Harris v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian
[2010] QCAT 540
•27 October 2010
CITATION: | Harris v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 540 | |
| PARTIES: | CLARE SYLVIA HARRIS | |
| and | ||
| COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE AND CHILD GUARDIAN Respondent | ||
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML104- 10 | |
MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 21 October 2010 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Hon R J Bulley, Presiding Member Ms Gwenn Murray, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 27 October 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
| CATCHWORDS : | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – a review of the decision to refuse a blue card of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian – where the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard the review application – where the Commissioner applied to have the decision of the Tribunal state a later date when the decision is to take effect FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE OTHER THAN UNDER FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 – OTHER MATTERS – where provisions of Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 considered Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000, ss 100, 470, 6(1), 155, Chapter 8, 221(1)(c), Schedule 2, 226, Schedule7 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, ss 19, 127,145, 152, 143(4), 122, 20, 24 (1) Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Act 2010 Disability Services Act 2006 Kent v Wilson (2000) VSC 98 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | The applicant appeared on her own behalf |
| RESPONDENT : | Geoffrey Woodberry appeared for the respondent |
REASONS FOR DECISION
History of Proceedings
On 24 June 2009 the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (the Commissioner) received from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) an application in approved form an Application for Suitability Notice (a blue card) in respect of the Applicant Clare Sylvia Harris (Clare) under the provisions of s. 100 of the Commission for Children and Young People and ChildGuardian Act 2000 (the CCYPCG Act) as it then stood.
By letters dated 25 May 2010 the Commissioner advised both QUT and Clare of her decision to issue a Negative (Unsuitable) Notice to Clare in respect of the Application. This letter enclosed the Statement of Reasons for the decision.
By document received 25 June 2010 Clare lodged an Application to Review the decision of the respondent Commissioner. By that Application Clare sought that the Commissioner’s decision be set aside and that a Positive (Suitable) Notice be issued to her. The Application to Review was made to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. (the QCAT).
On 25 August 2010 the QCAT directed that the hearing of Clare’s Application for Review take place on 21 October 2010.
The hearing of the review application duly took place on 21 October 2010. At the conclusion of the hearing the QCAT reserved its decision.
The parties relied on the written material contained in the Tribunal file. In addition Clare provided oral testimony and relied on the oral evidence supplied by Steven Jepson. The Commissioner’s representative provided written submissions at the conclusion of evidence.
The Law to be Applied
The relevant legislation to be applied is the Act referred to above, and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the QCAT Act).
The operation of QCAT is governed by the QCAT Act and its decision making is bound by the provisions of the CCYPCG Act. Sec. 19 of the QCAT Act provides:
In exercising its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal –
(a)must decide the review in accordance with this Act and the enabling Act under which the reviewable decision being reviewed was made; and
(b)may perform the functions conferred on the tribunal by this Act or the enabling Act under which the reviewable decision being reviewed was made: and
(c)has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed.
Sec. 20 of the QCAT Act provides:
(1) The purpose of the review of a reviewable decision is to produce the correct and preferable decision.
(2) The tribunal must hear and decide a review of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.
Sec. 24 (1) of the QCAT Act provides:
In a proceeding for a review of a reviewable decision, the tribunal may -
(a) confirm or amend the decision; or
(b) set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or
(c) set aside the decision and return it to the decision- maker for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate.
In accordance with the Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Act 2010 a number of significant amendments were made to the CCYPCG Act on 1 April 2010, most notably a complete restructure and renumbering of the CCYPCG Act.
Section 470 of the amended CCYPCG Act, relevantly provides that if a person applied under s. 100 of the unamended CCYPCG Act and the application has not been decided at the commencement of the amended legislation the application is taken to be a prescribed notice application under Chapter 8 of the amended legislation. The amended CCYPCG Act commenced on 1 April 2010.
Relevantly Chapter 8 Division 9 of the amended CCYPCG Act sets out the law to be applied when the commissioner is deciding a prescribed notice application.
S. 6 (1) of the CCYPCG Act prescribes that This Act is to be administered under the principle that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount. Chapter 8 of the Act deals with the subject of Screening for regulated employment and regulated businesses. S. 155 under that Chapter provides Without limiting section 6, the paramount consideration in making a decision under this Chapter 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.
S. 221 (1) (c) of the amended CCYPCG Act ( a provision under Chapter 8 Division 9) relevantly provides that the commissioner must issue a positive notice to the person if the commissioner is aware of a conviction of the person for an offence other than a serious offence. However Sec. 221 (2) relevantly provides that if sec. 221(1) (c) applies to the person and the commissioner is satisfied that it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the commissioner to issue a positive notice, the commissioner must issue a negative notice to the person.
Clare’s criminal history contains a number of convictions for offences. Details of these offences are set out in the written material before the Tribunal. None of these convictions is categorized as a serious offence. Thus the provisions referred to in paragraph 15 of these Reasons apply to the commissioner’s decision making process in this instance. The commissioner decided that Clare’s was an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the commissioner to issue a positive notice.
The phrase exceptional case has not been defined in the Act. It is a matter of discretion after a consideration of the merits of the case and a consideration of the factors that the commissioner, and in the event, the Tribunal, are obliged to take into account. Assistance as to the meaning of the phrase can be gleaned from judicial pronouncements in such reported decisions as Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98, at paragraph 29; Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s Patent Extension Petitions [1983] VR1; Maher’s Case [2004] QCA 492; In the Marriage of Sandrk (1991)104 FLR 394 at 399-400; and Schwerin v Equal Opportunity Board (1994) 2 VR 279 at 287-288.
Further the Tribunal gains assistance from the discussion as to what amounts to an exceptional case in the CST decision of Re OAA [2006] QCST 14. In that decision the Tribunal concluded that consideration should be given as to whether an applicant represents an unacceptable risk to children.
Sec. 226 of the CCYPCG Act provides as follows:
(1) This section applies if the commissioner –
(a)is deciding whether or not there is an exceptional case for the person; and
(b)is aware that the person has been convicted of, or charged with, an offence.
(2) The commissioner must have regard to the following –
(a) In relation to the commission, or alleged commission, of an offence by the person –
Whether it is a conviction or charge; and
Whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence; and
When the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed; and
The nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or carrying of a business, that involves or may involve children; and
In the case of a conviction – the penalty imposed by the court and, if the court decided not to impose an imprisonment order for the offence or not to make a disqualification order under section 357, the court’s reasons for its decision;
(b) Any information about the person given to the commissioner under section 318 or 319;
(c) Any report about the person’s mental health given to the commissioner under section 335;
(d) Any information about the person given to the commissioner under section 337 or 338;
(e) Anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission, of the offence that the commissioner reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person.
The decision-making process of the Commission, and now the Tribunal, is guided by the High Court decision of M v M (1988) 82 ALR 577, that is:
20.1 The purpose of employment screening is not to re-try the applicant’s case. Neither the Commission nor the Tribunal is a court exercising criminal jurisdiction;
20.2 It is not the role of the Commission, nor the Tribunal, to arrive at a definitive conclusion on the issue of guilt or innocence. The applicant’s guilt or innocence is a secondary consideration to the determination of what is in the best interests of children and young people.
The term conviction is defined in Schedule 7 of the Act as meaning – a finding of guilt by a court, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court, whether or not a conviction is recorded.
In accordance with the CCYPCG Act an applicant’s criminal history means –
(a)Every conviction of the person for an offence, in Queensland or elsewhere, and whether before or after the commencement of this Act; and
(b)“every charge made against a person for an offence…”. (See definition
of “criminal history” in Schedule 7 of the Act).
For the sake of completeness the Tribunal notes and applies-
(a)the standard of proof of satisfaction as being upon the balance of probabilities; and
(b)That there is no onus of proof on either party. In particular there is no onus on Clare to establish an exceptional case.
Factual Background
Clare is now aged 31. She lives with her partner Allan in a rental home in suburban Brisbane. Also with them are their 2 children. They are Isaac aged 5, and Alice aged 8 months. Clare and Allan have lived together for the past 7 years.
Clare is currently working in an administrative capacity for Queensland Health at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. She has been there for the past 2 months. Allan has been working as a City Council bus driver for the past 2 months. For the previous 6 years he had been in full time employment as a welder. Alan is aged 40.
Clare told the Tribunal that she had a good upbringing. She was brought up by her parents in Toowoomba. She had an elder sister. She attended Fairholm Anglican College, a private girls’ school there until she was 15 ½. She completed Grade 10. She said that she enjoyed school and was a good student.
Clare said that she then left home and lived with 2 other people. She worked in a local café while she completed a course in child care over the ensuing 6 months. She then worked in child care for the next 6 to 12 months.
Clare then began work, in 1999, as a support worker with Disability Services working with adults with physical and/or intellectual issues. She was employed in this role for the ensuing 10 ½ years by the Cerebral Palsy League: she has presently taken leave from this employment. She worked in this capacity in Toowoomba for 6 months before moving to Brisbane. She has lived and worked in Brisbane ever since. She has completed Certificates III and IV in Aged Care.
Clare carried out her duties in the community, working in homes on a shift work basis 5 days a week. It was arduous work. She had 2 breaks in this employment around the births of her children. These were for 9 months in respect of Isaac, and 6 months in relation to Alice.
In order to maintain her employment Clare said that she has required a current Disability Services Queensland (DSQ) Card. She must renew this card every 2 years. She has been required to make submissions in support of each application for this card. The process is very similar to the Blue Card process under the CCYPCG Act. See the Disability Services Act 2006.She has successfully obtained this Card on each occasion. Her current positive DSQ Card expires on 22 April 2011.
During 2008 and 2009 Clare studied at the Queensland Institute of Technology (QUT) doing a Bachelor of Nursing Degree. At the beginning of the second semester of 2009 her clinical practice subject required her to partake in practice work at a hospital. She was accepted to take part in this practice work. To carry out this process she was require to submit a Blue Card. Thus she made her application to the commissioner.
Clare was asked and given the opportunity to make submissions to the commissioner regarding her criminal history. However she did not make any such submissions within the stipulated time. Thus the commissioner did not have the benefit of any such submissions prior to making her decision to issue a negative notice.
Clare’s criminal history is contained in the document supplied by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) dated 20 October 2010. The circumstances of all those offences except one are described in the various QPS Court Briefs and in the commissioner’s Statement of Reasons. However the offence of unlawful possession of suspected stolen property which occurred on 12 June 2009 is not described in those documents. Clare’s version of the offence is set out in the succeeding paragraph.
Clare told the Tribunal that she had drunk more than she should have on the date in question during a celebration with her netball team held at the hotel behind the Carindale Shopping Centre. She said that at the conclusion of the function and as she was walking through the Centre en route to a taxi rank she took a diversion into the Meyer shop. There she shop lifted some items including cosmetics. Soon afterwards she was confronted by security who reported her actions to police.
(a) As to her 1997 – 1998 drug and drug related offences Clare said that she was young, living away from home, rebellious, and mixing with the wrong crowd. She realized her error and so moved back to live with her mother for the parental support she needed. She also moved away from her drug taking friends, and took on counselling for support. Further it was in 1999 that she began her employment with disability services. She was still living with her mother in Toowoomba at this time;
(b) In 2003 Clare said that she relapsed into drugs. She said that at this time she was in a relationship with an abusive drug taker. At the end of 2003 she was convicted of drug charges. At that time she was also convicted of stealing and fraud charges: these occurred when she took advantage of a bank accounting error. She repaid the financial advantage she had gained within 10 days of the incident and prior to the hearing by the Court.
Clare described Allan as an excellent father and partner. She said that he has never taken drugs and that he has no criminal history. She said that she and Allan have a good relationship. The family’s finances are in a stable state.
Clare’s goal is to work as a registered nurse. She has deferred her Nursing Degree at QUT until 2011 due to her commitment to Alice. This commitment not only relates to caring for a baby but seeing Alice through a serious hip operation expected to take place in the near future. Clare hopes and expects to complete her degree course and commence work as a registered nurse in 2013.
Clare says that she is in constant contact with her mother. She has a good relationship with her. She also has contact with her father but not as often due to his work commitments and his re-marriage. Clare’s sister lives in England.
Clare said that she is normally a moderate drinker. She said that she last used cannabis in 2005. She stated that she last used any other form of illicit substances apart from heroin a long time ago.
Clare started using heroin at age 16 ½. She voluntarily started seeking help for her addiction at the Melaleuca Clinic attached to The Prince Charles Hospital in 1999. Details of her presentations, assessments, and treatment are contained in the Clinic’s records produced in these proceedings. It is necessary to note that she has had 9 accidental overdoses, the most recent having taken place in 1997.
Clare responded to the methadone programme and other prescribed treatment and by 2001 was lessening her use of heroin. She was also dosed with buprenorphine. She stopped using heroin in early 2004. She was later started on subutex. She required a lower and lower dose of prescribed substitutes as time went on. In May 2007 she required no more treatment from the Melaleuca Clinic and so she was by mutual agreement discharged from the programme.
The summary of Clare’s treatment for drug use was set out in the letter from the Alcohol and Drug Service dated 29 October 2003. The final paragraph of that letter reads as follows:
The nature of opoid dependence is a relapsing one. Clare’s history indicates that she still requires ongoing supportive therapy. For her current improvement to be maintained, Clare would benefit from continuing on a methadone program.
That letter also indicates that Clare consistently sought and received professional assistance for her drug use from 1997.
Clare had a relapse in her use of heroin for about a month in mid 2008. This relapse was not referred to in any of the written material before the Tribunal. It came to light only when Clare volunteered it spontaneously during the Tribunal hearing when she was asked when it was she last used. Thus the nature and circumstances of this admission do Clare considerable credit.
Clare was able to manage this relapse and bring it to an end without professional intervention. However she did seek out and obtain professional counselling towards the latter part of 2008 and early 2009 from a counsellor at the Wellbeing Centre at Annerley. She underwent 12 counselling sessions at this time. She has not had a further relapse.
Asked about her understanding of her heroin use Clare stated that It is an illness, I need to talk it out and manage it. It is an ongoing issue. I do a lot of fitness work. I have family support, I have the support of friends, I have my devotion to my kids, I am involved with Isaac’s school community, swim school, drama academy and his AFL Club. I am aware of the warning signs. I will seek out counselling. I do not believe I will have a relapse in the future. I have a good relationship with Allan and my family. I have my study and my work.
Clare sets out in her written submission that she has gained many great friendships with other mothers from my son’s play group (whom I remain very firm friends with), kindergarten and now school. I have also on many occasions, especially over the past five years since having my son, baby sat my friends’ children… I have included a reference from a mother, Kate Hassen, whose two children I have regularly looked after, her eldest child who has a disability.( Kate Hassen supplied a written reference for Clare but at the hearing Clare withdrew this reference).
Included in Clare’s written submission are her pleas as follows:
I am a kind person who enjoys working with people and providing a service that, in honesty, very few people could cope with doing. Never have I let my own problems interfere with my work. I am a hard working mother of two who no longer has a problem or interest in drugs. I feel that I could offer a valuable service to the community by completing my studies and becoming a nurse. I am making this submission in the hope that I please be given the opportunity to finish my studies, which I am half way completing, so that I can work in an area that may contribute to making a difference in the lives of people. I have a personal understanding that could prove to be a great asset in the workforce of health. Everyday I live with the knowledge of my past and this is a very difficult awareness to have when all I want to do is to move on. It is also embarrassing and shameful for me to write about but the chance to continue on with my studies would be life changing for not just me personally but my family and children whilst also serving the community.
Being a mother of two beautiful children I am acutely aware that all children need to be protected from any possible harm. As I have previously stated and as my criminal history shows, I have never done anything that is remotely harmful to anyone else, particularly children. I have worked hard to better myself and have certainly succeeded though am continuing to strive to aim higher. I have always had a great love and respect for children and have loved nothing more than being a Mum. I am a healthy 30 year old woman who genuinely is of no possible threat or harm to any child or adult or person in any way…
Clare told the Tribunal that there was possible harm in drug taking in terms of personal health, and financial detriment. People close to the drug taker could suffer detriment in terms of stress and lack of finance. Criminal activity can be associated with drug taking.
Clare supplied written references. The authors of those references speak highly of Clare’s qualities. Lisa Cormack and Kathleen Smiley-McGregor speak highly of Clare’s performance, inter alia, as a disability care worker. Clare said that they were unaware of her past, presumably in relation to her drug taking and criminal history: this reduces the weight to be accorded their references.
However Steven Jepson states in his reference that I am aware of the legal difficulties that Clare has encountered in the past, and that she has been through some very turbulent times in her younger years. It is a credit to Clare’s strength of character and determination that she has moved through these difficulties. Clare has worked extremely hard to improve herself, both physically and professionally. I know Clare exercises regularly and with rigid discipline and takes the nutritional health of herself and her family very seriously.
Steven was present during much of the hearing before the Tribunal. He acted as Clare’s support person . The Tribunal allowed him to adopt that role at a time when it was thought he would not be required for questioning. He also assisted Clare in caring for Alice when it was appropriate that the little girl needed to be taken out of the hearing room at times. As things transpired the commissioner’s representative required Steven for cross examination at the conclusion of Clare’s testimony.
The Tribunal bears in mind that Steven became aware of the issues in this case before he gave oral evidence. The Tribunal had a reasonable opportunity to assess him throughout the hearing.
The Tribunal was impressed by Steven’s presentation. He is a nurse by profession. He is a good friend of Clare’s. He is an upstanding member of society. He is a responsible, intelligent, and thoughtful man. The Tribunal found his evidence persuasive. Despite his awareness of Clare’s past issues he has a high opinion of her, and he regards her as a suitable holder of a Blue Card.
Discussion of Evidence
There were two basic issues for consideration by the Tribunal in this review. They were Clare’s drug problem, and her criminal history.
As to her drug problem Clare sought professional help from an early stage. She regularly maintained this approach. She tried to comply with the requests of the Clinic over the years. She developed an understanding of her problem. She developed strategies in order to prevent a relapse into heroin use. She has worked hard to maintain these strategies over the past 6 years in particular. She is committed to continuing these plans and processes. Clare has not had a drug conviction since the end of 2003.
She has had only the one relapse. This occurred over a very short period in mid 2008. She was able to put this setback to rest quite quickly and the revert to her previous successful strategies.
Clare is an intelligent, educated, articulate woman. She is fully aware that her illness is an ongoing issue for her. She remains fully committed to the strategies which have worked for her over the past 6 years. As a result she feels confident that there will not be a further relapse.
Clare has important protective factors working in her favour. She is in a successful relationship with a supportive partner in Allan. This relationship has stood the test of time. She has two small children to whom she is devoted. She has her employment and her study. She has supportive friends and family. She is aware of the proximity of professional help. She is committed to a stringent exercise routine. She has a work history which is of long standing and is commendable. She has been trusted by her employer to undertake difficult and intimate care of vulnerable people in their homes. She has provided them with personal care, administered medications and assisted them with their day to day living needs and purchases.
In addition Clare impressed with her presentation before the Tribunal. She impressed with her sincerity and commitment. She has a pleasant outgoing personality. Although she has been convicted of offences of dishonesty she appears to be basically an honest person. Her volunteering of her heroin relapse in 2008 is some testimony of this.
Thus the Tribunal is satisfied that Clare’s drug problem is as controlled and managed as it could be. As such it does not constitute a risk to children.
As to the issue of Clare’s criminal history she had convictions in 1997-1998 relating to drugs when she was aged 19 and 20. Her next convictions of any sort occurred at the end of 2003: at that time there was one drug conviction and in addition there was the dishonesty charges arising out of the bank accounting error, this latter taking place at a time when Clare had reverted to using drugs. This latter seems to have been opportunistic behavior on Clare’s part. There have been no more breaches of the law until July 2009 when the shoplifting offence took place. This again seems to have been opportunistic and impulsive fueled to an extent by alcohol. Thus there has been only this one offence over the past 7 years.
Clare expresses embarrassment and shame in relation to her offending record. She is remorseful. Whilst there are mitigating circumstances involved, the Tribunal does not condone this offending behavior.
However, as with the Tribunal’s comments about Clare’s drug taking problem the Tribunal is satisfied that there are similar protective factors in place to prevent a recurrence of this offending conduct. Furthermore the Tribunal considers that the extent and nature of Clare’s offending is not of such cogency as would constitute a risk to children. This is particularly so in view of Clare’s current remorse, aspirations, and protective factors.
The commissioner’s representative examined Clare in relation to an assertion she made at one point that she had not been given an opportunity to make a submission to the commissioner prior to her issuing the negative notice.. He submitted that this untruth reflected badly on her credit. However the Tribunal feels that Clare’s error in this respect was made more from confusion or misunderstanding, and perhaps a question of semantics was involved. In any case the Tribunal does not feel that this error reflects on Clare’s credit.
Section 226 (2) of the Act
The Tribunal has regard to the following matters under sec. 226 (2) of the Act:
(a)In relation to the commission, or alleged commission, of the offences by Clare-
(i) The offences were convictions as defined in the Act;
(ii) None of the offences is defined as a serious offence;
(iii) the offences were committed in 1997, 1998, 2003, and 2009;
(iv) None of the offences were relevant to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children;
(b)The Tribunal has taken into account the information about Clare given to the commissioner under section 318;
…
(e)Relevant to the assessment of Clare are the following:
· The supportive words expressed by Lisa, Kathleen, and Steven ;
· The successful commitment of Clare to her children, family and the community;
· Her lack of police charges since 2003 save in 2009;
· Her stable relationship with Allan over the past 7 years;
· Her Fine work record over many years ;
· The Tribunal’s findings as set out above, particularly in paragraphs 54 to 63 inclusive.
The Tribunal considers that as a result of its deliberations as set out above Clare does not represent an unacceptable risk to children. The Tribunal is convinced that Clare is a valuable member of society and that she has and always has had an appropriate attitude towards children.
Conclusion
It then remains to determine whether on the basis of the Tribunal’s findings the Tribunal is satisfied pursuant to sec. 221 (2) of the CCYPCG Act 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 Clare.
In deciding this matter the Tribunal is of course obliged to have regard to the matters set out in sec. 226 (2) of the CCYPCG Act. The Tribunal has made findings on all these matters as per paragraphs 65 and 66 of these Reasons. Having done so the Tribunal has concluded that it is not satisfied that this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to be issued to Clare.
Section 127 Application
The commissioner’s representative made an application that the Tribunal in its decision state a time later than the giving of the decision for the decision to take effect. He said that he made that request so that the commissioner would have sufficient time to consider the Tribunal’s reasons in order to decide whether to appeal the decision. He said that especially in the case of reasons given orally there was a time lag in obtaining a transcript of the reasons.
Sec. 127 of the QCAT Act provides:
A decision of the tribunal takes effect-
(a)When it is made; or
(b)If the decision states a later date or time when the decision is to take effect – the later date or time.
Ss. 145 and 152 of the QCAT Act give power to stay the decision when an appeal has been instituted. Sec. 122 of the CCYPCG Act sets out time limits for requesting written reasons and supplying them.
Clearly it would depend on the circumstances of each case as to whether a tribunal would state a “later date” under s. 127 (b). However in the present case the tribunal refrains from doing so because written reasons will be supplied with the decision. The normal appeal time under sec. 143 (4) will apply from the date of the decision and order.
DECISION
(a) That the decision of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian to issue the applicant Clare Sylvia Harris with a negative notice prohibiting her from working in any category of employment or business regulated by the “Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000” (the Act) BE SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof the applicant be issued with a positive notice forthwith;
(b)That the application by the commissioner that the tribunal state a later time when the decision is to take effect IS REFUSED.
0