RSC v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 344

Date: 31 August 2023
Court/Tribunal: QCAT
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Member Davies
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 25, 26, 31, 38
Rights Considered: Right to privacy and reputation; Right to protection of families and children; Right to a fair hearing
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 20, 66; Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 5, 6, 172, 221, 226, 353, 360.
Keywords: Blue Card

This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and noted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to a fair hearing (section 31) were engaged but gave no consideration to whether any limit was reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

At the time of the application, the Applicant was a single mother of four children who occasionally cared for teenagers who needed support. She maintained registration as a teacher in Queensland, operated a tutoring business that extended discounted services to disadvantaged students, and had seven years of experience as a teacher and university tutor. The Respondent issued a negative notice on the basis of charges relating to cannabis-related offences arising from the execution of a search warrant on a single occasion.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to cancel the Applicant’s blue card. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal noted the Applicant's right to privacy and reputation (section 25), and right to a fair hearing (section 31), as well as the rights of children generally (section 26) pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (HR Act). The Tribunal acknowledged that as a ‘public entity’, it was required to comply with section 58 of the HR Act; however, beyond acknowledging the existence of the rights, there was no discussion in respect of limitations on the Applicant’s human rights or the rights of the Applicant’s children.

Visit the judgment: RSC v Director General Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCAT 344