HAM v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General

The matter before the court involved HAM, who was appealing a decision made by the Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General, to issue a negative notice under the Working with Children Act. The primary dispute was the timing of the decision to issue the notice and the validity of the decision itself. The court was tasked with determining whether the notice should be set aside and substituted with a decision that HAM's case was not exceptional. The court also had to consider the implications of publishing the contents of the documents and evidence presented during the proceedings.

The key legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Working with Children Act, particularly the definition of an 'exceptional case' and the principles guiding the tribunal's decision-making process. The court had to evaluate whether the evidence supported a finding that HAM posed a risk to children if granted a positive notice and a blue card. Additionally, the court needed to balance the principles of preventing future harm to children against the potential identification of individuals involved in the case.

The court's reasoning focused on the principle of preventing potential future harm to children, as outlined in Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Grindrod. The court emphasised that it was not responsible for establishing HAM's guilt or innocence but rather assessing the risk he posed to children. After reviewing the evidence, including statements from various police officers, a scientist, and the complainant, the court concluded that the protective factors negated the likelihood of a future risk to children. Consequently, the court found that the decision to deem HAM's case 'exceptional' was incorrect and should be set aside.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Director General to issue a negative notice to HAM should be set aside and substituted with a decision that it was not an exceptional case. Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act to prohibit the publication of any document or evidence that could lead to the identification of HAM, ATD, or any member of HAM's family. This decision aimed to protect the privacy and safety of the individuals involved while ensuring the interests of justice were upheld.