GDT v Djag - [2023] QCAT 386

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

GDT v DJAG [2023] QCAT 386

PARTIES:

GDT

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML220-20

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2023

HEARING DATE:

14 December 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Paratz AM

ORDERS:

1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the applicant’s case is exceptional within the meaning of Section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside, and replaced with the decision that it is not an exceptional case.

2. The publication of the contents of any document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal, and any evidence given to the Tribunal by any witness, other than as published in these Reasons, is prohibited to the extent that it could lead to the disclosure of the identity of the applicant, or any member of the applicant’s family or any non-party to the proceedings, including any child, pursuant to Section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE LAW- CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE AND TERRITORY LEGISLATION – Blue Card – where applicant was issued with a negative notice – whether exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a positive notice – where applicant has a criminal history in relation to property offences, drug offences, and offences of violence – where applicant had a difficult upbringing – where the most serious offence was committed when he was a juvenile and he was sentenced to imprisonment – where applicant expressed remorse for his offending – where the applicant wishes to work with troubled youth

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 221, 226(2), 228(2)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Ms McGee, Solicitor, Gilshenan and Luton

Respondent:

Ms Sanders, Legal Officer, Blue Card Services

REASONS FOR DECISION

GDT applied for a working with children clearance (Blue Card) under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (the Act) on 5 April 2019. He was born in 1989.
The Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (the Department) issued a negative notice under the Act on 20 May 2020.
I heard the matter on 14 December 2022, and gave directions for the filing of closing submissions in writing. GDT filed submissions on 13 January 2023, and the Department filed submissions on 31 January 2023, which were forwarded for my consideration on 14 June 2023.
These are my reasons in the matter.
Reasons of the Department
The Department noted in its reasons that a check undertaken with the Queensland Police Service and interstate police services disclosed a criminal history (of over one page) between 2002 and 2019.
The offences between 2002 and 2011 included wilful damage, common assault, assaults occasioning bodily harm, enter or in premises and commit an indictable offence and break, breach of bail condition, grievous bodily harm, assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company, stealing, possessing dangerous drugs, possessing utensils or pipes that have been used, possessing tainted property, breach of community service order.
The most serious offences of grievous bodily harm and assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company occurred in March 2004, when GDT was 15 years old. The charges were heard in March 2007 when a conviction was recorded by the District Court, and a detention period of two years and six months was imposed, to be released after serving 50% of the detention order.
The next charges and conviction were in 2019 for possessing dangerous drugs, possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence, and possession of a knife in a public place or a school, when a fine of $1500 was imposed.
The Hearing
Evidence was given at the hearing by GDT, his friend Mr L, his partner Ms M, his friend Mr G, and his friend Ms K.
Letters of support from his employer Mr T, and Ms G were tendered, but those persons were not available for cross examination.
The Department tendered material from Queensland Police; Queensland Corrective Services; and the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs.
GDT
GDT stated[1] that he had worked at a residential facility for two years, whilst awaiting the decision on his blue card, and had the opportunity to work with troubled young people just released from prison as well as disabled people. He said that given his background the younger people found him more approachable, and it seemed he could get through to them when no one else could, and it was through this work that he further developed his passion to help others. He described it as his dream to work with traumatised youth, to help keep them on the straight and narrow and try to be a role model for them.[2]
[1]Statement of GDT dated 30 November 2022 (Exh 2).
[2]Ibid [8]-[11].
GDT said in his evidence that his problems with anger management were a long time ago, and that he had not had problems since 2010.
He said that he had stopped using drugs ‘more or less when I got into trouble for it’ and that his drug use had involved one friend that he had, and they would smoke cannabis. He said that he had used ‘Meth’ a handful of times at parties from when he was 14 years old.
He said that he had commenced using marijuana when he was a teenager, and used it at parties, but stopped when he moved to Brisbane.
He said that he used cannabis in 2018 maybe once a fortnight with friends, or once a month when he was out, but he stopped using cannabis just before he appeared in court in 2018.
He said he had been in a relationship with his partner for 13 years, and that she was aware of his offending. He said they broke up for six months in 2019 which was when he committed the offences at the time.
He said that he had never sought counselling for use of drugs or anger management, as he didn’t see a need to have to do so. He said that as he got older he wasn’t as angry as he used to be.

Ms. M

Ms. M stated[3] that she had been the partner of GDT for more than 13 years. She said that he had always been a wonderful father to their children and had been present and involved in all aspects of parenting.
[3]Letter of Ms M, 7 December 2022 (Exh 6).
She stated that she and GDT have always had a passion for community work and wanted to gain employment in that field due to their own personal experiences. She completed a double diploma in counselling and community services, and had been employed for over five years in the aged care sector.
She stated that GDT had never been violent or acted inappropriately towards herself or her children. She said that the domestic violence issues that had been raised at the hearing were ‘clearly the result of nosey or concerned neighbours calling the police believing that somebody was being violently assaulted when in fact it was both of us having a loud and somewhat heated argument which I was as much to blame’. She went on to state that both GDT and she had put in ‘a lot of work to make the relationship healthy and build a life together that includes many future goals and aspirations.’
She stated she had witnessed the steps that GDT had taken to improve his life and how he had developed as a caring partner and wonderful father.
She was aware he had used speed or meth quite some time ago. She said that he had definitely not used cannabis for the past 4 years.
Mr L.
Mr L stated[4] that he had known GDT for approximately 27 years, since he was four years old. He described GDT as having a traumatised childhood, and thought that he had much to offer in working with traumatised youth.
[4]Letter of Mr L, 10 June 2020 (Exh 3).
Mr L described GDT’s mother as having failed him, keeping out of school for a year, not providing clothing or food for him, and forcing him to acquire drugs for her under threat of violence.
Mr L expressed the view that GDT should not have been charged with such serious offences and did not have competent legal representation, and described GDT’s being incarcerated at such a young age as examples of the system failing him.
He described GDT as a good father, and said he was excellent with young people, and he would absolutely trust him to be with young children.
Ms K
Ms K stated[5] that she was the mother of GDT’s partner. She had known him for over 13 years at the time of the hearing. She had also known his mother.
[5]Letter of Ms K, 11 june 2020 (Exh 4).
She stated that over the years she had seen him grow in confidence and self-esteem, and he had been a great father to her grandchildren. She said that she believed that the hard times that he had endured as a child has held him in great regard to be able to reach out to her grandson who had been the victim of bullying.
She stated she is very proud of him for taking the path in life of wanting to help others, particularly those who are struggling with their lives in the same way he had to. She felt he would be a great asset to any service that cares for children, children with disabilities, and age pensioners,
She stated that he had a lot to offer, being living proof that you can choose your own path and become whatever you want to be. She had seen how teenagers and young children relate to him.
She hoped that GDT would be afforded a ‘second chance’ in his application, and that these services needed diversity with people like him in their midst.
She said that she was aware that he has used cannabis, but had never seen him use it around children and as far as she was aware he was not presently using cannabis. She was unaware of his other drug taking.
Mr G.
Mr G said that GDT had worked with his automotive business in 2011-2012, and again in 2016-18, and was reliable, always on time, and could be relied upon to work consistently and independently.
He said that he has had multiple conversations with GDT about his having a passion for youth work and really wanting to get into that field, as he felt he had life experience and could really help people out in the community.
He said that he was aware that GDT had used drugs in the past, and that there were a lot of people working for him with similar backgrounds.
Mr T
A letter of support from Mr T dated 14 June 2020 was tendered. Mr T is the NDIS manager for the care provider who employed GDT. The letter was co-signed by Ms J, on behalf of the Board of Directors.[6]
[6]Letter of support from Mr T, 14 June 2020 (Exh 7).
Mr T said that he had been authorised by the company’s Board of Directors a management team to support GDT with a character reference regarding his application for a blue card which was received with the recent negative outcome.
He described the care provider as a small Disability and Child Safety service provider in south-east Queensland which has been supporting children and adults with a broad variety of needs and challenges since 2008, and is currently registered, certified, and funded by the National disability insurance scheme and the Department of Child safety, youth and women to provide residential care, accommodation, assist personal activities, daily tasks/shared living, development-life skills, participate community, specialised disability accommodation and group/centre activities.
He had known GDT for more than five years in relation to work, community and sporting programs since 2015.
He said that in 2019 the General Manager and he had approached GDT to see if would be interested to apply for a position becoming vacant to support young Indigenous offenders with very high needs transitioning out of juvenile detention and back into the community. They believe that GDT was a very suitable candidate for that important position. GDT successfully filled the position as a Lifestyle Support Employee in May 2019.
He said that GDT had a great rapport with complex participants he had been rostered on to support, and had grown in maturity not only as a lifestyle support worker but also as a valuable team member who was reliable, loyal, and committed to his role within the company
Ms G
G said in a letter of support that she had worked alongside GDT in supporting a mutual client. She was unaware of GDT’s history, but could confirm that he had a positive impact in that young person’s life whilst was able to work with him.[7]
[7]Letter of support, Ms G, 30 March 2021 (Exh 8).
She said that GDT had been able to display to her his ability to work with young people in a vulnerable situation and guide them to make good choices in life, and had also shown to her his dedication and passion to support young people in making a future for themselves despite their history.
Evidence of the Director-General
The Director-General relied on a bundle of documents which included GDT’s criminal history, sentencing remarks, and police reports; and material produced from the Department of Children’s Affairs, Corrective Services and Queensland Police.
Sentencing comments
The sentencing comments for the offence for which the GDT was convicted and jailed on 23 March 2007 form part of the Director-General’s bundle of documents; and the sentencing comments made in the court proceedings on 16 July 2010, 7 March 2011 and 15 January 2019, were provided after the hearing, as directed, and the parties had opportunity to comment on them in their submissions.
23 March 2007
GDT, in company with three other defendants, pleaded guilty to doing grievous bodily harm to three persons on 7 March 2004, and also pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm with circumstance of aggravation against three other persons.
The District Court Judge recounted the events that occurred at about 12:15am to 12:35am on 6 March 2004, when a melee occurred outside a hall between two groups of youths. His Honour noted that exactly what happened is not entirely clear as there are many differing accounts, but that in any event, one youth was felled from a distance by a bottle which struck him, and he was set upon by a number of people whilst he was lying on the footpath. His Honour described the attack as follows:[8]
Some struck him with fence palings; someone stomped on his head. It is not known how many people physically assaulted him, however, it was a sustained attack and there were so many involved in the attack that some could not get close enough to strike because of others blocking their path. It was a merciless, savage, cowardly and completely unprovoked attack by numerous young men and juveniles, some of whom were armed, upon a completely defenceless young man and who, for the most of the time, was lying on the ground and probably unconscious.
Words cannot describe the viciousness and brutality of this attack. Such conduct is absolutely abhorrent to the community and those responsible for such cowardly and violent behaviour, when brought to justice, must receive punishment. The community rightly expects of those responsible for this crime and others like it will receive punishment which will be a deterrent to others who might engage in this type of activity.
[8]Ibid P 2 (BCS-22).
His Honour described the victim’s injuries as serious and life threatening:[9]
He had a fractured skull. He had severe bleeding inside his head which might have caused him to die, if he had not been treated urgently. His brain moved inside his skull. He had a number of severely broken bones in his face, including his left eye socket and his left jaw.
In addition, he had extensive bruising to other parts of the body. He had to undergo surgery, during which some of his brain tissue was removed. He spent 10 days in intensive care. He remained in hospital for over two months. He is left with a plate in his head.
He has been left with some impairment of his eyesight which means that he is unable to drive a car. He has also suffered from cognitive problems, particularly in relation to his concentration and memory, as well as some speech difficulties. Apart from all the physical damage, he has suffered and continues to suffer from emotional difficulties. Fortunately, however, he has made, relatively, a very good recovery and has been able to return to his employment, although not without some considerable difficulty and his future employment prospects are greatly diminished.
[9]Ibid BCS-23.
His Honour noted that GDT was 15 at the date of the commission of the offences. He said that there is no doubt that GDT was part of a group that approached the hall, and there is no doubt that he was holding a paling in his hand at some stage, but that the evidence whether he personally inflicted any blows on the victim either with or without a paling was conflicting, and that no witness had said that he was responsible for the victim falling to the ground, and there is no evidence that GDT actually struck a blow to the victim’s head.
His Honour noted that GDT’s counsel had conceded that on any version of the events GDT was involved in an attack by a large group of people and that some of that group including him, were armed with palings.
His Honour made the following comments as to sentencing:[10]
In all the circumstances, I have concluded that detention is the only appropriate punishment, despite the negative factors of this sentencing option which are referred to in the pre-sentence report. I accept that you’ve made some positive changes in your life and that there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.
In my view the appropriate period of detention is 2 ½ years and seems to me to be appropriate having regard to your prospects of rehabilitation that I should order that you be released after serving 50% of that period. Having regard to the seriousness of this matter I am of the view that a conviction should be recorded. No submission was made to the contrary.
[10]Ibid BCS-29.
6 July 2010
The outcome of the proceedings on 16 July 2010 was as follows: in relation to one charges of driving without a license, he was convicted and fined $250, and the conviction was recorded; in relation to the second charge of driving without a licence, he was convicted and fined $300, and the conviction was recorded; in relation to two charges of stealing, one of wilful damage, and one of attempted entry of premises with intent, convictions were recorded and he was ordered perform 100 hours of unpaid community service.
The Sentencing Magistrate on 16 July 2010 obtained the consent of GDT to be placed on community service, and made the following comments:[11]
His Honour: You do (consent). All right. These offences are quite serious, Mr GDT. You really have shown a complete disdain for other people’s property. And if you continue to commit offences – not just property offences – you’re going to find yourself serving periods of imprisonment. And you’re fast getting there now, on this occasion. I’m going to offer you a community service because I think it’s the right order to make. But if you commit any further offences, you will have exhausted all the options of court that makes an order whereby you don’t go to prison. So you really are at the prison door.
[11]Transcript 1-2, line 10 (BCS-103).
7 March 2011
The proceedings on 7 March 2011 dealt with several offences as follows:[12]
His Honour: okay. In relation to this failed to appear charge, I impose a separate penalty. I consider that a fine is appropriate for that, given your history. You will be convicted and fined the sum of $300, in default, six days. The fine referred to SPER for payment. A conviction is recorded. In relation to the balance of the charges – the dangerous drug charge, the utensil charge, the tainted property charge and the contravene – having regard to history and the nature of those offences, I impose one penalty for all the offences – apart from the breach of the Bail Act. You are convicted and fined the sum of $1500, in default, 30 days. A conviction is recorded, and the fine is referred to SPER for payment. I order that the scissors be forfeited to the Crown. I order that the bicycle be returned to the owner.
[12]Transcript 1-2 line 1 (BCS-105).
15 January 2019

The proceedings on 15 January 2019 related to drug offences. The relevant comments were as follows:
His Honour: Yes. I accept your plea, taking into consideration the facts and submissions and early plea. That is taken into consideration. Assisting in the administration of justice and not putting the prosecution to proof. In the previous history, there is some 2011 drug offences. One fine imposed for the four offences under section 49 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. Convicted and fined $1500 in default referred to SPER. Conviction recorded. The knife, drugs and utensils that are subject of the charges are forfeited to the Crown.
Submissions for GDT
Submissions were filed on behalf of GDT.[13]
[13]Submissions on behalf of the applicant, filed 13 January 2023.
It was noted that GDT had recently been working in the traffic control industry. His criminal history was admitted.
It submitted that the evidence did not establish that this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for GDT to hold a blue card.[14]
[14]Ibid [46].
Offences
It was submitted that when the offences were committed was relevant in this matter, most significantly because the serious violent assault was committed when he was only 15 years old.[15]
[15]Ibid [19].
It was submitted that the Tribunal should accept that he had not engaged in any violent offending in adulthood, and that such behaviour was something he ‘grew out of’.[16]
[16]Ibid [22].
Drug use
It was submitted that GDT has accepted that around four years ago he was recreationally using drugs, but that there had been no further drug offending, and that he gave evidence that he ceased all drug use at the time of being charged in 2018.[17]
[17]Ibid [25].
It was submitted that GDT had explained that he understands the effect of drug taking, and understands the importance of being drug-free when caring for children, and the importance of being a good role model to children.[18]
[18]Ibid [25].
It was submitted that his drug offending was of a relatively minor nature, and that there was ‘plainly nothing extraordinary about the drug offending’, and that in light of the passage of time without further offending, that the Tribunal would ‘accept that the applicant is no longer an active drug user’.[19]
[19]Ibid [27].
Domestic violence
The submissions addressed the issue of domestic violence, and submitted that despite a domestic violence order being made in 2013 that there was ‘no cogent evidence’ before the Tribunal to support a finding that he committed acts of domestic violence, and submitted as follows:[20]
[42] Ms M, who was the aggrieved and named in the domestic violence order gave evidence about the incident giving rise to the order. She stated that she was annoyed that the applicant had returned home late one night and decided to be ‘spiteful’ and lock him out of the house. An argument then ensued.
[43] Ms M., as well as the applicant, were unaware that a final domestic order had been made. In any event, regularly, a person may consent, without admissions, to a domestic violence order being made. This means that they consent to an order, without admitting to any of the facts contained in the application or admitting that an act of domestic violence has occurred. The resolution of the proceedings in that manner should not be held against the applicant now or be used as proof that an act of domestic violence has occurred.
[20]Ibid [42]-[43].
Insight
It was submitted that GDT had demonstrated insight on the following bases:[21]
[45] The applicant has demonstrated insight into his behaviours of concern, the triggers to his offending and his responsibility for the harm he has caused. Whilst the sentencing transcript states that the applicant stored to minimise his offending by shifting blame, that is not what he attempts to do now. The applicant has sought to provide an explanation for why he behaved in such a way many years ago, he has not sought to attribute blame to others. He recognises the catastrophic consequences of the decisions he made.
[21]Ibid [45].
Submissions of the Director-General
The Director-General submitted that as it is aware of both police information and other relevant information for GDT, that sections 226(2) and 228 (2) of the Act must be applied in determining if GDT is eligible to be issued a blue card.[22]
[22]Respondent's outline of submissions filed 31 January 2023 [38].
The Director-General canvasses the various charges and convictions between 2002 and 2010, and the 2018 charges and submits as follows:[23]
43. The Respondent submits that, given the Applicant’s convictions and finalised charges and the totality of evidence in this case, the circumstances raise the possibility of a risk to children such that it would not be in the best interests of children for the Applicant to be issued with a blue card.
[23]Ibid [43].
The Director-General submitted that the offending was relevant to, and reflected adversely on an evaluation of GDT’s eligibility to work with children and young people for the following reasons:[24]
(a)His drug-related offending raises questions about his ability to provide children with a protective environment.
(b)His violence, property and anti-social offending raises questions about his ability to exercise restraint, self-control and judge appropriate behaviour.
(c)His offending, particular with respect to breaching court orders, raises questions about his respect for the law, lawful behaviour, and compliance with law enforcement, directions and court orders.
[24]Ibid [51].
It noted that other information had also been received in relation to GDT, namely material from Queensland Corrective Services and the Department, which required regard to considerations prescribed by section 228(2) of the Act in determining whether an exceptional case exists, and that material suggested the following:[25]
(a)On or about 20 April 2007 GDT made disclosures to Queensland corrective services staff including that he at that time consumed 12 alcoholic drinks on daily basis; used marijuana on a daily basis ‘as much as he could get’; and used ecstasy once per week ‘two tablets of ecstasy’ at any one time.
(b)On or about 26 October 2010, an incident is alleged to have occurred between GDT and his partner, that he attended the property he previously shared with his partner and children; attempted to gain entry to the property to retrieve his belongings without permission of his partner; entered the property through an open window and removed various items; but the incident was considered a civil matter and was not pursued further by police.
(c)On or about 30 November 2010, an incident is alleged to have occurred between GDT and his partner, namely that they had separated and were no longer residing together; his partner had driven to his grandmother’s house to collect him, and upon arrival a verbal argument ensued and his partner attempted to use her phone, however the applicant grabbed her by the hair and allegedly kneed her in the neck; but that police did not pursue this matter due to a lack of corroboration.
(d)On about 4 January 2013, a notifier contacted the Department raising concerns in relation to an incident that allegedly occurred on 1 January 2013 that at approximately 4:00am, GDT arrived home after drinking with friends; his partner refused to allow him entry into the property; he began knocking on the front and back entrance of the property and pushed over an outdoor swingset and frustration; and two infant children were asleep at the time of the incident.
(e)On 3 January 2013 a protection order was imposed, naming GDT as the respondent and his partner as the aggrieved, arising from the incident on 1 January 2013. This was confirmed by material obtained from the Queensland Police Service, which suggested that the order contained conditions that GDT was to be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against her, and that the order expired on 3 January 2015.
(f)The Director-General submitted that the presence of the domestic violence order raised concerns as to GDT’s ability to act in the best interests of children, create a safe and protective environment and present as a positive role model; and that when considered as a whole his domestic violence related behaviour raises concerns as to his ability to make appropriate behavioural choices, exercise judgement and resolve relationship conflict in a calm and non-aggressive manner.
(g)The Director-General submitted that GDT’s past conduct is of direct relevance to his eligibility to work with children because it indicates that he may not have the conflict resolution skills, anger management skills or the ability to deal appropriately with challenging situations.[26]
[25]Ibid [60].
[26]Ibid [76].
The Director-General acknowledged that GDT demonstrated some insight and acceptance of responsibility for his actions, however the extent of insight and accountability demonstrated was insufficient to mitigate the risks, and suggests that he is unlikely to reoffend or repeat the same or similar behaviours of concern in the future.[27]
[27]Ibid [81].
It commented that the witnesses Mr L, Ms K and Ms M supported GDT’s application for a blue card and are evidence of a support network but commented:[28]
However, while it had some awareness of the applicant’s offending, the Respondent submits it became apparent during the oral testimony that the witnesses had limited or inaccurate understanding of the offences. In the respondent’s submission, the Tribunal should exercise caution in affording weight to these character references.
[28]Ibid [82].
The Director-General concluded its submissions that the Tribunal should find that this case is an exceptional case as follows:[29]
Overall, the material before the Tribunal raises serious questions about the risk the applicant may pose to children and young people in his care. It further raises questions about the Applicant’s regard for the rights, interests, and well-being of others, and his respect for the law, lawful behaviour, and unlawful boundaries. The respondent submits there is insufficient probative evidence to support a finding that the Applicant is unlikely to reoffend or repeat his behaviours of concern and the material reflects poorly on the Applicant’s insight and the extent to which he genuinely accepts responsibility for his actions.
[29]Ibid [92].

Discussion

GDT had a difficult start to life. He committed offences of dishonesty and violence, and engaged in drug taking whilst he was a young person. He is now 34 years of age. Apart from the offences in 2018, he has not been charged with any offences since 2011.
His partner and his partner’s mother have given him strong support. They both say that he has changed, is not violent, and is a very good and attentive father.
He had a domestic violence order against him which was made in 2013. His partner has sought to downplay the circumstances leading to the order, saying that neither of them were aware that a formal order had been made, and saying that the events were her responsibility.
It is not unknown for a victim of domestic violence to later seek to put responsibility upon themselves for the actions of the perpetrator. There is insufficient material to comment as to whether GDT’s partner falls into this category, but her acceptance of responsibility has to be treated with caution.
I consider the supportive comments of GDT’s partner’s mother to be of greater weight. It would be expected that a mother would be concerned for the welfare of her daughter, and would view domestic violence against her daughter seriously.
I take note of the references from GDT’s employer as a service provider, Mr T; and from his co-worker in service provision, Ms G. I appreciate that those persons were not available for cross-examination. Those references are very clear in their support of GDT’s ability to work with disadvantaged young people, and the value he provided to them, and serve to corroborate GDT’s expressions of interest in working in that role, and the contribution he would be able to make.
GDT has stated that he has learned from his early offending, and is able to control his anger and not use violence, and that he has ceased using drugs since the events of 2018.
If it were not for the drug offences in 2018 there would have been no offences since he was 22 years old.
The drug offences in 2018 occurred in the context of a six-month breakdown of the relationship between GDT and his partner. The offences were minor, and the penalty imposed was a fine of $1,500. He says that he has not used drugs since that time.
GDT has not provided any supporting material from a health professional as to his anger management or drug use, and has not undertaken any therapy in relation to those issues. He has said that he sees no need to undertake therapy.
I would have been more comforted if GDT had provided supportive health professional reports, and had undertaken some courses of therapy, even if only to highlight his awareness of the issues.
GDT is seeking to forge a career in helping troubled youth. He acknowledges that his facial tattoos may seem confronting, but says that he is able to relate to troubled young people.
It is not unrealistic to accept that troubled young people may in fact relate better to GDT, having regard to his appearance and his personal background, than to others; and that he may be able to positively benefit those young people who may not interact as well with other more traditional care workers.
The very real issue of youth crime and how to deal with disconnected and troubled young people is a major contemporary issue. If GDT is in fact able to contribute to assist with this issue, that would be a valuable benefit to those young people and to society.
I have taken into account the concerns I have discussed, and overall am satisfied that GDT has established that he has insight into his past offending, has developed anger management skills, has a genuine determination to have nothing to do with drugs again, and does not pose a risk to children, and conclude that an exceptional case is not made out.
I therefore set aside the decision of the Director-General and make the following order:
(a)The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the Applicant’s case is exceptional within the meaning of Section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside, and replaced with the decision that it is not an exceptional case.
GDT sought the making of a non-publication order on the basis that it is necessary to do so to avoid the publication of confidential information, or that is otherwise in the interests of justice to do so, under Section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.[30]
[30]Submissions on behalf of the applicant filed on 13 January 2023 [49].
The Director-General has not opposed the making of a non-publication order. I am satisfied that the publication of confidential and other information would be contrary to the public interest, and make a Confidentiality Order accordingly.