Ad v Director-General, Blue Card Services, Justices Services, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

Ad, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Director-General, Blue Card Services, Justices Services, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the respondent, which resulted in the applicant being issued with a blue card notice. The notice was issued after the applicant had been charged with public nuisance and obstructing a police officer. These charges arose from an incident which was caused by the applicant’s untreated mental illness. The charges were later discontinued. The applicant sought to have the blue card notice set aside, contending that it was not an “exceptional case” warranting departure from the general rule that a positive notice must be issued. The court was required to determine whether the decision-maker had applied the correct legal test in deciding whether the case was “exceptional” within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

The court held that the decision-maker had failed to properly apply the correct legal test in determining whether the case was “exceptional” within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld). The court considered the factors set out in s 226 of the Act, and found that the decision-maker had not adequately considered the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of reoffending, and the potential harm to children. The court also found that the decision-maker had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the charges had been discontinued, and that the incident had been caused by the applicant’s untreated mental illness.

The court held that the decision of the Director-General, Blue Card Services, Justices Services, Department of Justice and Attorney-General made on 13 June 2016 that this is an “exceptional case” within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case. The court found that the decision-maker had failed to properly apply the correct legal test in determining whether the case was “exceptional” within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld). The court also found that the decision-maker had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the charges had been discontinued, and that the incident had been caused by the applicant’s untreated mental illness.