Date: 13 July 2022
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Member Kanowski
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 13, s 26(2)
Rights Considered: Right to protection of families and children; Right to privacy and reputation; Taking part in public life; Right to education; Cultural rights
Other Legislation: Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) ss 5, 6, 221(2), 226, 360.
Keywords: Blue Card; Children and families; child protection

This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as it was mentioned in submissions, however, did not substantively discuss these rights.

BPM (‘the applicant’) had been 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 [3]. The applicant had been charged with offences of unlawful stalking and trespass in late 2019 to early 2020, and an earlier offence of unlawful stalking in 2010: at [3]. The victim of all three offences was a woman 27 years older than the applicant who lived next door to his parents: at [27]. It was undisputed that the offence committed was not a ‘serious offence’ as defined in the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld): at [40] and [52].

The Tribunal heard submissions on various human rights raised in the applicant’s submissions, including the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation, right to take part in public life, right to further education, and cultural rights, though not all were considered relevant: at [44]. The Tribunal also noted that children have a right to protection under s 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [44]. The Tribunal concluded that its decision to overturn the negative notice was compatible with human rights under s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [44].

The Tribunal set aside the respondent’s decision, finding that the applicant’s case was not an exceptional case.

Visit the judgment: BPM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 286