Farren John Steen v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General
[2017] QCAT 242
•14 July 2017
CITATION: | Farren John Steen v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2017] QCAT 242 |
PARTIES: | Farren John Steen |
| v | |
| Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML046-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
HEARING DATE: | 11 May 2017 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Rogers |
DELIVERED ON: | 14 July 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision of the Chief Executive dated 23 January 2017 to issue a negative notice is set aside. 2. In substitution therefor it is decided there is no exceptional case such that it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to issue. |
CATCHWORDS: | FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – GENERALLY – where person issued with positive notice – where that person subsequently convicted of offences which were not categorised as serious offences – whether an exceptional case FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – where evidence of risk factors and protective factors – whether one episode sufficient to ground exceptional case Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492 |
APPEARANCES: | |
APPLICANT: | Farren John Steen |
RESPONDENT: | Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General |
REPRESENTATIVES: | |
APPLICANT: | appeared by telephone on his own behalf |
RESPONDENT: | represented by Ms Marunda, an officer of the Respondent |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Steen is a young man well regarded by his local football community for his involvement in the club. He was both a player and a coach for the junior teams. His current employer speaks highly of him and is keen for him for him to complete his carpentry apprenticeship. He was issued with a blue card in November 2014 to allow him to engage in these activities.
The Public Safety Business Agency is the organisation responsible for screening persons employed in child-related employment.[1] In 2016 the police advised the Chief Executive of the Agency that Mr Steen had been charged with a number of offences.
[1]Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (the Act), s 8.
The Chief Executive gave Mr Steen an opportunity to respond to the information and then, when no response was received, on 23 January 2017 cancelled the positive notice and issued Mr Neilson a negative notice. This means he is not eligible to hold a blue card. He has asked the Tribunal to review that decision.
The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision and the Tribunal must hear and decide the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[2] The Tribunal is bound by the same legislation as the original decision maker. Evidence obtained and events occurring after the original decision was made can be considered.
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT ACT), s 20.
The paramount consideration when making an employment related decision is a child’s entitlement to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s well being.[3]
[3]The Act, s 6 and s 360.
The charges were dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court on 26 June 2016. Mr Steen was fined a total of $1,500 for various offences, being; contravene police banning notice, ($150), commit public nuisance on or in vicinity of licensed premises, assault or obstruct police officer (total $1,000), possessing dangerous drugs ($350). No convictions were recorded.
Mr Steen’s offences are not defined as ‘serious offences’ for the purposes of the Act. This means he must be given a positive notice unless there is an ‘exceptional case’ such that it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to issue.[4]
[4]Ibid, s 221.
Mr Steen says his parents were away when he was given the original opportunity to respond to the Agency and he was not able, at that time, to respond without their support. It should be acknowledged the decision was made without the benefit of Mr Steen’s response.
He has since provided a life story explaining the circumstances of his offending. He speaks of a normal childhood growing up in a regional centre ‘without any illness, drug treatments, disabilities etc’. At high school he entered a vocational stream and he was part of the Rugby League Sporting Excellence Program.
He left school in 2012 and started a carpentry apprenticeship in 2013. At the end of 2014 he was playing in an All Blacks Rugby League Carnival when he dislocated his shoulder. He gave up his apprenticeship and underwent a shoulder reconstruction at the beginning of 2016. This meant he was not able to engage in his usual activities for six months. He says he ‘became depressed.’
In about June 2016 he reconnected with some classmates from primary school on Facebook. He had not seen them since primary school days. The night he was charged was the first night he had caught up with them. They were drinking together at his friend’s house for most of the afternoon. Later that night he was offered a substance. He didn’t know what it was but he took it because everyone else was doing it. He was later told the substance was methamphetamine.
Mr Steen said he knew drugs were around but had not experimented with any until that night. He said the drug changed his whole attitude. He felt invincible, energetic and under control. The effects lasted 6 to 7 hours.
It was in this state the police saw him in the early hours of the morning outside a nightclub standing in the middle of the road shouting obscenities towards them. They tried to apprehend him but failed. He ran from them causing a nuisance to the people on the street as he ran past them. The police say when they caught him he locked his arms out straight and obstructed police as they attempted to handcuff him. Mr Steen explains he was trying to protect his shoulder. Police searched him and found a clip seal bag containing a small quantity of methamphetamine.
It is the events of this night, and more particularly the charge of possession of a dangerous drug that formed the basis of the decision by the Agency that this is an ‘exceptional case’.
When trying to determine whether an exceptional case exists it is helpful to consider the risk factors and the protective factors that are present.[5]
[5]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492.
The risk factors include;
a)A recent event of possession of a Schedule 1 drug;
b)Abusive and anti-social behaviour;
c)20 years of age at the time of offending and 21 now;
d)No submissions were provided before the decision was made.
The protective factors include;
a)Previous good character;
b)The offences arose in one night. There is no other criminal record;
c)Good record in dealing with children at the football club;
d)Evidence of insight and remorse;
e)Large support network;
f)Stable job and opportunity to complete apprenticeship.
This case is a good example of the dangers to society resulting from the ready availability of ‘Ice’. Mr Steen did not know what he was taking but it changed him completely. The witnesses spoke about their disappointment when they heard about the offence and that it was totally out of character for a young man they admired.
Mr Steen’s willingness to take the drug might have occurred in circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated but I have to be satisfied there is little likelihood of reoffending because it is clear from his evidence that Mr Steen’s behaviour was profoundly affected by the drug. If he were to come into contact with children while in that state, or preoccupied about accessing more drugs, he could once again be facing serious consequences.
There are a number of facts suggesting Mr Steen does not have the maturity necessary to protect children in his care. He was prepared to take a drug offered to him, by people who were not well known to him, without question. He described the impact of the drug in a disbelieving but positive way. It made him feel ‘invincible’. He was not able to submit a response to the Agency without support from his parents. This evidence indicate Mr Steen might lack some maturity and therefore might not be able to make the important decisions that need to be made continuously while working with children.
However on balance I have decided the protective factors are such there is little likelihood of Mr Steen reoffending and therefore there is no ‘exceptional case’ in this instance.
I have had the opportunity to listen to Mr Steen and his witnesses.
Mr Steen answered the questions put to him in a frank and respectful manner. He described the impact of his shoulder reconstruction and explained how he was caught up with his primary school friends. He disagreed with some of the police evidence but on the whole he did understand both the impact of the drug and the gravity of his behaviour.
He says when his family learnt of his behaviour they were ’spun out’ but it seems their first concern was to ensure he was ‘alright in the head’. This impression was reinforced when I spoke with his witnesses. Mr Steen appears to be a young man held in high regard by those who spoke for him and he is surrounded by people who care about him.
When asked if he had sought, or needed professional treatment for depression, Mr Steen said he did not need any. He was down as a result of his shoulder injury but that is no longer the case. He is not on any medication and does not think he needs any.
Asked to identify triggers Mr Steen said there were not any. It was something that happened that night and will not happen again.
I accept this is not a case when there is concerning behaviour or illness that might trigger a reoccurrence. Mr Steen did not seek out the drugs to deal with the difficulties he was experiencing. He looked for friendship to alleviate his boredom. He accepts he found the wrong crowd.
Mr Steen was able to identify the protective strategies he has adopted. He stays away from the people who were involved. He has surrounded himself with new friends, he is back at work and playing football and is fully occupied. He has tools at home now and can make things at his house.
When making his final remarks Mr Steen did demonstrate insight and remorse. He said he understood that kids were more important than him having a blue card. He identified the risks of drug use around children, especially if it meant he was not in the right head space to protect them. He thinks it is important children are able to see how he does things so they can choose to act the same way. This includes ‘the way you approach people and speak to them and being respectful, the simple side of things. He spoke about being able to see what is coming so he can say to himself ‘Kids shouldn’t be watching this’ and get them away.
He says he is not a risk to children and he is comfortable with them, he doesn’t have to yell. They look up to him and he can use his experience to guide them so they don’t go down the same path.
He committed to coaching an Under 16 side at football and would like to be able to do that. He also needs a blue card to complete his apprenticeship because he sometimes needs to go into schools for his work.
Mrs Steen said when her son first told her he was in trouble with the police he did not want to admit it involved drugs. When the paper work came from the court she was shocked, concerned and disappointed. She was not aware of any previous issue with drugs and it was not something she saw coming. She said his period of recovering from his operation was difficult for him. He was not used to being idle and would get quite frustrated and sad.
She has watched Mr Steel with a lot of children. His Dad coached football and he is like his father. He teaches social skills with the football skills. Mr Steen has an older sister who is always checking in on him and he has plenty of Uncles and Aunties with strong family ties. He is especially close to his grandfather.
Mr Anderson is Mr Steen’s current employer. He has known him for ten years. He said he is a really good kid and this is a one off mistake. He comes from a good family, it is pretty strict and has strong values and attitudes. He is happy with his work because he has ‘the mentality of a worker’. When he is coaching young children they definitely respect him and he is an asset to children sporting groups.
Ms Smith knows Mr Steen through the football club. He told her about his involvement with the police and that he had a substance on him as well. She said he is one of the best kids around. He made a mistake but he really has learnt. She is sure she would hear if he started to play up. They mix in a small community. She had not heard of any problems before this incident. The Under 16s are missing out because he can’t coach them.
I am satisfied the charges arose from a set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated. I accept the evidence this was a one off occurrence. Mr Steen is still a young man but he has learnt from his experience and it has helped him to mature and assess those things that are important to him. People around him will notice if he starts to go down the wrong path. His work and football are both important to him and he is aware any future breach would jeopardise these activities. There is no underlying cause for concern in Mr Steen’s functioning or mental health. He has demonstrated remorse and insight.
On balance I am satisfied there is no ‘exceptional case’ such that it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to issue.
0
1
2