Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2023
  4. PRL v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General - [2023] QCAT 250

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

PRL v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General[2023] QCAT 250

PRL v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General[2023] QCAT 250

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

PRL v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 250

PARTIES:

PRL

(applicant)

v

Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML035-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 July 2023

HEARING DATE:

14 March 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Matthews

ORDERS:

That the decision of the Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General that PRL’s case is exceptional within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (risk management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CHILD WELFARE – APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF NEGATIVE NOTICE – IS THE CASE EXCEPTIONAL – REVIEW OF DECISION OF BLUE CARD SERVICES – whether applicant represents a risk of harm to children – whether protective factors outweigh risk factors-lengthy criminal history and domestic and family violence

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 4, s 20, s 21, s 24

Working with Children (Risk Management & Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 226 (2), s 228, s 360

MCH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General (2020) QCAT 75, Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492, Grindrod v Chief Executive Officer, Department for Community Development [2008] WASCA 289

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Hailstones, L

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    The applicant PRL applied for a working with children clearance (‘Blue Card’) pursuant to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Risk Screening) Act 2000 (“WWC Act”) and was issued with a Blue card in August 2013.
  2. [2]
    Following the issuing of the blue card, the respondent received notification of a change to the applicant’s police information which resulted in the respondent reassessing PRL’s eligibility to hold a blue card.
  3. [3]
    PRL was than advised of Blue cards intention to issue a negative notice, and an opportunity was afforded to her to provide written submissions about whether her case is an exceptional case.
  4. [4]
    After reassessing her eligibility, Blue card issued PRL with the written notice of decision (negative notice) on 23 April 2014.
  5. [5]
    On 13 March 2020, PRL applied to have the negative notice cancelled, but was advised by Blue card they intended to continue the negative notice and so invited her to again provide written submissions as to whether or there is an exceptional case.
  6. [6]
    On 6 January 2022, the negative notice continued, and she was provided with the notice, the reasons for decision and review information.
  7. [7]
    PRL filed an application to the Tribunal to review the respondent’s decision on 31 January 2022.
  8. [8]
    A one day hearing was heard on 14 March 2023.

The law and legislative framework

  1. [9]
    Pursuant to the QCAT Act, the purpose of the Tribunal in its review jurisdiction is to make the correct and preferable decision by standing in the shoes of the decision maker.[1]  
  2. [10]
    This is based on a fresh hearing on the merits[2]  Pursuant to section 24 of the QCAT Act, the tribunal may confirm or amend the decision under review; set aside the decision and substitute its own decision and return the matter to for reconsideration to the decision maker with any necessary directions the tribunal considers appropriate.
  3. [11]
    The paramount principle when considering and determining child related employment decisions is the welfare and best interests of children which is a paramount[3] consideration “to which all others yield.”[4]
  4. [12]
    The regime of the WWC Act is to ensure protective scaffolding is placed around employment criteria for all people who wish to work with and or around children, and therefore, any hardship or prejudice the applicant may suffer if not successful in obtaining a blue card is of no relevance.[5]

Background

  1. [13]
    The applicant is currently 42 years old and a single parent to her son.
  2. [14]
    The applicant states that prior to the birth of her child and her relocation to Queensland her life involved excessive drinking and drug taking due to the scene and her work environment.
  3. [15]
    In the materials before the tribunal, PRL provides that her younger years were marred by her parent’s violent relationship until they divorced when she 5. She states that they are good parents and were always there for herself and her sister.
  4. [16]
    During her formative years, PRL was a gymnast, until she yearned for the same social life as her friends which is when the downhill spiral commenced.
  5. [17]
    She dropped out of school at 15, began smoking, drinking regularly and smoking marijuana. When she turned 18, she got her first job behind a bar, started clubbing and taking party drugs which lasted for a few years before stopping, but continued to drink and smoke.
  6. [18]
    PRL drank daily which is what she claims led to her getting into drunken arguments and getting involved in abusive relationships with other alcohol abusers.
  7. [19]
    PRL has been charged and convicted of many offences whilst under the heavy influence of drugs and alcohol and is the named respondent in numerous past Domestic violence orders.
  8. [20]
    The offending history is long and protracted spanning between 2003 until 2021, with some 16 charges in total, but has no convictions for the last 14 years.
  9. [21]
    The offending and convictions include disorderly conduct aggressive and anti social offences with violence towards ex partners, police officers, security staff, and elderly members of the public.
  10. [22]
    In 2003 PRL completed year 10, and year 12 via TAFE in 2005, and up until she was 6 months pregnant continued to work in hospitality leading to the completion of many courses and 17 years of experience in various roles.
  11. [23]
    PRL states that the most life changing event was in 2015 when her son was born. She ceased drinking, but for the occasional drink, and quit smoking cold turkey.

Filed proceeding materials.

Applicant:

  1. [24]
    The applicant filed and relied upon the following;
    1. (a)
      A life story dated 12 March 2022;
    2. (b)
      A letter and statement dates 13 October 2022 together with a 41 page bundle of documents including refence statements of JK, PS, and JJ; and
    3. (c)
      A statement in reply to material dated 23 December 2022.

Respondent BCS

  1. [25]
    The respondent relied primarily upon two bundles of documents marked BCS 1-136 and NTP 1-38.
  2. [26]
    The bundle of documents marked BCS included the reasons statement, criminal history, extract of traffic history, police reports in relations to her offending and transcripts of sentencing remarks.
  3. [27]
    The bundle of documents labelled NTP included materials produced to the tribunal by the Coolangatta Magistrates Court and Southport Magistrate Court.
  4. [28]
    Additionally, both parties relied upon written and oral submissions provided throughout the hearing.

The reviewable decision

  1. [29]
    The decision under review is whether PRL’s case is an “exceptional case.” 
  2. [30]
    Given the applicant has been convicted of an offence, the Tribunal must have regard to the prescribed considerations set out in the WWC Act when determining whether an exceptional case exists.[6]
  3. [31]
    The term exceptional case is not defined under the WWC Act but is rather a question of fact and degree to be decided incrementally on a case by case basis underpinned by the legislative framework where neither party bears the onus of proof in determining whether an exceptional case exists.
  4. [32]
    When considering whether an exceptional case exists, consideration was given to the paramount principle, the mandatory factors set out in and 226(2) of the WWC Act which is not an exhaustive list, but rather they “merely contain particular matters which the tribunal is obliged to consider in deciding the application[7]” and s 228(2).
  5. [33]
    Consideration was also given to the Human Rights considerations, namely, as a public entity, it is unlawful for the Tribunal (public entity):
    1. (a)
      to act to make a decision in a way that is not compatible with Human Rights; or
    2. (b)
      in making a decision, fail to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision, in these circumstances, section 26 (2) specifically the right of every child to “the protection that is needed by a child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child.”
  6. [34]
    The tribunal is satisfied that when making this decision, it has complied with the Human Rights Act and acknowledges that if or where there is a limitation on Human Rights, it is justified by the Act.[8]
  7. [35]
    In reaching this decision, I have considered all the relevant factors under the Act, and other relevant information on hand to determining if this is an exceptional case.
  8. [36]
    Further, the tribunal is fully aware of the transferability of the blue card and consideration was given accordingly in this regard when reaching this decision, that PRL would have unfettered access to children and would be allowed to work unsupervised with and around children without restriction if reissued a blue card.

Oral Testimony of PRL

  1. [37]
    Regarding the contents of her filed evidence, PRL confirmed that they were true and correct.
  2. [38]
    Until the cancellation of her blue card, the applicant had been employed at Currumbin State school since 2021.
  3. [39]
    PRL considers in the past 8 years since having her son, he is the best thing that has happened to her, and she considers herself to be a good mother.
  4. [40]
    PRL agreed that in the past she has struggled with conflict resolution when alcohol was involved, and that drug taking affects a person’s ability to be a good role model for children, but she no longer uses but struggled with both until she was 29-30 years of age.
  5. [41]
    PRL provided an account of her younger years of drinking and taking drugs, and states that the last issue with Domestic violence was when her son was 4 months old.
  6. [42]
    Currently she is working and a single parent to her son and is saving for their future.
  7. [43]
    Her relationship with her son’s father commenced in 2011 and ended in 2015 when she was pregnant as he continued to drink heavily. He continues to drink but is not allowed to do so in her home but does not drink to intoxication.
  8. [44]
    She considers that pregnancy was a turning point in her life, as she only drinks on special occasions.
  9. [45]
    PRL claims that she considers she somewhat made herself appear to be an alcoholic in past submissions but acknowledged that alcohol is addictive where people think they have control.
  10. [46]
    PRL denied ever drink driving but confirmed she has drove under the influence of drugs in 2014 which resulted in a conviction, but claims she had no idea how the drugs got in her system.
  11. [47]
    When questioned about her criminal history, PRL explained that the last incident occurred at her home, and her son was present, but inside the house.
  12. [48]
    She had for the past 4 years had social drinks with her ex-partner Mick and her neighbour Ken. She emphasised that there were no charges laid as the complainant did not discharge the burden of proof. There were words discussed but she considers she did not respond aggressively.
  13. [49]
    PRL stated that it was going to come to a head eventually, but she did not consider she acted anti socially, but rather was defending herself. When questioned if she considered that her son was likely to have heard, she said, “no” he was inside listening to music and when son Rory asked about the neighbours subsequently after, she told him, they have been naughty, and we do not speak to them no more.
  14. [50]
    Regarding the other incidents ranging from 2011-2015 PRL confirmed that she did use a bat to attack an ex-partner, and acknowledged in hindsight, it was not the best way to act, nor best way to manage the situation. She confirmed that at the time both abused alcohol and drank to intoxication.
  15. [51]
    Regarding the domestic violence order in 2016 which expired 2018 with her father as the named aggrieved, she stated that her father would not give her son to her. And an argument started. She has tried to stop him. And was intoxicated, it was good Friday, and I told him I was going to kill him and called him vulgar names.
  16. [52]
    PRL states that it was about them not giving my son back. And agrees that her actions, and those of the others involved could have negative impacts.
  17. [53]
    Other versions of the domestic violence incidents indicate that her relationship with Mick was often violent some 3-4 times a week until she left. She states that her son has never experienced nor been exposed to Domestic violence, or heated arguments.
  18. [54]
    PRL considers that DV is never good, you should try to talk out issues, as violence does not solve anything and considers that DV constitutes verbal, physical and manipulations behaviours, and it has no good effect on society.
  19. [55]
    When questioned about what advice if any she would give to children about DV, PRL states, that it is not acceptable, is not right, and leads to a lot of hurt and pain, and sometimes it is better to just walk away.
  20. [56]
    PRL claims to have sought help by way of anger management and drug and alcohol counselling. This occurred for a time as part of her probation conditions, weekly for 30 minutes, but she did not find it helpful, and following reoffended and was not rehabilitated.
  21. [57]
    Following the 2014 conviction further treatment was sought from AA, by way of group sessions, but again considered it was not sufficient for rehabilitation even when agreeing that reformed alcoholics facilitated it.
  22. [58]
    PRL also agreed she could not substantiate those attendances by way of evidence.
  23. [59]
    PRL when asked states that she considers she is not an angry person, it is only when she is drunk, and things escalate, and when drunk she cannot control her behaviours.
  24. [60]
    PRL considers that she has better perspective about alcohol since 2009 following been given a book, as it busts people myths about alcohol, as people are convinced it is harmless.
  25. [61]
    PRL currently does not consider herself addicted to alcohol and can abstain and considers the book effective and efficient to address her concerns.
  26. [62]
    She confirmed she has quit smoking cold turkey and has been one year cold turkey with no alcohol consumption, though found it hard to resist.
  27. [63]
    PRL confirmed she has no health professionals to assist with, nor confirm proven strategies she has for anger and or alcohol control.
  28. [64]
    Regarding coping strategies used when her son is trying, PRL states she uses time out, and discussing things with him rationally.
  29. [65]
    She considers that she has made significant changes by not hanging out with the same people she used to, doing the same things, which the respondent put to her is contrary to the February 2021 incident.
  30. [66]
    She is currently single and has been for 7 years and considers that the one positive is without all the charges, she considers she would most probably be in the same situation.

JK

  1. [67]
    JK is the aunt (through marriage) of PRL and has known her for 26 years.
  2. [68]
    She claimed to be aware of the negative notice and reasons statement.
  3. [69]
    JK confirmed that PRL has a history of alcohol abuse and violence and is has known of her being involve in DV and Family violence.
  4. [70]
    JK considers that regardless, this would have been different if she had support in the past and had been able to seek legal advice.
  5. [71]
    JK states that in the past 8 years it is her opinion that PRL use has been quite minimal, and that PRL and her son spend time with them, and she has saw changes in the past 8 years.
  6. [72]
    JK considers that PRL used violence in the past as a self-preservation tool and to be safe and considers that PRL has done a lot lately to learn about herself.
  7. [73]
    JK supports the changes in PRL, and when questioned about the 2021 incident and DV upon her father, JK considers that PRL managed the 2021 situation by actions she considers not to be anti-social.
  8. [74]
    JK stated that she considered that she could have resorted to violence, but she did not, which shows growth on her part and her capacity to see things more clearly and manage things you do not expect. When the neighbour came onto her property, JK considered PRL managed it to the best of her ability.
  9. [75]
    Regarding the incident involving her father, JK confirms there were grazes and bruises on her when they picked her up. JK considers PRL’s verbal attack as normal in the circumstances as this was learnt behaviours
  10. [76]
    JK considers that PRL has changed and has strategies in place to better her life and those of her child.

JJ

  1. [77]
    JJ is the mother of the applicant. She confirmed her statements were true and correct.
  2. [78]
    JJ provided evidence to the tribunal of her recollection of what PRL had told her about the 2021 incident being, that PRL said she did not throw a plant or drink, and that her son was present in the back yard.
  3. [79]
    JJ confirmed PRL past behaviours before the tribunal and considers that at the time of the hearing it was 18 months since her last drink, but could not recall, know, nor able to provide any pertinent details about her recall of information about facts or conversations had with her daughter when asked.
  4. [80]
    JJ put this down to age, and a passage of time.
  5. [81]
    I am therefore not satisfied that PRL has been forth coming about the exposure to family and other violence her son may have been exposed too. I consider that JJ was recalling her true account of what was said to her when giving evidence.

PS

  1. [82]
    PS is the younger sister of the applicant. Prior to providing evidence, PRL had spoken to PS to advise her of what to say, and what evidence her mother had provided.
  2. [83]
    Given this, her evidence is weighted accordingly.
  3. [84]
    She was aware of the past drinking but was not aware of PRL’s history of perpetrated domestic violence.
  4. [85]
    When informed, it was her opinion that it would have been as protection.
  5. [86]
    PS provided that the DV incident with her father arose as her father’s partner did not want PRL at the house and that PRL has acted in a defensive mode, and that there has since been a lot of actions on both sides to repair the relationship and that their father is very proud of the steps that PRL has taken to not abuse drugs and alcohol.
  6. [87]
    In consideration of the totality of the oral evidence provided, the tribunal considers that whilst those who provided evidence support PRL, they were not fully aware of all the pertinent details, nor where fully aware of the extent of PRL’s offending, nor the nature of the offences.
  7. [88]
    The witnesses were all adamant that if PRL was violent, it would have been a defence mechanism, or protective which indicates to the tribunal there were significant details of the past offending which PRL had not disclosed, or been up front about, in particular regarding her assault charges and other domestic violence charges.
  8. [89]
    JJ, the mother of the applicant provided evidence that was in direct contrast to some the evidence provided by the applicant.
  9. [90]
    Of note was evidence that PRL’s son being present in the yard when the 2021 incident occurred which is direct contrast to PRL alleging that her son has never been exposed to or witnessed anti-social aggressive and intimidating behaviours.

Risk and protective factors

  1. [91]
    When considering risk and protective factors, the tribunal takes the approach of Eales and agrees that it should not be a balancing exercise. The tribunal in these circumstances consider it important to mention them accordingly as they assist in further providing reasons for this decision.
  2. [92]
    The Tribunal acknowledges that PRL is no doubt a loving and supportive mother to her son and provides for his needs.
  3. [93]
    She made attempts to relocate away from negative influences before giving birth to her son to elicit a fresh start.
  4. [94]
    PRL has also taken steps in self reflection and introspection.
  5. [95]
    However, PRL has not sought nor demonstrated to the tribunal that she has learnt nor sought treatment to assist with her triggers and stressors when around nor when consuming alcohol whether in large or small quantities. The incident of 2021 and DV incident involving her father demonstrates an inability to exercise restraint, use appropriate conflict resolution strategies and deal with stressful and difficult situations in a law abiding manner.
  6. [96]
    PRL considers that treatments for alcohol abuse are ineffective and considers that reading a book is sufficient. The tribunal disagrees. The applicant has not demonstrated to the tribunal that alcohol is not an issue in her life, and that following past violent relationships, that she has addressed the traumas that can stem following, nor addressed her anger issues which arise when stressed or put in a confronting situation.
  7. [97]
    She has not demonstrated that she has impulse control, nor the ability to assess a situation so to be able to effectively manage it before it is out of hand.
  8. [98]
    The tribunal draws this conclusion on the applicant’s own evidence, namely, there was known tension between her and the female neighbour (F). By PRL’s own account was she was aware that F was jealous but chose to remain when obviously people were drinking (large amounts), and emotions were affected and heightened, and as such an incident occurred.  These behaviours, and alike behaviours and exposure to such, can affect a child’s perception of what is appropriate behaviour in the community.[9]
  9. [99]
    PRL has in the past alleged to have sought treatment but has periods of reoffending following, then ceases treatment which demonstrates to the tribunal she is not committed to long term treatment to effective address or manage behaviours.
  10. [100]
    PRL could not produce any evidence to confirm any treatments, nor professional help to satisfy the tribunal that she has learnt to address and treat her behaviours which led to her past offending, and therefore, has not satisfied the tribunal she has the requisite insight into her triggers which leads her to drink and engage in anti social behaviours.
  11. [101]
    Moreso, PRL failed to satisfy the tribunal that she has any real understanding of what the impacts are due to her continued behaviours on other members of the public and children if exposed to such behaviours.
  12. [102]
    PRL has not satisfied the tribunal that she has a stable and strong support network equipped to support her if and when needed, and whilst the tribunal acknowledges she has family who support her, this has proven to be volatile and marred with family fractures and ongoing family violence.

Orders

  1. [103]
    That the decision of the Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General that PRL’s case is exceptional within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (risk management and Screening) Act 2000 is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1]QCAT Act, s 20(1).

[2]Ibid s 20(2).

[3]WWC Act, s 360.

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

[5]Grindrod v Chief Executive Officer, Department for Community Development [2008] WASCA 289 at [109].

[6]WWC Act, s 226(2).

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

[8]Human Rights Act 2019, s 8.

[9]MCH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General (2020) QCAT 75.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    PRL v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • Shortened Case Name:

    PRL v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCAT 250

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Matthews

  • Date:

    05 Jul 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
Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Grindrod (No 2) (Grindrod) [2008] WASCA 289
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2008] WASCA 289
Cite 2 - [2008] WASCA 289
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 3 - [2004] QCA 492
MCH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney–General [2020] QCAT 75
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 75
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 75

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.