Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. GH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2025] QCAT 86

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

GH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2025] QCAT 86

GH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[2025] QCAT 86

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

GH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2025] QCAT 86

PARTIES:

GH

(applicant)

v

Director-General, department of justice and attorney-general

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML156-23

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2025

HEARING DATE:

12 August 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Munasinghe

ORDERS:

  1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, that GH’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 substituted with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.
  2. Pursuant to section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the publication of:
    1. the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
    2. evidence given before the Tribunal; and
    3. information that may enable GH to be identified

is prohibited.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to issue him with a negative notice – where applicant had a history of public disorder offences – where applicant was involved in a particularly serious dangerous driving offence – where the Tribunal found there was no exceptional case

Human Rights Act 2018 (Qld), s 58

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

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

Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 180 ALR 593

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

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

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

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 Ram [2014] QCATA 27

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28

DEF v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 127

Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98

Kracke v Mental Health Review Board v Ors (General) [2009] VCAT 646

PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188

PJB v Melbourne Health [2011] VSC 327

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

April Freeman KC, Counsel

Respondent:

C Davis, Legal Officer

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    For some, the qualities of wisdom, maturity, and insight grow linearly and incrementally over the years. To others, they come later in life, blooming suddenly into existence, precipitated by life’s invariable trials and tribulations. Such was the case, I find, with GH (a pseudonym).

Background

  1. [2]
    GH applied to the Tribunal to review a decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (‘DJAG’), to issue him with a negative notice following his application for a working with children clearance (‘clearance’) under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (‘WWC Act’).
  2. [3]
    DJAG issued GH with a negative notice after deciding that it had ‘relevant information’ about him, and an ‘exceptional case’ existed.
  3. [4]
    DJAG was required to issue GH with clearance, unless it was aware of ‘relevant information’ about GH and was satisfied it is an ‘exceptional case’ in which it would not be in the best interests of children to issue him with a blue card.
  4. [5]
    The relevant information consisted of convictions GH had for criminal and traffic offences, comprised of:
    1. public disorder type offences, committed between 2005 and 2019.
    2. traffic offences committed between 2006 and 2020. 
  5. [6]
    GH was a persistent offender. But most of his offending was minor, except for an offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and being adversely affected by an intoxicating substance (‘dangerous driving offence’), and associated offences, which he committed on 23 November 2019. The associated offences were:
    1. two counts of contravening a direction of requirement.
    2. a single count of failing to provide a specimen of breath or saliva on requirement (for a road side test).
  6. [7]
    The particulars of the dangerous driving offence and associated offences were:
    1. on a Saturday night at 10.21 pm, GH drove a vehicle at speed in a 60km per hour zone.
    2. he tailgated, then overtook another vehicle by crossing double white lines onto the opposite side of the road, causing his vehicle to nearly collide with an oncoming vehicle.
    3. a few minutes later, GH sped in between two vehicles travelling in the same direction, causing their drivers to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
    4. shortly thereafter, GH tailgated another vehicle, swerved his car from side to side, then overtook the other vehicle at 100km per hour (the posted speed limit was 70kms per hour).
    5. GH rearended another vehicle at speed, causing it to slide 200 meters down the road. GH’s vehicle subsequently caught on fire.
    6. Police and paramedics attending to GH at the scene of the accident noted indicia of intoxication. They described his behaviour as belligerent.
    7. GH refused to provide police with the name of the driver of his vehicle or his name. He also refused to provide police with a specimen of his breath.
  7. [8]
    GH pleaded guilty to the above offences in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 24 February 2020. For the dangerous driving offence, GH was sentenced to 12 months’ probation and his licence was disqualified for seven months. The Court convicted GH but did not further punish him for the associated offences. GH completed his probation without incident.
  8. [9]
    GH’s most recent public disorder offence occurred in October 2023 when police issued him with an infringement notice for ‘public nuisance – disorderly behaviour – in/near a licensed premises’.

Relevant Law

  1. [10]
    The purpose of the Tribunal review is to produce the ‘correct and preferable decision’.[1] For the review, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision maker and makes its decision by way of a ‘fresh hearing on the merits’.[2] The review of a child related employment decision is to be undertaken under the principle that the ‘welfare and best interests of a child are paramount’.[3] This is the consideration ‘to which all others yield’.[4]
  2. [11]
    What amounts to an ‘exceptional case’ is not defined in the WWC Act. In GSC v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 447, I set out the principles relevant to deciding what is an ‘exceptional case’. They are reproduced below:
    1. it is to be accepted that phrases like ‘exceptional case’ must be considered in the context of the legislation which contains them, the intent and purpose of that legislation, and the interests of the persons whom it is here, quite obviously, designed to protect, children.[5]
    2. to conclude it is an exceptional case there must be factors that are unusual and extraordinary.[6]
    3. it would be most unwise to lay down any general rule about what is an exceptional case; all these matters are matters of discretion.[7]
    4. correctly stated, the discretion to be exercised by the Tribunal, on review, is unfettered by any general rule in considering the relevant factors to determine whether in all the circumstances it is in the best interests of children for a positive notice to be issued.[8]
    5. it is not possible to state with precision the circumstances that might render a case exceptional. To conclude it is an exceptional case there must be factors that are unusual and exceptional.[9]
    6. what constitutes an ‘exceptional case’ is a matter of fact and degree in the whole of the circumstances of each particular case.[10]
    7. neither party bears an onus in determining whether an exceptional case exists.[11]
  3. [12]
    The standard of proof to which the Tribunal must be satisfied that an exceptional case exists is upon the balance of probabilities. Concerning that standard, in Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor,[12] the Queensland Court of Appeal relevantly stated, at [29]:

the Tribunal was required to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved, that there was an exceptional case, in which it would not harm the best interests of children for a positive notice to be issued.

GH’s Affidavits

  1. [13]
    GH affirmed two affidavits on 10 May 2024 and 22 July 2024.
  2. [14]
    Concerning the dangerous driving offence, in his first affidavit, he deposed that on the day of the offence, he attended a cricket match at the Gabba. Throughout the course of the day, he had about five beers. He was not drinking excessively. Earlier in the day he took his daily medication, namely, Effexor (anti-depressant) and Nexium (anti-reflux).
  3. [15]
    After returning home, he ‘started experiencing severe abdominal pain, uncontrollable vomiting, and profuse sweating’ (‘the attack’). GH unsuccessfully attempted to contact his parents. He consumed two Valium tablets at around 6.30pm. The pain worsened and at around 10pm GH decided to drive to his parents’ house.
  4. [16]
    GH concedes that he drove in an unsafe manner, including tailgating other drivers, driving between cars where there was no space to do so, and swerving erratically. He concedes that he was affected by Valium but denies that he was under the influence of illicit drugs or that he was intoxicated. GH accepts that his actions were reckless and dangerous. He admits that he was ‘delirious’ and ‘belligerent’ after being in pain for several hours to the point where his mental health had deteriorated. The morning after his accident GH’s mother took him to his physician Dr Trace who administered intramuscular medications. GH’s symptoms abated over the next few days.
  5. [17]
    GH professes to feeling very ‘sad, ashamed and shocked’ about putting others’ lives at risk. Since the attack, he has not accrued any further traffic offences.
  6. [18]
    GH professes to experiencing attacks like that he experienced on the day of the offence 2-3 times per year since 2010/2011. The attacks are so severe that on several occasions GH has been admitted to hospital, placed on intravenous fluids, or given intramuscular injections to quell his symptoms.
  7. [19]
    The most recent attack occurred in September 2023. GH was hospitalised and Dr Nicholas O'Rourke removed his appendix. Dr O'Rourke opined that that GH’s appendix was leaking toxins into his intestines which may have caused his persistent attacks.
  8. [20]
    In his second affidavit dated 22 July 2025, GH:
    1. denied that he was a regular or weekly user of cannabis, professing only to smoking cannabis less than five times.
    2. deposed that he was taking medical cannabis oil for his degenerative back disorder. The oil reduces his pain and has a positive effect on his mental health.
    3. deposed that he did not know what drug caused his drug induced psychosis, although he concedes it is reasonable to assume it was methamphetamine. When GH consumed the drug, he did not know it was methamphetamine.

The nuisance at the concert

  1. [21]
    Concerning his public nuisance infringement notice, GH deposed that on 8 October 2023 he attended a concert at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre with his partner NB. When the concert ended, he ordered an Uber. Whilst waiting for the Uber he and NB ordered drinks. Security staff informed him that they were shutting the bar. NB tripped and fell over whilst leaving the venue. GH suspects that her heavy Doc Martin boots caused her to fall. GH perceived that the security staff were being overbearing and that they believed he had caused NB to fall. GH used his mobile phone to record their conduct. When NB fell a second time GH attempted to assist her but was thrown to the ground by a security guard.
  2. [22]
    When police arrived, they issued GH with an on-the-spot infringement notice for public nuisance. Although, GH disagreed with the infringement notice, he paid the fine to avoid the inconvenience of attending Court. GH denies that he was intoxicated or that he was rude to security staff.

GH’s history of substance abuse

  1. [23]
    GH attributed many of his early court appearances to poor judgement whilst under the influence of alcohol. From his late teenage years up until his late twenties, GH drank alcohol to excess on a semi regular basis. He claimed that his drinking has reduced with age, and he longer gets drunk or has any ongoing issues with alcohol.
  2. [24]
    GH admitted using recreational ecstasy 6-12 times in his early to mid-20s. He has also consumed cocaine once or twice and smoked cannabis when he was 18 years old. Approximately six years ago, GH was admitted to hospital after consuming an unknown drug, given to him by a friend ostensibly for jetlag. Upon admission, GH was provided with antipsychotic medication which calmed him. He stayed at hospital for four nights and three days under a treatment authority. Since that ‘terrifying’ experience, GH denies using any recreational drugs.

Mental Health

  1. [25]
    In 2014, following a ‘bad’ break up, GH was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. He was prescribed anti-depressant medication. He has attended upon three to four different psychologists and two psychiatrists. Around five years ago, GH was prescribed anti-anxiety medications. During the worst stages of his depression in 2014, GH contemplated suicide. Following the accident in 2019, GH began to see Psychiatrist Dr Mark Tayler, who updated his medication.
  2. [26]
    GH has a close relationship with his GP, Dr Trace, who prescribes his medications.
  3. [27]
    GH contended that NB’s and his family’s combined support and his medication regime has significantly improved his mental health.        

Dr John Trace

  1. [28]
    Dr John Trace OAM is a General Practitioner with 51 years of experience. In an affidavit filed in the Tribunal, Dr Trace deposed to treating GH for his abdominal pain, vomiting and mental health issues since 2018. Notably, Dr Trace opined that GH’s appendicitis was casually related to his chronic pain, because there have not been recurrent abdominal symptoms since his appendectomy.
  2. [29]
    Further, Dr Trace proffered the opinion that GH’s depression related to his long-term pain and his physical separation from NB. GH’s mental state has improved since she moved to Brisbane. Dr Trace believes that GH’s mental health is stable and of a mild nature. He believes GH to be compliant with his mediation.
  3. [30]
    Ultimately, Dr Trace is of the view that GH is not a risk to children.
  4. [31]
    Annexed to the affidavit of Dr Trace, was a letter by Consultant Psychiatrist named Associate Professor Dr Mark Taylor, dated 14 October 2020. GH saw Dr Taylor on three occasions. Dr Taylor prescribed a beta blocker for GH’s anxiety and counselled him to reduce his alcohol and cannabis.

NB

  1. [32]
    In an affidavit affirmed on 10 May 2024, NB deposed that she had been GH’s partner for the past nine years. Most of their relationship was conducted long distance. She is a German native but moved to Australia to live with GH about 14 months ago. She describes GH’s alcohol use as ‘minimal’ and ‘occasional’. Concerning the infringement notice, she deposed that GH was not rude or intoxicated and did not cause her to trip over. She opined that GH’s depression has improved over time and has alleviated since she moved to Australia. She has witnessed GH interacting positively with his nephews aged 2 and 3. They love playing with him. In her opinion, GH would only act in the best interests of children.

ABM

  1. [33]
    GH’s sister-in-law ABM provided the Tribunal with an affidavit. She spoke positively about GH’s relationship with her children. She believes that GH ‘always puts children first and does what is in their best interests’.

MGH

  1. [34]
    GH’s mother, MGH, is a lawyer with a principal practicing certificate. She is also a registered teacher. In an affidavit affirmed on 11 May 2024, she deposes that GH no longer uses illicit drugs, drinks moderately and manages his depression. She writes glowingly about GH’s interactions with, and protectiveness towards, her grandchildren. She holds no concerns about GH’s interactions with children professionally or recreationally.

Psychological Report by Nicholas Smith

  1. [35]
    GH relies on a psychological report authored by Forensic Psychologist Nicholas Smith, which addresses GH’s current psychological functioning, contextual factors relevant to his offences, his risk of reoffending, as well as appropriate management of identified risk factors. Mr Smith interviewed GH on 5 and 12 March 2024. Relevantly:
    1. he assessed that GH’s risk of reoffending fell in the low range after applying the Level of Services – Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) tool;
    2. GH displayed significant cognisance of his past problematic behaviour.
    3. GH’s adherence to his medication regime over several years and stable long-term relationship have a known risk-reducing effect on offending behaviour.
    4. he opined that the likelihood of GH recommitting offences similar to the driving offence is low, given the apparent stabilisation of GH’s medical condition and his maturation.
    5. overall, he considered GH’s recent history is predominantly demonstrative of a steady reduction in in the presence of criminogenic needs. There appears to be a clear decrease in the incidence of behaviour that can be considered antisocial, impulsive, or disruptive to the good order and safe functioning of society. At the same time, there appears to be a steady consolidation and stabilisation of risk-reducing factors present in GH’s life.
    6. he does not consider GH presents with any specific factors or concerns that would contribute toward him posing an unacceptable risk of harm to children, or vulnerable adults, either through deliberate action or irresponsible/dysregulated behaviour.

The Hearing

  1. [36]
    The review proceeded to a hearing on 12 August 2024. DJAG elected to cross examine GH, Nicholas Smith, Dr Trace, MGH, NB and ABM.
  2. [37]
    When cross examined, GH:
    1. denied that he had suffered a drug induced psychosis on more than one occasion.
    2. when taken through his criminal history, candidly accepted occasions when he had been intoxicated, violent, antagonistic or inappropriate.
    3. accepted that he could have called a friend or an ambulance, instead of driving on the night that he committed the dangerous driving offence.
    4. maintained that he had done nothing to justify the police issuing him with the infringement notice. He stated that he attempted to assist NB when she tripped the second time, but a security guard restrained him by placing an arm behind his back. He asked the security guard “what are you doing”. He paid the amount stated in the infringement notice to avoid the time and cost of challenging it at Court.
  3. [38]
    When cross examined Nicholas Smith said:
    1. GH’s criminal history consisted primarily of public nuisance type offending. There is an absence of goal-directed criminality. GH is not engaging in violent offences, property offences or fraud. His criminal history suggests dysregulation and poor inhibition which is due to several factors explored in his report. The fact that GH has peers who have been involved in (similar offending) without any other form of entrenched criminal activity would not impact his opinions.
    2. if GH’s alcohol use were to increase it would not necessarily equate to an increase of risk unless there were associated impacts on those other stabilising areas of life noted (in his report).
    3. the risk assessment measure that he used to determine GH’s risk of reoffending was “quite clear” and he felt that the “results were an accurate reflection”.
    4. in any form of psychological assessment, one is reliant, at least in part, on the subject’s self-report.
    5. he did not consider the public nuisance in October 2023 to be evidence of a persisting pattern. It is a “statistical outlier”.
  4. [39]
    When cross examined about GH’s present drinking, Dr Trace said that regular recent liver function tests do not suggest GH drinks alcohol to excess.
  5. [40]
    When cross examined MGH said:
    1. she sees GH often, usually three to four times a week.
    2. she has seen GH “affected” by alcohol but not in the past two years. The last time she saw him drunk was at the Ipswich Cup about four years ago.
    3. GH’s drinking has reduced dramatically since his car accident and NB arriving in Australia.
    4. when she cleans GH’s house, she “doesn’t notice beer bottles in the rubbish anymore”.
  6. [41]
    When NB was cross examined, she said:
    1. she was not aware that GH used recreational drugs except for the incident which caused his hospitalisation.
    2. she maintained that in October 2023, GH was not doing anything that would justify police issuing him with an infringement notice.
  7. [42]
    When cross examined about GH’s drug use, ABM said he was not aware he consumed illicit drugs.

DJAG’s submissions

  1. [43]
    In written submission to the Tribunal, DJAG contended:
    1. the Tribunal would have little confidence that GH’s maturation in recent years is a protective factor because he was already mature when he committed the dangerous driving offence, criminal offences, and accumulated infringement notices.
    2. GH continues to drink alcohol.
    3. it is not safe to rely on Nick Smith’s evidence that it is in the best interest of children to be granted a clearance because:
      1. his opinion is contingent of GH’s self-reports.
      2. Mr Smith’s opinion that if the applicant were to resume heavy drinking, his risk of reoffending would also increase.
      3. the reduced instances of the applicant being issued with public nuisance infringements could, in part be attributable to COVID-19 and the applicant going out less.
      4. the risk assessment conducted related to the applicant’s risk of reoffending and is therefore of limited relevance to the question the Tribunal must determine because:
        1. it does not take into account infringement notices;
        2. inconsistent evidence about GH’s history of illicit substance use was not considered to have made a significant difference to the assessment;
        3. unlawful use of substances would only be taken into account if their use resulted in dysfunction;
        4. breaking the law would not be taken into account if it did not result in dysfunction;
        5. Mr Smith’s evidence at the hearing was that any form of employment was considered to be protective in the assessment, regardless of person’s level of contentment with the employment.
      5. the evidence provided by GH’s character witnesses does not mitigate risk because none of them could reliably speak to his use of illicit drugs. Nor were they aware of many of the behaviours he engaged in.
      6. it is a risk factor that GH’s prescribing doctor for medicinal cannabis was not called to give evidence at the hearing.
      7. the material before the Tribunal and evidence at the hearing raises questions about GH’s ability to identify risk and exercise sound judgement.

Consideration and findings

  1. [44]
    I am not 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 be in the best interests of children to issue GH with a clearance.
  2. [45]
    As I alluded to at the beginning of my decision, GH appears to have matured later in his life. His present circumstances are far removed from the anxious and depressed young man who committed the dangerous driving offence several years ago. GH has reduced his drinking. He stopped using illicit drugs. He adheres to a medication regime that supports his mental health. He is well supported by his family, and his partner. He is appropriately treated by Dr Trace, who is a medical practitioner with a vast amount of medical experience. He is no longer plagued by the recurrent pain and nausea that played a part in his offending and depression.
  3. [46]
    Throughout the hearing, I formed the impression that GH is genuinely contrite and remorseful for his past behaviour and offending. When giving evidence, he did not seek to minimise his conduct. It is to GH’s credit that, aside from the infringement notice for public nuisance in 2023, he has committed no offences since 2019. More than five years have passed since he committed the dangerous driving offence. 
  4. [47]
    Except for the infringement notice, GH’s history of public disorder offending is dated. The fact that police issued him with an infringement instead of a notice to appear in court suggests to me that that the public nuisance, if it occurred at all, was trivial. From the videos of the incident played to the Tribunal, I did not consider that GH’s conduct amounted to a public nuisance within the meaning of s 6 of the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld). I accept GH’s evidence that he paid the infringement notice as a matter of convenience and expediency. 
  5. [48]
    I place considerable weight on Mr Smith’s clinical opinions that GH is at low risk of reoffending and that he does not present as a risk to children. I concur with Mr Smith’s observation that GH’s offending arose from dysregulation, was not deliberate criminal conduct and does not represent entrenched criminal activity.
  6. [49]
    It is apposite to note that GH’s offending did not involve children. It was not committed in the presence of children. Nor did it occur in the course of any employment. My comfort that GH is not a risk to children is reinforced by the collective evidence of NB, ABM and MGH, that GH interacts positively with, and acts protectively towards, his nephews.

Section 266 of the WWC Act

  1. [50]
    Section 266 of the WWC Act requires the Tribunal to consider various matters, my findings in respect of which are set out below. 
    1. GH has a criminal history consisting predominantly of public disorder type offending and a traffic history. 
    2. He has never been charged with a serious or disqualifying offence.
    3. GH’s offending was committed between 2005 and 2019. On 8 October 2023, GH was issued with an infringement notice for public nuisance.
    4. It cannot meaningfully be contended that the nature of GH’s offences has any relevance to employment or carrying on a business that involves or may involve children. As GH aptly points out in his submission, none of the offences involved children, were committed in the presence of children, or were committed in the course of his employment. DJAG’s contention that GH’s offending models poor behaviour to children is flawed. The WWC Act presumes that applicants who commit such offences ought to receive a clearance unless an exceptional case can be demonstrated.
    5. I have had regard to the penalties imposed by the courts for each of GH’s convictions its reasons for doing so. It is to GH’s credit that he completed the requirements of his probation order without issue. I infer that his capacity to comply with lawful orders and directions has improved over the years. 
  2. [51]
    Concerning specific submissions raised by DJAG:
    1. Its contention that children may have been present on the night GH committed the dangerous operation offence is entirely speculative.
    2. I reject DJAG’s submission that limited weight ought to be attributed to Mr Smith’s evidence because his conclusions were premised on GH’s evidence. Such reports, by their very nature, are invariably founded on self-reported disclosures. There is no evidence to suggest GH was malingering during his session with Mr Smith. Further, GH gave sworn evidence about the matters upon which Mr Smith’s report was based and his account was not meaningfully weakened by cross examination.
    3. the probity of GH’s evidence not impacted by the fact that he is the applicant in the proceeding.
    4. DJAG’s contention, that the absence of evidence GH engaged in antisocial behaviour since October last year is not persuasive evidence that he has ceased engaging in such behaviour, is flawed. The notion that one could become a better ‘public nuisance’ offender, such that offending is less detectable by authorities, defies logic.
    5. there is no evidence that contradicts GH’s sworn testimony that he experienced more than one drug induced psychosis.
  3. [52]
    Having concluded that there is no exceptional case for GH, I propose the following orders, which include a non-publication order to protect GH’s identity: 
    1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General that GH’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 substituted with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.
    2. Pursuant to section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the publication of:
      1. the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
      2. evidence given before the Tribunal; and
      3. information that may enable GH to be identified.

is prohibited.

Application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

  1. [53]
    The Tribunal must apply the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’) when reviewing the decisions of a ‘public entity’.[13] DJAG is a public entity. Section 58 of the HR Act provides that it is unlawful for a public entity to act or make a decision in a way that is not compatible with human rights[14] or in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision.[15] A decision is compatible with human rights if it does not limit a human right, or limits a human right only to the extent that is reasonably justifiable in accordance with s 13 of the HR Act.
  2. [54]
    My decision will enable GH to work in his occupation of choice as a phlebotomist, which is a position for which a clearance is required. In that respect the Tribunal’s decision enhances GH’s economic prospects and by corollary his property rights under s 24 of the Act. It is therefore consistent with GH’s human rights.

Footnotes

[1]  Ibid, s 20(1).

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

[3]  WWC Act, s 360.

[4] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492 [3].

[5] Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2001] QCATA 291, [31], citing Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98, [22].

[6] Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 180 ALR 593 [33].

[7] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492 at [34].

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

[9] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87, [14] (citing Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 180 ALR 593 [33].

[10] DEF v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 127 (Cranwell M citing Re FAA [2006] QCST 15, [22].

[11] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28.

[12]  [2004] QCA 492.

[13] PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188; Kracke v Mental Health Review Board v Ors (General) VCAT 646, [291]; PJB v Melbourne Health [2011] VSC 327.

[14]  HR Act, s 58(1)(a).

[15]  Ibid, s 58(1)(b).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

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

  • Shortened Case Name:

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

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 86

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Munasinghe

  • Date:

    27 Feb 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
Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 180 ALR 593
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 180 ALR 593
Cite 2 - (2001) 180 ALR 593
Cite 3 - (2001) 180 ALR 593
Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2001] QCATA 291
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QCATA 291
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
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
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 2 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 3 - [2004] QCA 492
Cite 4 - [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
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 28
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 28
DEF v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 127
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 127
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 127
GSC v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 447
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 447
Kent v Wilson (2000) VSC 98
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) VSC 98
Cite 2 - (2000) VSC 98
Kracke v Mental Health Review Board & Ors [2009] VCAT 646
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] VCAT 646
PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 188
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 188
PJB v Melbourne Health and Anor (Patrick's case') [2011] VSC 327
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] VSC 327
Cite 2 - [2011] VSC 327
Re FAA [2006] QCST 15
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QCST 15

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.