SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252
Date: 17 June 2020
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Member Johnston
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 13
Rights Considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 24, 66; Working with Children Risk Management and Screening Act 2000 (Qld) ss 5, 6, 221, 226, 354, 360
Keywords: Child protection; Employment
The applicant in this case applied for an administrative review of a decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether his case was an “exceptional case” in which it was not in the best interests of children for the applicant to hold a blue card. The Tribunal found that it was not an exceptional case and set aside the decision to issue a negative notice., The Tribunal briefly mentioned the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and found that any limitations on rights in this case are reasonable and justified (section 13).
This case concerned an application for review of the issuing of a negative blue card notice. In April 2019, SSJ, the applicant, filed an application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to review Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (the respondent)’s ‘decision that the Applicant’s case was an “exceptional case”’ whereby it was not ‘in the best interests of children’ for the applicant to possess a positive notice and blue card: at [1]- [5].
The behaviour of SSJ in question related to a charge of public nuisance at age 17 and a breach of a Domestic Violence Order (‘DVO’). SSJ admitted to the court that his behaviour was ‘stupid’ and that his judgment was ‘impaired under the influence of alcohol’: at [21]. The breach of the DVO arose out of a difficult home situation and the court noted that SSJ has ‘learnt to better manage his anger, develop conflict management skills, learnt to step back and reflect on his decisions and learnt breathing exercises to make him a calmer person’: at [22]- [23].
The Tribunal further noted the steps SSJ has taken to improve himself and better manage his emotions, including making changes to his lifestyle and having a range of supports around him: at [29]- [34]. Taking into consideration all of the evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that SSJ had ‘taken the change given to him to rehabilitate his life’ and held that, on the balance of probabilities, SSJ’s case was not an “exceptional case” that would harm the welfare of children and young people: at [95], [104].
In relation to human rights, the Tribunal noted that it was acting in an administrative capacity and, therefore, was a ‘public entity’ for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and had to make decisions compatible with human rights: at [109]- [110]. The Tribunal was satisfied on the facts and relevant legislation that it had given proper consideration to human rights, acted in a manner that was compatible with human rights, and interpreted provisions in a way that was compatible with human rights: at [111]. The Tribunal was also satisfied that there ‘where the Tribunal identified limits on rights, the Tribunal has determined whether any limits imposed are reasonable and justifiable in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act’ at [112].
Visit the judgement: SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252