are any less restrictive and reasonable available ways to achieve the purpose;
  1. (e)
    The importance of the purpose of the limitation;
  1. (f)
    The importance of preserving the human right, taking into account the nature and extent of the limitation of the human right;
  1. (g)
    The balance between the matters mentioned in paragraphs (e) and (f).
  1. [283]
    It is important to note that the HR Act’s approach clearly recognises the need to balance and reconcile the protection of competing human rights.
  2. [284]
    The negative impact of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice has been emphasised by the Applicant, and his witnesses. Some of the hardships mentioned may also be characterised as limits on the human rights of those affected.

Human Rights Likely to be Limited

  1. [285]
    The Applicant’s right to privacy and reputation,[122] his right to take part in public life,[123] his cultural rights,[124] and rights relating to the protection of families and children,[125] have and will clearly be affected by the decision and process of this review.
  2. [286]
    In addition, as the Tribunal has focused on the Applicant’s ‘serious offences’, it may appear that the Applicant’s right to not be retried and punished more than once,[126] and his right to a fair hearing (including natural justice, fair and public hearing),[127]have also been infringed.
  3. [287]
    That other parties or persons affected by the proceedings or decision may also have their human rights limited needs to also be considered. This includes children adversely affected due to their relationship or dependence on the adult who is issued a negative notice or a working with children clearance.
  4. [288]
    The negative impact on the above-mentioned human rights needs to be assessed in the light of the human rights of children that the WWC Act seeks to protect through the screening process and blue card system under the WWC Act. Section 26(2) of the HR Act, states, ‘Every child has the right, without discrimination, to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child.’
  5. [289]
    Of notable significance is the legislature’s stated intention that ‘the welfare and best interests’ of children being protected by the Act is ‘paramount’[128].
  6. [290]
    I turn to the human rights most likely to be limited by the HR Act’s requirement on the Tribunal as a public entity ‘to act…in a way compatible with human rights’[129]

The Right Not be Tried or Punished More Than Once

  1. [291]
    In view of the offences committed or alleged to have been committed by the Applicant being central to this review, it may appear that the review constitutes a retrial and repeated punishment of the Applicant.
  2. [292]
    If this process was in fact a retrial of the Applicant’s two convictions, or a further punishment, it would be incompatible with section 34 of the Human Rights, which states that—

A person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in relation to which the person has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law.

  1. [293]
    However, this review of the decision is not a retrial of the offences for which the Applicant was convicted, as the Tribunal does not seek to determine the Applicant’s guilt or innocence.
  2. [294]
    The Tribunal’s function is to undertake an analysis and evaluation of risk that would be posed to children if a working with children clearance was issued.[130] It is not concerned with proving or disproving the commission of offences which the Applicant may have committed previously. Instead, the Tribunals concern is with the prevention of future potential harm.[131]
  3. [295]
    On that basis this review’s considerations must encompass more than just the offences. The Tribunal has held that, ‘in making that assessment of risk the totality of the evidence was to be considered, not merely the charges’[132]
  4. [296]
    Thus distinguished, this review by the Tribunal does not violate the Applicant’s right under section 34 of the HR Act not to ‘be tried…more than once for an offence in relation to which [he] has already been finally committed.’
  5. [297]
    For the above reasons I find the Applicant’s human right ‘not to be tried more than once for an offence’, not to be limited.
  6. [298]
    While the law, legal processes and decisions governing this review do not expressly punish the Applicant, they do appear to punish the Applicant for offences for which she has already been punished.  The determination of whether a working with children clearance is to be issued may have the unintended effect of punishing a person where as in the Applicant’s case the decision maker is required to take into account previous convictions.
  7. [299]
    Provisions of the WWC Act, as well as the process and decisions of the review undoubtedly have a punitive effect that has been recognised by the legislators. While conceding the Act’s unintended punitive impact, law makers have conceded that the legislation, ‘is about putting gates around employment to protect children. It is not about punishing people twice; it is about protecting children from future abuse.’ [133]
  8. [300]
    Even if the effect is unintended, the law and processes of issuing a negative notice to the Applicant, the lengthy process of review and denial of opportunity work in her chosen vocation, serve to punish the Applicant for offences for which she has already been punished under criminal law.
  9. [301]
    While it is clear that the review process constitutes a limitation of the Applicant’s right not to be punished more than once, the Tribunal’s actions may and the laws governing the Tribunal’s actions may still be compatible with human rights as long as the Applicant’s right is, ‘subject under law only to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.’[134].
  10. [302]
    After considering the factors set out in s 13(2) of the HR Act as guides to a determination of whether a limit on a right is reasonable and justifiable, I find that the Applicant’s human right not to be punished more than once, while limited, is nevertheless compatible with the HR Act, as her human right was in all the circumstances limited ‘only to the extent that is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable’.[135]

The Right to be Accorded a Fair Hearing and Natural Justice

  1. [303]
    According with the human rights set out in the HR Act, the Tribunal is required to act ‘fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case.’[136] In proceedings, the Tribunal ‘must observe the rules of natural justice.’[137]
  2. [304]
    ‘Natural justice’ or procedural fairness is a term that encompasses the right to be treated fairly. At its core, natural justice refers to the right to a fair hearing. A fair hearing generally entails appropriate notice of a hearing, a right to present one’s case, and a decision maker who is impartial, competent and unbiased. It recognizes a party’s right to present their own case, and be provided with a logically probative decision based on all the evidence presented.
  3. [305]
    The right to a fair hearing is a human right to be found in section 31 of the HR Act, which provides that—
  1. (1)
    A person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.
  1. (2)
    However, a court or tribunal may exclude members of media organisations, other persons or the general public from all or part of a hearing in the public interest or in the interests of justice.
  1. (3)
    All judgments or decisions made by a court or tribunal in a proceeding must be publicly available.
  1. [306]
    The QCAT Act, and the enabling WWC Act, contain numerous provisions designed to ensure that parties to Tribunal proceedings are accorded natural justice.
  2. [307]
    I am not aware of any instances where the Applicant or another party has been denied natural justice in these proceedings.

A Public Hearing

  1. [308]
    As part of the right to a fair hearing, the HR Act clearly states that a party to civil proceedings has a right to have their proceeding decided ‘after a fair and public hearing’.[138] It also states that ‘all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal in a proceeding must be publicly available’.[139]
  2. [309]
    Section 90(1) of the QCAT Act provides that, ‘Unless an enabling Act…provides otherwise, a hearing of a proceeding must be held in public’.
  3. [310]
    The enabling Act in this case is the WWC Act, which in s 361(1) states that, ‘A hearing of a proceeding for a QCAT child-related employment review must be held in private.’
  4. [311]
    The QCAT Act also provides that a tribunal may direct a hearing to be closed if the tribunal ‘considers it necessary—
    1. (a)
      to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice; or
    2. (b)
      to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person; or
    3. (c)
      to avoid offending public decency or morality; or
    4. (d)
      to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest; or
    5. (e)
      for another reason, in the interests of justice.[140]
  1. [312]
    In Section 31(2), the HR Act also provides for an exception to the holding of a public hearing. It states that—

a court or tribunal may exclude members of media organisations, other persons or the general public from all or part of a hearing in the public interest or the interests of justice.

  1. [313]
    I find the exclusion of the media and public from hearings in this review, to have been required under the provisions of the QCAT Act and the WWC Act, in order for the conduct of the hearings to be compatible with human rights as set out in section 31(1) and qualified in section 31(2) of the HR Act.
  2. [314]
    As set out above, the section 31(3) of the HR Act requires all tribunal decisions to be ‘publicly available’.  However, s 66(1)(c) of the QCAT Act permits the Tribunal to make a non publication order,
  1. (1)
    prohibiting the publication of…
  1. (c)
    information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified.
  1. [315]
    The Tribunal may only make such an order if it considers the order necessary for a number of specific reasons[141] including, ‘to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest’[142], and ‘for any other reason in the interests of justice’.[143]
  2. [316]
    As the proceedings concern child-related employment under the WWC Act, the interests of justice require that nothing be published that could identify the Applicant’s children who are clearly ‘affected by the proceeding’.[144]
  3. [317]
    A non publication order is also required in order to protect children in accordance with the right set out in s 26(2), that ‘Every child has the right without discrimination to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interest, because of being a child.’
  4. [318]
    In addition, I also consider it necessary to prohibit the publication of the names or anything otherwise identifying the Applicant, witnesses or any third party to these proceedings as the publication of their names may unintentionally lead to the identification of the children and the disclosure of confidential information.
  5. [319]
    Such disclosures would be likely to also infringe on the Applicant’s and other’s right to privacy and not to have his reputation unlawfully attacked.[145]and arbitrarily interfered with.[146]
  6. [320]
    Both Section 66(1)(c) of the QCAT Act, permitting non publication orders, and the actions of this Tribunal in issuing directions regarding non publication, clearly limit the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing, enshrined in s 31(3) of the Human Rights Act.
  7. [321]
    However, I also find that the limit imposed is reasonable and justifiable for the purposes of s 13 of the Human Rights Act, and therefore compatible with the rights of persons whose right may be limited.
  8. [322]
    In accordance with factors listed in s 13(2) of the Act I note ‘the importance of the purpose of the limitation’,[147] ‘the importance of preserving the human right, taking into account the nature and extent of the limitation on the right’[148], ‘the balance between the [last two factors]’[149] and ‘whether there are any less restrictive and reasonably available ways to achieve the purpose’.[150]
  9. [323]
    On this basis, I consider it appropriate and necessary to make a non-publication order prohibiting the publication of statements, documents and any other information in these proceedings that may be capable of identifying the Applicant, any child, witness or third party in these proceedings.

Conclusion

  1. [324]
    The Respondent submits that a decision that the Applicant’s case is not an exceptional case will be compatible with human rights—

because, despite any limit the decision places on the Applicant’s human rights, the decision will be justified by the factors outlined under section 13 of the HR Act. The decision will be justified, inter alia, because it will have the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights interests and well being of children and young people which is itself a human right.[151]

Furthermore, any limitation on the Applicant’s human rights is consistent with the object, purpose and paramount principle of the WWC Act that is, the welfare and best interest of children.[152]

  1. [325]
    I agree with the Respondent’s conclusion that a finding that the Applicant’s case is not exceptional may be compatible with human rights. However, I distance myself from the suggestion that any limitation of human rights is compatible with human rights if its purpose is to promote the principles of the WWC Act.  The HR Act specifically requires that where a decision or act limits human rights, the extent of the limit must be reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.[153]

Overall Conclusion

  1. [326]
    I have considered all available evidence in light of the objects and principles of the WWC Act, the mandatory criteria, and all other relevant considerations. I have also given proper consideration to human rights relevant to the decision, and ensured that the review process and the decision are compatible with human rights, by identifying any limits imposed on human rights and ensuring that such limits are reasonable and justifiable in accordance with the HR Act.
  2. [327]
    The Tribunal’s role in this review has been to determine whether the Applicant’s case is an exceptional case within the meaning of s 225 of the WWC Act. On the basis of the facts, findings and reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s case is ‘an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a ‘working with children clearance’. 

Decision

1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, that the applicant’s case is not “exceptional” within the meaning of s 225 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), is confirmed.

2. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the publication of any statements, documents or other materials relating to these proceedings is prohibited to that extent that such could identify or lead to the identification of the applicant, any child, witness, or third party in these proceedings.

Footnotes

[1]Applicant’s ‘My Life Story’ 26 October 2020, p 2.

[2]Ibid p 3.

[3]Ibid.

[4]NTP-145-148. (NTP-41-149 are materials produced by the Department of Corrective Services in response to a notice to produce issued by the Tribunal.)

[5]Applicant’s ‘My Life Story’ 26 October 2020, p 2.

[6]Applicant’s ‘My Life Story’ 26 October 2020, p 2.

[7]Ibid, p 3.

[8]BCS - 9. (Materials relied on by the Respondent.)

[9]Adult Member Blue Card Application, BCS-25

[10]BCS – 29.

[11]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000, s 229(1).

[12]Request for Submissions, 19 July 2019, BCS-44.

[13]BCS – 52.

[14]BCS – 56.

[15]BCS – 59.

[16]BCS – 60.

[17]Letter to the Applicant from the Director, Blue Card Services (Screening Services) dated 20 January 2018.

[18]The Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000, s. 225 (2).

[19] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19(a).

[20]Ibid, s 17.

[21] Ibid.

[22]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (WWC Act) s 353(a)(ii).

[23]Ibid, s 354(1).

[24]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19(c).

[25]Ibid, s 20(2).

[26]Ibid, s 20(1).

[27]Ibid, s 21(3).

[28]Ibid, s 225(2).

[29]Ibid, s 167; schedule 2.

[30]Ibid, s 225 (1)(c).

[31]Ibid, s 225(2).

[32]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000, s 220.

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

[34]Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98 at [22], cited with approval in Commissioner for Children and Young People v FGC [2011] QCATA 291 at [31].

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

[36]Ibid, s 6.

[37]Ibid, Chapter 9, Part 1.

[38]Ibid, s 360.

[39]Ibid, ss 221, 222, 223, 225.

[40]Ibid, s 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226.

[41]Ibid, s 225(1)(c).

[42]Ibid, s 225(2).

[43]LCA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2017] QCAT 244 citing Re FAA [2006] QCST 15, at [22].

[44]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492, [30] citing test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw & Anor [1938] HCA 34 as authority.

[45]Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions [1983] VR 1. See also: Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, at [33] per President.

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

[47]Ibid, Schedule 7.

[48]National Police Check Results Report, BCS – 29.

[49]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld, Schedule 7.

[50]Ibid, s 221(1)(b)(iii); s 226(2)(a)(i); s 226(a)(iii); Schedule 7 Dictionary.

[51]Ibid, s 226(2)(a)(ii).

[52]Ibid, Schedule 2, column 3 qualification.

[53]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000, s 15(1).

[54]Criminal Code Act 1899, s 355

[55]Criminal Code Act 1899, s 419(1) and (2) and (3)(1) and (2).

[56]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 225(1)(c).

[57]Ibid. s 226(2)(ii).

[58]Ibid, s 226(2)(iv).

[59]Ibid, s 221(1).

[60]Ibid, s 221(2).

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

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

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

[64]Ibid, at [55].

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

[66]QPS Court Brief BCS-35.

[67]BCS-36.

[68]QPS Court Brief, BCS-38-40

[69] Queensland Corrective Services, Benchmark Assessment, Summary-Risk Levels; NTP-46.

[70]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 226(2)(1)(v).

[71]Transcript of Sentencing by Judge Everson in Cairns District Court 21 August 2009, BCS – 41,

[72]Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986, ss 3, 5 and 6.

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

[74]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 226(2)(b), (c) and (d).

[75]Ibid, s 226(2)(b).

[76]Ibid, s 226(2)(c).

[77]Ibid, s 226(2)(d).

[78]Ibid.

[79]NTP-145-148.

[80]BCS-59.

[81]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20(b).

[82]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303.

[83]Commissioner for Children and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492.

[84]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303 at [33].

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

[86]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303.

[87]Ibid, at [42].

[88]Commissioner for Children and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492, [40].

[89]The Applicant ‘My Life Story’ 26 October 2020, p 4.

[90]NTP 145-148

[91]Ibid.

[92]NTP-1-5. (NTP-1-40 are materials produced by the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs in response to a notice to produce by the Tribunal)

[93] ` NTP-41-149, Produced by the Queensland Department of Corrective Services, in response to a notice by produce by the Tribunal.

[94]NTP-42.

[95]NTP-43.

[96]NTP-55.

[97]NTP-99-100.

[98]NTP-127.

[99]Ibid.

[100]NTP-128.

[101]BCS-70-71

[102]Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, 10 May 2021 at [73].

[103]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 220.

[104]RPG v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331, [27].

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

[106]Ibid, s 6.

[107]Ibid, s 360.

[108]Ibid, s 15(1)(c).

[109]Ibid, Schedule 2, Column 3 qualification of ‘Burglary’ as a serious offence.

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

[111]Ibid, at [30].

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

[113]The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld.)

[114]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 9(4)(b).

[115]See: PJB v Melbourne Health and Anor (Patrick’s case) [2011] VCS 327 at [123]; HF [2020] QCAT 482 and JF [20220] QCAT 419.

[116]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), ss 4(b), 58(1)(a).

[117]Ibid, s 58(1)(b).

[118]Ibid, s 58(1).

[119]Ibid, s 4(f).

[120]Ibid, s 8(a) and (b).

[121]Ibid, s 13(2).

[122]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 21.

[123]Ibid, s 23.

[124]Ibid, ss 27-28.

[125]Ibid, s 26.

[126]Ibid, s 34.

[127]Human Rights Act, s 31.

[128]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 6(a).

[129]Human Rights Act 2019, s 4(b).

[130]TNC Chief Executive Officer, and Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489 at [89].

[131]Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243, referring to, Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Grindrod (No 2) (2008) WASCA 28 at [84].

[132] TNC Chief Executive Officer, and Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489 at [90].

[133]Commission for Children and Young People Bill, Second Reading Speech, Queensland Parliament Hansard, 14 November 2000, 4391. Ms Bligh, cited by Member McConnell in Luong v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2019] QCAT 302 at [9].

[134]Human Rights Act 2019, s 13(1).

[135]Ibid, s 8.

[136]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(2).

[137]Ibid, s 28(3)(a).

[138]Human Rights Act 2019, s 31(1).

[139]Ibid, s 31(3).

[140]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 90 (2).

[141]Ibid, s 66(2).

[142]Ibid, s 66(2)(d).

[143]Ibid, s 66(e).

[144]Ibid, s 66(1)(c).

[145]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 25 (b).

[146]Ibid, s 25 (a).

[147]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13(2)(e).

[148]Ibid, s 13(2)(f).

[149]Ibid, s 13(2)(g).

[150]Ibid, s 13(2)(d).

[151]Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, 10 May 2021 at para 77.

[152]Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, 10 May 2021, at para 77, referring to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13(2)(b).

[153]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 58.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

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

  • Shortened Case Name:

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

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCAT 443

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Stepniak

  • Date:

    11 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
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) HCA 34
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) HCA 34
Cite 2 - (1938) HCA 34
Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Grindrod (No 2) (2008) WASCA 28
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) WASCA 28
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCATA 303
Cite 2 - [2013] QCATA 303
Cite 3 - [2013] QCATA 303
Cite 4 - [2013] QCATA 303
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 3 - [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 87
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 3 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 4 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 5 - [2004] QCA 492
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCATA 27
Cite 2 - [2014] QCATA 27
FH [2020] QCAT 482
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 482
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 482
Kent v Wilson (2000) VSC 98
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) VSC 98
Cite 2 - (2000) VSC 98
LCA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2017] QCAT 244
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCAT 244
Cite 2 - [2017] QCAT 244
LM v Director-General [20220] QCAT 419
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [20220] QCAT 419
Luong v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2019] QCAT 302
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 302
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 302
PJB v Melbourne Health & Anor (Patrick's Case) [2011] VCS 32
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] VCS 32
PJB v Melbourne Health and Anor (Patrick's case) [2011] VCS 327
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] VCS 327
Re FAA [2006] QCST 15
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QCST 15
Cite 2 - [2006] QCST 15
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
RPG v Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 331
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 331
TNC v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 489
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 489
Cite 3 - [2015] QCAT 489
Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 243
Cite 2 - [2010] QCAT 243

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
CXC v Department of Justice – Blue Card Services [2025] QCAT 1852 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.