Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2023
  4. PS v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General - [2023] QCAT 131

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

PS v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General[2023] QCAT 131

PS v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General[2023] QCAT 131

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

PS v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 131

PARTIES:

PS

(applicant)

v

Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML320-20

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2023

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McDonald

ORDERS:

  1. The decision of the Director General of Department of Justice and Attorney General, made 17 July 2020, that the applicant’s case is not exceptional within the meaning of s 225 of the Working with Children (Risk Management Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.
  2. Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal prohibits the publication of any information that could lead to the identification of the applicant and any witnesses accordingly these reasons have been deidentified.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – review of decision by respondent to issue a negative notice for a blue card

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – blue card – application for review – where applicant has conviction for a serious offence and other offences – whether an ‘exceptional case’ – application of mandatory considerations.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 8, s 13, s 58, s 21, s 23, s 36(2), s 58

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

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 225, s 226, s 360, Schedule 2

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

Commissioner for Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No2) [2011] QCATA 87

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

Re TAA [2006] QCST 11.

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

PS

Respondent:

Capwell, J. Legal Officer Blue Card Services.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    PS seeks review of a decision of blue card services of 17 July 2020 to issue a negative notice for a blue card. PS seeks a blue card to continue his volunteer work with an emergency services organisation.
  2. [2]
    The decision was made under s 225 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the WWC Act.’). The respondent determined that PS’s case was not an exceptional case in which it would not harm the the best interest of children for PS to be issued a blue card.
  3. [3]
    The Tribunal determines this matter in its review jurisdiction considering the terms of the WWC Act relating to suitability for child related employment. The review purpose is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[1] This decision must be guided by principles that govern decision making under the WWC Act:
  1. (a)
    the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount.[2](b) every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[3]
  1. [4]
    PS relied on the following documents in support of his application, together with his oral submission:
  1. (a)
    A personal statement,[4] a written submission filed 5 April 2022, containing references of NA undated, DP dated 23 March 2021, dated, CG dated 15 July 2021;
  1. (b)
    PS’s witnesses gave evidence DP, CG.
  1. [5]
    The respondent provided the following documents to assist the Tribunal in reaching the correct and preferable decision:
    1. (a)
      Documents marked BCS1-73 which includes Blue Card’s reasons for the decision under review, PS’s criminal history[5]and Traffic History,[6] Police briefs pertaining to PS’s offending;[7] transcripts of sentencing remarks relating to that offending.[8]
    2. (b)
      Documents marked NTP1-208 were produced as evidence pursuant to a Notice to Produce, being material from Queensland Corrective Services,[9] and X Recovery Services Centre.[10] Oral and written submissions were made.
    3. (c)
      PS’s witnesses were cross examined by the respondent. 
  2. [6]
    Section 225 of the WWC Act provides a presumption that a negative notice must issue where a person has been convicted of a serious offence unless satisfied an exceptional case exists in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the applicant to be issued with a positive notice for a blue card.[11]
  3. [7]
    Whether the general rule that a negative notice should issue where an applicant has committed a serious offence, is displaced, will depend on whether an exceptional case exists. An exceptional case is not defined in the WWC, and case law indicates it is a question of fact and degree, having regard to the interest of the protection of children[12] turns on the individual circumstances of each case.[13] The central issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether PS’s case is an exceptional case such that the general rule should be displaced.
  4. [8]
    In determining whether an exceptional case exists the Tribunal must be guided by the paramount principles stated at paragraph 3 of these Reasons. Where a person is convicted of an offence The Tribunal must have regard to the non-exhaustive mandatory considerations stated at s 226(2) WWC Act. The Tribunal is not limited by these considerations and may take into account all relevant considerations.[14]
  5. [9]
    The Tribunal is acting as a public entity in reviewing the decision of Blue Card Services for child related employment screening. It carries obligations to ensure it makes a decision that is compatible with human rights,[15] to give consideration to any human rights affected by the decision, to not limit human rights that may be affected by the decision,[16] A decision will be compatible with human rights if it does not limit human rights or limits a human right only to the extent that it is reasonable and demonstrably justified.[17]
  6. [10]
    An exceptional case is not simply living as a law-abiding citizen functioning at a level expected of a person at a level expected at their stage in life, which is considered to be in the ordinary course of life.[18]
  7. [11]
    The existence of remorse and insight is considered an important in considering the risks of an applicant’s past.[19] Insight is perceived as a protective factor, and relevant to likelihood of re-offending.[20]
  8. [12]
    PS submitted that he should be issued a blue card because the criminal offences were 10 years ago when he was younger, and he is no longer engaged with illicit drugs. He encouraged the Tribunal to consider what he interpreted from Justice Applegarth’s sentencing remarks about the trafficking offence, to suggest his offences were on the minor scale of serious offences, and that he would not be convicted if he hadn’t been honest at the time. He said he lives a ‘normal life’ now, and that should be taken into account. He also asked the Tribunal to be aware that SES members were “exceptional” and “better than a normal member of society”.

Is PS’s case exceptional such that the presumption to issue a blue card is displaced?

Consideration of Mandatory Factors s 226 (2) WWC Act

  1. [13]
    The Tribunal is required to consider to the factors stated at s 226 in determining whether an exceptional case exists.
  2. [14]
    Section 226 (2) requires the decision maker to have regard to:
  1. (a)
    in relation to the commission, or alleged commission, of an offence by the person— 
  1. (i)
    whether it is a conviction or a charge; and 
  1. (ii)
    whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence; and 
  1. (iii)
    when the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed; and 
  1. (iv)
    the nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children; and 
  1. (v)
    in the case of a conviction—the penalty imposed by the court and, if the court decided not to impose an imprisonment order for the offence or not to make a disqualification order under section 357 , the court’s reasons for its decision; 
  1. (b)
    any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 318 or 319 ; 
  1. (c)
    any report about the person’s mental health given to the chief executive under section 335 ; 
  1. (d)
    any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 337 or 338 ; 
  1. (e)
    information about the person given to the chief executive under the Disability Services Act 2006 , section 138ZG; 
  1. (f)
    anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission, of the offence that the chief executive reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person. 
  1. [15]
    There is no information to be considered under ss 226(2) (b-e).

Offences

  1. [16]
    PS has convictions for the following offences as noted in his criminal history:[21]
    1. (a)
      Possessing dangerous drugs Schedule 2, or quantity exceeding schedule 3;
    2. (b)
      Being drunk in a public place;
    3. (c)
      Trafficking dangerous drugs;
    4. (d)
      Possessing anything used in commission of crime defined in part 2;
    5. (e)
      Assault or obstruct a police officer.
  2. [17]
    There are dismissed charged for obstructing a police officer.
  3. [18]
    PS’s traffic record has notes 8 convictions for drink driving.
  4. [19]
    Trafficking is a serious offence as defined at Schedule 2 of the WWC Act. The balance of the offences are not within the meaning of serious offences within the WWC Act, however, given the existence of this serious offences, the presumption against issuing a positive notice arises.
  5. [20]
    The criminal offending has been committed between 2007 to 2021.[22] Traffic offending history records alcohol related offending between 2006 and 2020.[23] The criminal offences relate to multiple drug related offences for possession and one for trafficking dangerous drugs and obstructing police officers. There is also long history of traffic convictions for drink driving which poses considerable concern.
  6. [21]
    In 2007, PS was convicted of possession of dangerous drug for being found with 33 ecstasy tablets in his possession, which he claimed were for personal use.[24] On 5 May 2014, he was convicted of trafficking dangerous drugs being 33 MDMA tablets which were found in his vehicle. He told police these were for himself and for friends.[25] He has been convicted of being drunk in a public place on 22 November 2012,[26]obstructing police officers,[27] and charged with this again on 13 February 2021.[28] These offences do not involve children directly but demonstrate conduct which should be closely scrutinised as to consequential impacts upon children. Drink driving and drug related conduct has indirectly placed the safety of children at risk. 
  7. [22]
    For the criminal offending PS has been sentenced to probation fines and an imprisonment order, but parole was immediately granted, avoiding incarceration for the serious offence of trafficking.
  8. [23]
    In 2007, Dutney J imposed 12 month probation order, with no conviction recorded for possession of MDMA tablets taking into consideration his youth, that he had no previous convictions, and his guilty plea.  At that time, ecstasy was not classified as a schedule 1 drugs as it now is.[29] He alerted PS to the serious risk of going to gaol for any future offence of the kind.
  9. [24]
    For trafficking 105 MDMA tablets, found in his car[30] in 2014, Applegarth J sentenced PS to three years imprisonment with immediate release on parole. The conviction was recorded.[31] Applegarth J commented on the details of the offence, noting PS was selling to friends, with a profit of between $375 to $3000, and had not been motivated by financial gain in sourcing the drugs. He considered personal factors affecting drug use and alcohol dependence, referring to PS’s grief and tragedy due to deaths of several close to him had contributed to his substance abuse.  He noted his use of alcohol and drugs as a coping mechanism. He commented that the:

“picture that emerges from the material is someone who has resorted to drugs as part of a protracted bereavement and adjustment disorder”.

Factors Justice Applegarth took into consideration in sentencing, his youth, references from SP’s supportive of family who linked the grief and loss to the conduct, his career as a respected and valued chef, and references from Alcoholics Anonymous and positive efforts in rehabilitation.  He considered the principle of imprisonment as a deterrence and balanced this with other relevant circumstances which included: SP’s remorse, plea of guilty, co-operation with the authorities, and gave weight to the full disclosure made to police, saying if PS had not made admissions he would not have been charged with trafficking, and these factors founded some leniency. He noted the recommendation that PS should continue his employment and “address risk factors related to … polysubstance abuse.” Ultimately, Justice Applegarth considered that PS’s rehabilitation was best served by remaining in the community and ordered three years imprisonment as the offence required and ordered immediate release on parole. He commented that the leniency was strongly supported by his admissions to police. He commented that his driving offences, which had been two offences at that time, “show an inability to come to terms with your alcoholism”, but that he had made commendable steps toward rehabilitation.  It is apparent that Applegarth J considered his prospects of rehabilitation were best supported by community-based sentence, and he strongly linked alcohol abuse to this. In light of PS’s traffic record, it is not apparent that this opportunity was full embraced.

  1. [25]
    In March 2018, Magistrate Hennessy fined for obstructing police noting the guilty plea.[32]

Other factors relevant, including relevant factors to the offences:

Alcohol and driving history.

  1. [26]
    I note the evidence of CG who stated that she has never observed PS to be under the influence of alcohol during activities for the organisation and noted their zero tolerance to alcohol as a policy. She could not speak to PS’s conduct outside of the organisation, as she did not have a personal relationship outside of the organisation. She said she has never had any reason to be concerned about alcohol use. This is an important consideration, however, PS’s conduct beyond the emergency service organisation must also be scrutinised. 
  2. [27]
    Justice Applegarth in 2014 remarked that the drink driving offences at that time had shown an inability for PS to come to terms with his alcoholism. Since then, he has been convicted of further drink driving offences in three times and again in 2019, with periods of licence disqualification through 2018, 2019, and 2020 to early 2021. He has had 4 interlock periods imposed by the court between 2013 and 2021[33] At the date of the QCAT hearing, PS was subject to an interlock period, due to be released on 6 March 2023.[34] The extended pattern of these offences, echoes the concerns raised by Justice Applegarth’s comment well after they were made.
  3. [28]
    This record of itself demonstrates a comprehensive disregard for the safety of the public including children who use the road, and very little regard for the law.  It brings into question PS’s ability to act protectively and to act as a role model to children.
  4. [29]
    The evidence is suggestive of longstanding alcohol abuse at levels that impact on compliance with rules affecting public safety.
  5. [30]
    In 2008, PS had one session with ATODS who noted that their input could have limited impact of he” did not want to abstain” from substances.[35] Substance abuse was noted as areas of ongoing concern during court-imposed supervision periods from 2013-2015,[36] 2014-2017,[37] and 2019-May 2020.[38] During this latter probation for drink driving, PS was charged with another drink driving offence.[39] Probation records in 2019 record PS’s consuming a 750 ml bottle of whiskey per day which was noted to have reduced to a quarter of a bottle day during probation period.
  6. [31]
    PS’s attempts to address the underlying triggers to the substance abuse history have been described as “superficial”.[40] He undertook a 12-week rehabilitation program in 2013, wherein admission were noted that this was undertaken for the purpose of outstanding court matters.[41] He was directed to engage with a psychological intervention through a mental health plan.[42] PS describes seeing four psychologists, “most were useless” and hence he did not return to any of them for ongoing treatment.[43] He said that he had considered their advice, but thought he didn’t need to keep seeing them, and cost had been a factor in that decision. He stated that he believed he was rehabilitated. He said he was glad that he had undertaken ‘Dry July’ and denies problematic use of alcohol.
  7. [32]
    The haphazard and unsustained engagement with psychological intervention to address issues which underlie the longstanding substance abuse history suggests that this issue has gone unaddressed. PS has articulated to the Tribunal a long history of grief from many losses he has sustained through his life.[44] It is not apparent that he has undertaken the psychological intervention to address the causes of his alcohol use. PS was provided with multiple extensions of time to obtain a psychologist report but no psychologist report has been made available to the Tribunal. In the absence of evidence from a treating psychologist, I am not satisfied that PS has demonstrated steps which mitigate the risks that his drink driving offending may have on children.

Insight

  1. [33]
    The Appeal Tribunal has held that a person’s insight into their actions is relevant in considering whether risk related to the offending conduct are reduced.[45] At hearing PS stated that alcohol could be a risk to children but that he did not drink to those levels. He stated he previously had issues with drinking but considers that he has dealt with these adequately.
  2. [34]
    In oral evidence PS stated that for the first two occasions he received a probation order for drink driving supervision was an appropriate order but not for the third, which he said was because the vehicle was a scooter. He said the only high range drink driving offence he had was where recorded 0.141 BAC occurred when he was drinking in his car with the motor running in his own driveway having returned home and had opened a drink just before the as the police arrived. He described all the drink driving incidences as miscalculations of how much he had had to drink, “I have chosen to have a couple and drive home” believing on each occasion that he was “100% safe” [46] to drive. He said the readings of is BAC in all the offences which were between .086 and .1 BAC were not high (but for the one where he was in his driveway). He said that his recording of .1BAC had not impacted his ability to drive.[47]He said he had never driven at a level that would put children at risk, being sober on all of these occasions that he was on the road. He was confident that he had not placed anyone at risk driving at these levels.[48] He differentiated this from the high range offences when he was recorded at .141 BAC but noted that the was not on the road and therefore not a danger to children. 
  3. [35]
    Overall, the Tribunal considered SP’s oral evidence about the risks posed by his conduct demonstrates a minimization of the risks his drink driving conduct posed to children and the wider community. This evidence is inconsistent with the rationale behind the levels of BAC determined by the Parliament to be safe to drive. PS continues to justify that he was fully sober despite blood alcohol readings well over the legislated limits of .05. This does not assure the Tribunal that the risk of re-offending has been reduced. I find that PS’s oral evidence demonstrated a lack of insight into the risks posed by his drink driving behaviour and weigh heavily against him.

Other considerations

  1. [36]
    He says he himself has no time for drugs anymore, having had a child, work obligations, having completed a law degree, he is in a different space to his early 20s. I accept his evidence that he is no longer engaged in illicit drugs behaviour of his youth. He said he still associates with the same peers that were in his networks during the offences. He said they are ‘not bad people’ and some come to him for advice. He said that they no longer have drug problems, having grown up and have young families. I make no finding as to whether his continued contact with the peers with whom he previously engaged in drugs is a risk or protective factors there being inadequate evidence before the Tribunal to make a finding on this matter.

Evidence of witnesses

  1. [37]
    DP told the Tribunal that he had known PS for 25 years since he was a child. He noted that he considered him to be a person of good character and interacted well with his adult son with autism. He was aware of two drug related offences, He said PS had done a lot in 10 years to show remorse, He had obtained a law degree and worked, and has since had a son. He was not aware of any substance abuse issues or any support received for it. He was aware of a drink driving incident 8-10 years ago on Christmas day, but considered that those days were well behind PS, describing them as times of setbacks that he had recovered from. 
  2. [38]
    CG, a schoolteacher, volunteers as a group leader of the relevant emergency service. She knows PS in a professional capacity only. CP said she had known PS since 2017. She stated that she was aware of drug offences over 8 years ago and had been aware of his criminal history through the requirements of screening. She stated that his criminal history does not represent the person she has come to know. She commented that he had been a valuable member of the emergency services organisation, and was an integral member of their unit. She had no concerns about his behaviour honesty or integrity any time throughout these years. She referred to him as ‘liked and respected by his peers, relied on by senior management as has become a great role model to new recruits.’[49] She gave oral evidence that she had never suspected him to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and never observed behaviour related to alcohol of concern at functions. She noted there was a zero-tolerance policy to alcohol when in uniform. She was unable to provide any comment of him in his private capacity as she has does not know him in that context. She described him as respectful around children. She advised that the organisations policy around traffic offences required disclosure is disqualified, and that was because the organisation need to know if someone is not eligible to drive their vehicles. She later clarified that so long as a member did not drive a vehicle they were not obliged to disclose. She noted there was no information to suggest PS had been disqualified from driving, but he did not drive for the organisation.
  3. [39]
    The Tribunal notes that members of the emergency service organisation holds PS in high regard and consider him a valuable member of the organisation. There is no indication that he has consumed alcohol or been affected by it when undertaking the tasks of the role.  Both his witnesses consider that his illicit drug use is in the past. These are protective factors in his favour in relation to illicit drug behaviour. However, neither witness had knowledge of the full extent of PS’s drink driving history and less weight must be placed on their evidence for this reason.

Consideration

  1. [40]
    While protective factors exist, the Tribunal however notes that risk factors also exist. The repeated disqualification for drink driving together with disqualification of license and several, (including a current) interlock periods suggests that PS has had difficulty controlling his drinking behaviour and lacks insight into the risks his drink driving poses to children and the community. The instances of obstruction of police, together with disregard for the recognised acceptable levels of .05 BAC suggest a disregard for the law and authority. The offending behaviour also raises serious questions about his judgement. It suggests very poor role modelling of appropriate behaviour to children.
  2. [41]
    While CG’s evidence indicates that he does not consume alcohol in the zero tolerance environment of the emergency service organisation, the transferable nature of a blue card is an important consideration, where a blue card would enable a holder to work in all child related context which may not hold a zero tolerance policy,
  3. [42]
    I find the evidence indicates that PS has a longstanding substance abuse issues which generated multiple drink driving offences, multiple periods of disqualification that suggest a disregard for the law.
  4. [43]
    PS’s oral evidence to the Tribunal minimised the risk that this offending has posed to the community and to children and demonstrated a significant lack of insight and judgement about appropriate behaviour in the broader community, and risks posed by his alcohol related conduct to children. 
  5. [44]
    His attempts to address his substance abuse have not demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation over the long term despite the opportunities provided by the courts over time, and the Tribunal is unable to see any concrete attempts address his alcohol abuse.
  6. [45]
    He has continued to drink and drive despite periods of disqualification, 4 period of interlock and periods of probation due to these offences, which demonstrates a disregard for the law which is in place for the safety of the community, including children and their carers.
  7. [46]
    His evidence of the impact of his criminal offences in supplying dangerous drugs demonstrated an absence of insight into the harm drugs cause and the risks of his own drink driving to children and the community. Although the evidence indicates PS is not currently engaged in illicit drug related behaviour, he was charged with a serious offence which raises a presumption against the issue of a blue card, unless an exceptional case exists. There is nothing extraordinary in these circumstances, that would make this case an exceptional case to rebut the presumption against a blue card where there is a serious offence committed.  PS has himself indicated that he is living a normal life. Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27 makes clear that living an ordinary life is not sufficient to be considered as an exceptional case.
  8. [47]
    Having regard to all of the evidence, the relevant considerations of the WWC Act, the findings, and the risk and protective factors, on the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that this is an exceptional case in which it would be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance. The presumption against the issue of a negative notice is not rebutted by the evidence.
  9. [48]
    The Tribunal is obliged to act in a way that is compatible with human rights.[50]I must consider any human rights that may be affected by this decision.[51] It may be that rights to privacy and reputation, to take part in public life, and to further vocational education and training, contained respectively at sections 21, 23 and 36(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) – may be affected by this decision.
  10. [49]
    The decision making framework of the WWC requires all other considerations to yield to the best interest of children is the paramount consideration, and I am satisfied that the evidence indicates that it is not in the best interest of children that PS be issued a blue card.  Having regard to s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), I consider it is reasonable and justifiable to limit these affected human rights to uphold the protection of children interests where the decision is consistent with purpose of the WWC Act in child related employment screening decisions; I am satisfied that the decision is compatible with human rights.[52]
  11. [50]
    I confirm the decision made by the respondent on 17 July 2020.
  12. [51]
    It is not in the interests of a child for the identity of PS or his witnesses or the organisation involved to be made public in circumstances where PS has a child.  The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) allows for the making of a non-publication order where it is not in the interests of justice.[53] I am satisfied that identifying the applicant and witnesses would not be in the interests of justice.
  13. [52]
    Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal prohibits the publication of any information that could lead to the identification of the applicant and his witnesses and accordingly these reasons have been deidentified.

Footnotes

[1]s 20(2) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal act 2009, (Qld).

[2]S 360 WWC Act.

[3]S 6 WWC Act.

[4]Filed 5 February 2021.

[5]BCS 16-17, BCS 72-73.

[6]BCS 66-69.

[7]BCS 20-24; BCS 58-65.

[8]BCS 35-34; BCS 70-71.

[9]NTP1-142.

[10]NTP 143- 208.

[11]WWC Act, s 225.

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

[13]Ibid.

[14]QCATA 87 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492.

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

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

[17]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 8.

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

[19]Commissioner for Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No2) [2011]QCATA 87, [53].

[20]Re TAA [2006] QCST 11.

[21]BCS 16-17; BCS 72-72.

[22]BCS 72-73.

[23]BCS 66-69.

[24]BCS 56.

[25]BCS 62.

[26]BCS 72.

[27]BCS 72

[28]BCS 73.

[29]BCs 25-26

[30]BCS 58-61.

[31]BCS 27-34

[32]BCS 71.

[33]BCS 66-69.

[34]BCS 66-69.

[35]NTP 75.

[36]NTP 81

[37]NTP 88.

[38]NTP 92-93.

[39]NT 93.

[40]NTP 98.

[41]NTP 36.

[42]NTP 92.

[43]PS oral evidence.

[44]PS oral evidence.

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

[46]Oral evidence of PS.

[47]Oral evidence of PS.

[48]Oral evidence of PS.

[49]Statement CG 15 July 2021.

[50]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 58(1)

[51]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 58(5)

[52]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 58 (5) (b)

[53]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    PS v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • Shortened Case Name:

    PS v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCAT 131

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member McDonald

  • Date:

    11 Apr 2023

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 3 - [2011] QCATA 87
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCATA 27
Cite 2 - [2014] QCATA 27
Cite 3 - [2014] QCATA 27
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

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

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.