BZN v Chief Executive, the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, a social worker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief Executive of the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs, who had investigated and substantiated an allegation of child sexual abuse against the applicant. The Chief Executive had conducted three reviews of the original decision, all of which upheld the substantiation of the allegation. The applicant challenged the outcome of the final review, arguing that it was a reviewable decision under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The applicant also argued that the decision was legally unreasonable, breached procedural fairness, and was incompatible with the applicant's human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The court considered whether the outcome of the final review was a reviewable decision, whether the requirement in the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) that the Chief Executive reasonably suspects the child is in need of protection is a jurisdictional fact, whether the respondent could have reasonably suspected the child is in need of protection, and whether the respondent demonstrated reasonable apprehension of bias. The court also considered whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing, whether the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations, and whether the respondent took into account irrelevant considerations. Finally, the court considered whether the final decision was legally unreasonable and whether it was incompatible with the applicant's human rights.

The court held that the outcome of the final review was not a reviewable decision, as it did not constitute a decision under an enactment. The court held that the requirement in the Child Protection Act that the Chief Executive reasonably suspects the child is in need of protection is a jurisdictional fact that must exist before the Chief Executive can exercise the power to have an authorised officer investigate and assess an allegation of harm. The court held that the Chief Executive could have reasonably suspected the child is in need of protection, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias. The court held that the applicant was not denied a fair hearing, and that the respondent did not fail to take into account relevant considerations or take into account irrelevant considerations. The court held that the final decision was not legally unreasonable or incompatible with the applicant's human rights.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis.