DEF v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General

The case of DEF v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General involves the applicant contesting a decision by the Director General not to issue a positive notice and blue card under the Blue Card Services Act 2011 (Qld). The decision stemmed from allegations of inappropriate touching made by an 18-year-old female in care and the applicant's 13-year-old niece. The applicant denied any wrongdoing, and the matter was investigated by the Queensland Police Service, which did not pursue further action. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether an exceptional case existed that would justify denying the applicant a blue card.

The legal issues before QCAT included whether the allegations against the applicant were substantiated and, if not, whether there was an exceptional case that justified the denial of a blue card. The applicant argued that the allegations were unsubstantiated and unproven, and he had not been provided with an opportunity to respond adequately. The Director General contended that the allegations, even if unsubstantiated, were serious and warranted the denial of a blue card to protect the interests and wellbeing of children.

QCAT considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The tribunal found that while the allegations were not substantiated, the nature of the allegations and the lack of a health report addressing the risk posed by the applicant were significant factors. The tribunal concluded that the allegations, coupled with the applicant's inability to provide a health report, constituted an exceptional case where it would not be in the best interests of children to issue a positive notice and blue card. The tribunal also considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and determined that any limitation on the applicant's human rights was justified for the proper purpose of protecting children.

In light of the findings, QCAT confirmed the decision under review and prohibited the publication of the applicant's name, the complainants' names, and the witnesses' names, as well as the documents filed by the parties, except as necessary for the proceedings and as referred to in the reasons.