Coombes v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency
[2014] QCAT 669
•30 September 2014
| CITATION: | Coombes v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2014] QCAT 669 |
| PARTIES: | Wayne Thomas Coombes (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML149-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 17 September 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Toowoomba |
| DECISION OF: | Member Feil |
| DELIVERED ON: | 30 September 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Toowoomba |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision of the Chief Executive Officer of the Public Safety Business Agency to issue a negative notice and refuse the Applicant’s application to cancel the negative notice and issue a Blue Card is confirmed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | CHILDRENS MATTER – BLUE CARD REVIEW – where Chief Executive Officer previously issued a blue card on two occasions – where blue card was cancelled when Applicant was convicted of drug offences – where Applicant charged with offences other than serious offences and has a significant history of drug and other offences – whether an exceptional case exists Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 De Jong v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2014] QCAT 428 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Wayne Thomas Coombes appeared for himself |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Louise Keown represented the Chief Executive Officer of the Public Safety Business Agency |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Coombes was issued with a positive notice and blue card by the former Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (“the Commission”) on 18 December 2006. A renewal of his blue card was granted on 9 December 2008 and again on 4 March 2011.
On 27 March 2013, the Commission was notified by the Queensland Police Service that Mr Coombes had been convicted of possession of a dangerous drug and possession of a utensil or pipe on 23 April 2013. On 9 July 2013, the Commissioner cancelled Mr Coombes’ positive notice and blue card and issued a negative notice. In his submissions relating to this application, Mr Coombes asked for a “third chance”. He submitted that for the sake of his young daughters and his step grandson, he would not use cannabis or reoffend any more.
Mr Coombes sought a review of this decision as on 17 July 2013, the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) cancelled Mr and Mrs Coombes’ Certificate of Approval as kinship carers. This cancellation was based on the cancellation of Mr Coombes’ blue card. Mr and Mrs Coombes were previously kinship carers from 2011 for Mr Coombes’ step grandchild, aged 7. They previously cared for this child on an unsupervised overnight basis. Mr Coombes submits that his ability to see his step grandchild without supervision, impacts on his relationship with this child. While Mr Coombes’ referee referred to the importance of Mr Coombes having a blue card to volunteer with youth in his church community, Mr Coombes confirmed that this was not the basis of his current application.
From 1 July 2014, the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening Act) 2000 (“the Act”) came into effect. This means that previous decisions made by the Commissioner of the Commission are effectively made by the Chief Executive Officer of the new entity, the Public Safety Business Agency (“the Agency”). The new Act mirrors the previous legislation, the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000.
The issue for the Tribunal as Mr Coombes has convictions for offences other than serious offences, is that a positive notice must be issued to Mr Coombes unless the Tribunal is satisfied that it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to be issued to Mr Coombes.[1]
[1]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 ss 221(1), 221(2).
The screening of persons for child related work is administered under the principle that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount, and that every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects a child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[2]
[2]Ibid s 6.
The Tribunal must exercise its discretion after considering the circumstances of Mr Coombes’ case within the guiding principles of the Act. Therefore, I must consider not only the provisions of s 226 of the Act, but the paramount consideration. This paramount consideration is the one to which all others yield.[3] Section 226[4] sets out the factors which the Tribunal must consider in determining if there is an exceptional case for Mr Coombes. The evidence considered takes into account s 226 of the Act.
[3]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492.
[4]The Act s 226.
Exceptional case is not defined in the Act. Whether a case is exceptional is a matter of discretion, to be determined by looking at the circumstances of each individual case, and having regard to the legislative intention of the Act.[5]
[5]Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98.
Mr Coombes has convictions for offences other than serious offences. His criminal history dates over 22 years from March 1991 to March 2013. Mr Coombes has convictions for stealing, entering a dwelling house at night with intent, break enter and steal, driving offences including dangerous driving, assault occasioning bodily harm, firearms offences, breach of bail, fraud, and escape lawful custody. He has outstanding charges for false pretences, fraud, breach of CRO, receiving and stealing.
Mr Coombes’ blue card was cancelled on the basis of his last drug offence. His drug offence history is as follows:
a) Possession of dangerous drug (cannabis) in January 1996, August 1996, February 1998, June 2009 and March 2013
b) Produce dangerous drug (cannabis) 1996
c) Possession of pipe/utensil in connection with smoking dangerous drug (cannabis) August 1996 and March 2013
d) Possession of amphetamines and possession of amphetamines with intent in June 1997 and December 2001
e) Sale of amphetamines in June 1997 and February 1998
f) Use of heroin in February 2001
g) Possession of heroin in February 2001 and April 2001
h) Conspiracy to sell/supply drugs in June 1997.
In addition, Mr Coombes stated that in 2002 on his return to Queensland, he was charged with possession of cannabis and ordered to attend a drug diversion course. No conviction was recorded.
Further, at Christmas time in 2012, Mr Coombes tested positive to a roadside breath test for cannabis. His license was disqualified for four weeks and he was fined $300.00.
In respect of Mr Coombes’ drug offences, the majority of the convictions occurred from 1996 to 2002. There were no further offences until a conviction for possession of cannabis in 2009, the disqualification of his license after testing positive for cannabis in late 2012, and the last conviction for possession of cannabis and possession of a utensil in March 2013.
Mr Coombes’ Evidence and Story
Mr Coombes is approximately 38 years old. He described a prejudicial childhood where there was ‘no food but plenty of marijuana’. He started using cannabis as a teenager. He was using amphetamines by age 16, before progressing to use heroin. In 1996, Mr Coombes and his then partner (now his wife) relocated from Rockhampton to Perth. Within a day of arriving in Perth, they were given a bag of speed from previous acquaintances. Mr Coombes described his drug use in Perth as ‘rampant’ and involving cannabis, amphetamines, and heroin use. A number of Mr Coombes’ criminal offences which occurred at the same time as his drug offending, related to him supporting his drug habit.
In mid 2002 Mr and Mrs Coombes underwent a rapid detox programme for their heroin addiction using Naltrexone implants. This programme was undertaken when their daughter (who was born in April 2002 with a heroin addiction) was six weeks old. Mr Coombes has not used heroin since.
In August 2002, Mr and Mrs Coombes, their young daughter and Mrs Coombes’ three children from a previous relationship with Mr Coombes’ brother, relocated to Stanthorpe where Mr Coombes’ mother was living. The intention was that Mr Coombes would ‘straighten up his life’.
Mr Coombes left Perth being aware that he failed to appear on charges of false pretences, fraud, breach of a CRO, receiving and stealing. A warrant issued in respect of these charges in September 2002. As a result, Mr Coombes’ sister in law lost her surety of $3000.00. Mr Coombes has since repaid this sum. Mr Coombes considered that if he had appeared in respect of these charges and if he was sentenced to a custodial sentence at that time, his wife would have died due to the extent of her heroin addiction. Mr Coombes is aware that he needs to address the outstanding charges in Western Australia. He proposes to take this action in the future, to enable Mr and Mrs Coombes to be able to travel to Western Australia, where Mrs Coombes has aging members of her family.
Mr Coombes stated that his first offence on his return to Queensland occurred in 2002, when he was charged with possession of cannabis. He attended a drug diversion course in Warwick, which consisted of two counselling sessions. No conviction was recorded.
Mr Coombes described again returning to the use of cannabis after the death of his brother on 17 September 2007, from amphetamine abuse. He describes being depressed and using cannabis a few times per week after work. He stated that his use of cannabis took away his depression. He stopped using cannabis in early 2008, as he did not want to return to being addicted to drugs.
Mr Coombes stated that in March 2008, he was referred by his GP to Pamela Seaton psychologist, and undertook six sessions with her. Ms Seaton diagnosed Mr Coombes with depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder following his years of heroin abuse. Mr Coombes was prescribed Zoloft, which he took until June 2012, when he felt this medication was no longer effective. At that time he was still experiencing panic attacks. His GP then prescribed an anti depressant, Lovan which Mr Coombes took until around July 2013. He stopped this medication as he was riding his motor bike erratically, as the medication ‘took all of his fears away and he was getting hyperactive on it’. Around this time Mr Coombes accrued speeding fines totalling $1,500.00.
Mr Coombes again returned to using cannabis following his mother’s death in July 2009. He stated that he used cannabis a couple of times per week for approximately six months. He then stopped using cannabis, as his wife did not want him to use cannabis. Later in the hearing Mr Coombes confirmed that from 2009 until December 2013, he continued to use cannabis two to three times per week.
In respect of his conviction in July 2009 for possession of cannabis on 12 June 2009, Mr Coombes stated that he was searched and cannabis was found in his jacket when roadside breath testing was being undertaken. Mr Coombes has entered pleas of guilty and has not disputed Police evidence in respect of any of his drug charges. This is despite him denying Police evidence that an odour of burnt cannabis was indicated in his vehicle.
Mr Coombes referred to being convicted around December 2012 for driving under the influence of cannabis after he had one joint the night before. He was tested at approximately 7.30 am the next day. He did not think the cannabis would still be in his system at that time.
In respect of his last conviction in April 2013 for possession of cannabis and a utensil in March 2013, Mr Coombes referred to driving a work mate’s car, and to this vehicle being searched by Police. Three days later Mr Coombes’ home was searched and a box with 22 to 24 grams of mouldy cannabis leaf and a utensil was found in a shed at the back of Mr Coombes’ property where his vehicles were parked. Mr Coombes stated that he did not know why the box was in his shed. He thought it could have belonged to a family member. He did not make reference to this to Police, as it could have prejudiced the family member.
Mr Coombes started having hand pain in May 2011. He referred to undergoing eight hand surgeries from October 2011 to October 2013 for de Quervain syndrome, carpel tunnel syndrome, wrist tendonitis, five trigger finger releases, and a ganglion on his finger.
Mr Coombes stated that he was prescribed Fentanyl patches in June 2013 to control his hand pain. Mr Coombes ceased using these patches on 26 September 2013, as he was working lighter duties and his pain had reduced. He currently manages his hand pain through the use of Ibuprofen, Voltaren and Panadol.
Mr Coombes provided negative urine drug screens dated 18 November 2013, 17 March 2014, and 19 August 2014. His latest drug screen tested positive for Venlafaxine and Mirtazapine.
Mr Coombes explained on questioning at the hearing, that he was depressed over the issue with his hands. He was having problems at work and was unable to undertake his employment as a boner at a meatworks due to hand pain. He referred to having panic attacks and suffering agoraphobia.
When he was about to use cannabis again to minimise his stress at work and as he did not want to return to using cannabis, Mr Coombes attended the Stanthorpe Mental Health Service in July 2014. He was prescribed Venlafaxine and Mirtazapine for anxiety arising from depression, by Stephen Lewis of that service.
Mr Coombes stated that he has been consulting a psychologist Dr Richard Goddard, since 3 July 2014. He sees Dr Goddard every couple of weeks. He had his fifth session with Dr Goddard on 18 September 2014. Mr Coombes explained that these sessions considered his values and helped him understand that previously he ran away from his problems and ‘blacked them out’ by taking drugs.
Mr Coombes identified the triggers for his use of cannabis as his hand pain, his depression following the deaths of his brother and mother, and due to work annoying him and making him angry. He referred to strategies developed with Dr Goddard as including breathing techniques, talking to his wife, thinking of his daughters, his wife’s anger at him continuing to use cannabis, and her threat to divorce him if he continued his drug use.
Mr Coombes also referred to seeing Dr Ross Phillipson, psychiatrist for a medico legal report relating to Mr Coombes’ personal injuries claim arising from the work related injury to his hands. Mr Coombes stated that Dr Phillipson diagnosed panic disorder with agoraphobia, and an adjustment disorder.
Mr Coombes has not worked since 3 July 2014. He referred to having a medical certificate from Stephen Lewis certifying his inability to work due to depression and anxiety, until October 2014. Mr Coombes anticipates returning to work at that time on restricted/light duties. Mr Coombes currently receives Centrelink Sickness Benefits.
Mr Coombes did not provide any medical evidence to support his position from his psychologist, psychiatrist, GP, mental health practitioners, or evidence of his inability to work.
Despite his written statements as to his abstinence from illicit substances, Mr Coombes’ oral evidence is that he used cannabis from his mother’s death in July 2009 and ongoing, due to his poor sleep arising from his hand pain. He avoided using painkillers due to the addictive nature of these medications, in the context of his previous heroin addiction. He stated that he used cannabis from July 2009 until his first surgery in October 2011. He stated at the hearing that he continued to use cannabis once or twice every few months, when his wife wasn’t looking.
Mr Coombes stated that he stopped using cannabis on 19 December 2013, when his wife threatened to divorce him. He also stopped using cannabis in order to try and get a blue card, as he knew that he definitely had no chance of getting a blue card if he was still using cannabis. He indicated that he didn’t want that kind of life anymore. He agreed that he still experiences stress at work but knows that he will not be sacked, and that he still has a job.
Mr Coombes indicated that apart from the drug diversion programme which he undertook in 2002, he has not undertaken any rehabilitation programmes. Mr Coombes considered that work was like rehabilitation, and that he has only recently sought help from mental health services.
Referees
Mr Coombes’ two witnesses who gave oral evidence, supported Mr Coombes’ positive relationships with his children and their children.
Ms Rebecca Perkins first met Mr Coombes in 2005 through their church. She was unaware of why Mr Coombes’ blue card was removed. Her recommendation of Mr Coombes did not change, despite her becoming aware of his recent drug conviction. She stated that she would be happy to leave her two young children in his care, as her children regard him as family.
Ms Perkins’ evidence was that Mr Coombes had been prescribed anti depressants, and that his hand injury had been a real stress for him. Despite the level of pain he experiences, this has not changed his demeanour towards his children. She referred to observing Mr and Mrs Coombes arguing, and to Mr Coombes getting angry and frustrated, although he never took these feelings out on the children.
Ms Perkins referred to Mr Coombes’ ‘slip ups’ with drugs, and to him working hard to overcome his drug use. She observed him being affected by cannabis which she could smell, in approximately 2007, 2011, and approximately six months ago. At that time Mr Coombes presented with slurred speech. Ms Perkins did not consider that Mr Coombes’ drug use impacted on his ability to care for his children.
Ms Caroline Fawcett has known Mr Coombes since September 2011. She similarly met him through their church. She observed that most of Mr Coombes’ offending occurred a long time ago, and that her knowledge of his criminal history did not change her view that Mr Coombes is a devoted father and a hard working man. She did not comment on whether his recent drug conviction impacted on his ability to care for children. She referred to Mr Coombes being very good with her daughter, and to him going out of his way for her daughter. She referred to Mr Coombes acting in the same manner with his grandson. She has never observed Mr Coombes using drugs or being angry or frustrated.
Mr Coombes relied on references and other material provided in support of his previous applications for a blue card. The Tribunal considered these references and Mr Coombes’ statements made at that time. The references were dated from 2006 to 2010, before Mr Coombes’ most recent drug conviction in 2013. This includes the 2006 references of Peter Balmer, Roland Hill, and Ben Kent, and the 2010 references of Roland Hill, Pastor Ben Kent, and David Entermann. The weight given to Mr Coombes’ previous statements and references is reduced in view of his subsequent convictions.
The reference of Jeremy Greening Senior Pastor of 24 May 2013 refers to Mr Coombes’ ‘recent interactions with the Police’. He states, ‘I understand you have good reason to refuse to continue the support of Wayne holding a suitability card. However I have had the privilege of observing Wayne’s commitment to rehabilitation and I am convinced he has a sincere and permanent desire to change for the better and I trust him in this after a number of personal meetings with him’. This belief is contradicted by Mr Coombes’ ongoing use of cannabis until December 2013.
The references of Barry Jones of 19 May 2013, Darren Seeley of 31 August 2013, Susan Marks of 1 September 2013, Marlene Frizzell of 4 November 2013, Troy Boyce of 11 November 2013, and Peter Willoughby (undated), do not refer to any knowledge of Mr Coombes’ criminal history.
The Tribunal will consider if the protective factors outweigh the risk factors, in determining whether or not an exceptional case exists.
Mr Coombes’ position and the Protective Factors
Mr Coombes has the support of his wife, his two young daughters (aged 12 and 10 years) and his step grandson, who are protective factors.
Mr Coombes was candid in giving his evidence, particularly evidence of his cannabis use, and his engagement with mental health services.
Mr Coombes relocated from Western Australia to Queensland and has assimilated in a different community. He no longer associates with persons with whom he previously kept company in Western Australia, at the height of his offending behaviour.
Mr Coombes no longer interacts with people who use cannabis. Extended family members have moved away and he no longer engages with work mates who use illicit substances.
Mr Coombes’ use of illicit substances has deescalated from heroin which he last used in 2002, to cannabis which he last used in December 2013. He has undergone detox treatment to address his previous heroin addiction.
He has maintained employment. He is currently on sick leave from his current employment as a meatworker.
Mr Coombes showed remorse for his use of cannabis around the family property.
He is currently addressing his mental health issues by engaging with a number of health professionals and taking prescribed medication, instead of returning to the use of illicit substances.
Mr Coombes considered that it was vital that children get a decent start in life, and that children and teenagers should not be exposed to drugs.
Mr Coombes is continuing to engage with his psychologist. He indicates that he feels the best he has felt in years, as his current medication regime is more effective. He anticipates being prescribed this medication in the foreseeable future, possibly at a lower dose. Instead of “bottling up” his feelings of grief and stress, Mr Coombes now talks about his feelings.
Mr Coombes has the support of members of his church community where he has been involved for several years, assisting with the building of the church and mowing the lawns. Mr Coombes has attended church regularly apart from recent occasions when he was experiencing agoraphobia. He is now managing his agoraphobia through his current medication regime and through sessions with his psychologist. Mr Coombes keeps in regular contact with Pastor Ben Kemp.
Mr Coombes is actively involved with his daughters and takes them to extra curricular activities.
Mr Coombes’ urine drug screens returned negative results for illicit substance use in November 2013, March 2014, and August 2014.
The Chief Executive Officer’s Position and the Risk Factors
Mr Coombes’ reoffending in respect of drug offences occurred after a lengthy period from 2001 to 2009, and again in 2012 and 2013. His reoffending mainly occurred in the context of coping with the deaths of two family members, and his ongoing hand pain and work stressors.
Mr Coombes did not seek counselling to address the underlying causes of his reoffending until mid 2014. He has unresolved issues for which he continues to receive therapy, which have contributed to his use of cannabis. This is despite his genuine desire to cease using cannabis and his positive actions in obtaining professional help which he is committed to, after he recognised he would relapse into cannabis use without this assistance.
While seeking professional help for his diagnoses of depression, anxiety, agoraphobia and post traumatic stress disorder, Mr Coombes acknowledged that insufficient time has passed to enable him to fully address the triggers which contribute to his symptoms. Mr Coombes is only beginning to understand the impact of his past history on his current diagnoses.
Further, he is currently engaged in litigation in respect of a workplace injury and continues to experience chronic pain for which he has been prescribed medication. Mr Coombes stated that his ongoing hand pain and work issues mean that he is currently more stressed than he has ever been, which is why he sought professional help to deal with these stressors.
While Mr Coombes recognised that his early marijuana use escalated to heroin use, he continued to use marijuana until December 2013.
While he considers that children and teenagers should not be exposed to cannabis, he has continued to use cannabis on the premises where his two daughters aged 12 and 10 live, albeit in the shed at the back of his property.
Mr Coombes admits to using cannabis on a weekly basis until December 2013, despite his current application being lodged with the Tribunal in July 2013.
Mr Coombes’ drug conviction in 2009, his conviction for being under the influence of drugs in December 2012, and his subsequent conviction for possession of cannabis and a utensil in 2013, all occurred despite positive changes in his life including his relocation to Stanthorpe, being employed, support from friends, and his involvement in and support from his church community.
Mr Coombes’ medication regime is not stable. The Venlafaxine (Effexor) medication was increased from 75 mg to 150 mg. The Mirtazapine medication was reduced due to its sedating side effect from 30 mg to 15 mg, as recently as 1.5 weeks before the hearing.
Mr Coombes provided no medical evidence to support the level of his recovery from his cannabis addiction, his stress management, and his insight into his early warning symptoms and triggers for him to use illicit substances again. While the Tribunal appreciates the financial constraints on Mr Coombes in obtaining a private psychologist’s report, his evidence is that Dr Phillipson provided a report to his legal representative. Further, Mr Coombes made no apparent attempt to obtain any documentary evidence from the Stanthorpe mental health team. Mr Coombes made no reference to his mental health treatment in his written evidence. He did not provide evidence of his medical certificate.
Mr Coombes continues to experience pain in his hands and has in the past used cannabis to address his hand pain and poor sleep.
Mr Coombes has not fully addressed his long standing involvement with illicit substances. This is a risk factor in assessing his ability to care for young children, as he has a history of returning to use illicit substances in times of stress.
Mr Coombes considered that cannabis had no effect on him, due to his previous use of heroin. He referred to his use of cannabis as having the same effect on him as taking two Valium tablets, and to him being relaxed after using cannabis. He referred to using cannabis before dinner at night to relax and help him sleep. He showed no insight into the possible effect of his actions of driving under the influence of cannabis for which he was charged, on other road users and pedestrians.
Mr Coombes minimised his cannabis use as ‘little slip ups, compared to being really stoned’. He indicated that he doesn’t consume alcohol and as such, he used cannabis to deal with stress.
Mr Coombes’ risk factors could contribute to the risk of similar behaviours being repeated.
Conclusions
Mr Coombes’ actions in using cannabis around his young family has shown his disregard for the vulnerability of young people, being the age group he proposes to care for.
He has not established that he is now able to promote and protect the safety and well being of children. Mr Coombes recognised that he was ‘lucky’ to have his blue card application renewed in 2008 and 2011. Despite this, he continued to use illicit substances intermittently until December 2013. Mr Coombes has relapsed and used cannabis to the extent that he was using cannabis after his application which is the subject of this review, was lodged. He has only recently undertaken treatment and counselling to address his addiction to cannabis.
As his most recent conviction occurred approximately 18 months ago and as he continued to use cannabis until December 2013, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied in the absence of evidence of completed rehabilitation, that Mr Coombes will not reoffend, given his extensive history of drug use. This is supported by his history of using cannabis in stressful situations. The Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Coombes has fully addressed the triggers which cause him to use illicit substances. Mr Coombes’ behaviour can be a predictor of future behaviours. It is less than a year since Mr Coombes ceased using cannabis.
Mr Coombes’ evidence as to his drug use is contradictory. In his response to the Commissioner’s Reasons dated 18 November 2013, Mr Coombes stated, ‘I wish to state clearly that I am no longer a user of cannabis’. However his oral evidence is that he used cannabis until December 2013, when his wife threatened to divorce him.
Mr Coombes’ reoffending in terms of his drug convictions raised a concern for the Chief Executive Officer as to Mr Coombes’ ability to be a positive role model and make appropriate choices in the best interests of children. He has not shown circumstances of where he has been a positive role model for children.
The weight of evidence of Mr Coombes’ witnesses is tempered by the fact that only two witnesses were available to give oral evidence. A number of the written references were made prior to Mr Coombes’ last drug conviction.
Mr Coombes relocated from Western Australia to Queensland without facing outstanding charges. This demonstrates his lack of regard for the criminal justice system and his failure to take responsibility for his past actions.
Any hardship to Mr Coombes by not enabling him to be granted a blue card, is irrelevant in the Tribunal’s consideration of risk factors. Mr Coombes will continue to see his grandchild whether or not he is granted a blue card, albeit on a more restricted basis.
The Tribunal acknowledges that Mr Coombes took positive steps by relocating to Stanthorpe to no longer engage with persons using illicit substances, and that he became an active member in his church community, and has been involved in raising his young daughters. He has not used heroin for several years and is addressing his cannabis use through his ongoing involvement with the mental health service.
However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the protective factors outweigh the risk factors in this case, particularly given the recent timeframe since Mr Coombes sought professional help to deal with his addictions, his ongoing stressors at work, the need to manage his pain, and his past use of cannabis as recently as December 2013.
The transferability of a blue card means that if successful with his application, Mr Coombes would have unfettered and unsupervised time with children. He cannot be issued with a conditional blue card for the purpose of only seeing his grandchild. The Tribunal takes into account as a significant consideration, the transferability of the positive notice and blue card across any area of child related employment.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that this is an exceptional case where it would not be in the best interests of children for Mr Coombes to be granted a blue card at this point in time. The Tribunal makes this finding given the consideration that the safety of children is paramount in the Tribunal’s determination of whether an exceptional case exists.
The Tribunal adopts the position of the Tribunal in De Jong v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian[6] and considers that if Mr Coombes does not commit any offences from now until his eligibility to reapply for a blue card, and if he continues to abstain from using drugs, continues his role in his church community, his employment, his engagement with his support network, and his treatment with health professionals, this would assist the Chief Executive Officer in determining whether or not to grant any further application for a blue card.
[6][2014] QCAT 428.
Decision
The Tribunal confirms the decision of the Chief Executive Officer to issue a negative notice.
1