JZ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 183

Date: 20 May 2022
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: A/Senior Member Traves
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 12, 23, 25, 26(2), 27, 28, 36(2), 58, 59
Rights Considered: Right to privacy and reputation; Taking part in public life; Right to protection of families and children; Cultural rights; Cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; Right to education
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 19, 20, 24, 66; Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) ss 221, 226
Keywords: Blue Card

This case concerned an application to the Tribunal to review the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s positive notice and issue her with a negative notice, following a change to the applicant’s police information. In reviewing the decision, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), and cultural rights (sections 27 and 28) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal also had regard to the competing right of every child to ‘the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child’ as provided for in s 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

After the applicant was issued a positive notice and blue card in June 2018, the respondent was notified of a change to the applicant’s police information and decided to cancel the positive notice. The change occurred in August 2019 when the applicant was charged with contravening a domestic violence police protection notice.

The respondent based its decision largely on the applicant’s history of domestic violence over a ten-year period with three different partners, including physical violence, the use of weapons against her partners and making suicidal threats and threats to kill or maim others, including threatening to pour acid on the face of a female who was present at an ex-partner's home. The respondent said the domestic violence behaviour raised significant concerns as to the applicant’s ability to manage relationship conflict and stressors without resorting to violence: at [19].

In reviewing the decision, the Tribunal acknowledged that the human rights of children are engaged by the application and highlighted the right of children to ‘the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests’: at [18]. While the Tribunal acknowledged that the human rights of the applicant were relevant to the application, the Tribunal held that the paramount principle of the welfare and best interests of children must take priority where the applicant’s rights and the rights of children conflict: at [48].

The Tribunal confirmed the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice. The applicant’s case was found to be an ‘exceptional case’ where it would not be in the best interests of children for the applicant to be issued with a blue card: at [49].

Visit the judgment: JZ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 183