SBM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 306

Date: 18 July 2023
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Member Davies
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 23, 25, 26, 31
Rights Considered: Rights to privacy and reputation, right to protection of families and children, rights to fair hearing.
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 66; Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 221, s 225, s 226, s 353, s 360.
Keywords: Blue Card, Children and Families, Child protection.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision by the Respondent to refuse to cancel the Applicant’s negative notice because of several drug related offences that included the trafficking of dangerous drugs. The Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Acts 2019 (Qld) as a public entity and noted the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to a fair hearing (section 31), as well as the rights of children generally (section 26). However, in upholding the negative notice, there was no substantive discussion of the engaged rights other than an assertion that they had been “evaluated”.

SBM’s Blue Card was cancelled in 2014 and in 2015, SBM was convicted of several drug-related offences including trafficking. In 2020, SBM applied to have the negative notice against him cancelled but his application was refused. He then appealed to the Tribunal.

The Applicant led evidence about steps he had taken since 2015 to assist his personal development and rehabilitation, such that he is free from drug dependence and has a strong support network.

In outlining the legislative framework and role, the Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Acts 2019 (Qld) as a public entity and noted the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to a fair hearing (section 31), as well as the rights of children generally (section 26). In affirming the decision not to cancel SBM’s negative notice, the Tribunal noted the paramount consideration to the welfare and best interests of a child, but did not include any discussion in respect of human rights in its substantive reasoning other than to assert that competing human rights had been evaluated (at [43]).

Visit the judgment: SBM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 306