JR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 332

Date: 2 September 2020
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Member Hughes
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: S 13
Rights considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) ss 221, 226 and 360
Keywords: Children and Families; Education, Training and Employment

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JR. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal noted section 13(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and held that any limitation on JR’s human rights were consistent with giving primary consideration to the interests of children.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JR, which was made on the basis that the applicant was an “exceptional case” where the issuing of a positive notice would not be in the best interests of children. JR applied for a blue card in order to continue with her current employment as a registered psychologist. A negative notice was issued on the basis of JR’s commission of the offences of stealing, driving under the influence and assaulting and obstructing police. Other relevant factors were that JR overdosed on prescription medication in 2012 rendering her unable to collect her children from school and in 2016 and 2017, she was the victim of acts of violence perpetrated by her current partner which exposed her children to domestic violence.

As she had not been convicted of a ‘serious offence’ within the meaning of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), a positive notice needed to be issued to JR unless the Tribunal made a finding that this was an exceptional case where it was not in the best interests of children for a positive notice to be issued. The Tribunal confirmed the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, noting that this was ‘consistent with the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the human rights, interests and wellbeing of young people’: at [39]. The Tribunal noted section 13(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which states that the nature and purpose of the limitation is a relevant consideration when deciding whether the limitation is reasonable. This was relevant to the Tribunal’s finding that any ‘limitation on JR’s human rights is consistent with the paramount interests of children’: at [39].

Visit the reported judgement: https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case-download/id/345541