Law School

ABD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 57

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

Date: 12 February 2021
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Member Collier
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 13(2)(b), 26(2)
Rights Considered: Right to protection of families and children
Other Legislation: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 (Qld); Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) ss 168, 169, 221(1)(b), 221(1)(c), 221(2), 225, 225(2), 226, 226(1), 226(2), Schedule 2, Schedule 3, Schedule 4, Schedule 5; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 20, 28(3), 28(3)(b)
Keywords: Blue card; Children and Families: Domestic Violence

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal stated that it had considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and concluded that its decision did not unreasonably compromise any of the human rights affected.

ABD (‘the applicant’) was issued a negative blue card notice on the basis that the applicant’s circumstances amounted to an ‘exceptional case’ where the issuing of a positive notice would not be in the best interests of children: at [5]. ABD had sought a positive blue card notice in order to work with vulnerable people, including young people and children: at [2] and [8]. The negative notice was issued because of ABD’s prior offending behaviour, which included three charges of assault, two domestic violence orders, and seven road traffic offences: at [12]. 

The Tribunal discussed the various factors it needed to consider in determining whether ABD’s application was an exceptional case, including rehabilitation, remorse, and insight: at [29]. The Tribunal considered the role that alcohol dependency had played in the applicant’s offending behaviour, noting that the applicant had since ceased consuming alcohol, reconciled with his wife, and developed support networks including his church: at [68].

The Tribunal had regard to the human rights of the applicant and potential children the applicant might come into contact with, stating that it was ‘satisfied that there [was] no unreasonable compromise of the human rights of any affected, or potentially affected, person’: at [72]. The footnotes referenced the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) and the section providing that human rights may be limited (section 13(2)(b)).

The respondent’s decision was set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that there was no exceptional case: at [74].

Visit the judgement: ABD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 57