Children and Families

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s submissions that contended the grant of an earlier Notice to Produce was a breach of the rights to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to a fair hearing (section 31) pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal otherwise said it considered the applicant’s human rights submissions but that any limitation was justified, without providing reasoning.

The applicant was coaching children at a community-based sporting organisation when his blue card was cancelled based on new information affecting his criminal record. He had a criminal history relating to supply and possession of drugs. He sought a review of the negative notice.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JB. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision. Although the Tribunal noted the importance of considering the right to the protection of children, it was satisfied that any limitations on JB’s human rights were justified in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There was no substantive discussion of human rights.

This case concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ISC. The respondent’s decision was made on the grounds that he was convicted in UK for the offence of negligent manslaughter and additionally on the grounds of alleged bullying whilst he was working as a sports coach.

The matter concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice in respect of TJS’s application for a blue card. The Tribunal did not consider human rights in any detail but observed:

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the limitation of human rights (section 13) and cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant.

The applicant was issued a negative blue card notice on the basis of her criminal history. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and set aside the decision as her criminal history was recognised to be of limited relevance.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, GEE. In weighing the risk and protective factors in consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s prior ten child concern reports for children in her care, her history of domestic violence (as both a protected and respondent person) and limited criminal history, the applicant’s ongoing interpersonal conflict with others and authorities, the circumstances in her home, the lack of independent social supports, and the perceived lack of insight and accountability the applicant had for her own actions related to harm suffered to a child in her care.

This matter concerned a review of the refusal of an application for a Blue Card by BJM, an individual who had been charged (but not convicted) with sexual assault of a child and investigated for possession of child exploitation material. The Tribunal confirmed human rights may only be limited so far as is reasonable and justifiable (s 13) and outlined that all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights (s 48).

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the Respondent to issue a negative notice to refuse the Applicant’s application for a blue card. Neither the Applicant nor Respondent referred to rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal noted that any limitation on the Applicant’s rights under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) would be justified because it had the purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of young people and children. The Tribunal did not engage in substantive discussion in respect to the Applicant’s human rights.