| CITATION: | Hattersley v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Justice & Attorney-General [2016] QCAT 373 |
| PARTIES: | Stacey Lea Hattersley (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Chief Executive Officer, Department of Justice & Attorney-General (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML205-16 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 17 October 2016 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Hughes |
| DELIVERED ON: | 19 October 2016 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: |
|
| CATCHWORDS: | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW – BLUE CARD – NEGATIVE NOTICE – whether not in best interests of children to issue positive notice RISK FACTORS - where applicant charged with stalking from neighbour dispute – where no evidence offered and applicant discharged – where Tribunal not reasonably satisfied that alleged circumstances are risk factor – where more recent charges relating to anti-social behaviour from workplace incident – where offending behaviour did not involve children nor were children present – where behaviour was response to workplace bullying and not without context – where behaviour still of concern to community – where children depend on adults to have insight into their actions and likely effect PROTECTIVE FACTORS – where expert evidence that applicant has deep love for children and capacity to help most vulnerable – where extensive support network and regular counselling – where applicant accepted her share of responsibility for incidents – where applicant implemented preventative strategies –– where positive references of inspirational work with children - where applicant expressed remorse – where applicant has provided stable, supportive and safe environment for children – where incidents were aberrations arising from real or perceived threats to applicant and her children - where applicant has led mainly responsible life as contributing member to community – where applicant tried to send written apology NOT EXCEPTIONAL CASE - where applicant’s insight, proven commitment to her family and children as parent and foster carer and ongoing efforts to address her past indiscretions outweigh risk factors Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 Briginshaw v. Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Harley v. Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2012] QCAT 620 |
Kehl v. Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58
Moore v.…
Continue reading Hattersley v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Justice...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hattersley v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Justice & Attorney-General [2016] QCAT 373
- Case
- [2016] QCAT 373
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the evidence of risk and protective factors in determining whether the decision was in the best interests of children. In relation to risk factors, the court found that the applicant had been charged with stalking from a neighbour dispute, however, there was no evidence offered at the hearing and she was discharged. The Tribunal was not reasonably satisfied that the alleged circumstances were a risk factor. There were also more recent charges relating to anti-social behaviour from a workplace incident, however, the offending behaviour did not involve children nor were children present. The court found that the behaviour was a response to workplace bullying and not without context and that the applicant had insight into her actions and their likely effect. In relation to protective factors, the court found that there was expert evidence that the applicant had a deep love for children and the capacity to help the most vulnerable. There was extensive support network and regular counselling. The applicant had accepted her share of responsibility for the incidents, implemented preventative strategies, expressed remorse, and provided a stable, supportive, and safe environment for children.
The court found that the Chief Executive Officer had exercised the statutory power correctly and that the decision was not unreasonable. The court set aside the decision of the Chief Executive Officer and substituted the Tribunal's decision that there was no exceptional case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency on 5 August 2016 that Stacey Lea Hattersley’s case is “exceptional” within the meaning of section 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.