Law School

VDG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 506

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

Date: 15 December 2020
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 
Tribunal Member: Member Kent 
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 58, 108
Rights considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 19, 20; Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 3, 5, 6, 169, 221, 225, 353, 354, 358
Keywords: Education, Training and Employment: Blue Card; Children and Families

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of filming a person’s private parts without consent. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). 

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, VDG. The respondent had made the decision on the basis that the applicant was an ‘exceptional case’ where issuing a positive notice would not be in the best interests of children. VDG applied for a blue card in order to fulfil a requirement of a university course he was enrolled in. A negative notice was issued on the basis of VDG’s conviction for filming a person’s private parts without consent. Because VDG 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 VDG 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.

On request by the Tribunal, submissions were made regarding the relevance of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to the proceedings: at [60]. The respondent made submissions recognising the Tribunal’s status as a ‘public entity’ under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), however, the submissions were silent as to the commencement date or the relevance of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to the proceedings: at [80]. The applicant’s submissions noted that the Tribunal would be acting as a ‘public entity’, making it unlawful for the Tribunal to make a decision in a way that is not compatible with human rights or to fail to give proper consideration to human rights: at [60]. However, the applicant’s submissions also noted that these proceedings were commenced before the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) came into effect: at [61]. Accordingly, pursuant to section 108, the Tribunal accepted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply: at [61].

The Tribunal set aside the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice and substituted it with the decision that this was not an ‘exceptional case’, where it would not be in the best interests of children to award a positive notice.

Visit the reported judegement: https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2020/QCAT20-506.pdf