Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. LXC v Department of Justice and Attorney General - [2025] QCAT 337

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

LXC v Department of Justice and Attorney General[2025] QCAT 337

LXC v Department of Justice and Attorney General[2025] QCAT 337

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

LXC v Department of Justice and Attorney General [2025] QCAT 337

PARTIES:

LXC

(applicant)

v

director-general, department of

justice – Blue Card Services

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML277-23

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 September 2025

HEARING DATES:

13 September 2024 and 28 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Member Mewing

ORDERS:

  1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice that the Applicant’s case is “exceptional” within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.
  2. Publication of the name or identifying information of the Applicant or any person or entity associated with the Applicant, other than to parties to these proceedings, is prohibited pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – review of decision by Respondent to issue a negative notice

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant seeks review of decision to refuse to cancel a negative notice – where applicant has conviction for an offence under the Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) – where applicant has charges for criminal offences – where whether exceptional case where not in interests of children for applicant to have a working with children clearance

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2009) Qld s 20, s 28(3), s 66

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 10, s 157, s 176A, s 176B, s 176H, s 176I, s 176J, s 221, s 228, s 294, s 360, Schedule 1 part 1, Schedule 1 part 2

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

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

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

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

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

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

KAP v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2020] QCAT 457 at [63]

SLH v Director General, Department of Justice [2025] QCAT 13

WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr M Crofton of Counsel, instructed by Michael Dwyer Solicitor

Respondent:

Mr H Gachette, Legal Officer, Department of Justice and Attorney General

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. [1]
    LXC[1] applies to the Tribunal to set aside the decision of an Acting Director, Blue Card Services to refuse to cancel a negative notice issued to LXC in 2019. A negative notice prevents a person from obtaining a working with children clearance—and therefore a Blue Card—in Queensland.
  2. [2]
    LXC had held a Blue Card since 2006. LXC was charged with offences between 2018 and 2019.  A negative notice was issued because of these charges.
  3. [3]
    The main issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether LXC’s is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue her with a working with children clearance.[2]

Background

  1. [4]
    LXC is 49 years old. She was previously issued Blue Cards in 2006, 2008, 2012 and 2016. On 12 March 2019 Blue Card Services decided to cancel her Blue Card and issue a negative notice. This was after it had considered information about a criminal charge brought against LXC for which she had pleaded guilty in 2018, and her submissions about that information.
  2. [5]
    In June 2021 LXC applied to Blue Card Services for cancellation of the negative notice. After consideration of the 2018 criminal charge together with new information about LXC which had arisen since then (domestic violence-related criminal charges and child protection information involving LXC), on 13 July 2023 Blue Card Services refused that application, deciding that LXC’s was an exceptional case in which it was not in the best interests of children for her to hold a Blue Card at that time.
  3. [6]
    On 14 August 2023 LXC applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision to refuse cancellation of the negative notice. A hearing was conducted across two days on 13 September 2024 and 28 March 2025.

Material and Evidence Before the Tribunal

  1. [7]
    The following documents were submitted by LXC:
    1. With (or soon after) her application to QCAT filed on 14 August 2023:
      1. A document titled ‘Applicant Submissions Appeal Application’;
      2. A document titled ‘Statement of [LXC]’;
      3. References in support of LXC written by MM, MW, MN, MS, and AK; and
    2. An Outline of Submissions filed on 13 September 2024;
    3. An Affidavit of LXC, deposed on 2 December 2024;
    4. An Additional Outline of Submissions filed on 6 January 2025; and
    5. Closing Submissions filed on 6 June 2025. 
  2. [8]
    LXC gave oral evidence on 13 September 2024 and 28 March 2025, and DM appeared by telephone to give oral evidence in support of LXC on 28 March 2025.
  3. [9]
    The following documents were submitted by Blue Card Services:
    1. Respondent’s Outline of Submissions filed on 23 August 2024;
    2. Material marked BCS001-BCS174 filed between 15 December 2023 and 16 April 2025;
    3. Material marked NTP001-NTP388 filed on 16 April 2025;
    4. Videos and photographs on USB device, filed on 16 April 2025;
    5. Closing Submissions filed on 10 June 2025.
  4. [10]
    I have taken all of the material and evidence noted above into account in deciding this matter.

Legislative Framework

  1. [11]
    The Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (‘WWC Act’) is the source of law with respect to eligibility for Blue Cards.
  2. [12]
    The object of the WWC Act is to promote the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people through a scheme involving the screening of persons employed in particular areas of employment or carrying on particular businesses.[3] Screening is to ensure that the persons are suitable to work with children.[4]
  3. [13]
    The WWCA is to be administered under principles that: (a) the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount; and (b) every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[5]
  4. [14]
    When a person has sought the cancellation of a negative notice, section 294 of the WWC Act requires consideration of section 221 of the Act as if it were a fresh application. This is because, among other things, LXC has a conviction for an offence other a ‘serious offence’ as defined. In that situation, Blue Card Services (or the Tribunal on review) must keep the negative notice in place only if satisfied the person’s case is an exceptional one in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to be issued to the person. Whether or not an exceptional case exists must be decided on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved.[6]
  5. [15]
    Section 226 sets out matters to which regard must be had where the person has a conviction, and s 228 sets out matters to which regard must be had when there is domestic violence information about the person, and any other information which may be considered reasonably relevant about the person. Both sections are applicable here.
  6. [16]
    The relevant matters under s 226 are:
    1. whether it is a conviction or a charge;
    2. whether the offence is within the category of either serious or disqualifying offence;
    3. when the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed;
    4. the nature of the offence and its relevance to working with children;
    5. in the case of a conviction, the penalty imposed by the court and, if the person was not imprisoned, the court’s reasons for not imposing a sentence of imprisonment; and
    6. anything else in relation to the commission or alleged commission of the offence that is reasonably relevant.
  7. [17]
    The additional matters to be considered under s 228 are:
    1. the circumstances of the domestic violence order or police protection notice including any conditions imposed;
    2. the nature of any other information about the person, including the circumstances and gravity of the behaviour or conduct the subject of the information;
    3. the length of time which has since passed;
    4. the relevance of the information to working with children; and
    5. anything else reasonably relevant to the assessment of the person.
  8. [18]
    Section 176A of the WWCA prohibits a person from starting or continuing in regulated employment unless the person holds a working with children clearance.  ‘Regulated employment’ includes that undertaken in sport and active recreation.[7] When considering ‘employment’ in the context of regulated employment, the nature of the work is immaterial, as is the absence of a written agreement or lack of financial reward.[8] While volunteer parents in regulated employment are generally exempt from holding a Blue Card, ‘restricted persons’ (which includes those who hold a negative notice) are not exempt.[9]
  9. [19]
    Section 176A is a penalty provision, with the maximum penalty being 500 penalty units of 5 years imprisonment if an ‘aggravating circumstance’ applies. An aggravating circumstance includes holding a negative notice.[10]
  10. [20]
    Section 176B of the WWCA provides that a person must not carry on a regulated business unless the person holds a working with children clearance. It is also a penalty provision.  Section 14 provides that a person is taken to be carrying on a business by being or proposing to be an ‘executive officer’, which is a person who is concerned with or takes part in management.
  11. [21]
    QCAT does not have jurisdiction to investigate or impose a penalty for non-compliance with ss 176A or 176B. However, s 228 of the WWCA compels the Tribunal to have regard to other information that it reasonably believes is relevant to deciding whether it would be in the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to issue, including:
    1. the nature of the information, and the circumstances and gravity of the behaviour or conduct;
    2. the length of time since the event or conduct;
    3. the relevance or of the information to employment or carrying on a business that involves or may involve children; and
    4. anything else the Tribunal believes is relevant to the assessment.[11]
  12. [22]
    The Tribunal must conduct a fresh review on the merits, with the aim of producing the correct and preferable decision.[12] The Tribunal, while obliged to observe the rules of natural justice, is not bound by rules of evidence and may inform itself in any way it sees fit.[13]
  13. [23]
    In conducting this review the Tribunal is acting as a public entity. As such, it must act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights, or in making its decision, give proper consideration to relevant human rights.  A decision is compatible with human rights if it does not limit a human right, or if it limits a human right in a way permitted by the Human Rights Act 2019.  

Applicant’s Offence History, Domestic Violence and Child Protection Information, and Other Relevant Information

Offence History

  1. [24]
    LXC has been charged with three offences:
    1. Starting employment of certain regular employees;
    2. Arson (2 counts) (domestic violence offence);
    3. Wilful damage (domestic violence offence); and
    4. Common assault (domestic violence offence).

Offence (a): Starting employment of certain regular employees

  1. On 7 November 2018 LXC came before the Magistrates Court for the charge of starting employment of certain regular employees.[14]
  2. The allegation was that between 11 February 2018 and 2 September 2018 LXC,[15] as trustee of a trust which owned and operated school camps,[16] had employed a person (‘JM’) as ‘Senior Camp Leader’ when JM did not hold a Blue Card.
  3. LXC said she was of the mistaken belief that JM did not require a Blue Card because he was under 18 when he commenced as a Senior Camp Leader. JM turned 18 on 25 June 2018. LXC applied for a Blue Card for him on 18 September 2018.
  4. Investigators indicated that other breaches of the WWC Act had also been identified (including, allegedly, employees who held Blue Cards that were not linked to [organisation][17]), but it was considered not in the best interest to proceed with every technical breach of the Act.[18]
  5. LXC pleaded guilty to the offence in relation to the Senior Camp Leader.  She was fined $500.00. No conviction was recorded.

Offences (b), (c) and (d): Arson – motor vehicle, train, aircraft, vessel – domestic violence offence; Wilful damage – domestic violence offence; and Common assault – domestic violence offence

  1. On 12 November 2019 LXC faced the Magistrates Court on the three charges noted above. They arose in the context of a domestic altercation on one evening with a former partner.
  2. The altercation was allegedly started (or escalated) by LXC in response to discovering that her partner had sent an explicit image to another woman on social media.
  3. The allegations were that LXC became verbally abusive towards her partner, had pushed and hit him, had grabbed his vehicle keys from him and thrown them on the grass, hit his vehicle multiple times with a garden mattock breaking the windows, and set alight two vehicles owned by him. There was reported to be a trail of the complainant’s clothes from his wardrobe inside the house to the destroyed vehicles, allegedly taken there by LXC.[19]
  4. Police attended to investigate and recorded interviews were conducted at the scene. LXC made no admissions and denied any involvement in the fire.
  5. LXC was subsequently charged and released on an undertaking.
  6. No evidence was offered to the Court by the prosecution and the matters were ultimately dealt with by Adult Restorative Justice Conferencing in which she apologised to the aggrieved person verbally and in writing, spoke about her shame and said she is working on strategies to reduce her anger. It was noted that LXC contributed financially to replace the vehicles.[20]

Domestic Violence Information

  1. [25]
    LXC has been named as the respondent in two domestic violence police protection notices: the first from 27 March 2019 to 1 April 2019, and the second from 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2024.  These orders were applied for by police arising from the criminal history incidents noted above.

Child Protection Information     

  1. [26]
    Records of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs in 2019 reveal that an investigation into reported concerns that LXC caused emotional harm to her three children (then aged 8, 10 and 12 years) was substantiated, concluding that the children were in need of protection at that time.
  2. [27]
    The concerns were raised because it was found by officers of the Department of Child Services (DCS) that LXC had:
    1. Allowed a person (her former partner) who she knew had been charged with historical sexual offences against children to attend the family home;
    2. Exposed her children to violence (the incidents noted above);
    3. Coached her children to deny that her former partner had attended the home; and
    4. Been assessed as unwilling and unable to protect her children from harm without departmental intervention.
  3. [28]
    The context is that LXC’s former partner (who lived with LXC and her children at the time) was facing historical charges of indecent treatment of children, depravation of liberty, common assault and sexual assault. Concerns were raised that LXC had become aware of these charges but knowingly remained living with him, placing her children at unacceptable risk of being sexually abused.[21]

Other Relevant Information

  1. [29]
    At the 13 September 2024 hearing Mr Gachette for Blue Card Services noted that LXC gave evidence that she was undertaking “admin duties” and “risk assessments” of new leaders employed by [organisation]. Mr Gachette said that this raised a new potential compliance issue: Specifically, despite being a restricted person,[22] LXC’s testimony suggested that she may be employed by or may carry on the business of [organisation] (a regulated business [23]) in contravention of the WWC Act.[24]
  2. [30]
    The hearing was adjourned to allow submissions by the parties on that issue. Submissions were received and the hearing resumed on 28 March 2025.

Parties’ Submissions

LXC’s Submissions

  1. [31]
    LXC’s written Personal Statement dated 25 April 2024, her 2 December 2024 Affidavit and various oral and written submissions provide the following relevant information:
    1. LXC created [organisation] in 2016. She currently undertakes work in the office in sales and marketing and administration, as well as fundraising activities and promoting the youth camps and leadership programs for [organisation];[25]
    2. LXC said she does not work with young people due to her negative notice but noted that she “sometimes volunteer[s] in the kitchen and work[s] in the office”;[26]
    3. LXC is a qualified counsellor with 22 years’ experience, and, prior to receiving the negative notice, had worked with young people as an outdoor adventure instructor;[27]
    4. She and her three children were devastated by the death of her husband (the children’s father) in 2017. She explained that it was around this time that she made the mistake of neglecting to ensure compliance with Blue Card rules which led to her 2018 conviction of ‘starting employment of certain regular employees.’  LXC also said she had been under the mistaken belief that people under 18 were not required to hold a Blue Card, and as the employee concerned had worked with her for a number of years before turning 18, she’d simply missed his 18th birthday in the grief surrounding the death of her husband.[28]  She does not seek to be excused from the 2018 conviction, and would endeavour to ensure she follows the Blue Card rules and regulations correctly;[29]
    5. In 2018 when LXC’s partner ML was charged with historical offences against children, she said that:
      1. (i)
        She worked with DCS to help protect her and the children and was grateful for their support. LXC noted that she and the children benefitted from the courses and counselling facilitated by the DCS at that time, and the protection order obtained against ML with their assistance. She mentioned the strategies and support plans implemented with DCS assistance.[30]
      2. (ii)
        She removed ML from her home on 25 January 2019 on the suggestion of DCS and she says he did not stay overnight at her home thereafter. A safety plan was drafted with DCS assistance, permitting ML to attend the house only to operate his business (which was conducted from a garage on LXC’s property) between 7:00am and 8:00pm, with a support person in attendance;
      3. (iii)
        She and her children undertook a counselling course called ‘HOPES’ and had visits from a case manager and counsellor each week for one year; and
      4. (iv)
        The [redacted] Family Closure Report authored by DCS officers in May 2020 observed LXC to act proactively to ensure the health, welfare and protection of her own children, noting that she was highly reflective and thoughtful with a well-developed support network;
    6. With regard to the criminal charges and domestic violence information arising from the events of 27 March 2019:
      1. (i)
        LXC admitted becoming very upset due to explicit messages her partner had sent to another woman.  She admits that she acted aggressively, snapped, and smashed his car;
      2. (ii)
        There is no current domestic violence order against her;
      3. (iii)
        LXC acknowledges that she showed poor judgment and an absence of control.  LXC said that she accepted responsibility and apologised for setting fire to ML’s cars by accident in the restorative justice conference.[31] She regrets this occurrence, notes that a similar incident had not happened before nor since and assures that it would never be repeated. She has sought support from counsellors and her doctor, has a broad support network, has implemented strategies learned during her interaction with DCS, and is intent on employing her professional qualifications and experience to ensure a safe environment for all children she has contact with;[32] and
      4. (iv)
        LXC said she engages in protective measures, including seeing a psychologist as needed, approximately once each month to talk about difficulties she may be encountering and sees her general practitioner as needed;      
    7. LXC is currently studying an undergraduate degree in psychology, has won a citizenship award and two business awards. She is sorry for her past mistakes, accepts responsibility and hopes to move forward; and
    8. Her commitment to [organisation] is very strong. She said that rather than closing down [organisation] she chose to step down and put it into the hands of board members and continued in an office role. She said she is currently “helping behind the scenes without being hands-on”, [33]  and that what she had been through had taught her “very well about rules and regulations and making sure that everything is followed to the letter.”[34]
  2. [32]
    The Applicant’s Outline of Submissions filed on 13 September 2024 correctly notes that the relevant consideration for the Tribunal is to determine the relevant future risk that a failure to comply with the WWC Act will recur. It then states that LXC is “seized of her obligations to comply with all aspects of the legislative framework”,[35] that her previous failure to keep updated with the Blue Card rules was in the context of her grief after her husband’s death, so that the “risk of future contravention is remote,”[36] and that “it would be an error to conclude from [a] singular instance” that LXC does not have respect for the law, such that “[a]ny projection that there is a risk that in the future will not respect the legislative framework and imperatives in ensuring the well-being and safety of children should not be drawn.”[37]
  3. [33]
    With regard to the Respondent’s contention that LXC is not a positive role model for children, the submissions respond:
    1. LXC should not be regarded as unable to present as a positive role model to children because any adverse material before the Tribunal is historical, in the context of a former relationship and LXC has an awareness of these mistakes which are therefore unlikely to be repeated;[38] and
    2. The Tribunal should take account of the five written statements from colleagues and others who know LXC well, and who compliment her professionalism, genuine caring nature, patience, compassion and experience.[39]
  4. [34]
    Referring to the alleged possible contravention of the WWC Act by work she has undertaken since being issued a negative notice:
    1. LXC states that an organisation she worked with or managed called [SCQ],[40] was confirmed by BCS not to be a regulated business,[41] so any work done by her for [SCQ] could not offend the WWC Act;[42]
    2. LXC says that she is not an executive officer of [organisation], nor does she take part in the management of [organisation]. Rather, LXC says she is a “consultant/sub-contractor” whose work involves “taking bookings, sending out information, finding venues and performing social media tasks et cetera,”[43] for which she invoices [organisation] but has never been an employee.[44] She says there is no evidence of any agreement with [organisation] for her to provide services that might be considered regulated employment;[45]   
    3. LXC relies on a letter from MS[46] (then the Treasurer of [organisation]) who wrote in December 2023 that LXC performed administrative tasks in her home for [organisation] which included “updating the website and forms, scouting for new venues and activities, repairs and replacement of equipment and many more administrative jobs;”
    4. LXC says that any reference to her in the Parents and Carers’ Guide for [organisation] for camps held in April 2022 (in which she is referred to as Organiser and Owner),[47] September 2024 (in which she is referred to as Secretary,[48] and January 2025 (in which she is referred to as Secretary)[49] is not evidence that she was involved in regulated employment or was an executive officer of a regulated business;
    5. It is contended for LXC that the Parents and Carers’ Guide was written in 2017, so any references to her as owner or organiser in subsequently published Guides are merely historical. It was further (incorrectly) contended that a negative notice issued to LXC on “13 July 2023” [50]  so (presumably) references which might suggest LXC’s employment or management before that date were acceptable. LXC says despite those references in the Guides, she did not in fact hold those roles nor did she hold any office that was likely to lead to control of [organisation];[51] and  
    6. LXC says her attendance at camps since being issued a negative notice was always as the parent of her own children which, it is submitted, is excluded from regulated employment. LXC says she did not organise, direct or control any aspect of the camps, and was not a leader, instructor, volunteer or employee.[52]   
  5. [35]
    DM was called at a late stage in the proceedings to give evidence in support of LXC.  DM said he has been the secretary of [organisation] since around April 2024. DM has known LXC for several years, having worked with her at SCQ more than three years previously. DM said that, to his knowledge, LXC had not been the treasurer or secretary of [organisation] and was not the owner because it was a not-for-profit organisation. He said that LXC does not attend camps and has not stayed overnight at any camps, and that she had never held a leadership position at [organisation].[53] 
  6. [36]
    Closing submissions for LXC step through some of the s 226 considerations, encouraging the Tribunal to find:
    1. With regard to the serious offence consideration:
      1. (i)
        The offence of starting employment of regular employees for which LXC pleaded guilty in 2018 was a singular event;[54]
      2. (ii)
        LXC’s relationship with ML that led to the charges of arson, wilful damage (domestic violence offence) and common assault (domestic violence offence) in the context of a relationship breakdown do not reflect on LXC as exceptional;[55]
      3. (iii)
        LXC did not imperil her children despite the DCS information, and such a situation is unlikely to arise again;[56] and
      4. (iv)
        The additional information submitted by the Respondent (Facebook messages and other documentation) does not show any offence to the WWCA.[57]
    2. With regard to the period of time since the offending, the relevant events occurred in 2018 and 2019;
    3. With regard to the nature and circumstances of the offending;
      1. (i)
        LXC is remorseful and is unlikely to repeat the past conduct, demonstrating insight;
      2. (ii)
        LXC has been truthful and the offences are unlikely to reoccur, given the unique circumstances surrounding each (ie, the death of her husband and the breakdown of the relationship with ML);
      3. (iii)
        LXC did not put her children at risk, but followed the direction of DCS which was confirmed in a report; and
      4. (iv)
        The contention that LXC has been involved in regulated employment since the negative notice was issued is without foundation.
    4. It is suggested that the Tribunal take into account:
      1. (i)
        LXC’s qualifications, experience and work history, and that fact that she is a diligent and effective single mother;
      2. (ii)
        That she intends to keep seeing her psychologist and keep connected with her support network;
      3. (iii)
        The written references provided in support of LXC; and
      4. (iv)
        The oral evidence of DM, which corroborated LXC’s evidence that she was not employed by or involved in the management of [organisation].[58]
  7. [37]
    For these reasons LXC submits that the decision of the Director General that her case is exceptional should be set aside.

Respondent’s Submissions

  1. [38]
    The Respondent’s various written submissions maintain that LXC’s case is exceptional, in that it would not be in the best interests of children for her to be issued with a Blue Card at this time because:
    1. LXC’s conviction in 2018 for starting employment of certain regular employees reflects a misunderstanding of the WWC Act and the relevant obligations she had and should have known and understood as an employer;
    2. While LXC said she would learn more about compliance with the WWC Act if she were to hold a Blue Card, her oral evidence at the hearing of this matter about doing certain “work” for [organisation] while being the holder of a negative notice suggests she has continued to misunderstand her obligations under the WWC Act;
    3. LXC’s own oral evidence and publicly available media and documents obtained and submitted by the Respondent indicate that she was engaging in regulated employment and/or carrying on a regulated business between 2019 and (at least) 2024 while the holder of a negative notice in contravention of the WWC Act; 
    4. LXC did not appropriately comply with Department of Child Safety requirements by continuing to allow a person she knew had been charged with child sex offences into her home and had undermined the intervention of police and Child Safety professionals by coaching her children about what to say to them, raising concerns about her capacity to role model safe and protective behaviours and involve her own children in a deception which may undermine their safety and cause psychological harm;
    5. LXC engaged in significant acts of domestic violence in the presence of her children, exposing them to the acts and raising concerns about her ability to manage conflict and stress lawfully and appropriately;
    6. Despite stating she had engaged with counselling and psychology professionals to address her responses to stress and conflict, LXC provided limited evidence of the tools, techniques and strategies she would use to better manage this and mitigate concerns about her capacity to manage conflict and stress lawfully and appropriately;
    7. The Tribunal should give limited weight to written witness statements submitted in LXC’s favour when those witnesses were not available for cross-examination;
    8. Any prejudice or hardship that might flow to LXC from not obtaining a Blue Card are irrelevant, as are any benefits she might bring to children; and
    9. The unconditional nature and transferability of a Blue Card across a range of regulated activities must be considered by the Tribunal in light of the information before the Tribunal about LXC.      

Consideration and Findings

  1. [39]
    I must issue a negative notice if I am aware of ‘relevant information’ and I am satisfied that this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for LXC to be issued with a positive notice.[59]
  2. [40]
    The phrase ‘exceptional case’ must be considered in the context that the intent and purpose of WWC Act is to protect the interests of children.[60]
  3. [41]
    The ultimate question (ie, of what is in the best interests of children) does not lend itself to exact proof. Addressing this question involves a 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.[61]
  4. [42]
    Section 226 prescribes the Tribunal’s mandatory initial considerations for deciding whether an exceptional case exists, and s 228 is enlivened by the fact of domestic violence in the 2019 charges against LXC and activities undertaken by LXC that may indicate possible further non-compliance with the WWC Act.
  5. [43]
    Having regard to the s 226 considerations:
    1. LXC has one conviction under the WWC Act for starting regular employment of certain regular employees, and has been charged under the Criminal Code Act with 2 counts of arson (domestic violence offence), one count of wilful damage (domestic violence offence) and one count of common assault (domestic violence offence);
    2. None of the offences are classified as serious or disqualifying, as defined in the WWC Act;
    3. The offences were committed in 2018 and 2019;
    4. Referring to the nature of the offences and their relevance to employment or running a business that involves children;
      1. (i)
        With regard to the September 2018 WWC Act non-compliance matter— 
        1. LXC was legally obliged to apply for a Blue Card for a paid employee (JM) before he commenced paid work in January or February of 2018, irrespective of JM’s age;
        2. It is irrelevant that LXC’s husband passed away in April 2017, or that she had a mistaken belief about the Blue Card rules, or that JM only worked four weeks per year, or that he only “sometimes” worked with children; 
        3. LXC allowed JM to work with children without him holding a Blue Card for approximately ten months in contravention of the WWC Act, did not apply prior to nor soon after his 18th birthday even with that mistaken belief;
        4. LXC pleaded guilty to the offence and paid a $500.00 fine. No conviction was recorded; and
        5. There are no other known contraventions of the WWC Act for which LXC has been charged;
      2. (ii)
        With regard to the criminal charges—
        1. While arson, wilful damage and common assault do not qualify as “serious” in the WWC Act, there are nevertheless criminal offences which carry severe maximum penalties;[62] 
        2. LXC’s behaviour in response to ML’s apparent infidelity was irrational and protracted.  While it occurred within one evening, it involved the commission of three separate offences by LXC on a person and on two cars, including use of a mattock to break the windows of the cars, and it potentially exposed her own property to damage;
        3. LXC is reported to have told a DCS employee in October 2019 that arguments were “normal in [her] childhood – parents beat each other, smashed up my stuff. Not big deal. I burnt his car, he broke my things. We are even.”[63] This dismissive statement was made in the wake of another argument with ML where ML had allegedly damaged property belonging to LXC in the presence of LXC’s children.  LXC’s reported statement appears to minimise violence and see it as normal;
        4. It is accepted that LXC was not convicted of the offences. She admits and now seems genuinely remorseful for the assault and wilful damage allegations and claims the arson was an accident. Ultimately the matter was resolved through Restorative Justice Conferencing, where LXC apologised for her behaviour and contributed financially to replace the destroyed vehicles;
        5. There is no clear evidence that LXC exposed her children (or any other children) to the incident and DCS reports do not note that LXC’s children experienced any trauma from this event;
        6. Throughout their involvement over one year with LXC and her children, DCS officers were generally complimentary of LXC’s loving and nurturing approach toward her children, and noted that she had been receptive of DCS assistance and the suggested strategies and safety plans; and
        7. Offences of that kind had not been committed by LXC before nor since despite her having other relationships and experiencing other stressors, which suggest that the behaviour was confined to the relationship she had with ML and is not a recurring trait.
  6. [44]
    Having regard to the s 228 considerations in respect of the domestic violence information: 
    1. LXC was the respondent in two domestic violence police protection notices: the first from 27 March 2019 to 1 April 2019, and the second from 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2024; 
    2. The orders were applied for by police out of the criminal history incidents already noted and were not child-related;
    3. The standard conditions were imposed and LXC has not been found to have breached the conditions; and
    4. LXC has no other domestic violence history.
  7. [45]
    Having regard to the s 228 considerations in respect of information about potential contraventions of the WWC Act: 
    1. As the holder of a negative notice since 12 March 2019, LXC has been prohibited from starting or continuing in employment (or being a parent volunteer) in sport and active recreation that involves provision of services directed mainly towards children, or conducting activities mainly involving children; [64]
    2. She has also been prohibited from carrying on a business involving sport and recreation activities directed mainly towards or involving children;[65]
    3. LXC admits doing work for [organisation] among whose primary functions is the hosting and organisation of active recreation camps for children;
    4. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to investigate or make findings about contraventions of the relevant sections of the WWC Act and no investigation has been concluded by the appropriate authority to date. However, the Tribunal may still have regard to LXC’s statements and evidence of  LXC’s conduct in light of the prohibitions as it is relevant to deciding whether it would be in the best interests of children for LXC to hold a Blue Card;[66]   
    5. With regard to the possibility of engaging in regulated employment or attending camps as a parent volunteer in contravention of the WWC Act, since the issuance of a negative notice LXC has undertaken sales and marketing and administration work for [organisation], conducted fundraising, volunteered in the kitchen,[67] put together programs, conducted risk assessments, handled social media,[68] updated the website and forms, scouted for new venues and activities, repaired and replaced equipment and other administrative jobs;[69]
    6. LXC says since March 2019 she has attended camps only as a parent of her own children and not as a parent volunteer or leader, but the Respondent contends that social media posts apparently written by LXC in 2023 and video footage which include her audible comments suggest she attended camps in the capacity of regulated employment;[70]
    7. DCS material before the Tribunal[71] contains an email from LXC on 4 April 2019 stating that she would be “away next week at a camp as a parent volunteer.” She said in cross examination that the camp did not eventuate because she could not attend as a parent volunteer due to her negative notice.[72] However later in the DCS material DCS officers reported:
      1. (i)
        In a case note dated 23 July 2019—

“[LXC] has run two camps over the last two weeks. One over the school holidays, and the other was a school group last week.  [LXC] took the children with her. …;

[LXC] said there were 84 children on the camp, and the youngest was 6. …;

[LXC] said last week’s camp was very cold, getting down to -6;

At the camp they ran at [redacted] Park, they had an incident with one of the children, and the police had to be called as the child was [sic] assaulted one of the workers.”[73]

  1. (ii)
    In a case note dated 12 September 2019—

“[LXC] is due to go [to a counselling session] next Monday, however she has a camp next week so said she would need to reschedule the visit.  [LXC] will be working 14 hour days next week. … [LXC] said she may be able to get [redacted] to drop [her children] off to her at the camp when they get home from school.

[LXC] said that she will be at camp next week but CSO is welcome to visit her at camp. Her school holiday camp has been scheduled for the last week of the school holidays and [LXC] has approx. 80 children booked in, with more bookings still arriving.”[74]

  1. (iii)
    When questioned at the 13 March 2025 hearing about whether she attended a camp in October 2019 LXC said that she couldn’t recall doing so, but if she did it would have been with her children.[75] However, in a record of interview dated 11 October 2019—

(When asked if ML had come to the house that week) “No… I haven’t been here this week. I’ve been at camp. Finished at 8.30 starting at 5.30am. Mums [sic] been here with the kids.”[76]

  1. (iv)
    In a case note dated 12 December 2019—

(When discussing events of the previous week or so) “[LXC] had been away at camp and her mother was staying with the children. … [LXC] returned early from camp as [redacted] was sick…”[77]

  1. The authors of these case notes were not cross-examined[78] and LXC was only cross-examined about the October camp, but some of what is extracted purport to be quotes from LXC in which she self-reports attending camps in 2019 after issuance of her negative notice, and that she did so without her own children on at least two occasions;
  2. These case notes do not clarify whether LXC was undertaking administration tasks for [organisation] at the camps or providing services directly to children. These attendances do, however, indicate that LXC was careless to the fact that her negative notice prohibited her from attending camps unless she was doing so only to accompany her own children;
  3. More recently the Parent and Carer Guide describes LXC as “owner” and  “organiser” of a camp in April 2022, and as “secretary” on the guide for camps held in September 2024 and January 2025.[79] LXC said that the current secretary of [organisation] had since rectified these references,[80] but the current secretary, DM, gave evidence that he did not prepare or edit camp guides which, he said, was “an admin role”, and that “only dates were updated by admin (currently LXC) on an old template that had been around for a long time”.[81] Indeed, DM did not seem to be particularly familiar with the guides;
  4. I accept DM’s uncontested evidence that LXC had not acted in an executive capacity as secretary or treasurer of [organisation] and had not stayed overnight at camps since his involvement started with [organisation] in approximately April 2024;
  5. Despite her submissions to the contrary, I find that LXC did edit the guides before the Tribunal for camps held in 2022, 2024 and 2025 beyond merely changing dates. The reference to “owner” in 2022 is amended to “secretary” in 2024, sections about NDIS, vaping and sunscreen application are added and amended over the period. Given the extent of editing elsewhere in the guides, I do not accept LXC’s submission that the failure to remove her name from the documents as “organiser” and “owner” in 2022 (which changed to “secretary” in 2024) was just an oversight in an old document. Even if it was a genuine oversight, it reflects carelessness or a lack of diligence generally despite submissions on LXC’s behalf insisting that she is “seized of her obligations to comply with all aspects of the legislative framework;”[82] and
  6. LXC’s answers to questions from the Respondent about the guides seemed, in my view, designed to distance herself from them. It was the only time I felt that LXC was not being fully candid with the Tribunal. LXC often called herself a “subcontractor but not an employee”, as if that might absolve her of any otherwise incriminating activity.
  1. [46]
    Again, there has been no investigation or official finding that LXC engaged in regulated employment of [organisation] or was a parent volunteer on any camp since 12 March 2019, or that she carried on a regulated business in contravention of the WWC Act. At the most, I can (and do) find that LXC appears to have taken a cavalier and uncareful approach to her association with [organisation] since 2019 despite her negative notice. The evidence suggests that LXC’s administrative work may be directed to [organistion] rather than directed mainly to children, but the evidence also suggests she attended at least two camps after issuance of her negative notice in 2019, and not just to accompany her own children. Guides edited by LXC for camps held between 2022 and 2025 give the impression of her managing or carrying on [organisation] which suggests poor judgment by LXC and a disregard or failure to heed the many warnings given to her about being prohibited from involvement in a child-related business. It is irrelevant that LXC meant “secretary” only in administrative sense: her name was the only name to appear on the 2022, 2024 and 2025 camp guides which might reasonably give the impression of LXC as manager, organiser or over-seer and not merely office administrator. Someone who has a prior conviction for a contravention of the Blue Card rules would be expected to act more prudently.
  2. [47]
    Five referees wrote in favour of LXC’s review application, all complimentary of her professionalism, caring nature and devotion to working with children. One mentions specific awareness of the Blue Card non-compliance conviction and one mentions “false charges” without elaboration, but none mention being aware of LXC’s 2019 criminal and domestic violence charges. None of the referees attended the hearing, despite the notation on the QCAT notice of hearing to applicants that witnesses must attend for cross-examination. LXC’s legal representatives should know the relevance and importance of this to the Tribunal’s consideration of the review application. The only witness called to give evidence was late in proceedings and at the suggestion of the Tribunal. DM spoke positively of LXC. A failure to call on the people who had provided written references left the Tribunal unable to verify those referees’ assurances that LXC would be likely to act in the best interests of children.
  3. [48]
    Sections 226 and 228 of the WWC Act tend to draw the Tribunal’s attention to negative aspects of an applicant’s history and circumstances. There are many positive aspects of LXC’s history and conduct to note. LXC appeared to be mature, intelligent, and candid in the majority of her spoken answers and seemed to be respectful of the law. She displayed remorse and insight into the incidents which make up her offending history and contemporaneous material shows she accepted responsibility at the time of each incident and still does today. In testimony before the Tribunal she seemed open, reflective and did not blame others. These are important mitigants to reoffending.[83]
  4. [49]
    LXC’s obvious dedication to her camp-related career over several years is admirable, particularly as the camps provide uncommon opportunities for outdoor activity and leadership experience for many young people. LXC seemed to have a genuine care and concern for the welfare of children, which her written referees also commended.
  5. [50]
    LXC’s psychologist notes that LXC continues to see her on a ‘needs-be basis’ in times of stress and overwhelm, and that LXC continues to maintain and employ the various coping strategies and treatment interventions learned in consultations over the years. Despite the Respondent’s contention that there was limited evidence before the Tribunal about the strategies LXC would use to prevent engaging in “concerning behaviours” like those in her past,[84] the DCS material did provide several examples of LXC employing specific strategies in real time to avoid conflict and promote the safety of her children throughout their contact with LXC.  
  6. [51]
    The passage of time since a conviction or charge is not necessarily persuasive on its own, but coupled with the fact that LXC had no offending history before nor since the 2019 criminal incidents gives comfort that these can be considered isolated incidents six years in the past. Reflecting on the 2018 WWC Act conviction, despite the passing of some seven years I have had reservations in considering this application due to LXC’s rather unclear and uncareful connection to [organisation] since then. However, without investigative information to confirm any contravention I am not of the view that this conduct was so obviously egregious or contravening that I could place significant weight on it as a determinative factor against granting the application.
  7. [52]
    The determination of whether there is an exceptional case involves the exercise of a broad discretion that should be “unhampered by any general rule and is to be construed in the particular context of the legislation”.[85] While I am aware of ‘relevant information’ I am also aware of the context of that information and the mitigating factors that help to protect against future risk to children. I am not satisfied that any of the information before the Tribunal is exceptional, unusual or so concerning that the interests of children would be better served if LXC did not have a Blue Card.  In my view, therefore, LXC’s is not now an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for LXC to be issued with a positive notice and that decision should be set aside.

Order

  1. [53]
    I make the following orders:
    1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice that the Applicant’s case is ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.
    2. Publication of the name or identifying information of the Applicant or any person or entity associated with the Applicant, other than to parties to these proceedings, is prohibited pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

Footnotes

[1]  Orders of the Tribunal made on 16 February 2024 prohibit the publication of identifying information about the Applicant, any child or non-party to these proceedings.

[2]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 221(2)(b).

[3]  Section 5, WWC Act.

[4]WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190, [17].

[5]  Sections 6 and 360, WWC Act.

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

[7]  Section 11 Schedule 1 Part 1, WWC Act.

[8]  Section 10(2) WWC Act.

[9]  Sections 176H, 176I, 176J WWC Act.

[10]  Section 176A(2)(a) WWC Act.

[11]  Section 228(2) WWC Act.

[12] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2009), s 20.

[13]  QCAT Act, s 28(3)

[14]  An offence under s 192(2)(a) of the Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act in force as at the date of the offence.

[15]  Differing dates are provided on the material, but it is assumed that his employment spanned these dates.  

[16]  Referred to throughout these reasons as [organisation] to prevent identification of the applicant.

[17]  An offence under (then) s 193 WWC Act.

[18]  BCS 36-37, QPS Court Brief.

[19]  Queensland Police Service Court Brief, BCS 35-37

[20]  Restorative Outcome Plan, 23 October 2019, at NTP 387.

[21]  NTP 92-93.

[22]  Section 176H WWC Act.

[23]  Section 157 WWC Act; Schedule 1, part 2 WWC Act.

[24]  Section 176B and/or s 176J WWC Act.

[25]  Statement of LXC, 25 April 2024.

[26]ibid.

[27] ibid.

[28] ibid.

[29]  Examination of LXC, 13 September 2024.

[30]  Statement of LXC, 25 April 2024.

[31]  Cross examination of LXC, 13 March 2025; also NTP 387.

[32]  Applicant’s Outline of Submissions, paragraphs 68-74.

[33]  Recording 12:15:02 – 12:15:07.

[34]  Recording 13 September 2024, 12:15:52 -  12:16:03.

[35]  Applicant’s Outline of Submissions, paragraphs 19-20.

[36]  Applicant’s Outline of Submissions, paragraphs 27-28.

[37]  Applicant’s Outline of Submissions, paragraphs 55-56.

[38]  Applicant’s Outline of Submissions, paragraphs 57-61.

[39]  Statements of MN (undated), MM (20 January 2022), MW (2 February 2022), MS 15 April 2024 and AK (22 April 2024).

[40]  [SCQ] was an organisation apparently distinct from [organisation] as exclusively a booking agency (or similar), but peripheral to [organisation] in its functions based on LXC’s testimony. The full name is not given to prevent identification of the applicant.

[41]  Appendix 1 to Affidavit of LXC, deposed 2 December 2024.

[42]  Applicant’s Additional Outline of Submissions, 6 January 2025.

[43]  Applicant’s Additional Outline of Submissions, paragraphs 17-19.

[44]  Cross examination of LXC, 13 March 2025, 11:01:13 – 11:01:30.

[45]  Re-examination of LXC, 28 March 2025 1:49:07 – 1:51:00.

[46]  Letter from MS dated 1 December 2023.

[47]  BCS 150 – BCS 157.

[48]  BCS 158 – BCS 165.

[49]  BCS 142 – BCS 149.

[50]  Applicant’s Additional Outline of Submissions, paragraphs 23-30. The negative notice issued on 12 March 2019.

[51]  Re-examination of LXC, 28 March 2025 1:43:23 – 1:44:56.

[52]  Applicant’s Additional Outline of Submissions, paragraphs 31-37. 

[53]  Examination of DM, 28 March 2025, 2:40:11 – 3:10:01.

[54]  Applicant’s Closing Submissions, paragraph 62.

[55] Applicant’s Closing Submissions, paragraph 63.

[56]  Applicant’s Closing Submissions, paragraph 64.

[57]  Applicant’s Closing Submissions, paragraph 65.

[58]  Applicant’s Closing Submissions.

[59]  Section 221 WWC Act.

[60] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303, at [10] citing Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, at [33]

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

[62]  Life imprisonment in the case of arson, and imprisonment for five and three years for wilful damage and common assault respectively: Criminal Code Queensland, ss 461, 469, 335.

[63]  DCS record of interview with LXC on 11 October 2019, at NTP 287.

[64]  Sections 176A, 176J and s 11 Schedule 1 Part 1 WWC Act.

[65]  Section 176B and s 22 Schedule 1 Part 2 WWC Act.

[66]  Section 228(1)(b)(iv) WWC Act; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[67]  Statement of LXC, 25 April 2024.

[68]  Recording 12:04:12 – 12:04:30.

[69]  Letter from MS dated 1 December 2023.

[70]  BCS104 – BCS138.

[71]  NTP 147.

[72]  Cross examination of LXC, 13 March 2025 11:37:20 – 11:39:31.

[73]  DCS Case Note, 23 July 2019, at NTP 189.

[74]  DCS Case Note, 12 September 2019, at NTP 210.

[75]  Cross examination of LXC, 13 March 2025 11:40:24 – 11:41:02.

[76]  DCS Record of Interview, 11 October 2019, NTP 286.

[77]  DCS Case Note 12 December 2019, at NTP 308.

[78]  Nor was there any necessity for these authors to be cross-examined for the Tribunal to rely on their notes: SLH v Director General, Department of Justice [2025] QCAT 13, at [26].

[79]  LXC submits that by “secretary”, she means in the administrative capacity rather than in the capacity of an executive officer:  Cross examination of LXC, 13 March 2025, 11:06:07 – 11:17:00.

[80]  Cross examination of LXC, 28 March 2025, 11:35:15 – 11:35:51.

[81]  Examination of DM, 28 March 2025, 2:50:12 – 2:54:51

[82]  Applicant’s Outline of Submissions submitted 13 September 2024, at paras 20b and 29.

[83]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87, at [51]-[55].

[84]  Citing KAP v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2020] QCAT 457 at [63].

[85] Maher, and Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FCG [2011] QCATA 291, at [31].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    LXC v Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • Shortened Case Name:

    LXC v Department of Justice and Attorney General

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 337

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Mewing

  • Date:

    04 Sep 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
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
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 FGC [2011] QCATA 291
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 291
Cite 3 - [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 87
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 87
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
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
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCATA 6
Cite 2 - [2021] QCATA 6
KAP v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2020] QCAT 457
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 457
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 457
SLH v Director-General, Department of Justice [2025] QCAT 13
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QCAT 13
Cite 2 - [2025] QCAT 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.