AMD v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 4

Date: 4 January 2022
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Member Lember
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 13(2)(b), 21, 25
Rights Considered: Right to freedom of expression; Right to privacy and reputation.
Other Legislation: Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) s 10; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3(b), 9(1), 17(1), 19, 20, 21, 24, 66; Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 5, 6, 221, 226, 353, 354, 360.
Keywords: Blue Card; Children and Families: Domestic Violence

This decision concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s human rights, including the right to freedom of expression (section 21) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal determined that the limitation on those rights was for the purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children, which was consistent with a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom pursuant to section 13(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The applicant had previously been issued a negative blue card notice on the basis that his circumstances amounted to an exceptional case where the issuing of a positive notice would not be in the best interests of children (section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)).

The Tribunal gave particular weight to evidence indicating the applicant had not acted protectively in relation to his own child, having committed an act of domestic violence in breach of an existing Domestic Violence Order within the presence of his infant daughter, and having committed an act of domestic violence when the aggrieved was eight-months pregnant with his daughter.

The Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal noted that the limitation on those human rights was for the purpose of protecting children from harm and promoting their rights, interests and wellbeing, which the Tribunal found was consistent with a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom pursuant to section 13(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The Tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision in finding that the applicant’s case was an exceptional case where it would not be in the best interests of children to grant a blue card.

Visit the judgment: AMD v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 4