Law School

PXS v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 342

  1. Home
  2. Research
  3. Vulnerable Persons Project
  4. Human Rights Case Law

Date: 7 September 2020
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Member Milburn
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 8, 26, 58
Rights Considered: Right to protection of families and children
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66; Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) ss 5, 6, 221,  226, 360
Keywords: Children and Families

This case concerned the reassessment of an applicant’s eligibility to hold a blue card after criminal charges against him had been finalised. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was included in the respondent’s written submissions, but was not considered in-depth by the Tribunal.

This case concerned the reassessment of the applicant’s eligibility for a blue card after criminal charges against him were finalised. PXS previously held a blue card, which was cancelled in 2018 when the respondent issued him with a negative notice as a result of criminal charges. He then filed an application seeking to cancel the negative notice as the charges against him were now finalised. The Tribunal was tasked with reassessing his eligibility and determining whether to cancel the negative notice.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ written submissions that it was acting as a ‘public entity’ under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) , that in accordance with section 58 its decisions must be compatible with human rights, and that  section 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provides that every child has the right to ‘the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests’: at [19].

Focusing on the best interests of children, and the requirements of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), the Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant’s case was ‘not an exceptional case’ requiring the issuing of a negative blue card notice and reversed the decision of the respondent: at [24]. It also ordered that the applicant, co-offender, and complainant’s identities not be made public as it would be ‘contrary to public interest’: at [39].

Visit the judgement: PXS v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General  [2020] QCAT 342