Con v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency - [2014] QCAT 395

CITATION:

CON v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2014] QCAT 395

PARTIES:	CON (Applicant)
v
Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML203-13

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hanly

DELIVERED ON:

31 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Chief Executive to issue a negative notice to CON is set aside.

2. The Chief Executive is to issue a positive notice and Blue Card to CON.

3. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of any information which identifies, or could lead to the identification of a child, pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

BLUE CARD – ISSUE OF NEGATIVE NOTICE – suitability to work with children – where no serious offences – whether applicant’s case is exceptional

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), ss 5, 6(1), 155, 221, 226, 353
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 19, 20(1), 66

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

CON represented by Ms K F Clark of Robertson O’Gorman, Solicitors

RESPONDENT:

The Chief Executive was represented by Mr C Capper

REASONS FOR DECISION

CON applied for a Blue Card in March 2013 to enable him to continue his work as an IT administrator at a Brisbane school. His application was refused on 9 October 2013, and on 18 October 2013 he applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Chief Executive’s decision. He has complied with the necessary time limits in filing his application.
The Tribunal must consider the matter afresh, and make the correct and preferable decision based on all of the evidence before it.[1] The Tribunal must apply the same legislation as that applied by the Chief Executive.[2]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) s 20(1).
[2]Ibid s 19.
CON has convictions for assault, arising out of an incident involving his then wife, Ms IT, in 2005. There were several additional charges laid against him which were later discontinued. The offences for which he has been convicted, and the other offences with which he was charged, are not serious offences, as defined in the Act.
CON was also the respondent to two Domestic and Family Violence orders made on a without admissions basis by consent. These orders required him to be of good behaviour towards his wife and not to commit any acts of domestic violence towards her. CON did not breach those orders, and the second order was revoked in January 2009 upon his wife’s application.
Accordingly, CON must be issued with a positive notice unless the Tribunal is satisfied that his is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children to grant his application.
The Act does not define the term “exceptional case”. However, the term has been considered in many cases, and the Tribunal gains guidance about the meaning of the term…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Con v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency

Details

AGLC: Con v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2014] QCAT 395
Case: [2014] QCAT 395
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Con v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency, the applicant, CON, sought a review of a decision by the Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency to issue a negative notice regarding his application for a Blue Card. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether CON's case was exceptional in the context of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld). The primary issue for the Tribunal was to ascertain whether the Chief Executive's decision to deny CON a Blue Card was appropriate, considering his past convictions and the nature of those offences.

CON had convictions for assault stemming from a 2005 incident involving his then-wife, Ms IT, and additional charges that were later discontinued. Although the offences were not classified as serious under the Act, the Tribunal had to evaluate whether CON's case was exceptional enough to warrant denying his application for a Blue Card, which is necessary for working with children. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence, including testimonies and expert opinions, to assess whether CON posed a risk to children. The evidence indicated that CON had shown significant personal growth since the 2005 incident and had several protective factors, such as a stable support network, employment, and a harmonious relationship with his children’s mother, Ms IT.

The Tribunal concluded that the protective factors in CON's life significantly outweighed the risk factors. It found that the incidents in question were situational rather than indicative of a stable trait. Consequently, the Tribunal decided that CON's case did not qualify as exceptional, and it set aside the Chief Executive’s decision to issue a negative notice. Instead, the Tribunal ordered that a positive notice and Blue Card be issued to CON. Additionally, to protect the privacy of any children involved, the Tribunal imposed a non-publication order under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

Orders