Sharpley v Director General, Department of Justice & Attorney General [2023] QCAT 80

Date: 6 March 2023
Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Tribunal Member: Member Wood
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 13, 48
Rights Considered: none
Other Legislation: Working With Children (Risk Management & Screen Act) 2009 (Qld), ss 5, 6, 221, 226, 360
Keywords: Blue Card

The case concerned a review of the Respondent’s decision to refuse to cancel a negative notice that had been issued to the Applicant in 2009 because of his criminal history. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice. After reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal referred to sections 13 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and reached a conclusion that any limitations were demonstrably justifiable without any substantive discussion of the rights engaged or the likely limits imposed by the decision.

The Applicant was issued with a negative notice, cancelling his Blue Card, in 2009. His application to revoke the negative notice was refused and he appealed to the Tribunal.

The Applicant is described as a “highly respected member of his local Rugby League community” with two children and aged 42. He was first issued with a negative notice in 2009 on the basis of his criminal history including a conviction for burglary (a serious offence) in 2002, and the Tribunal took into account subsequent offending in 2018. The Applicant led evidence about being a positive role model for children in the community; however, the Tribunal considered that he minimised the seriousness of his offending and showed poor insight, and that there was nothing in his circumstances that could be considered exceptional.

The Tribunal’s consideration of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was limited to one paragraph after the conclusion to uphold the negative notice had been reached. The Tribunal acknowledged the interpretive provision in s 48 of the HR Act but gave no indication it had been applied in the reasoning. In respect of its obligations, the Tribunal asserted it had considered relevant human rights, acknowledged the decision may impact upon some human rights (though did not identify any specifically) and concluded that, with regard to the objects and intent of the working with children legislation, the order is demonstrably justified. There was no substantive discussion of the rights engaged or the nature of any limitations.

Visit the judgment: Sharpley v Director General, Department of Justice & Attorney General [2023] QCAT 80