Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2023
  4. WH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General - [2023] QCAT 377

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

WH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General[2023] QCAT 377

WH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General[2023] QCAT 377

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

WH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 377

PARTIES:

WH

(applicant)

v

Director General, Department of justiCe and Attorney-generAl

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML008-22

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2023

HEARING DATE:

22 March 2023

HEARD AT:

Toowoomba

DECISION OF:

Member Hemingway

ORDERS:

  1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that WH’s case is exceptional within the meaning of section 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.
  2. Publication of the name or identifying information of the Applicant or any person associated with him, other than to the parties of the proceedings is prohibited pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – negative notice – where applicant has numerous complex charges and convictions for fraud and dishonesty over significant period of time – where applicant has finalised charges for weapons offences – where he was found not guilty – whether an exceptional case exists

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

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

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 8, s 13, s 26 s 58, s 31

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492, [28]

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

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252, [110]

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

Tollo v Chief Executive Office Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 13

WJ v Chief Executive Public Sector Business Agency (2015) QCATA 190

Re TAA [2006] QCST 11, [97]

Director General of Justice and Attorney General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

WH self-represented

Respondent:

Ms L Hailstones Legal Officer Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    The Applicant was issued with a working with children clearance on 5 June 2020. Blue Card Services were subsequently notified by the Queensland Police Service that the Applicant’s police information had changed. On 4 February 2021, Blue Card Services requested submissions from the Applicant as to why he should receive a working with children clearance. The Applicant’s eligibility was reassessed. He was advised by letter dated 30 March 2022 of the Reasons for the decision to refuse a working with children clearance. He applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to review that decision on the 5 January 2022.
  2. [2]
    The Applicant has significant criminal history but no serious offences. After the issue of Reasons on behalf of the Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General, his outstanding charges relating to offences involving weapons, alleged to have been committed on the 19 December 2020 were finalised. He was found not guilty in a summary trial on the 7 February 2022.
  3. [3]
    The Applicant is aged 46 and is the father and stepfather of ten children. He is also a grandfather to seven grandchildren. He resides on a rural property in Queensland with his current wife and three children. The Applicant’s family consists of his wife, his children, stepchild and grandchildren and his stepson. He states that he has hundreds of acres and hundreds of animals.[1] He states that he is involved in numerous community organisations and activities. He describes a large network of friends and associates. He advised in the course of the hearing that he was the school bus driver.[2]
  4. [4]
    He became a first-time parent in 1996 at age 19. He tried (unsuccessfully) to meet what he describes as, his then wife’s expectations. This led him to criminal offending to satisfy her material expectations.  He and his second wife had four children and he has had two children with his current wife. His current wife has a son aged 21 to whom he is a stepfather.
  5. [5]
    The Applicant has been impacted by his wife’s ill-health resulting from a spinal injury. in 2008. She has had surgery and has the need for on-going pain management. The Applicant describes the distress associated with his wife’s illness as well as two other events which impacted him in the period 2008-2009.
  6. [6]
    The first event involved an injury to his eldest daughter who sustained severe burns in their home. Fortunately, despite the severity of her injuries he states that she is fully recovered.[3]
  7. [7]
    The other event involved his then seven-year-old daughter. The child was in the care of the Applicant’s father and the father’s partner. The Applicant was informed that his daughter had been sexually assaulted by one of the partner’s teenage sons. The Applicant complained to the Department of Child Safety alleging sexual abuse. This matter was distressing to him as he states that the Department did not progress the complaint. He states that the Police did not assist either.
  8. [8]
    In response to this event, the Applicant reports that he founded an organisation. This organisation’s goal was to help families and provide referrals to legal or mediation services. It was also to serve as a contact centre and meeting place for victims of family and domestic violence.[4] He secured a lease on a building to locate the centre.
  9. [9]
    The Applicant states that he established this centre without securing funding. The lessor of the premises where the Centre was situated, insisted that a condition of the lease was that the centre and his service was government funded. In order to obtain a lease for this project, The Applicant falsely claimed his service received government funding. He agrees that he altered a letter to this effect. His forgery was later discovered, and he was charged and convicted regarding this offence.[5] 
  10. [10]
    Criminal charges were brought against the Applicant following an incident on 19 December 2020. Work was being done with a contractor to dig a drain the edge of the road outside the Applicant’s property when the neighbour who was driving past, stopped his car and a confrontation ensued. The Applicant was alleged to have fired a shotgun at the neighbour and his family, including five children. The Applicant’s wife was filming the work at the time and was allegedly assaulted by one of the neighbour’s children. The Applicant released his dog who attacked this child causing injury. There are differing versions of this incident, referred to by the Presiding Magistrate at the Summary Trial.[6]
  11. [11]
    Following this incident, the Applicant’s wife was taken to hospital and remained in intensive care for a period. Police subsequently attended the Applicant’s property following a complaint to them by the neighbour.
  12. [12]
    Charges were brought against the Applicant. The charges were threatening violence-discharge a firearm. Other charges were that the Applicant was charged with dangerous conduct with weapon, and secure storage of a weapon. The matter was heard by way of a summary trial where the presiding Magistrate found the Applicant Not guilty of the charge of using a weapon namely a shotgun to engage in conduct likely to cause injury to a person. His Honour found the Defendant not guilty on the 7 February 2023.[7]
  13. [13]
    The Applicant has an extensive criminal history prior to this incident. The Applicant described his upbringing and numerous life events and relationship issues to which he attributes his criminal behaviour.[8] He considers that his parents whom he describes as drug abusers to have contributed to his pattern of dishonesty, theft and criminal offending. He states that his father was a thief, and he copied his behaviour.
  14. [14]
    He has undertaken several occupations including being a chef, computer business owner, rural property owner, company director. He claims to be involved in numerous community organisations including the Rural Fire Brigade and the Scouts movement.
  15. [15]
    The Applicant provided written submissions on 25 November 2019, 15 December 2021 and oral submissions to the Respondent on 2 December 2019.[9]
  16. [16]
    He declined to provide a life story as directed by this Tribunal on 18 January 2022. He responded to the Tribunal Order in his undated letter received on the 28 November 2022. In that letter he states that:

… he will give a brief outline of his life story over the last 18 months. He states that my history prior to this has already been dealt with and considered as part of my original application and approval several years ago…

  1. [17]
    The Applicant provided a letter dated 2 March 2022 which outlines his version of the roadside incident on 19 December 2020. It does not provide any detail of his life; education, employment history or family details as had been ordered.
  2. [18]
    The Applicant’s wife gave evidence in the hearing. No other witnesses were called.

Legislative Framework

  1. [19]
    The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) reviews the decision of the Respondent in accordance with the WWC Act and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”).[10] The Tribunal must hear and decide a review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and has all the functions of the decision maker for the reviewable decision.[11]
  2. [20]
    The purpose of the review by this Tribunal is to consider whether the Applicant’s history and current circumstances constitute an exceptional case and to produce the correct and preferable decision with respect to the issue of a negative notice.
  3. [21]
    In undertaking the Review, the Tribunal considers the objects of the WWC Act which are to promote and protect the rights, interests, and well-being of children in Queensland through the administration of a scheme to screen persons seeking employment in particular areas concerning children or who operate relevant child related businesses.[12]
  4. [22]
    The chief consideration in this review is that the welfare and best interests of children is the paramount consideration.[13] The Tribunal must apply the paramount principle in its review of the decision to issue a negative notice.
  5. [23]
    Section 221 of the WWC Act provides for the issue of a positive notice (working with children clearance) except where the chief executive finds an exceptional case applies. The decision under review is whether an exceptional case exists such that the presumption under section 221 is rebutted.
  6. [24]
    The legislation does not define, ‘exceptional case’. It is a matter which should be determined on an individual case basis not hampered by a general rule.[14] The Tribunal must find an exceptional case exists if, based upon all considerations, it would harm the best interests of children to issue a positive notice allowing the holder an unfettered right to work with children in any capacity.
  7. [25]
    Therefore, because the Applicant has not been convicted of a serious offence or disqualifying offence, the Respondent must issue the Applicant a positive notice unless the Respondent is satisfied that this is an exceptional case.
  1. [26]
    The Tribunal has previously considered that the standard of proof required for the Tribunal in the review of a reviewable decision is on the balance of probabilities, the civil standard of proof, bearing in mind the ‘gravity of the consequences’[15] Neither party bearing the onus of proof. However, the Briginshaw test is considered in the decision in CMH which distinguishes the administrative role of the Tribunal from that of the adversarial nature of legal proceedings citing numerous authorities which demonstrate the limitations of this Tribunal’s role in determining facts.
  1. [27]
    The Tribunal has had regard to the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in CMH.[16] One ground of appeal in the application was the standard of proof applied to the case in first instance.
  2. [28]
    The Appeal Tribunal concluded that:

While as noted above it is not productive to approach the question of whether the Tribunal is satisfied from the viewpoint of an onus of a standard of proof, it remains that the Act is protective in nature and by section 5 its object is to promote and protect the rights interests and wellbeing of children and young people. Also, by section 6(a) and section 360 WWC Act, the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount whilst section 221 expressly requires a determination as to what is in the best interests of children.[17]

  1. [29]
    In reaching a decision, the Tribunal must also apply the mandatory considerations under section 226 of the WWC Act in addition to the paramount principle under sections 360 and 6 (a) of the WWC Act and any other relevant factors.
  2. [30]
    Both Sections 226(2) and section 228(2) are relevant in these proceedings as the Respondent considered both police information including the finalised charges and other relevant information under section 228 WWC Act.
  3. [31]
    It has been established that any hardship or prejudice suffered by the Applicant due to the Tribunal’s decision is not relevant to the finding of an exceptional case.[18] Scott’s case is cited to in the decision in CMH as authority for the proposition that prejudice to the Applicant is not a relevant consideration, the reason being that the CEO must be satisfied that the issue of a positive notice is not in the best interest of children in order to refuse a positive notice. 
  4. [32]
    Section 226(2)(a) of the WWC lists the following specific factors which must be considered by this Tribunal:
    1. whether the offences are a charge or conviction and
    2. whether it is a serious offence and if it is if it is a disqualifying offence and
    3. when the offence was committed or alleged to have been committed and the nature of the offence and is relevance to employment or carrying on a business that involves or may involve children and
    4. in the case of a conviction the penalty imposed by the court and if the court decide not to impose an imprisonment order for the offence or not to make a disqualification order under section 357 the courts reasons for the decision
  1. [33]
    Sections 226(2)(b)-(f) provide the following considerations:

Section 226(2)(b): Any information about the person given to the Chief executive under sections 318 or 319.

Section 226(2)(c):  Any information about the person’s mental health given to the Chief executive under sections 335.

Section 226(2)(d):  Any information about the person given to the Chief executive under sections 337 or 338.

Section 226(2)(e)  Any Information about person given to the chief Executive under the Disability Services Act 2006, section 138 ZG.

Section 226(2)(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. [34]
    There is no information available to the Tribunal in respect of sections 318, 319, 335, 337, 338 of the WWC Act or section 138 ZG of the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld). However, there are other relevant factors considered by this Tribunal as discussed below.

Police records and court outcomes concerning the Applicant.

  1. [35]
    On the 2 May 1996 the Applicant was convicted of three charges of false pretences on 17 May 1995, 29 September 1995 and 2 October 1995. He was convicted and fined $300 with no conviction recorded and with an order to pay a fine of $300 and costs of $49.25 and restitution of $252.
  2. [36]
    On 20 December 1996, a charge against the Applicant of passing a valueless cheque was dismissed with no evidence to offer.
  3. [37]
    On 18 January 2000, the Applicant was convicted and fined $200 for an offence of contempt under the Breach Bail Act committed on 17 January 2000.
  4. [38]
    On 8 November 2001, the Applicant was charged with stealing as a servant on dates between 29 September and 13 October 1995. A Nolle Prosequi was entered, and he was discharged.
  5. [39]
    On the 8 November 2001 he was convicted of numerous charges of fraud being dishonestly obtaining property between the dates of 3 September 1999 and 18 January 2000 and further charges for fraud on dates between 5 February 2000 and 7 July 2000 in an amount of $5,000. His penalty was a sentence of 18 months in prison wholly suspended for a period of two years and compensation of an amount of $5,324.
  6. [40]
    On 28 May 2004, he was convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and with a probation period of 18 months with restitution of $7,090.10 in regard to a valueless cheque, discharge debt liability or obligation charges (5 charges on 11 December 2003, 13 December 2003, 20 November 2003, 14 January 2004, 15 January 2004).
  7. [41]
    On 23 January 2006 he was convicted but not further punished, of passing a cheque not met on presentation on 20 November 2003.
  8. [42]
    The Tribunal notes the existence of the pattern of criminal offending between 1995 and 2011 which are summarised as involving the passing of bad cheques to dishonestly obtain property.  The Tribunal notes the purposes of the payments by cheque to include the supply of clothing and footwear, computer equipment, repairs to two CD players, a tape deck, repairs, registration of a trailer and motor vehicle, purchase of Go cards, items purchased at an hotel.
  9. [43]
    The Tribunal does not discount these charges and convictions but notes the deceptive and dishonest nature of the Applicant to be concerning. Whilst it is not known if children were present at the commission of the offences, it is of concern that the Applicant engaged in such repetitive flagrant offending. His conduct shows a total disregard for the law and for his victims who then waited months or years to recover the funds if ever.
  10. [44]
    The Tribunal has considered the 2011 offences involving the obtaining of leased premises and the theft of funds in some detail.
  11. [45]
    On 19 February 2013 the Applicant was convicted of the following offences: Fraud -dishonestly gain a benefit/advantage on a date unknown between 7 July 2010 and 30 July 2010.
  12. [46]
    The details of the offence are that the Applicant gained a lease of a building from the lessor, a director of a family trust. The Applicant requested early possession. He indicated to the lessor that his organisation was a not-for-profit organisation.
  13. [47]
    The Applicant presented two letters to the lessor as an assurance of capacity to pay. One letter was from the Queensland Government Department of Employment and Economic Development and the other was a letter from the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian.[19]
  1. [48]
    The letter from the Queensland Government Department of Employment and Economic Development stated that the registered business was receiving government funding sufficient to meet their needs. It is conceded by the Applicant that this letter was forged.
  2. [49]
    The lease agreement provided a three-month lease payment free period and certain repairs to be undertaken.  Four lease payments were made between 19 October 2010 and 16 November 2010. Police investigations established that these funds were alleged to be stolen money. The building was abandoned in March 2011 with outstanding lease payments of $14,384.55.
  3. [50]
    Subsequent proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found in favour of the lessor family Trust in August 2011. The applicant failed to appear, and a default judgement and costs was awarded to the Lessor by the Registrar. It is unknown if these funds were ever recovered by the lessor.
  4. [51]
    The Applicant offers this information concerning the forged letter purporting to be from the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian in relation to these offences. The Applicant states in a letter to Blue Card Services[20] dated 25 November 2019, as follows:

This letter was never in doubt as to its authenticity and I do believe that at the time in the brief that it may have been a positive notice letter for my then current status or perhaps could have been the same of my wife’s status. I cannot recall the exact nature of the letter bearing the Commissions’ name, but I can assure you that it was not a fake or false letter. The document of the brief outlines I was charged for creating is the only document I did create.[21]

  1. [52]
    Further offences occurred between 25 October 2010 and 7 June 2011 in which the Applicant stole sums of money from his stepson.
  2. [53]
    The circumstances were that the complainant was related by marriage to the Applicant. The complainant was deployed to East Timor with the army reserves for a period of 8 months. Prior to leaving, the complainant agreed that he would transfer money to the Applicant who would repair and restore his damaged engine in a holden utility. The Applicant and Complainant agreed that the Applicant would purchase a $5000 engine from a wrecker.  An amount of $9,745 was transferred to the Applicant’s account between 30 October 2010 and 20 December 2010.
  3. [54]
    The Applicant stated that the repairs were progressing when speaking with the complainant during his deployment. The Complainant returned from his deployment on 6 June 2011 and after checking the vehicle, found that only minor work had been performed by the Applicant. The complainant complained to Police. Enquires by police found that sums of money had been expended, but not on the complainant’s vehicle as agreed but rather on unrelated expenses.  It appeared that only $500 had been paid by the Applicant to the wrecker for the $5000 engine. Searches to verify the Applicant’s claims were not able to establish his claims and explanations.
  4. [55]
    The police brief relevantly says the Complainant stated, “the Applicant would always have an answer but would never speak to the complainant properly about it.”[22]
  1. [56]
    The Applicant was charged with a number of offences including fraud, dishonestly obtaining property form another, stealing, passing valueless cheques on the following dates: 25/10/11, 25/10/2010, 07/01/2011, 21/01/2011, 15/06/2011, 24/06/2011, 07/10/2011, 10/10/2011.
  2. [57]
    Magistrate Baldwin made a number of remarks at the sentencing hearing for convictions for nine offences comprising two of  fraud, one of stealing, and the balance of six charges of passing a valueless cheques. His Honour then stated that he had taken a number of factors into account including these matters:
    1. The serious nature of the offending.
    2. A number of people have been disadvantaged by the Applicant’s actions.
    3. The Applicant cooperated with the court system by pleading guilty albeit at a later stage.
    4. Th Applicant failed to appear at the QCAT matter and that he was still burying his head in the sand and did not want to know about the difficulties he had had.
    5. The Applicant was required to care for his wife however this could not be outbalanced by the other factors.
    6. The Applicant had other prior convictions for dishonesty offences. His Honour stated that he was surprised that the Police did not submit that the Applicant be sentenced to actual jail time given he had previously been given an imprisonment sentence for similar offending in relation to a lesser amount.
    7. The punishment imposed needed to be just in all the circumstances and consider the Applicant rehabilitation. It also had to act as personal deterrent to the Applicant and a general deterrent to the community.
    8. His honour expressed that I do not believe there is any alternative to a prison term. The issue was whether the applicant would serve actual time imprisoned.
  3. [58]
    In relation to the WWC Act 226(2)(v), the remarks of his Honour on the 19 February 2013 indicate the position of the Court regarding the effect on the community of the Applicant’s offending. It appears that his Honour noted the increase in the amounts related to the fraud offences as having escalated in value; initially from $5,000 to $7,000 to $25,000. Going to issue of remorse, his Honour stated that:

It is regrettable that there have not been better inroads made into restitution, particularly in regard to the two people. They were your stepson N and the R family.[23]

  1. [59]
    On all charges, convictions were recorded and a sentence of 7 months imprisonment with a parole release date of 19 February 2013. He was sentenced to two years’ probation with his conviction being recorded and restitution of $25,772.89 payable. The probation and imprisonment orders were to be served concurrently.
  2. [60]
    The Applicant was charged with threatening violence-discharge a firearm and with dangerous conduct with weapon, and secure storage of a weapon as a result of a roadside incident on 19 December 2020.  The first and third charges were dismissed due to lack of evidence. In respect of the second charge of dangerous conduct with a weapon the Applicant was found not guilty in a summary trial by Magistrate Lee, on 7 February 2023. Children were present at the incident giving rise to these charges.
  3. [61]
    The Applicant has a significant criminal history in the period 1996-2023. Except for the charges related to the events of 19 December 2020, there is no direct evidence that children were present for the commission of the fraud offences.
  4. [62]
    There is no evidence to this Tribunal regarding sections 318, 319, 335, 337, 338 of the WWC Act or under the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld), section 138ZG.
  5. [63]
    There are other matters relevant under section 226(2)(f) which the Tribunal has taken into account.
  6. [64]
    In relation to WWC Act 226(2)(v) the Tribunal has considered the remarks of his Honour in the course of his decision that the Applicant was found not guilty of the offences with which he was charged.
  7. [65]
    His Honour remarked that:

These are criminal proceedings. The prosecution bears the onus of proof, and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution must prove each and every element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt.[24]

  1. [66]
    He goes on the conclude:

Mr R gave evidence there is no guns at all during this particular incident. There was -Mr R did shoot a goanna earlier before this incident and that is all. It is true to say that I have to establish which body of evidence is more plausible. To that I say that it appears to me that there is a certain degree of inaccuracies, to say the least in respect of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Z. And it baffles me as to why Mr Z stopped in the first place when he had a bundle of kids in the car when he would have a confrontation with someone.

In the circumstances of the case, this is a criminal prosecution, the prosecution bears the onus of proof to a very high standard. In that instance, I come to the view that I should find the defendant not guilty.[25]

Respondent’s case

  1. [67]
    The documents relied upon by the Respondent are as follows:
    1. Reasons for Issue of negative Notice
    2. Application
    3. Criminal History and supporting information.
    4. Letter requesting submissions.
    5. Submissions
    6. Negative Notice
    7. Notice of Negative Notice to employer
    8. Queensland Police Briefs for offences 1995-2011
    9. Material supplied to Tribunal by QPS
    10. Transcript of proceedings on 19 February 2023
    11. Transcript of proceedings 7 February 2022
    12. Verdict and Judgment dated 7 February 2022
  2. [68]
    The Respondent submits that the Applicant has multiple convictions for dishonesty related to offences committees between 1995 and 2011. The Respondent states that this offending reflects that at the relevant time the Applicant was willing to engage in unlawful and deceptive behaviour.[26]
  3. [69]
    The Respondent submits that the Applicant was charged with three firearms offences and though these are now finalised, the offences are relatively recent and so represent a risk factor.
  4. [70]
    The Respondent considers that the circumstance of this offending suggests that the Applicant may have difficulty exercising restraint. The Respondent submits that the Applicant may engage in threatening and unlawful behaviour in response to conflict, which raises concerns about this ability to exercise restraint and deal with situation in a rational and law-abiding manner. Such skills are important when working with children, as children rely on the adults around them to provide a safe and protective environment and act in their best interests.[27]
  5. [71]
    The Respondent contends that the Applicant discharged a firearm towards the complainants and did so in a threatening manner and that there were multiple children present.
  6. [72]
    The Respondent refers to Section 228(2)(d) WWC act which allows the tribunal on review to consider anything else relating to the disciplinary information that the chief executive reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person in determining if this is an exceptional case.
  7. [73]
    The Respondent states that it acknowledges that the Applicant was not ultimately convicted of the weapon related offence. However, the primary consideration is ensuing the best interests and wellbeing of children who participate in essential and developmentally focused activities regulated under the Act. Considering the seriousness of the charges and allegations made, the application of the different standards of proof in criminal proceedings, the alleged offending remains relevant to determining the Applicant’s eligibility to work with children and young people.[28]   
  8. [74]
    The Respondent refers to the fact that the police material refers to multiple witnesses seeing the Applicant with a rifle or hearing a shot fired or the Applicant threatening the complainant. The Respondent refers to the fact that the Applicant reported in response to the juvenile complainant assaulting his wife that the Applicant released his dog, and the dog subsequently caused a deep bite to the teen and tore part of his pants off in the struggle. The Respondent submits that the Applicant has not shown any insight or remorse into the harm caused to this child.[29]
  9. [75]
    The Respondent refers to the fact of the transferability of the blue card so that it cannot be made subject to conditions. The consequence of this is that the Applicant if given a working with children clearance would be able to work unsupervised in any child related employment or as a volunteer in child related organisations. The Respondent states that this consequence is a relevant consideration for the Tribunal.
  10. [76]
    The Respondent submits that the Tribunal must consider the supremacy of the paramount principle when considering if this is an exceptional case and to balance this against rights of the Applicant. The Respondent also states that the hardship experienced by the Applicant is not relevant to the considerations in this case as the paramount principle prioritises the welfare of children above all else.
  11. [77]
    The Respondent’s decision considers the effect of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (“HR Act”) on the review. decision states that, when acting as a public entity the Tribunal is required to consider, “human rights Parliament specifically seeks to protect and promote,” “and to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.”  The Tribunal must also interpret statutory provisions, “to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose in a way that is compatible with human rights.”
  12. [78]
    The Respondent refers to the decision in CMH[30] and states that: there may be matters the Appeals Tribunal in CMH appears to have overlooked or has not addressed that may bear on the Tribunal’s consideration.[31]
  13. [79]
    The Respondent submits that there are a number of competing human rights relevant to the decision before the Tribunal. Both the rights of children and the Applicant must be considered.
  14. [80]
    The Respondent cites the Tribunal’s decision in the case of SSJ[32] concerning the application of the HR Act when the Tribunal is acting as a “public entity”.
  15. [81]
    The Respondent submits that the finding of an exceptional case will still be compatible with section 13 of the HR Act because any finding resulting in limitation on the Applicant’s human rights is still consistent with the object, purpose and paramount principle of the WWC Act which is that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount.[33]
  16. [82]
    The Respondent does not consider that the Applicant displays sufficient insight or has demonstrated any remorse.
  17. [83]
    The Respondent states that the Applicant has a propensity to engage in dishonest behaviour.
  18. [84]
    The Respondent also notes that in cross examination the Applicant attempted to resile from his guilty pleas.

Applicant’s case and documents relied upon by the Applicant.

  1. USB partial recording events of 19 /12/ 2020;
  2. Written submissions dated Undated letter to Tribunal received 28 /11/2022, 25/11/2019, 02/03/2022;
  3. Oral Submissions 02/12/2019;
  4. Oral presentation  and responses in the hearing.
  1. [85]
    The Applicant submits that the offending occurred when he was aged 18 -34 in the period till 2011 and is in the past. The Applicant stated that he believed that the Respondent was not impartial having already decided the outcome. He states that his verdict of not guilty entitles him to a working with children clearance as his prior offences of fraud were known to the Respondent when they issued his blue card on the 5 June 2020.  He believes it is unfair for the earlier criminal history to be raised now by the Respondent.  
  2. [86]
    The Applicant submits he has experienced great personal hardship as a result of relationship issues at the time of the earlier offences. Subsequent to this, his current wife has been very unwell and incapacitated due to a spinal injury in 2008 and this caused great hardship to the family.  He states that his wife was seriously re-injured in the 19 December 2020 incident. 
  3. [87]
    The Applicant states that he does not present a risk to children. He has three children at home.  He has a large family including grandchildren and is on good terms with his children, stepchild and grandchildren. He is aware of the need for children to be kept safe. He is in a stable relationship and says he has strong family connections and support and is regularly at family events.
  4. [88]
    The Applicant indicated that he took anti-depressants for one year and saw a psychologist for six months. He confirmed that he had served a term of imprisonment for his earlier offences.
  1. [89]
    He states his coping strategies include breathing, accessing his support network, and having discussions about his concerns he consults his doctor about pain management and emotional health every two months.
  2. [90]
    He stated that the reason he offended previously was that he had wanted to do anything “to make it happen” in his earlier relationships. He states that he does not defend his wrong actions such as writing bad cheques and understands he did wrong in committing the offences.
  3. [91]
    He says he has made several changes to his life and his financial affairs which include his wife handling all finances. He volunteers at various clubs but does not accept a role with any authority or where finances are involved. He described a changed approach to decision making so that it is more a of a team effort, and he does not try to be the man.
  4. [92]
    He states that he derives pleasure from the successes of his children, and this works against depression and anger issues.
  5. [93]
    He states that he has community contact through the Rural Fire Brigade and his Church Community.

Consideration of the Evidence

  1. [94]
    In his oral submissions to Blue Card services (paraphrased in these Reasons) the Applicant indicated the following matters which the Tribunal regards as protective or qualified protective factors:
    1. After his offending he spoke to a doctor and was prescribed anti-depressants for a year;
    2. He saw a psychologist for six months. He copes by using strategies learned from his psychologist, including breathing exercises and talking to his support network and journalling;
    3. If he realises he cannot cope or is getting to that point, he reaches out for support;
    4. He used to keep it bottled up as he did not want to stress his wife of family, but he knows not to do this anymore;
    5. He is no longer medicated for depression, but still visits his doctor for his emotional help and pain management twice a month. This allows him to keep on top of everything;
    6. He said Magistrate Baldwin acknowledged that this intentions were coming from a good place however his actions erased any positives he dealt with the situation the wrong way. He believes he was reactive, but knows he did the wrong things trying to help the family;
    7. He stated there was media courage of his fraudulent offences which changed his life;
    8. He knows not to do this anymore;
    9. He identified his wife looks after the finances, he receives a stipend and will only take the credit card if he needs to get something specific. He volunteers but does not have a position of control where he has access to finance;
    10. As a result, the family are in a better financial position with savings;
    11. His daughter is recovered and has three children;
    12. His youngest t daughter is out;
    13. His eldest son is in the army and is a guidance counsellor; 
    14. He has three children living at home but has helped his children through their struggles and because of his own experiences.
  1. [95]
    Whilst the Tribunal is not required to balance risk factors with protective factors in order to determine if an exceptional case exists, the Tribunal has considered the protective factors to which the Applicant refers.[34]
  2. [96]
    These are that he has a large extended family and that he has arranged his affairs so that he has no temptations to fraudulent activity. His wife handles the finances. He has a network of friends and associates and engages in voluntary community participation including that involving child such as scouts and driving the school bus. Despite the lack of independent evidence, the Tribunal is prepared to find that at least some of this it true though the Applicant displays a propensity to dramatize, embellish and exaggerate which has not diminished as he has aged.
  3. [97]
    The Tribunal is required to determine whether an exceptional case exists after evaluating all the available evidence before it and applying relevant legislation and case law.  The Tribunal must produce the correct and preferable decision. The rules of evidence do not apply but the Applicant must be given natural justice and procedural fairness. His human rights are preserved by the application of the HR Act to these proceedings.
  1. [98]
    It was clear by considering the interaction between the Applicant and the Respondent and the Applicant and the Tribunal and to some extent in the hearing that the Applicant has difficulty with appropriate communication and attitude to the legal system. He is also notable as being inconsistent and evasive. For example, though highly critical of his father, he left his seven-year-old daughter in his father’s care where she was abused.
  2. [99]
    He has little respect for the law and its institutions. This is apparent from his early extensive and repetitive history of offending relating to dishonesty, involving manipulative and deceitful conduct. Unfortunately, it appears from his recent submissions to remain his position that the Law does not apply to him and that events and circumstances can be twisted to work in his favour by selective presentation or omission of information. 
  1. [100]
    This is made evident in his remarks to the Tribunal in respect of the Order imposed by this Tribunal on 18 January 2022. He declined to provide a life story as directed in the Order and for which a template was provided. He responded to this Direction in his undated letter received on the 28 November 2022 as follows:

he will give a brief outline of his life story over the last 18 months. He states that my history prior to this has already been dealt with and considered as part of my original application and approval several years ago.[35]

  1. [101]
    He restated this view in his opening remarks at the hearing of his application to review the decision of Blue Card Services on the 22 March 2023.
  2. [102]
    The Tribunal notes this response to indicate that the Applicant considers that he does not need to comply with the Orders made by this Tribunal.  This mindset has affected the proceedings, as little useful information has been volunteered to the Tribunal. The incomplete information about his life made it difficult for the Tribunal to extract relevant information to consider the complete picture of his circumstances.
  3. [103]
    Rather, the Tribunal found the Applicant to be evasive and to obfuscate, to blame others and fail to take real responsibility. The Tribunal found the Applicant to have a propensity to conceal information he considered was not helpful to his case. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not been forth coming or frank in his supply of relevant information. It only came to light in cross examination that he was the driver of a school bus or that he had an involvement with the scouts. This information, which is highly relevant, was not volunteered. He did indicate in cross examination that his neighbours (the subject of the weapons charges) and their children are known to him. The children utilise the bus service. There was a public confrontation between the Applicant and these persons involving the Applicant yelling abuse at the complainant. This confrontation is referred to in the Reasons for decision by Magistrate Lee.[36] 
  4. [104]
    This demonstrates to the Tribunal that the Applicant’s attitude remains unchanged and shows an absence of insight into the events, the consequences, and the review process. He remains focussed upon himself and not upon the impact of his conduct on others. 
  5. [105]
    There is no information about any rehabilitation programs undertaken by the Applicant which would be useful to Tribunal’s deliberations. Magistrate Baldwin refers to the probation conditions as follows:

Now that requires you to agree to the conditions and the conditions are that you report to them and receive visits form them as they say, you tell them where you live and work and any changes within two business days, you undergo and courses, counselling …[37]

  1. [106]
    There is no information about his compliance with the Court’s Orders in the period 2013-2015.The Applicant has chosen to remain silent on these matters. The Tribunal notes that extensive information was provided to him concerning information required by the Order dated 18 January 2022. The purpose of the life story was explained to the Applicant and generally ignored.
  2. [107]
    The Applicant states that he is a member of the Rural Fire Service, the local Show Society, the Commerce and Progress Association and Scout group leader. He states that he has a network of friends and colleagues and groups he is involved which contain a great deal of older farmers and businesspeople from his church. He mentioned his pastor whom he consults regularly. The Tribunal gives little weight to this claim in view of the fact that the Applicant was unable to produce a single person, apart from his wife who could attest these claims.
  3. [108]
    The Applicant, though claiming to have been diagnosed and treated with depression and anger issues does not provide any independent evidence of the assistance he claims to receive from his doctor.[38] In cross- examination he indicated an on-going use of pain medication and anti-depressants. He saw a psychologist for six months. He has not assisted the Tribunal with a report. This would assist by explaining any medical diagnosis or indicate how he is progressing with managing his current stressors such as those presented by children, family exigencies and an ailing wife.  It is unclear what the illness is, for which he takes pain medication. His evidence was that this is on-going, and he has regular consultations in relation to it.
  4. [109]
    Whilst the absence of information from the psychologist or doctor is not fatal to his case, the absence of any supporting information or any references of any kind; where the Applicant has a known and lengthy history of deceit and dishonest conduct contributes to risk relevant for this Tribunal.
  5. [110]
    The Applicant denied current anger issues, yet the language of his recent submissions and reactions when challenged was at times dismissive and aggressive.
  6. [111]
    On this issue, the Applicant’s wife gave evidence that the Applicant requires the blue card for Scouts and driving the school bus. She stated that she had not read the Reasons for Decision but was familiar with the Applicant’s criminal history. In response to the cross examiner, she stated that she did not believe he was an angry and violent person but that everyone gets angry. She stated that he was not a risk to children. She said he helps in any way with the kids. She stated that at the time of the assault on her, that she believed the Applicant had an unrealistic belief he could save her. She said she had counselling after the assault and was in Intensive Care for four days and has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since the attack. The Tribunal found her evidence to given in a straight-forward manner and to be credible.
  7. [112]
    In cross-examination the Applicant prevaricated with the Respondent in answering questions, contested the evidence of witnesses and misconstrued the findings of the Court. He also stated in cross examination that he was unable to recall being untruthful or giving inconsistent evidence. The Applicant was prone to misleading answers and of exaggeration and factual distortions.
  8. [113]
    The Applicant consistently reworked the facts of his offending despite his guilty pleas.  In cross examination he directly stated that he did not consider the impact of his offending on others, in particular children. He stated in cross examination that his children are aware that he went to prison, but does not appear to consider the impact of this upon them, but rather the hardship he has suffered through imprisonment.
  1. [114]
    The Tribunal takes note of the pattern of offending in the period dating back to 1995. The Applicant is unchanged in his attitude to the offending, continuing to justify his actions, defecting blame onto others.
  2. [115]
    This indicates to the Tribunal an absence of insight and remorse. In recently written submissions he focusses on a detail he considers exonerates him. His argument appears to be that he forged one document not two. This attitude of minimising wrongdoing remains the position of the Applicant who fails to accept responsibility for his actions by forthright and clear responses to appropriate inquiries. The Applicant states in a letter to Blue Card Services that:[39]

This letter (from CCYP) was never in doubt as to its authenticity and I do believe that at the time in the brief that it may have been a positive notice letter for my then current status or perhaps could have been the same of my wife’s status. I cannot recall the exact nature of the letter bearing the Commission’s name, but I can assure you that it was not a fake or false letter. The document of the brief outlines I was charged for creating is the only document I did create.[40]

  1. [116]
    This document was not written at the time of the offence, but in 2019. It shows no change of attitude despite the changes claimed by the Applicant and the opportunity for reflection.
  1. [117]
    The Applicant maintains this mindset and it was in evidence in the hearing. There he cast doubt on the witness statements in particular the sworn Witness Statement of Mr V who stated that the driver of the vehicle had stated:

“You want to throw stones at me” … 

And further Mr V stated:

“I then heard a shotgun being discharged…”[41]

  1. [118]
    Mr V was not called as a witness in these proceedings and the Applicant discredited his evidence and that of the complainant. He denies that children were present yet refers to a “teen” assaulting his wife. He did not show any remorse though he claims the child who assaulted his wife received injury from the dogs he had set upon them. He had released his dogs to control the situation and did not consider whether this was an appropriate response to manage the situation. There is an absence of reflection despite the passage of time.
  2. [119]
    Tollo’s case involves an appeal against a decision to confirm the decision of the issue of a negative notice. In that case the Mr Tollo argues that time had passed, and the domestic violence offences were now 12-13 years ago, he was a different person now.
  3. [120]
    The Appeal Tribunal found in favour of the Respondent on the grounds that despite the submissions of Mr Tollo, the risk factors included his differing stories regarding the offences, placing blame on others, further offending, blaming the victim, the police and interpreter. As a consequence, the Tribunal took the view that despite the passage of time Mr Tollo lacked insight. Like the Applicant in these proceedings, Mr Tollo accepted wrongdoing in his written statement but orally made denials and failed to acknowledge or accept the blame he must carry.[42]
  4. [121]
    The Applicant’s volatility and dramatization of his circumstances is reflected in his responses to situations with which he is confronted. In his submission to the Blue Card Services, he describes how he managed an allegation of his daughter’s sexual abuse:

He states that he was livid when told of the alleged abuse and insisted that the perpetrator be taken to police.[43]

  1. [122]
    This submission is recently authored. Following the experience of his daughter allegedly being sexually assaulted, he omits any reference to steps he took to protect her or gain assistance. He does not mention medical assistance, counselling, school guidance or support for her. His focus in his submission, is on his outrage rather than the measures he took to protect his child. The Applicant’s view is distorted and demonstrates a basic lack of insight and perspective. It represents a significant risk factor as adults caring for children are obliged not simply to say they can act protectively and seek appropriate assistance but to demonstrate their understanding of this responsibility. 
  2. [123]
    After this incident with his daughter, he then undertook; with no particular training or authority, to found an organisation which purported to help young victims and their families. The organisation was founded on the basis of stolen funds and forged documents.
  1. [124]
    In this matter, there was evidence before the Tribunal that was not before Blue Card Services when the negative notice decision was issued. The firearms charges were finalised on 7 February 2023 after the Respondent had issued a negative notice and the Applicant was found not guilty.[44]
  2. [125]
    In this case the Tribunal is unable to interpret differently the facts upon which the Magistrate ruled, in February 2023. The case of WJ’s[45] is an authority for the proposition that:

The fact that there has been a judicial determination concerning the assault on JL means that any facts inconsistent with the conviction may not be found.

  1. [126]
    This Tribunal therefore must adopt the Magistrate’s findings of fact in considering the effect of the verdict of not guilty upon these proceedings. The Applicant contends that this sole factor should now entitle him to being issued with a BlueCard. The Tribunal rejects this submission of the Applicant.
  2. [127]
    The Tribunal accepts the submission of the Respondent that that the alleged offending remains relevant to determining the Applicant’s eligibility to work with children and young people. The Tribunal is entitled to consider any other relevant factors despite the outcome of the summary trial. The right of the Tribunal is preserved by section 226 (2) WWC Act.
  3. [128]
    The recent submissions of the Applicant do little to assist his case. He states that he was still working with children. He states that he requires his BlueCard so he can continue to mentor young people.[46]  There is no evidence to this Tribunal of his qualifications to undertake these actions.[47] His past history of flagrant disregard for the rights and interests of others would imply that he is unsuited to assisting children and young people. Section 6 of the WWC Act states that:

The welfare and best interests of children are paramount.

that children have a right to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s well-being.

  1. [129]
    This absence of a depth of insight and propensity to engage in dishonest behaviour remains of concern to the Tribunal. The risk is heightened by the Applicant’s claim in that he can mentor young people.[48] The Tribunal finds that the misguided beliefs of the Applicant represent a risk factor were he to have unfettered access to children.
  1. [130]
    The Tribunal notes the decision in Re TAA[49] which describes the value of insight as follows:

The issue of insight into the harm caused by these incidents is a critical matter for the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the view that good insight into the harm that has been caused is a protective factor. A person aware of the consequences of his actions or other harm is less likely to reoffend than a person who has no insight into the effect of his actions on others. This is particularly important with children because they are entirely dependent on the adults around them having insight into their actions and the likely effect on the children.

  1. [131]
    The Tribunal particularly notes the observations in that case that children are dependent on the adults around them. This essential vulnerability of children does not appear to be understood by the Applicant because of his propensity to deflect blame and minimise his actions and to justify past actions.  The Tribunal makes the following findings:
    1. That the Applicant is an unreliable historian because his unsupported submissions about changed behaviour are considered against the background of an entrenched pattern of dishonesty and deceit;
    2. That the Applicant does not display sufficient insight into the effects of his dishonest conduct upon friends, family and children, and the wider community and the impact of this for an individual seeking to care for children;
    3. That the Applicant’s attitude to his offending is unchanged since the commission of his offences of dishonesty evidenced by his recent submissions and his oral evidence which minimise and justify his actions to the present time;
    4. That the Applicant has expressed remorse in writing, but this is not borne out by his oral comments and recent conduct towards others, which continues to show deficits in conflict management representing a risk to vulnerable children;
    5. That the Applicant’s remorse is mainly directed towards the impact of the criminal activity and its consequences upon himself;
    6. That the Applicant has commenced developing a strong support network, who support his endeavours to remain law-abiding, however he provided no independent evidence of this apart from his word which has not been unreliable;
    7. That the Applicant does not appreciate the need for those who care for and mentor children and young people to have appropriate skills to undertake these roles. It is not a case of being self-appointed. The Applicant has written about the need to keep children safe but shows little understanding of this concept.  He has not participated meaningfully in the process by providing requested details  and has maintained an oppositional approach to the review.
  2. [132]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that the HR Act has been complied with and that it has:
    1. given proper consideration to human rights relevant to the decision;
    2. acted and made this decision in a way compatible with human rights; and
    3. in making the decision the Tribunal must act reasonably in the face of a statutory provision such as that containing the paramount principle.[50]
  3. [133]
    The Tribunal accepts the submission of the Respondent that the paramount principle justifies the limitation upon the rights of the Applicant and so a finding of exceptional case is compatible with the provisions of the HR Act.
  4. [134]
    The child’s rights are protected by the HR Act: 

the right of the child to the protection that is needed by the child and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child.[51]

  1. [135]
    Section 360 of the WWC Act requires the Tribunal to ensure that the protection from harm and the welfare and best interests of children is the paramount consideration when determining if an exceptional case exists.[52]
  2. [136]
    In the Tribunal’s view this is an exceptional case because taking the totality of the evidence the Tribunal finds the Applicant represents a real and appreciable risk to children if he was issued with a working with children clearance.

PUBLICATION

  1. [137]
    The Tribunal may make an order pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), prohibiting the publication of the following (other than in the way and to the persons stated in the order):
    1. the contents of a document or other thing produced to the Tribunal.
    2. evidence given before the Tribunal.
    3. information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified.

Footnotes

[1]  Disclosed in Cross Examination.

[2]  Disclosed in Cross Examination.

[3]  Applicant’s letter dated 25 November 2019 BCS 51.

[4]  Applicant’s letter dated 25 November 2019 BCS 55.

[5]  Applicant’s letter dated 25 November 2019 BCS 52.

[6]  Transcript of Proceedings 7 February 2022, Magistrate Lee.

[7]  Transcript of Proceedings 7 February 2022 Magistrates Court before Magistrate Lee BCS 203.

[8]  Applicant’s letter dated 25 November 2019 BCS 55.

[9]  BlueCard Services Reasons for Decision dated 6 December 2021 BCS 53.

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

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

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

[13]  Ibid, s 6(a).

[14] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492, [28].

[15] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[16] Director General of Justice and Attorney General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6.

[17]  Ibid at 21.

[18] Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Scott [No2] (2008) WAR 125 [106], (Buss J).

[19]  Queensland Police Service Court Brief BCS 173.

[20]  letter to Blue Card Services dated   25 November 2019.

[21]  Letter Applicant to Blue Card Services 19 November 2019.

[22]  BCS 195.

[23]  Sentencing remarks Magistrate Baldwin 19 February 2013 para 10. 

[24]  Sentencing remarks Mag Lee 7 February 2023 para 10.

[25]  Sentencing remarks para 125-35 Mag Lee 7 February 2023.

[26]  Submissions for respondent dated 17 January 2023para 16.

[27]  Submissions for respondent dated 17 January 2023para 19.

[28]  Submissions for respondent dated 17 January 2023 para-23.

[29]  Submissions Applicant 2 March 2022.

[30] Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6, [27]-[30].

[31]  Submissions for respondent dated 17 January 2023 footnote 16.

[32] SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252, [110].

[33]  Respondent’s submissions dated 13 January 2021 para 73-75.

[34] Commissioner for Children and Young people and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303 (6)-(7).

[35]  Applicant letter dated 2 March 2022.

[36]  Transcript of proceedings Feb 7, 2023, paragraph 40.

[37]  Transcript of proceedings Magistrate Baldwin 19 February 2013 40-45.

[38]  Applicant’s undated statement BCS 55.

[39]  Letter to Blue Card Services dated 25 November 2019.

[40]  Letter Applicant to BlueCard Services 19 November 2019.

[41]  Witness Statement Mr V taken by Senior Constable at L town 21 December 2020.

[42] Tollo v Chief Executive Office Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 13.

[43]  Letter Applicant to Blue card services 25 November 2019 BCS 52.

[44]  Criminal History Verdict and Judgment Record dated 7 February 2022.

[45]  WJ v Chief Executive Public Sector Business Agency (2015) QCATA 190.

[46]  BCS 55.

[47]  Ibid. BCS 52.

[48]  Undated letter from the Applicant BCS 55.

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

[50] Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), section 58.

[51]  Human Rights Act 2019 section 26(2).

[52] Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), section 360.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    WH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • Shortened Case Name:

    WH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCAT 377

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Hemingway

  • Date:

    19 Sep 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
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Scott [No2] (2008) WAR 125
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) WAR 125
Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott No.2 (2008) WASCA 171
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) WASCA 171
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCATA 303
Cite 2 - [2013] QCATA 303
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
Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCATA 6
Cite 2 - [2021] QCATA 6
Cite 3 - [2021] QCATA 6
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11
SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 252
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 252
Tollo v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCATA 13
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCATA 13
Cite 2 - [2016] QCATA 13
WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCATA 190
Cite 2 - [2015] QCATA 190

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.