Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. VT v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2025] QCAT 276

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

VT v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2025] QCAT 276

VT v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2025] QCAT 276

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

VT v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2025] QCAT 276

PARTIES:

VT

(applicant)

v

Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-general

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML331-23

MATTER TYPE:

Children’s matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2025

HEARD AT:

Bundaberg

DECISION OF:

Member Hemingway

ORDERS:

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

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – negative notice – where Applicant charged and convicted regarding fraud – dishonestly gain a benefit /advantage and forgery sentenced to imprisonment of six months to be suspended for two years, where Applicant falsely and publicly claimed she had cancer and raised funds for her treatment 

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

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

BNN v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency

[2014] QCAT 392

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

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

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child

Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303

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

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

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child

Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27

Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-

General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6

Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Gibson (No 2) [2017] FCA 366

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland

[2010] QCATA 58

Re TAA [2006] QCST 11

TNC v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business

Agency [2015] QCAT 489

Volkers v Commissioner for Children and Young People and

Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant

Self-represented

Respondent

Ms Catherine Davis for the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    VT is aged 31. She is in apparent good health and seeks a Blue Card to enable her to work in children’s sport. She currently works as a cleaner at her local church where she also volunteers.
  2. [2]
    VT was charged and convicted on 24 May 2019 of fraud-dishonestly gaining a benefit/advantage (between 28/04/2016 and 01/07/17) and Forgery (on 12/1/2018).
  3. [3]
    VT applied to Blue Card Services for a blue card (working with children clearance) on 6 November 2021 pursuant to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (“WWC Act”).
  4. [4]
    VT was refused a blue card on 29 September 2023 following a consideration of her criminal history and her submissions made to Blue Card services regarding it.
  5. [5]
    The circumstances of the offending were that the Applicant raised money based on her false claim of having a rare cancer. She participated in fundraising activities through trivia nights and movie nights for the purpose of treating her alleged cancer.  These events were advertised by radio advertising, flyers and Facebook advertising over a period of three years and eight months. The Applicant would appear at these events with a shaved head, and at times, in hospital garb and in a wheelchair. She raised money from the public for her alleged treatment but false claim of having a rare and incurable cancer. When the deception was discovered by police, she admitted that she had never had cancer and pleaded guilty to the charges.
  6. [6]
    VT requested a review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to her on 5 October 2023.
  7. [7]
    The review is made by way of a fresh hearing by the Tribunal on the merits of the case and to produce the correct and preferable decision.[1]
  8. [8]
    On a review, the Tribunal has power to confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own or set aside the decision and return it for reconsideration.[2]
  9. [9]
    There is no presumption that the decision under review is correct.[3]
  10. [10]
    The Tribunal considers the objects of the WWC Act which is 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 or to volunteer in areas concerning children, or who operate relevant child related businesses.[4]
  11. [11]
    The welfare and best interests of children is the paramount consideration.[5] The Tribunal must apply the paramount principle in its review of the decision to issue a negative notice to the Applicant.
  12. [12]
    Section 221 of the WWC Act provides for the issue of a positive notice (Blue Card) except where an exceptional case applies. The decision under review is whether an exceptional case exists such that the presumption under section 221 is rebutted.
  13. [13]
    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.[6] 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, or volunteer to work with children in any capacity.
  14. [14]
    Therefore, because VT has not been convicted of a serious offence or disqualifying offence, the Respondent must issue the VT a positive notice unless the Respondent is satisfied that this is an exceptional case.
  15. [15]
    The standard of proof required by the Tribunal is that it must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities.  Neither party bears the onus of proof.[7] The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but must observe the rules of natural justice in conducting the review.[8]
  16. [16]
    In reaching a decision, the Tribunal must consider 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.
  17. [17]
    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.[9] This is based upon the paramount principle which is that the best interests of children must prevail over all other considerations.
  18. [18]
    The decision of the Appeal Tribunal in Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH is relevant in this context because the Appeal Tribunal found that the focus of the Tribunal in the review application should be the ultimate question of what is in the best interests of children does not lend itself to exact proof [and instead] involves consideration of how children might be affected and a degree of speculation as to what might happen in the future and of potential future risks to children.[10]
  19. [19]
    The following documents were relied upon by Respondent:
    1. Reasons for decision by Respondent to cancel negative notice dated 29 September 2023;
    2. Applicant’s criminal history;
    3. Police Reports regarding offending;
    4. Transcript of proceedings dated 24 May 2019;
    5. Material produced by Queensland Police Service;
    6. A letter from Corrective Services;
    7. Post-hearing Submissions dated 17 April 2025.
  20. [20]
    In addition, the Respondent relied upon its submissions made in the course of the hearing.
  21. [21]
    The following documents were relied upon by the Applicant: 
    1. Application to Review dated 5 October 2023;
    2. Statement of Evidence dated 3 June 2024 and annexures 1-8;
    3. Character Reference of PM dated 15 July 2024;
    4. Closing Submissions undated.

Police brief of Facts 

  1. [22]
    In October 2018, a report to police claimed that the Applicant and her husband were involved in a deception to gain money from the community by pretending that the Applicant had cancer. The Applicant used Facebook posts, flyers and radio advertising to advise of charity events to fundraise for her treatment.
  2. [23]
    In November 2018, Police attended the Applicant’s address and spoke to her husband. He stated that he worked at Y Cinema and his wife had cancer. He stated to police that he did not know what type of cancer, but that it was in her back.
  3. [24]
    Subsequently, the Applicant and her husband attended the Police station and spoke to the investigator.
  4. [25]
    The Applicant stated to police that:

I don’t actually have cancer, I never did. I have been living a lie for three years. My Husband didn’t know at the time. I have been lying to everyone. I’ve only taken money from my family, and I spent the money buying presents for sick kids at the hospital in Brisbane. I’m glad that its over cause it got out of hand. I never asked anyone for money. My husband did it all but he didn’t know. 

The Applicant stated that the maximum she obtained was $500.

  1. [26]
    The Applicant stated that she and her husband would use the money to travel to Brisbane once a month and she would pretend to have chemotherapy. She told him she had cancer and instructed him to stay at the motel opposite the Hospital. The Applicant claimed she would wait in the hospital foyer pretending to have treatment, while actually buying toys for sick children. She further stated that her husband was not aware of the truth.
  2. [27]
    The Applicant stated that she perpetrated the hoax because when she was sick, the family would bond together and not fight. She stated that she shaved her head regularly to give the appearance that she was receiving chemotherapy treatment.
  3. [28]
    Police interviewed several people in the community, including a local music artist, radio announcer and theatre manager who advised that the husband had been conducting trivia nights and fundraising for his wife’s treatment for a rare form of cancer.  Three trivia nights were held in 2016 and 2017. 150 people attended and the tickets cost $5.00.  The Applicant’s mother sold soft drinks on one occasion. A theatre fund raising event raised $600 for the Applicant. Police were unable to establish how much money was involved as it was always cash.
  4. [29]
    The Applicant at times appeared tired and sickly, in a hospital gown and in a wheelchair. A celebrity and local musician were involved to raise funds.
  5. [30]
    The Applicant initially attended an interview at the police station but remained silent.
  6. [31]
    The Applicant admitted forging a letter to her husband’s employer for the purpose of claiming leave for him on compassionate grounds. The letter contained a fictitious name of an oncologist (who was not able to be located) to substantiate her claim of her having cancer.
  7. [32]
    The Applicant was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment, fully suspended for a period of two years. A conviction was recorded.

Respondent’s case

  1. [33]
    The Respondent made prehearing submissions dated 27 February 2025 and post hearing submissions 17 April 2025. The Respondent relies upon the legislative framework underpinning the position with regard to the issue of blue cards and principles enunciated in the decisions of the Appeal Tribunal. The Respondent restates it’s concerns about a reliance upon the Applicant’s testimony and written submissions.
  2. [34]
    The Respondent notes the following matters to be factors in the Applicant’s favour:
    1. demonstration of some insight;
    2. acceptance of responsibility;
    3. engaging in self-seeking behaviours;
    4. undergoing extensive counselling and therapy to reduce risk;
    5. church employment;
    6. volunteering;
    7. expressing a faith;
    8. having new friends;
    9. strong support network;
    10. separating from her previous husband; and
    11. having remarried.
  3. [35]
    Despite these factors, the Respondent states the following issues to be of concern and constituting a risk to children. Overall, the Respondent submits that the Applicant’s evidence is unreliable.
  4. [36]
    The Respondent states that the Applicant’s evidence is weakened by her statement that she does not recollect many of the events as they are a hazy and a long time ago. The Respondent (and the Tribunal) observed the Applicant to have selective recall and to lack consistency in giving her evidence.
  5. [37]
    The Respondent observed that the Applicant’s evidence appeared to be improbable, implausible and unconvincing e.g. her husband did not know she lied about the cancer and that it would be a lie to tell others she was in remission to end the deception and that it would be difficult for her to tell her husband the truth and have him believe her.
  6. [38]
    The Respondent then submits that the Applicant claimed to not know much about cancer. However, she shaved her head, appeared in public in a sickly condition, wore a hospital gown, appeared in a wheelchair and went to Brisbane monthly for supposed chemotherapy. These facts do not support this submission so that her claim in this regard is unreliable.
  7. [39]
    The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s statement that her former husband controlled the funds raised and she did not see the money, apart from a small amount to purchase food but which she used to buy toys at the hospital to give to sick children, is improbable. 
  8. [40]
    The Respondent submits that the Applicant was unwilling to make reasonable concessions in the course of the hearing. She disputed the number of people attending the trivia nights. She claimed she did not know that 150 people attended the trivia nights. The Applicant claimed that these people were family and that she and a large family. She then responded that she had only seen her uncle and aunty at the trivia nights.
  9. [41]
    The Respondent submits that the Applicant displayed a lack of regard for the interests of others (including children) and that this lack of regard is shown by the following issues demonstrating that there are no factors of deterrence going forward which would stop a further crossing of boundaries:
    1. Willingness to engage in calculated behaviour intended to deceive;
    2. Willingness to lie, to exploit and take advantage of others for personal (including personal gain in the form of social approval) attention or acknowledgement;
    3. Failure to discontinue the ruse of her own volition, ‘failure to do so despite the ease of doing so by claiming she was cured or in remission’;
    4. Willingness to continue the deception for three years and eight months;
    5. Reasons claimed in the hearing for why she did not cease the deception i.e. it would be a lie;
    6. Failure to pay any restitution to the persons defrauded.
  10. [42]
    The Respondent considers that the nature and gravity of the offending itself is exceptional and that the Applicant’s circumstances reflect poorly on an assessment of her potential risk to children.
  11. [43]
    The Respondent submits that the Applicant lacks integrity, having a willingness to engage in dishonest behaviour which would pose a threat were she to be required make a report that reflected negatively upon her. The Respondent submits that the Applicant displays a lack of capacity to exercise sound judgment, particularly in the context of personal stressors.
  12. [44]
    The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s responses to police by way of explanation call into question her judgment when she told police she never asked anyone for money and that she told people she had cancer because she did not know what else to do.
  13. [45]
    Further her claim to not knowing much about cancer calls into question her judgment.
  14. [46]
    The Respondent submits that she is not a good role model for children, deflecting blame onto others. This demonstrates a lack of insight into the offending and deliberate attempts to minimise her offending.
  15. [47]
    The Respondent has concerns about her absence of insight in that her evidence suggests she may not have actual regret about her actions, but rather the public nature of the shaming she received.
  16. [48]
    The Respondent submits that there were inconsistencies between what the Applicant claimed was her reason for not ending the ruse and what her psychologist claimed was the reason. The Applicant denied the reason was approval seeking, whereas her psychologist claimed it was for self-esteem reasons and was approval seeking.
  17. [49]
    The Respondent submits that allegations and findings are relevant to and reflect adversely upon an evaluation of the Applicant’s eligibility to work with children and young people given the transferability of the blue card, once issued.  

Applicant’s case

  1. [50]
    The Applicant relies upon her submission that her life is changed. The changes are outlined in the Respondent’s submissions at paragraph 41(a) to (f) of these reasons. 
  2. [51]
    The Applicant submits that the events leading to her convictions were a long time ago and that she had difficulty recollecting and recalling details under pressure.  She also provided a reference from her brother who gave evidence and whom she says supports her contentions regarding the changes she has made.
  3. [52]
    The Applicant submits that she had difficulty in answering the questions put to her by the Respondent because of the passage of time and the fact that the Respondent does not understand certain aspects of my past marriage which caused a lot of unexplained memories and trauma of recollection.[11]
  4. [53]
    The Applicant submits she has:
    1. Continued therapy;
    2. Has a good marriage;
    3. Has positive support networks;
    4. Did not tell others she was cured or in remission as that would be another lie; claiming she is supported by her brother in this view. She claims she would do differently if doing so today.
  5. [54]
    The Applicant submits that she has communication difficulties and is a private person who struggled giving evidence. She states that she performed the role of advocate and applicant and that her short answers should not be construed as lack of insight.
  6. [55]
    The Applicant submits that she believes that: you can’t change the past and should focus on the future and so she is focussing on being a better person now not ruminating on details of past behaviour.
  7. [56]
    The Applicant submits that she is Indigenous and believes her communication style should not be considered as evasiveness or a lack of clarity. She states that she became confused with the questions and that the Respondent did not understand her submissions.
  8. [57]
    The Applicant submits that she does not have to be a good role model for children rather that to obtain blue card, she must not pose a risk to children. Further she claims that such a requirement i.e. to be a role model for children is irrelevant in this review. The Applicant submits that she is an appropriate role model because she is a young Indigenous woman able to learn and grow from past actions.
  9. [58]
    The Applicant submits that she has not offended since these events and has accepted responsibility for her actions and decisions. She cites her referees and support network.
  10. [59]
    The Applicant submits that her psychologist’s evidence is consistent with her evidence regarding the reason she did not tell her husband that she was deceiving him.  
  11. [60]
    The Applicant submits that the refusal of a positive notice is a breach of her human rights.

Referees

  1. [61]
    Dr Rahman stated that the Applicant had been a patient at the medical practice for 11- and a half years and stated that he knew of the details and the negative notice. He was aware that the Applicant was presenting herself as a cancer patient. He believes that she understands the charges and the consequences. He believes she is quite remorseful and should have a blue card. He supports her application.
  2. [62]
    Ms Humberdross is a psychologist who provided a report dated 2 April 2024. She stated that the Applicant was not having further treatment currently. The Applicant has undergone Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. The last consultation with the Applicant was two months prior to the hearing. 
  3. [63]
    Ms Humberdross did not know about the charge of forgery. She was not involved with treating the Applicant prior to 2023. She opines that the Applicant’s issues are resolved.  She is aware the Applicant lied about having brain cancer and is aware that she made a financial gain from the lie. She believes the Applicant is doing a lot of community work and that she is now resilient with situational stressors. Ms Humberdross states that the Applicant engages in healthy thinking with acceptance and commitment values and that she is not the same person as before. Ms Humberdross does not confirm that the psychological symptoms caused the offending but made some contribution to the offending.  Ms Humberdross said the Applicant had some issues with empathy, but that often this will come with maturity.
  4. [64]
    Ms Humberdross states that the Applicant lied to shift her sister’s focus, that she did not discontinue due to shame and embarrassment and that she sought the approval of others. Ms Humberdross stated that the Applicant has healthy thinking and is engaged in community work and volunteering.
  5. [65]
    Pastor N is involved with the Applicant both as an employee and volunteer at their church. She states that she knows about the negative notice and reasons. The Pastor stated that the Applicant has changed dramatically with more hope and vision. The Pastor is aware of the false claim of the Applicant that she had a rare and incurable form of cancer and that she obtained a financial benefit from her lie.  The Pastor gave evidence that she believed it was done for the reason of bringing the family together and that the deception ceased because it was reported to Police and she was caught.
  6. [66]
    CE is the Applicant’s older sister. She is the President of the Sporting Association which is where the Applicant seeks employment. She is aware of the negative notice and the reasons. She understands the circumstance that have led to this and supports her sister’s application for the blue card.
  7. [67]
    In cross-examination, she states that she sees her sister daily as they live together. She believes her sister had mental health issues at the time of the deception regarding having rare and incurable cancer and that she ceased the deception because someone reported her. CE stated her belief that the Applicant gave the money to people in need and did not keep any herself. CE was unaware that she had attended events in a wheelchair, hospital gown and appearing sickly. She was unaware as to who shaved her sister’s head.  She did not know where she waited when she attended the Brisbane hospital for alleged treatment and that she would trust her with her children’s life.  She was aware of the letter to her brother-in-law’s employer that the Applicant forged requesting compassionate leave from work rosters.
  8. [68]
    ZC is a team leader at the Sporting association. She knows about the negative notice but did not read it.  They have infrequent contact and the last in person contact was in April 2024. They have brief phone contact. She is aware of the false claim of cancer and that money was raised from this lie. She has seen the Applicant blackout but does not know if it was heatstroke. She supports the Applicant’s application for the blue card.
  9. [69]
    The Applicant’s brother gave evidence. He supports his sister’s application for a Blue Card and disagrees that she could have ceased the deception by saying she was cured or in remission.  He understands that financial benefit came from the deception. He claims that the family was in crisis at the time. He was aware that the deception stopped because of police intervention.

Consideration of the Evidence

  1. [70]
    In determining whether there is an exceptional case when a person has been convicted of, or charged with, an offence, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters set out in s 226(2) of the WWC Act, as follows:
    1. whether it is a conviction or a charge; and
    2. whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence; and
    3. when the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed; and
    4. the nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children; and
    5. 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; and
    6. any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 318 or 319; and
    7. any report about the person’s mental health given to the chief executive under section 335; and
    8. any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 337 or 338; and
    9. 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.
  2. [71]
    These criteria are considered below.
  3. [72]
    VT was charged and convicted of the offences of fraud-dishonestly gain a benefit /advantage (between 28/04/2016 and 01/07/17) and Forgery on 12/1/2018, neither of which constitute serious or disqualifying offences.
  4. [73]
    The offences do not relate specifically to activities with children, but the trivia nights and movie night fundraiser arguably may have had children as attendees or children becoming aware of the appearance of the Applicant at those events. The fundraising activities were repeated several times and publicised on local radio and television and Facebook. It is reasonable to assume that some children, including her family members, were aware of the circumstance that she feigned cancer symptoms.
  5. [74]
    The Applicant was sentenced for the offences of fraud-dishonestly gain a benefit /advantage (between 28/04/2016 and 01/07/17) and Forgery on 12/1/2018 by Magistrate Woodford in Bundaberg Magistrates Court on 24 May 2019 to which she pleaded guilty.
  6. [75]
    His Honour, Magistrate expressed the view that the [you] the Applicant had “had gone out of your way -a huge to fool people -defraud people….You have pleaded guilty and shown remorse but due to all to all those facts -what you have gone through with -with these people, pretending you had cancer, raising these donations, checking in across from the hospital, having these trivia nights, involving breakfast  radio show -things like this, it is completely unacceptable what you have done. On both charges you will be convicted. You will be sentenced to six months imprisonment. I will wholly suspend the period of imprisonment and set an operational period of two years”.[12]
  7. [76]
    No Information has been provided to the Tribunal regarding sections 226(e), 318, 319, 335, 337, 338 of the WWC Act and under section 138ZG of the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld).
  8. [77]
    The Tribunal has considered the submissions of the Applicant and Respondent as to her changed circumstances outlined above. The Tribunal must accord them appropriate weight in a consideration of whether the presumption in section 221 of the WWC Act is rebutted and the circumstances give rise to an exceptional case.[13]
  9. [78]
    In terms of the level of satisfaction required to meet section 221(2) of the WWC Act, it has been accepted that while certainty is not required, the Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved, that this is an exceptional case, in which it would not harm the best interests of children for a positive notice to be issued. Each case is considered on its merits to whether it represents an exceptional case.
  10. [79]
    The Applicant’s referees are supportive of VT’s application. The Tribunal considers the evidence given by them to be genuine and sincere. This is shown by their willingness to attend the hearing and be cross-examined. This factor goes in favour of the Applicant. Dr Rahman’s evidence impressed the Tribunal as thoughtful and considered. Family members were supportive of the Applicant as would be expected.
  11. [80]
    Ms Murrell, a psychologist, treated the Applicant for five years commencing 4 December 2018. Her report is dated 10 October 2023. She did not participate in the hearing and so her evidence was not tested in cross-examination. The Applicant presented to her as having worrying thoughts and feelings of sadness surrounding an incident in 2018. Strategies used were:
    1. Psychoeducation Depression and Anxiety;
    2. Relaxation Strategies;
    3. Healthy Coping;
    4. Cognitive Therapies including identification of cognitive distortions;
    5. Self-management relating to goals and problem solving.
  12. [81]
    The report states that the Applicant has learned:
    1. Problem solving skills;
    2. Positive psychological interventions;
    3. Interpersonal development;
    4. Communication and enhancement skills;
    5. Thought challenging and diffusion for negative cognitions and core beliefs.

The Tribunal notes that some five days prior to Ms Murrell’s report is dated, the Applicant made the following remarks to Blue Card services on 5 October 2023:

I believe the comments made about myself to lack genuine insight about my matter are belittling and incorrect towards myself as a person. I am well aware of my mistake and have taken full responsibility and was publicly shamed on front of the news mail in my hometown just like I was told by a Police officer who dealt with me. On the police reports, I understand it stated all my faults, and I admitted and took responsibility when I was confronted. However, it does not say how I was harassed and racially targeted by the police officer who was very quick to bully me in regard to the matter after giving all the information I could in regards to the matter.[14]

  1. [82]
    In this paragraph, she presents herself as the victim and police as the aggressors, showing no understanding or acceptance of the seriousness of her offence or understanding of the effect of her offending on her victims. The Applicant’s remarks on 5 October 2023 deflect blame and show a grievance-based approach where she reframes the events seeing herself as victim rather than the people defrauded by her deliberate and mischievous hoax.
  2. [83]
    The Applicant’s claims are not consistent with the Applicant’s acquired skill set that Ms Murrell refers to in her report. Ms Murrell states that the Applicant shows problem solving and interpersonal development. The Applicant’s attacks upon police investigating her criminal activity are concerning as to whether her protestations of remorse are genuine.
  3. [84]
    Ms Humberdross, a psychologist, stated that she had treated the Applicant since October 2023 and considered the Applicant to be seeking the approval of others in the conduct related to the offending. Ms Humberdross stated that she considered that the Applicant was not the same person as before. She was not able to say if the Applicant’s psychological symptoms caused the offending. But she considers that mental health concerns made some contribution to the offending.
  4. [85]
    Ms Humberdross stated that she believed the issues to be resolved. She was not aware of the forgery, or the Reasons for the Negative Notice given by Blue Card Services.  She believed the Applicant ceased the hoax due to her remorse. She was not aware of the amount of money scammed, or when the offending occurred. She stated that she is not aware of any history prior to 2023. The Tribunal infers from her evidence that Ms Humberdross relied upon what she was told by the Applicant as she had not read the reasons for the Issue of a Negative Notice.  Her opinion is reduced somewhat to the extent that she relied upon what she was told by the Applicant in regard to pertinent matters.
  5. [86]
    Ms Humberdross believed the Applicant’s issues to be resolved, that she is displaying community-mindedness and can manage her personal relationships. Whilst the Applicant’s conduct is commendable in this respect, it may not extinguish the potential risk to children.
  6. [87]
    The Pastor at the church attended by the Applicant gave positive evidence about the Applicant and her commitment and acceptance of her Christian values. The Pastor stated that the Applicant was both a volunteer and employee. She stated her belief that the Applicant was aware and regretted her offending. She stated that the Applicant offended due to family tensions and that it was difficult for the Applicant to dig herself out by claiming a remission or cure.
  7. [88]
    However, the weight given to the referees’ evidence overall is reduced because none of them acknowledge the harm caused to others both psychologically and financially by VT’s deception. All understand that VT did not cease the hoax voluntarily, but that she was caught by police because of a complaint to police. The Tribunal has considered the endorsements of changed circumstances and well-meaning against harm to others which the Applicant has not taken any steps to redress.
  8. [89]
    The fact that no restitution has been made, admitted to in the hearing, indicates that the Applicant still fails to comprehend the effect upon her victims. She has taken no steps to redress this. There is no evidence from her former husband’s employer regarding her acceptance of responsibility for the forgery. There is no evidence from the celebrity hoaxed to appear publicly with her, or from any person directly scammed by her hoax. 
  9. [90]
    The Applicant clearly stated without the equivocation that she made no attempts to locate victims of the fraud and repay them.
  10. [91]
    VT makes repeated statements that the events are long ago. She states that her personal circumstances are so different now, such that she does not consider she would behave in the way she did when feigning a life-threatening illness to obtain money from people for treatment of cancer.
  11. [92]
    It has been established that although the offences occurred some time ago, “the passage of time alone is not determinative of whether or not a case is an exceptional case. Allegations and convictions may relate to events a number of years ago, but the passage of time alone does not detract from their seriousness. The decision-maker may consider relevant risk and protective factors”.[15]
  12. [93]
    The Applicant restates her position in the hearing that she did not receive money or ask for money personally. She blames her husband.  She restates that her husband was in charge of the fundraising and was ignorant of her lie about her illness. This is a clear deflection of responsibility.
  13. [94]
    The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s evidence appeared to be improbable, implausible and unconvincing; her husband did not know she lied about the cancer, that it would be a lie to tell others she was in remission to end the deception, that it would be difficult for her to tell her husband and have him believe her. In the hearing, the Applicant stated that her husband shaved her head, whereas in the statement to police she stated that she did this. Her explanations lack consistency and candour.
  14. [95]
    The evidence is that the Applicant claimed the victims of her fraud were primarily her family. This is at odds with other evidence upon which her conviction was recorded. Her husband’s employer was defrauded by her forged letter. The Applicant denies the number of people affected, and the amount of money collected.
  15. [96]
    The number of attendees at the fundraising trivia nights indicates that it is highly improbable that the victims were simply the family of the applicant. The evidence was that there were 150 people at the evenings.  In any event, this submission itself raises significant concerns in that taking advantage of family is still a deception. The Tribunal found her lack of candour to be deliberately misleading and indicative of a clear absence of insight or concern into the effect of her deception upon others.
  16. [97]
    The Applicant considers that she is a good role model as a young Indigenous woman, but the Tribunal considers this to be reduced by the ongoing deflection of blame. 
  17. [98]
    The Applicant made submissions concerning her family. She states that her mother had been unwell since the Applicant was in high school. She states that the expectation is that she would care for her mother. The Applicant states that at the time of the offending her sister was having marital problems and had mental illness. She states that her sister was planning suicide. The Applicant states that this factor caused her mental health condition to trigger. She states that she had her own health problems, including back problems and ovarian cysts. The Applicant considers she had undiagnosed mental illness. The Applicant considers herself to be the victim because of her mental health condition at the time of the offending. She further states that the family did not understand or accept the significance of having mental health issues and requiring treatment.
  18. [99]
    The Applicant states her reason for commencing the deception and fraudulent activity was to prevent family discord and in particular because of her sister’s threatened suicide. Of itself this reasoning deflects responsibility onto others and demonstrates the Applicant’s belief that she commenced and continued the deception to help others and that in a sense she is the actual victim of events beyond her control. This deflection of blame extends to her husband, whom she says was instrumental in collecting and managing funds, but who was unaware of her deceit. This line of argument, which she continued to maintain in the hearing, shows clearly that she has not accepted responsibility despite claiming to have done so but justifies her conduct as acting protectively towards her family.
  19. [100]
    This Tribunal leans towards a finding of exceptional case because the Applicant may have pretended to have cancer in order keep the family together; but she did not have to participate in the further step of scamming money based upon the hoax in order to keep the family together. It is clear on the evidence that she did participate in the scamming of money despite recent claims of a hazy recollection.
  20. [101]
    In cross-examination, the Applicant agreed that she told people that she had grade three spinal cancer and that this was a lie. She stated that she only told family and that it was advanced and rare. She agreed that she ceased the activity when contacted about by Police. 
  21. [102]
    The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant believes she does not present a risk to children. She states that the reason for her request for the Blue Card is to enable her to volunteer at a children’s sporting activity.
  22. [103]
    VT does not show any remorse for her actions, apart from how they have affected her. VT has not explained any change in her views which would help the Tribunal to see that she has developed insight into the events and how to correct issues of concern.
  23. [104]
    The Tribunal notes the following remarks in the decision cited by the Respondent of Re TAA[16] which describes the value of insight into the harm caused by the offending as being evidence of a protective factor, 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 children.

  1. [105]
    The Respondent contends that the Tribunal must accept the findings of the Court regarding the Applicant’s convictions and accept them as they are.[17] The effect of this principle is that the remarks and sentence the Applicant received is of significant weight for the Tribunal in this review.
  2. [106]
    The Respondent contends that the behaviour of a person takes greater magnitude when viewed in the context of protecting children.[18] So that the impact on children becoming aware of the deceit of the Applicant weighs heavily with the Tribunal. This principle is stated in the decision in FBN v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[19] where the Appeal Tribunal observed that the role in the review is to have regard to what follows from the findings. In this case, what follows from the findings of Magistrate Woodford can be ascertained from his sentencing remarks. 
  3. [107]
    To receive term of imprisonment for a person with no prior criminal history is a significant penalty. The Magistrate stated strongly that the nature of the offending was unacceptable. He records the fact that the Applicant showed remorse in those proceedings. The basis of this comment is not known to the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal has taken this into account. What follows from the guilty verdict and sentence is given considerable weight by the Tribunal.  The Applicant acquired a criminal history which has significant ramifications for her. The offending was considered to be so significant that she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. However, the Applicant regards the events as in the past and not relevant for her now. The Tribunal could accept this line of argument if it was supported by the Applicant’s conduct in the hearing and was substantiated by insight demonstrated by actual reflection which was not present in the hearing. The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the Respondent that the Applicant’s evidence appeared to be improbable, implausible and unconvincing.
  4. [108]
    The Tribunal agrees that these factors described by the Respondent are weighty in favour of a finding of exceptional case.
    1. Willingness to engage in calculated behaviour intended to deceive;
    2. Willingness to lie, to exploit and take advantage of others for personal (including personal gain in the form of social approval) attention or acknowledgement;
    3. Failure to discontinue the ruse of her own volition, ‘failure to do so despite the ease of doing so by claiming she was cured or in remission’;
    4. Willingness to continue the deception for three years and eight months;
    5. Reasons claimed in the hearing for why she did not cease the deception i.e. it would be a lie;
    6. Failure to pay any restitution to the persons defrauded.
  5. [109]
    The Respondent contends that the purpose of the blue card system is to contribute to the creation of safe and supportive environments for children and young people when they receive services and participate in activities which are essential to their development and wellbeing.[20]
  6. [110]
    The standard of proof in these proceedings is not the same as that which constrained Magistrate Woodford as this Tribunal is not concerned with giving VT the benefit of the doubt in preference to the protection of the rights, interests and wellbeing of children. The intention of the legislation is not to place additional punishment upon an applicant, thereby punishing them twice if they have acquired a police or disciplinary record.[21]
  7. [111]
    VT argues that she is now living a good life being community-minded, practicing her faith and having remarried. In previous decisions of the Tribunal, the fact of simply becoming law-abiding is not sufficient to establish that a case was not exceptional as a lack of truthfulness in submissions and admissions and lack of insight are relevant considerations.
  8. [112]
    The Applicant’s referees assert particular skills and aptitudes she has for the role she seeks in children’s sport. The Tribunal is entitled to ignore both hardship to the individual and any skills the Applicant is asserted to have in the determination of whether an exceptional case exists.[22]
  9. [113]
    The Tribunal must produce the correct and preferable decision in this review based upon the totality of evidence.  The standard of proof required is that the Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities and bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences that an exceptional case exists. The burden of proof is not borne by either party.
  10. [114]
    The Tribunal is persuaded by the submissions of the Respondent contained in the reasons document. The Respondent identifies that VT’s submissions attempt to shift responsibility to external factors which suggests a lack of insight and attempt to minimise her own actions and inaction.
  11. [115]
    The Applicant was not a child when the deception commenced.  She was aged 24 at the commencement of the deception. In her oral submissions to Blue Card Services on the 24 November 2021, she commented, “nothing was proven in court, its only because I lied about being sick”.
  12. [116]
    The Tribunal considers this remark to show her attitude to the offending to be minimisation of the seriousness of the offences and to be a clear refusal to accept responsibility for her actions which continued in the review hearing. Her evidence was never tested in Court as she pleaded guilty so there was no formal testing of the facts. This comment is a half-truth. This remark illustrates the Respondent’s claim that prior to and at the hearing the Applicant gave implausible and improbable responses.
  13. [117]
    Magistrate Woodford commented upon the unacceptable nature of the Applicant’s conduct. The Tribunal finds her conduct to be duplicitous. The Applicant shows one face to the world, whilst holding private views where she is prepared to lie and scam, views that are not appropriate for a person guiding children. The Applicant lived a secret life in which her true activities, deceitful conduct and scamming money were concealed from family and friends.
  14. [118]
    She offers little credible explanation for her actions; other than rationalisations that she was helping out others. Children have a right to expect that the adults guiding and assisting them are people with their best interests at heart and not people who will exploit a situation placing children at risk of harm.
  15. [119]
    The Applicant’s evidence appears to the Tribunal to minimise the seriousness of the offending. The evidence is that it was not until the Applicant was apprehended and convicted that the Applicant displayed concerns about the seriousness of the situation as it impacted her in the employment context and personally resulting in feelings of shame.
  16. [120]
    Maher’s case[23] was determinative of the concept of the method for determination of whether a case is exceptional. The case is authority for the proposition that exceptional case should be determined, ‘unhampered by any general rule and is to be construed in the particular context of the legislation.’ This is reiterated by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal in the case of Director General Department of Justice and Attorney General v MAP.[24]
  17. [121]
    The Tribunal makes the following findings:
    1. VT lied about having cancer to help her family and compounded the deception for no explicable reason other than for financial gain, by participating in a scam to raise money based upon this lie;
    2. Her propensity to lie and deceive for financial gain in this particular context (publicly feigning a life-threatening illness) poses an unacceptable risk to children placed in her care;
    3. VT has not expressed genuine remorse for any harm she has caused by attempts at restitution, but considers her behaviour should be excused as she was publicly shamed and time has passed;
    4. VT is focused upon the changes she has made to her life however supported by evidence of family and friends but this is not able sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that she does not pose a risk to children. The mere passage of time does not assist the Applicant in this respect.
  18. [122]
    There is no power to issue a conditional blue card and once issued, it is fully transferable across all areas of regulated employment and business. The Applicant could seek and be employed to care for children in regulated employment irrespective of his initial stated intention.[25]
  19. [123]
    The decision under review was whether the Applicant’s is an exceptional case which will displace the presumption in section 221 of the WWC Act. Determination of what is an exceptional case is a question of fact and degree, to be decided in each case on its own facts by having regard to the following matters: ...

the context of the legislation which contains them, the intent and purpose of that legislation, and the interest of the persons whom it is here, quite obviously, designed to protect: children.[26]

  1. [124]
    Contributing to the finding of an exceptional case is the unfortunate prevalence of cases of this nature, where false claims of cancer are used to scam the public. The Tribunal finds this particularly confusing to mislead children by a deliberate and false construct of illness.
  2. [125]
    The decision of this Tribunal in BNN v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency[27] refers to the false claim of a mother that her child had cancer in order to access the services of Camp Quality.
  3. [126]
    It appears that the daughter did not have cancer and the mother did not inform either the child or family of the true position. The Tribunal found that the deception continued for seven years. For a variety of reasons including this aspect, the Applicant’s case was found to be exceptional. The Applicant was denied a blue card.[28]
  4. [127]
    In 2017, the Federal Court of Australia found Annabelle Gibson (an influencer) guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct, fining her $410,000. She falsely claimed to have cancer. In addition, she was ordered to publish, “a non-punitive/adverse publicity notice” in two newspapers. The court found she made false claims about donating a large portion of her profits to charities and to the family of a boy who had an inoperable brain tumour. She was restrained from making claims that she:
    1. that she had been diagnosed with brain cancer in 2009;
    2. that she was given four months to live; and/or;
    3. that she had taken and then rejected conventional cancer treatments in favour of embarking on a quest to heal herself naturally.[29]
  5. [128]
    Ms Gibson’s case was before the Court on multiple occasions and the recovery of costs order against her has to date been unsuccessful. This Tribunal has considered the harmful effects of such false claims used to scam the public, particularly in regard to the wellbeing of children. The Tribunal regards this callous conduct to be particularly harmful to children who are by nature trusting of adults.
  6. [129]
    The Tribunal finds that this is an exceptional case based on the actions of the Applicant. Her attitude and continuing beliefs demonstrate an absence of insight and clearly show a lack of understanding, empathy and compassion for children indicating to this Tribunal that she poses an unacceptable risk to children, such that she should not be given a blue card.
  7. [130]
    Weighing the totality of the evidence, on balance, and having regard to the paramount consideration under the WWC Act, I am satisfied that the Applicant’s case is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would be harmed if a positive notice was issued. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General is confirmed.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

  1. [131]
    The Tribunal, as a public entity, is obliged to interpret relevant legislation in a way that is compatible with human rights.[30]
  2. [132]
    In the event that the Tribunal makes a decision that is not compatible with human rights which are set out in the Act,[31] then the Tribunal must demonstrate that it has considered the issues outlined in section 13(2) to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (“HRA”).
  3. [133]
    The human rights of VT are to be balanced with the human rights of children. The child’s rights are referred to in section 26(2) of the HRA.[32]
  4. [134]
    The focus in section 26(2) of the HRA is on the child’s interests because they are a child. Children are a more vulnerable section of the community. Taken with section 6 of the WWC Act, the rights of the child remain the paramount consideration and must outweigh any limitation on the human rights of VT, such as a right to obtain certain employment or an entitlement to hold a particular office.  
  5. [135]
    The Tribunal has turned its mind to these rights which may be abrogated in a decision to deny VT a blue card. The Tribunal finds that the balance is in favour of the rights of the child because of the paramount principle and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and the fact that the finding must be in favour of the human rights of the child over the adult Applicant’s right to work in chosen employment or to engage in certain social enterprises.   
  6. [136]
    I have also given consideration to VT’s relevant human right which is the right to a fair hearing.[33] VT has been accorded a full opportunity to respond to all submissions in this matter and was heard at the oral hearing which was conducted in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). I do not consider that there has been any limitation of her human rights.

Footnotes

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

[2]  Ibid s 24.

[3] Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58, [9].

[4]  WWC Act s 5.

[5]  Ibid s 6(a).

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

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

 

[8] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 28(3)(b).

[9] Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Scott (No 2) [2008] WASCA 171, [109] (Buss J).

[10] Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6, [16].

[11]  Applicant’s closing submissions post hearing.

[12]  Sentencing remarks by Magistrate Woodford in Bundaberg Magistrates Court on 24 May 2019.

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

 

[14]  Application to review the negative notice dated 5 October 2023.

[15]   FMA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 210, [8].

 

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

[17] Pritchard v Chief Executive Officer, Public Service Business Agency [2015] QCAT 25.

[18] YR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 139, [23].

[19]  [2021] QCATA 112.

[20] CMH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 15, [34].

[21]  Ms Bligh, ‘Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill’ (Second Reading Speech, Queensland Legislative Assembly, 14 November 2000) 4391.

[22] Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Scott (No 2) [2008] WASCA 171, [109] (Buss J).

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

[24]   [2022] QCATA 39.

[25] Commissioner for Children and Young people and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 24.

[26]          Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, [31].

[27]  [2014] QCAT 392.

[28]  Ibid [44]–[45].

[29]Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Gibson (No 2) [2017] FCA 366.

[30]Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 48(2).

[31]  Ibid s 13.

[32]  Ibid s 26(2).

[33]  Ibid s 31.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

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

  • Shortened Case Name:

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

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 276

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Hemingway

  • Date:

    21 Jul 2025

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
BNN v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2014] QCAT 392
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCAT 392
Cite 2 - [2014] QCAT 392
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 of Child Protection v Scott No.2 (2008) WASCA 171
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) WASCA 171
Cite 2 - (2008) WASCA 171
Cite 3 - (2008) WASCA 171
CMH v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2020] QCAT 15
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 15
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCATA 303
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 87
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 3 - [2004] QCA 492
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCATA 27
Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCATA 6
Cite 2 - [2021] QCATA 6
Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v MAP [2022] QCATA 39
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCATA 39
FBN v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCATA 112
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCATA 112
FMA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 210
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 210
Gray v Nish [2014] QCATA 24
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCATA 24
Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCATA 58
Cite 2 - [2010] QCATA 58
Pritchard v Chief Executive Officer, Public Service Business Agency [2015] QCAT 25
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 25
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11
TNC v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 489
Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 243
YR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 139
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 139

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

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

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.