JCZ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General

[2025] QCAT 221

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

JCZ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2025] QCAT 221

PARTIES:

JCZ

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML196-21

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Allen

ORDERS:

The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General dated 21 May 2021 that JCZ’s case is not exceptional within the meaning of section 225 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (Qld) is set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that this is an exceptional case.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant seeks review of a decision to issue a negative notice – where applicant has a criminal history involving serious drug offences – whether exceptional case where it is in the best of interests of children to issue a blue card to the applicant

Human Rights Act2019 (Qld), s 13, s 21, s 23, s 36, s 48, s 58

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 18, s 20, s 21, s 24, s 66

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 221, s 226, s 360

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Grindrod(No 2) [2008] WASCA 26

Chief Executive Officer Department of Child Protection v Scott[No. 2] [2008] WASCA 171
Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency v Masri [2016] QCATA 86
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492
Commissioner for Children and Young People v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28
CW v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 219
ED v Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs [2022] QCAT 102
LO v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 16
McKee v McKee [1951] AC 352
RPG v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331
Re TAA [2008] QCST 11

RWH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 407

TNC v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489
TWE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 121

Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People [2010] QCAT 243

WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Mr Steiner, D of Counsel represented JCZ
Respondent:	Ms Sinclair, in-house legal representative

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. JCZ made application for a blue card which would have authorised him to work with children under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘WWC Act’). In his case, he wished to be a volunteer at a junior football club and later he stated that he wanted to train as a teacher. He was issued with a negative notice and statement of reasons on 21 May 2021 which meant that he was not eligible to work with children. He has made application to the Tribunal to review that decision.

The Legislation

1. The purpose of the WWC Act is to ensure that those who wish to work with children do not pose a risk of harm to the children they may come in contact with during the performance of their duties. The object of the WWC Act is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children in Queensland through a scheme to screen persons who work, or wish to work with children, to ensure that they are suitable persons to do so.[1] The principles under which the WWC Act must be administered are that the welfare and best interests of the child are paramount and every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[2] A child related employment decision must be reviewed by the Tribunal under the principle that the welfare and best interests of the child are paramount.[3]

   [1]WWC Act s 5(b).

   [2]Ibid s 5.

   [3]Ibid s 360.

2. In this case, JCZ has been convicted of a serious offence, trafficking in dangerous drugs.[4] Applications for prescribed notices where someone has been convicted of a serious offence are determined in accordance with s 225 of the WWC Act in which case a negative notice must be issued[5] unless the Tribunal, in this case, is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a blue card and then the chief executive must issue a blue card. I note that JCZ has other offences for which he has been charged which will be considered as well. The decision under review is then whether JCZ’s case is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a blue card.

   [4]Ibid s 15; Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) s 5; Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 (Qld) sch 2.

   [5]WWC Act s 225(1).

3. The Department noted in its submissions that the term “exceptional case” is not defined in the WWC Act. That what is an exceptional case is a question of fact and degree to be decided in each individual case having regard to “the context of the legislation which contains them, the intent and purpose of that legislation, and the interests of the persons whom it is here, quite obviously, designed to protect: children”.[6] I note that the Tribunal in Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291 further stated that “it is a term of common use in everyday language” and held that:

   The proper approach to it is that, with respect, adopted by Philippides J: [in Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor[7] (‘Maher’)] to consider its application in each particular case, unhampered by any special meaning or interpretation.[8]

   [6]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, [31] (‘FGC’).

   [7][2004] QCA 492.

   [8]FGC [33].

4. Where a person has been charged with or convicted of an offence, the Tribunal must have regard to the considerations prescribed in s 226 of the WWC Act in determining whether an exceptional case exists. Section 226 is not an exhaustive list of considerations and does “not expressly or impliedly confine the Tribunal to considering only the matters specified therein”, rather they are “merely certain particular matters which the [Tribunal] is obliged to consider in deciding the application.”[9]

   [9]Maher [41] (Philippides J).

5. The Tribunal when reviewing a blue card decision stands in the shoes of the decision maker and must make the correct and preferable decision[10] based on a fresh hearing on the merits.[11] The Tribunal has all of the powers of the original decision-maker and must make its decision in accordance with the legislation under which the original decision was made, the WWC Act.[12] The decision-maker must assist the Tribunal to make its decision by providing a written statement of reasons with all of the material considered relevant to the Tribunal’s review of the decision.[13] The Tribunal may determine the application by confirming or amending the original decision; setting aside the original decision and substituting its own decision; or setting aside the original decision and returning it to the decision-maker with or without directions for reconsideration.[14] There is no onus of proof which must be discharged by either party in regard to the application[15] and the Tribunal must make its decision based on the balance of probabilities in accordance with the decision in Briginshaw v Briginshaw, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved.[16]

   [10]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) s 20(1).

   [11]Ibid s 20(2).

   [12]Ibid s 19(a).

   [13]Ibid s 21.

   [14]Ibid s 24.

   [15]Commissioner for Young People and Children v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28.

   [16]Maher citing Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361-362 (‘Briginshaw’).

6. Having regard to the paramount principle and the requirement that the Tribunals review of an employment related decision is to be under that principle the Department submits, as relevant, the Oxford dictionary definition of paramount to mean “more than anything else; having supreme power”. It submits that in Maher,[17] McPherson JA acknowledged the importance of the paramount principle stating that:

   Expressions in that form have long been a feature of the law governing the affairs of children. Referring to that principle in McKee v McKee [1951] AC 352, 365, Viscount Simonds said that it was the paramount consideration “to which all others yield”.

   [17]Maher [3].

7. The Department further submitted that the paramount principle ought to inform the standard of proof required in decisions under the WWC Act, and that in Maher, it was accepted that the test in Briginshaw applied to child-related employment decisions. As Philippides J noted it was accepted that the Tribunal was required to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved, that there was an exceptional case.[18] The Department submitted that given the paramount principle and the nature of the decisions under the WWC Act, the “gravity of consequences involved” should be taken to mean the gravity of consequences for children if a blue card were to be issued. Any consequences, in terms of prejudice or hardship to JCZ, are not relevant in child-related employment decisions.[19] However, the potential consequences for children of issuing a blue card are significant. This approach is also said to be consistent with the approach of the Appeals Tribunal in Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency v Masri.[20] There, the appeals Tribunal references the paramount principle in holding that the Briginshaw test ought to be employed “bearing in mind the nature of the reviewable decision”.

   [18]Ibid [30].

   [19]Chief Executive Officer Department of Child Protection v Scott(No 2) [2008] WASCA 171, 109 (Buss J) (‘Scott (No 2)’).

   [20][2016] QCATA 86.

8. Having regard to the requirements of s 360 of the WWC Act and the precedent submitted I am satisfied that this is not to be a balancing of the interests of children against those of JCZ but a consideration as to whether the requirements of s 225 of the WWC Act are met and there is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children to issue a blue card.

9. The Department noted that the decision in Maher is often cited for the proposition that the Tribunal is required to balance risk factors against protective factors in determining whether an applicant’s case is an exceptional case. The Department submitted that this interpretation is not correct. In Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales,[21] the appeals Tribunal considered the decision in Maher and determined that:

   The Court of Appeal did not endorse the method of balancing identified protective factors against risk factors to find whether an exceptional case existed…At its highest, the Court of Appeal did not criticise or otherwise adversely comment on the method of identifying from the evidence in any case relevant protective factors and risk factors when considering whether an exceptional case exists such that it would not harm the best interests of children for a blue card to be issued to a person…No precondition of an outweighing of negative risks [sic] factors to protective factors was necessary before an exceptional case was found and no use of the word “unacceptable level of risk” was made by the Court of Appeal in the Maher Case.[22]

   [21][2013] QCATA 303 (‘Eales’).

   [22]Ibid [6]-[8].

10. The Department further submitted that adopting a “balancing” approach risks the Tribunal being led into error. The concept of “balancing” implies a weighing up of two countervailing sets of factors. It connotes an equal distribution of weight between factors for, and against, JCZ’s case. The Department submitted that when considering the factors, the Tribunal should take a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach and applying equal weight to both sets of factors creates a risk that the Tribunal will be led into error by failing to apply the paramount principle.

11. I am of the view that, clearly, it is not simply a numerical exercise once factors are identified as being either risk or protective factors in regard to children; the extent to which they embody those factors must be considered so that the overall decision is based on whether or not all of the factors when taken together satisfy the Tribunal that there is an exceptional case. I therefore accept the Department’s submissions in regard to risk and protective factors.

12. In exercising its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is acting as a public entity for the purposes of the Human Rights Act2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’) and therefore the HR Act applies to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to interpret statutory provisions, to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, in a way that is compatible with human rights, or if it is not possible, to interpret them in a way that is most compatible with human rights, in accordance with s 48 of the HR Act. Under s 58 of the HR Act it is unlawful for a public entity to act or make decisions in a way that is not compatible with human rights, or in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a human right. This requires that the Tribunal identify the human rights that may be affected by the decision and consider whether the decision would be compatible with human rights. A human right may be subject under law only to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in accordance with s 13(1) of the HR Act. In deciding whether a limit on a human right is reasonable and justifiable the factors set out in s 13(2) of the HR Act may be relevant. The relevant human rights[23] here include JCZ’s right to a fair hearing, privacy and reputation. The right of every child to “the protection that is needed by the child, and in the child’s best interest, because of being a child” is relevant in respect of children generally.

Application of the law in JCZ’s case

[23]HR Act ss 15-37.

The Paramount Principle

1. JCZ in his application advised that he applied for a blue card to act as a volunteer at a local sporting club and later added it would enable him to pursue his career aspirations, namely becoming a high school teacher. The Department submitted that such considerations are not relevant in determining whether his case is an exceptional case. Given the paramount principle, such considerations must “yield” to the consideration of whether JCZ having a blue card is consistent with the welfare and best interests of children. This is a protective jurisdiction any hardship or prejudice suffered by JCZ as a result of not obtaining a blue card is of no relevance. Similarly, any benefit to children from having JCZ being a volunteer at a club high or school teacher is not relevant if it is not in the best interests of children for him to be issued with a blue card. Having regard to the discussion of the paramount principle above I accept the submissions of the Department and so I will not take into account the impact on JCZ of him not obtaining a blue card nor the potential benefits to children of him obtaining one if it is not in the best interests of children in my considerations under the WWC Act.

Consideration of s 226 of the WWC Act

1. To determine if there is an exceptional case the Tribunal must have regard to the requirements of s 226 of the WWC Act. This requires a consideration of the details regarding the offences which JCZ has been charged with or convicted of over the years. These will be dealt with in accordance with the criteria set out in s 226(2)(a):

Whether it is a conviction or charge

1. JCZ’s criminal history contains convictions for the following offences:

   (a)Common assault;

   (b)Criminal damage (intent/damage/destroy);

   (c)Breach of bail; and

   (d)Trafficking dangerous drugs schedule 2

2. JCZ’s criminal history also contains finalised charges for:

   (a)Possessing dangerous drugs schedule 2 quantity of or exceeding schedule 3;

   (b)Aggravated burglary-offensive weapon; and

   (c)Aggravated burglary

3. The Department submitted the fact that some of the charges have not resulted in convictions does not, of itself, mean there is no elevation of risk to the welfare and best interests of children. The Department noted the decision of the Appeals Tribunal in Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH[24] (‘CMH’) where the Appeals Tribunal considered, among other things, whether the Tribunal at first instance had made an error by failing to consider charges that were made against the applicant in 1991 and were listed on the applicant’s criminal history. The Appeals Tribunal was considering the question of whether the charges should be taken into account under s 221 of the WWC Act which deals with applications where there is no relevant information or conviction etc for non-serious offence. That section makes a distinction between charges for an offence other than a disqualifying offence and charges for a disqualifying offence that has been dealt with other than by a conviction.

   [24][2021] QCATA 6, [27]-[30].

4. The Appeals Tribunal determined that a charge for the purposes of the section that dealt with charges other than disqualifying offences refers to a charge that is extant. On the basis that if the charge is for a disqualifying offence the definition is extended to charges that have been dealt with which includes where defendant has been acquitted or for which the charges have which have been dismissed.[25]

   [25]Ibid [28].

5. The Department made submissions that the Tribunal can and indeed must consider non-extant charges for non-disqualifying offences. This was on the basis that the remarks in CMH did not form part of the decision and were obiter dicta on the basis that the appeal was allowed on other grounds. The Department noted the WWC Act has been amended since the decision in CMH; all charges may be relevant to child-related employment decision; the Tribunal is not confined to having regard to the non-exhaustive list of considerations prescribed by s 226(2), and JCZ’s charges were relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of whether the case is exceptional. The Department submitted that by including charges in the mandatory statutory criteria, Parliament has determined that even where charges do not result in a conviction, they can and must be taken into account to provide a mechanism for the welfare and best interests of children to be protected. As reference is made to the explanatory notes to the Bill introducing the Act, I note that the full excerpt from the explanatory notes is set out in the CMH decision at para [29] in support of the Appeal Tribunal interpretation of the section. With the conclusion in CMH that “on that basis, it is evident that the intention was that charges that have for example been dismissed should not be taken into account, unless they relate to disqualifying offences.”[26]

   [26]Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6, [29].

1. In support of the Departments submissions they cited two decisions where the Tribunal considered the relevance of charges which did not result in a conviction.[27] I note that both of these cases involved disqualifying offences and are not relevant to support the Departments argument as the WWC Act specifically deals in s 221 with disqualifying offences which have been dealt with otherwise than by conviction.

   [27]Volkers v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243;

   TNC v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 489.

2. I note that in this matter the operative provision is s 225 and it is the fact of a serious offence which has raised the need to determine if there is an exceptional case and so in fact s 221 of the WWC Act does not apply. In regard to s 221 it must be noted that by s 199 of the WWC Act in an application for a blue card where the applicant has been charged with serious or disqualifying offences then the Department must withdraw the application and so an application would never proceed if that was the case until the charges had been dealt with.

3. I agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal in CMH as it is clear statutory interpretation that the differentiation between charges for disqualifying and other than a disqualifying offence operates so that if the charge is dealt with without conviction it will only be where the charge is a disqualifying one that it will be subject to s 221 of the WWC Act.

4. As this decision in under s 225 though that dichotomy is not necessarily determinative though it is persuasive in terms of the weight to put on the charges. Here, the primary offence to be considered in accordance with s 226 is the serious offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs schedule 2. Obviously to ensure that the Tribunal bases its decision on the fullest consideration of JCZ’s circumstances, consideration should be given to the whole of his criminal history. This accords with the decision of Philippides J in Maher that s 226 is not an exhaustive list of the matters the Tribunal may consider when determining whether there is an exceptional case.

Whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether is a disqualifying offence

1. The offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs schedule 2 (the serious offence) is defined as a serious offence under the WWC Act. The Department substituted that this reflects the seriousness with which Parliament considers offences of this nature when assessing a person’s eligibility to hold a blue card.

When the offence was committed or alleged to have been committed

1. The serious offence was committed between 30 November 2011 and 1 April 2012. The Department submitted that as pointed out by the Appeals Tribunal, the passage of time without further offences is not, of itself, conclusive that the risk of harm to children is reduced.[28] The Department also submitted that in the current matter, time does not detract from the seriousness of JCZ’s offending.

The nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children

[28]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87, [55].

1. The Department provided details in regard to the serious offence that JCZ was convicted of as follows:

   (a)On 18 January 2012, police commenced an operation to investigate the suspected trafficking of dangerous drugs by JCZ and multiple other persons. During the investigation police utilised conventional and covert methodologies, including covert surveillance, telecommunications interception, tactical search warrants, vehicle intercepts and routine police enquiries. As a  result, police obtained evidence implicating multiple persons, including JCZ, as being involved in trafficking cannabis.

   (b)Police identified 11 drug related communications between JCZ and XXX between 14 December 2011 and 28 December 2011. Police further identified 50 drug related communications between JCZ and XXX between 14 January 2012 and 13 February 2012.

   (c)JCZ sourced cannabis on a regular basis and supplied it to a number of his own customers. Lawfully intercepted information identified that JCZ conducted a business in trafficking the dangerous drugs by negotiating prices and amounts and through arranging, supplying and transporting cannabis.

   (d)Most of JCZ’s trafficking involved supplies to his brother-in-law, who was also trafficking in cannabis, two (2) particularised supplies to his brother-in-law were in the amount of 22 pounds, which the Department submitted suggested the scale of the operation was not insignificant.

   (e)On 13 February 2012, police were observing a suspected drug transaction involving JCZ and XX after JCZ delivered suitcases XX’s vehicle was searched and a 4.6kg amount of cannabis was located.

   (f)Police identified that the source of the cannabis was JCZ and that he had sourced cannabis from XXXX.

   (g)On 7 July 2012, a search warrant was executed at JCZ’s home. Police did not locate any illegal items. At the conclusion of the search, JCZ was arrested and issued a notice to appear. He refused to participate in an interview. During the recording of the refusal, police played two recordings of lawfully intercepted information and JCZ positively identified himself as being a party to the conversation.

   (h)JCZ’s personal cannabis use during this time was substantial, and he appeared to have suffered from a long-term habit, if not an addiction, to cannabis.

   (i)Financial analysis of JCZ’s accounts during the trafficking period, suggesting his offending was perpetuated by financial greed rather than his dependence to cannabis. It was established that he had $7,910 in unexplained income.

   (j)JCZ stopped trafficking when his brother-in-law was intercepted by police on 13 February 2013.

Relevance of offending to working with children

1. The Department submitted that JCZ’s serious offence is designated as such under the WWC Act and by doing so, Parliament clearly demonstrated its relevance to employment, or carrying or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children. The presumption being, of course, that such an applicant with such a conviction should not be issued with a blue card unless it is an exceptional case. That JCZ’s engagement in the supply of drugs is concerning, as the proliferation of drugs in society would likely have had a direct impact on those who used the drugs, and a flow on effect to children and other vulnerable groups at risk from exposure to drugs or to those adversely affected by drugs, as the Tribunal has recently held in a blue card review where an applicant had convictions for supplying a dangerous drug, “the fact that there is no evidence of supply to, or involvement of minors ignores the fact that once supplied, the applicant has no control over the use of the illegal substance or the conduct of those using the drugs.”[29]

   [29]TWE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 121, [104].

2. The Department submitted that children have a right to be protected from exposure to drug involvement and to be cared for by persons who are not engaged in drug related activities which may impair their ability to promote and protect the best interests of children. Continued drug related offending by JCZ would be likely to detract from his ability to provide a protective environment for children in his care. That it is well established that cannabis use is associated with maladaptive behavioural and psychological changes, such as euphoria, anxiety, panic and impaired motor coordination, attention and memory, all of which have the capacity to place children under the care of a cannabis user at risk of neglect of their immediate physical and emotional needs.

3. That JCZ’s offending behaviour gives rise to serious concerns about his ability to provide a protective environment for children, to ensure their safety and well-being and present as a positive role model. Children rely upon adults to be positive role models and it has been stated by the Tribunal, that:[30]

   It can be harmful to children to become aware people they respect don’t obey the law because it can create confusion, for them as they try to develop a sense of right and wrong.

In the case of a conviction – the penalty imposed by the Court and if it decided not to impose an imprisonment order for the offence or decided not to make a disqualification order under s 367, the Court’s reasons for the decision

[30]CW v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 219, [67].

1. Judge Reid imposed a penalty of imprisonment for three years and three months, to be suspended for four years after serving seven months, in relation to JCZ’s serious offence of trafficking dangerous drugs schedule 2 and in his sentencing remarks he noted:

   (a)JCZ was a mature man of 37 at the time of the offending,

   (b)He had no prior Queensland criminal history, and an old, but I conclude irrelevant, conviction in Victoria for assault.

   (c)JCZ supplied cannabis to his brother-in-law who he knew was carrying on the business of trafficking cannabis. He also supplied cannabis to other persons.

   (d)His offending stopped when his brother-in-law was intercepted by police with the 10 pounds of cannabis he supplied to him on 13 February 2012.

   (e)Police searched JCZ home and found no items of interest “consistent with your instructions that you’d ceased use of drugs at the time.”

   (f)The Judge was referred by the prosecutor to two cases and noted that neither case persuaded him that JCZ should not serve a period of actual detention over and above the 12 days of pre-sentence custody that he had already served. In his view, those cases, particularly because of the youth of the offenders, involved different consideration.

   (g)That “there are important elements of your offending which cause me to conclude an appropriate sentence is one that provides a period of actual imprisonment. Included in those are the feature that you were 37 years of age at the time of your offending. Although the offending occurred over a period of two and a half months, the level of your trafficking in cannabis was significant and the two sales to your brother-in-law provided, in effect, 22 pounds of cannabis, knowing he was engaged in the business of trafficking.

   (h)Judge Reid stated, “Although you yourself are addicted to drugs, you sought to profit from your involvement.”

   (i)Judge Reid noted JCZ’s explanation that he became heavily involved in drugs after his father’s death in 2007 and his mother contracting a fatal illness soon after, before she passed away in 2012; “while such events are extremely sad and deserving of sympathy, they are not unusual in the passage of life. People of character – indeed, most people – deal with such setbacks without recourse to drugs and certainly without recourse to significant crime as you were engaged in”.

   (j)JCZ’s plea of guilty was considered timely and to be in his favour; Judge Reid stated, “I accept your plea as indication of remorse, as are your attempts at rehabilitation and your ceasing use of drugs.”.

   (k)JCZ’s good work history and references were also considered.

   (l)Judge Reid was also “conscious of your (JCZ’s) deep personal embarrassment at the publicity over your being charged more than two years ago and of that fact that you, as I say, voluntarily ceased trafficking, albeit after your brother-in-law had been charged.

   (m)The circumstances and penalty imposed on JCZ’s brother-in-law, to whom he was supplying cannabis, was considered by Judge Reid; “In such circumstances, I think there’s a great deal of similarity to your offending and his. I’m conscious, however of the matters I’ve referred to, including the delay. In the circumstances I’ll ameliorate your sentence but only a little.”

2. JCZ in his life story stated in regard to the 2012 charges that in 2011 and 2012 his family were struggling financially due to the cost of his mother’s medical costs and her inability to work and that his youngest sister was still in school. Although, they had lots of supportive family, no-one was in a position to assist financially. He thinks that the loss of his parents so early in their life was particularly hard for him and this is what he believes led him to problematic use of cannabis and its subsequent sale to support his use and make some profit.

3. He notes that in July 2012 he was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs, cannabis and that the trafficking period as indicated on his police records was two months between 14/12/11 and 14/2/12. He stated that he had ‘got in way over his head’ and when his brother-in-law was arrested in (February 2012) he immediately ceased dealing cannabis. That this was two months too long and he wished he had never engaged in this behaviour as he believes cannabis is indeed a dangerous drug. He was not convicted until December 2014. During the two and half years spent on bail, he had to report to the police station as per strict bail conditions imposed. In the first year he had to report seven days per week. His bail conditions were eventually eased as time went on because he had a full-time job. He states that the two and half years spent on bail were hugely character building and was a constant reminder of the poor choices he had made and made him see the damage he had caused.

4. JCZ noted the Judge’s comments relating to no drugs or drug implements being found at his house when police eventually executed a warrant in July 2012, some five months later, and that his brother-in-law’s arrest was the catalyst which made him stop dealing and cease his use of cannabis.

5. While on bail he completed an AODS course called ‘Back in Control’, he provided a copy of his certificate of completion in regard to the course dated 4 March 2014. He also sought ongoing treatment from a psychologist, Dr WFI, he felt overall that he is a good person with good character and morals but that he lost his way. JCZ stated that he knows that his 2012 drug offences were very wrong and he could not be more deeply regretful of his actions. He believes he has an extremely good insight into the harmful effects of distributing cannabis to the community and he understands that cannabis is linked to mental health and social problems. He states that his offending did not involve children in any way and that he has not re-offended since 2012 and he does not intend on ever being involved in drugs again.

Any information about JCZ provided under sections 318, 319, 335, 337 or 338 of the WWC Act

1. No information had been requested or received pursuant to these sections given they were not relevant or applicable to this matter.

   Anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission of the offences that is reasonably considered to be relevant  

2. The Department noted that the Tribunal is not confined to considering only those matters in s 226(2) of the WWC Act. The Department submitted that in addition to the matters outlined above, there are a number of other matters that are relevant to determining whether JCZ’s case is an exceptional case.

3. For convenience the information in regard to JCZ’s other offences and charges will be set out here. His earliest offences date back to 1999 and are from Victoria where he was involved in an incident on 14 December 1999 with the following original details:

   (a)At approximately 2:40am on 14 December 1999, JCZ attended an address in search of his girlfriend, she was going out with a male who resided at the offence location with a flatmate, the complainant in this matter;

   (b)JCZ threw a chunk of concrete through the front glass door to gain entry to the premises and began to search for his girlfriend and the male person;

   (c)JCZ retrieved a BBQ tool from the kitchen and threatened the complainant, who was the only person present, by holding it to his throat;

   (d)The complainant told JCZ that no one was present. He then locked himself in his bedroom and exited through a window before calling police from a telephone box. JCZ ransacked the unit before leaving with a handbag belonging to his girlfriend;

   (e)Police arrived shortly afterwards and spoke to the complainant.

4. JCZ was charged with ‘aggravated burglary – offensive weapon’, ‘aggravated burglary’ and ‘assault with weapon’ in relation to the above facts and those charges were struck out. He was also charged with assault with weapon. He was ultimately convicted without conviction being recorded of ‘common law assault’ and criminal damage (intent damage/destroy), released for two years on adjournment and ordered to pay $885 in compensation.

5. JCZ dealt with the 1999 charges in his life story. In summary, he was 25 years at the time and he had separated from his de facto partner of four years. It was his first serious relationship and he was devastated when it broke down. Her new partner, KDG was living with a friend of his. They all worked for the same casino. At the office Christmas Party he heard that they were both at the friend’s house. He went there while heavily intoxicated and when there was no answer at the door he used a rock to break the glass and entered the premises. Once inside, he came across his friend who had been woken up by the noise. He was the only one present and was standing in the lounge room. For some reason JCZ picked up a BBQ tool (egg flip). He states the police allege he ransacked the unit and held a knife to his friends throat. JCZ denies this but notes it remains on record. However, he acknowledges that he was extremely angry, upset and acted in a threatening manner. He states he turned over furniture and caused damage to the unit. He states it was an immature cry for help and that in hindsight this was a highly inappropriate and immature way to behave.  

6. He notes that the police also states that he took a handbag belong to his ex which he confirms. He states that it did not contain any money or bank cards as she was out and had them on her person. He states this became the basis for the aggravated burglary charge. He says the reason he took the handbag was because it belonged to her and it was a misguided, stupid and immature attempt to communicate with her which he deeply regrets.

7. He says he was arrested shortly after and in a distraught state made a statement. He states that after 16 very long months of self-reflection the aggravated burglary charge was dropped by the DPP in Victoria and he pleaded guilty to common assault. JCZ states that immediately after the incident, he sent a letter of apology to his friend, his ex, KDG and his ex’s parents. He paid the landlord for the damages caused as well as his friend and KDG for damage to the furniture and carpet. He also faced a casino licensing enquiry which prompted him to consider the seriousness of his actions. He also attended regular sessions with a psychologist to address his anger issues. He says this was extremely helpful and enabled him to move on. He says the Judge took all of this into consideration, labelling his behaviour outrageous. He says he could not agree more with this description and to this day it is regrettable and embarrassing to him. He notes that since that time he has not been charged with another property or violence offence.

8. JCZ was also charged with possessing dangerous drugs schedule 2 drug quantity of or exceeding schedule 3 on 13 February 2012. This was to be heard at the same time as the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs, a nolle prosequi was entered by the prosecution and JCZ was discharged in regard to this offence. JCZ submitted that at the time he was charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs he was using cannabis. He states his cannabis use commenced with the passing of his father, who fought a lengthy battle with stomach complications, in 2007. He said this took a toll on him and that his mother died in 2012 and that this was the peak of his heavy cannabis use. That his mother fought a two-year battle with cancer which had a financial toll on his family. That his younger sister was living with his mother and he foolishly turned to dealing cannabis to cover overwhelming medical bills and support them.

1. He was charged with a breach of bail conditions on 12 April 2013 for which he was fined $200 with no conviction recorded. JCZ submitted that he was arranging a 21^st birthday party for his youngest sister in the absence of his mum and dad. He got caught up in the busy details of the day and forgot to report to the police station and it simply slipped his mind. When he reported the next day, the officer informed him he had breached his bail conditions and he was charged accordingly. He says he never missed another police station report ever again.

JCZ’s evidence

1. JCZ filed a life story noting that he was raised with two siblings in a loving family and that he had a happy childhood surrounded by a supportive extended family. He lost his father in 2007 at the age of 52 years old. He states his mother passed away in 2012 from cancer after several years of treatment. Prior to that he had married and had 2 children. His wife is a psychologist. JCZ completed a Bachelor of Arts majoring in writing in 2004 and was hopeful of engaging in further university study to become a high school teacher.

2. He recommenced employment with the same employer after his release from jail noting that they still believed in him enough to re-employ him three weeks after his release from jail. He worked there for another four years and he was currently working for a building company and he was now employed as a corporate sales manager for a liquor retailer.

3. He stated that his personal philosophy was that children are to be protected, nurtured and encouraged. That children should be provided with a platform in which to flourish, in a role at a junior football club he would uphold those morals and duties. That his father had been a committee member and president of the club and that he has a deep connection with the club and a blue card would give him the opportunity to continue in his footsteps and promote their family values. He notes that he became a volunteer surf life saver and this was immensely rewarding. His team consisted mainly of young people and he was looked up to for guidance and mentoring. He is also a volunteer with another organisation with his role being to assist businesses impeded by the construction of a rail line. In both roles he states there was a deep sense of giving back to the community.

4. JCZ hoped that the job examples give an indication of his maturity, reliability and honesty. That he has made mistakes that he is not proud of the consequence of which he still lives with today. That he is fortunate to have a loving relationship with his wife of 16 years and two beautiful children. That each day he strives to be the best husband and father that he can be. He tries and sets the best possible example for his children and teach them and those he mentors the importance of good choices and that there is an appropriate way to channel and deal with hurt and anger. That life is about the choices that we make and making the right choices is paramount.

5. JCZ gave evidence at the hearing. He confirmed that since preparing the documents he had remained abstinent from cannabis and he had not been involved in any criminal offending. He was asked if he had any health issues and he said bladder cancer in 2019 with a recurrence in 2021 and removal in 2022. He said that it was extremely stressful and that one questioned one’s mortality. He was asked how he coped with the stress and he said research and talking with friends and family. He confirmed that he had not considered cannabis as a result of those events.

6. He was asked whether he had gained insight into cannabis and said it was a dangerous drug because it is extremely addictive and that for anyone who has a predisposition to mental illness cannabis can cause the onset of it. He said that he had gained this insight by experiencing the addictiveness of cannabis and that he had known people over the years who spent a few months in mental health ward which he believe was as a result of cannabis. That the Back in Control course straight after arrest helped him gain insight as well. He was asked if had had any psychological treatment. He said he had over 12 sessions with Dr WFI and she had explained childhood grief, certain behaviours, and that it was a very positive experience. He said Dr WFI gave him strategies to deal with stressors. He said other ways to deal with stressors mainly dealt with passing, accept these are out of our control. Asked whether there were strategies he learnt in dealing with more recent stressors, he said exercise, talking with family, and recognising triggers.

7. He confirmed that the initial reason for the blue card was to work with the football club. He said his father was a committee member and president. He said he would love to follow in his footsteps. KRQ, who he had known since age 10, came to club she was committed to build. She had a son a year younger.

8. In regard to the effect of not having a blue card, he said his son joined Oztag and the games were disorganised and the children did not know each other. There was frustration among the parents. He explained that he instantly wanted to step in and tell them to form a circle. Not having a blue card meant he couldn’t do that, had to remain on sidelines couldn’t be involved.

9. He said he was working in the retail liquor industry. He has an arts degree and is involved with his local writing association writing short stories and he has been shortlisted.

10. He said there was a position on the committee of the Club for publications officer, which involved going into libraries, but he didn’t apply because he thought he may need a blue card. He said not having a blue card was hindering his ability to assist the community and has far reaching implications.

11. He was asked in cross-examination about his relationship with wife. He said that the relationship commenced in 2004 and they got married in 2011. He said he most definitely always had full support of his wife. Regular visits from her and children when in jail. He said his wife was aware of all of his other offending. He said that she was there when the police came on 7 July 2012 and that she is aware of the fact of offences and penalties. He was asked if there was any reason she didn’t provide a statement. He said in hindsight she should have, but in the stress of it all we didn’t get a statement. He confirmed his children were now 13 and 10 and that they were aware of his offending. He said he told them around the time his blue card application was declined, and they asked “dad had done the wrong thing is that right?” He told them he went to prison and reminded them about the visits. He let them know that it was wrong and he was doing things to make it right.

12. He was asked about his employment. He said his employer took him back when his sentence was over. That he was presently employed as corporate sales manager with a liquor retailer, having started in September 2020. It was a full-time role but now part-time and he was now doing more writing with writing associates.

13. He was asked when treatment initially started from Dr WFI, discussed below. He was referred to Dr WFI’s letter and the mental health care plan. He said he saw her in person and that he had ten sessions in 2012, six in 2013 and two in 2014. He was asked if he had re-engaged with Dr WFI. He said he had engaged with other psychologists and counsellors. He confirmed that the sessions were about an hour in length. He was referred to the second page and confirmed the focus was not on cannabis but on understanding self to become a better person. Understanding himself helps him to deal with grief. He was asked whether he would agree that the focus was on grief, associated anger and depression rather than cannabis use. He said assistance with grief associated with loved ones, to better understand the relationships he had with them.

14. He said with Dr WFI he went into detail about the charges. When asked, whether she had an understanding of the amount of cannabis he were supplying, he replied, “I’m not sure.” “Did she have understanding of cannabis you were using, told daily occurrence, facts of offending, understanding of your financial gain relating to the offences.” He said, “I think so.” Statement in relation to offences 11 December 2014. She was aware of the possibility of being imprisoned. “She indicated you had discussed the amount you were using. Did she provide you with strategies to avoid using?” He said, “I stopped July 2012, police did not find anything when they raided me.” He said he had identified his triggers which were financial requirements, past health care, getting money for their treatment, and also financial gain. At the time of offending, the two biggest triggers were their passing and illness. The last session was on 3 December 2014. When asked why he stopped, he said because he was sentenced for seven months and started full-time employment.

15. JCZ was asked whether he had seen other psychologists since, to which he replied that he was satisfied with Dr WFI, also saw a counsellor for reasons unrelated to drug usage but hasn’t talked to someone for eight months.

16. He was also asked how old he was when he started using cannabis. He said probably around 17 and described it as a very social thing. The only time he used seriously was in 2012. He said his frequency of use was three times a year when he enjoyed it at social events. He was asked, “say cannabis commenced 2007, how frequently were you using it, more than 3 times a year?” “Only became chronic usage on the lead up to his mother’s death in 2012.” “How were you consuming cannabis?” He said a joint with friends in a private residence. The factors contributing to use of cannabis were social factors. “Did you obtain the cannabis?” He said friends obtained it. He said he never had it in the house. “Peak of cannabis use, can you be more specific?” “Monday cannabis use, afternoon cannabis use, everyday cannabis use.” He was asked whether this continued to May 2012, to which he said that she passed May 2012, the police raid occurred July 2012 and life changed February 2012. “That was big one, the big jolt was him being arrested.” “That’s when I stopped.” “Were able to stop of your own accord or did you need assistance?” He said his own accord. Cannabis use affected role in society. JCZ confirmed that he had not used cannabis in the presence of children or sold it to children.

17. He was asked about the Back in Control course, he said he was a participant in six one-hour sessions and it was a six-week course with one weekly session each week dated 4 March 2014. He said he commenced the course approximately six weeks prior to March 2014. He said the sessions were conducted by a AODS drug counsellor with 10 to 12 people per session. He said each participant described their drug of choice and what they were there to be counselled. He said he described his drug as cannabis. He said he did not need to talk about how much he used. He explained that during the sessions they identified what triggers people had, and he said it was generalised over a broad range. He was asked what assistance he took, he said anything you take away – recognising his triggers, stress related to family financial pressures.

18. Judge Reid said stopping cannabis, you did it on your own. JCZ said he had a lot bearing down on him and he had to build from the ground up and felt ashamed and embarrassed for what he had done. He explained that his insight began after his brother-in-law was interviewed and raided, which was a big wake up call. He spoke about his relationship with his sister, saying that they spend Christmas together and she has three children. Part of the healing process means keeping relationships open and honest.

19. Asked about his insight with regard to offences, JCZ said he had good insight and acknowledged that kids need a good start in life. Drugs do not create a good start, but are dangerous, addictive, and the impact on community is staggering. He said his behaviour had a deep effect on community, resulting in far-reaching trauma. He was deeply embarrassed and remorseful, and wished he had insight back in 2012, but he has that now.

20. JCZ provided character references in his support of his case. ETQ, a barrister, stated that he had known JCZ since 1989 from High School and that they had maintained a friendship and been in regular contact for most of that time. They have shared many social, work and other occasions together over the years. He also knew his parents and siblings. He said he has had the pleasure of watching him grow into a hard-working, kind, honest, compassionate and dedicated family man that he is today. He was aware that JCZ had been found guilty of common law assault and criminal damage in 2001 and drug trafficking cannabis in 2014. He stated that he had read JCZ’s submissions in relation to the offences and confirmed that what he stated accurately reflects his understanding of the circumstances surrounding those charges.

21. ETQ stated that whilst JCZ has clearly made past mistakes in his life, that he is aware from numerous conversations with JCZ that he has grown as a person, matured considerably since that time, is truly ashamed of his prior conduct and is genuinely remorseful. With the support of his wife, he has completely turned his life around and he is no longer addicted to cannabis or involved in any criminal activity whatsoever. In his view, this is a real credit to him and testament to the person he now is. He has worked hard to rebuild the trust and respect with his family, friends and the community around him and he is very doubtful that he will ever do anything again which could compromise his hard work and solid commitment to improve. He says JCZ has always been, and is now more than ever, extremely community oriented and always prepared to volunteer his time to assist his family, friends, and his local sporting clubs, especially rugby league and surf lifesaving clubs. JCZ approached his volunteer work like a paid job and is reliable and he currently makes a substantial contribution by coaching and managing his club’s football teams, including the team his young son plays with. He says he has witnessed JCZ interact on numerous occasions with his own two children and many others, including ETQ’s two children and their friend’s. He says he has truly never had any concerns or reservations with any of JCZ’S interactions with any child and he has no hesitation in recommending that his application be approved.

22. Dr WFI, a psychologist with whom JCZ had consulted with for a combined 8 sessions between 11 September 2012 and 3 December 2014, had provided a report dated 3 December 2014 to the Magistrates Court. JCZ had been referred to her with a mental health care plan from his GP and presented with long-term symptoms of anxiety, depression and grief and loss following his father’s death in 2007 and mother’s death in 2012. JCZ had advised her that he had pleaded guilty to trafficking the dangerous drug cannabis, between November 2011 and February 2012. Dr WFI stated that as well as addressing his above issues, JCZ’s goals of engaging in therapy included understanding some of his past unhelpful thinking and behavioural patterns that may have contributed to his offending behaviour, managing his anger more effectively, and developing his motivation and skills to keep making positive changes in his life.

23. Dr WFI states that JCZ engaged well in therapy and appeared genuine in his desire to understand himself more and to make positive changes to his life. He was open with her about the criminal charges he was facing and his own past use of cannabis. However, his main reason for engaging in therapy appeared to be so he could understand himself better so he could become a better person, that he exhibited feelings of guilt and remorse in relation to his offending behaviour and the distress it had caused his family. These feelings appeared to be one of the motivating factors that influenced his decision to seek counselling and were contributing to the anxiety and depression that he was referred to her for. The death of his parents and especially his mother’s death was very traumatic for him, and when she first saw him in September 2013 he was still struggling with grief and loss.

24. Dr WFI notes that 11 days which JCZ spent in custody appeared to have had a significant impact on him and he had described it as a confronting and humbling experience which contributed to him reflecting on the consequences of his past behaviour and motivated him to change. JCZ had disclosed his history of cannabis use and that this use had escalated significantly in the period leading up to his mother’s death in May 2012. She notes that when he began to see her, he had already completed the Back in Control program to address his drug use and was maintaining his abstinence from drug use so this was not a focus of their treatment.

25. She states that during treatment, JCZ developed a better understanding of the connection between thoughts, feelings and behaviours and consequential decision making. JCZ demonstrated good insight during sessions as they identified and explored factors that may have contributed to the offending behaviour. He acknowledged that his sense of entitlement, his anger and his escalating drug use at the time of his offending had contributed to poor decision making. The anxiety, stress and grief that he was experiencing leading up to his mother’s death would have also contributed to some of his distorted thinking and minimizing his behaviour.

26. That progress in sessions included JCZ’s increased awareness, acceptance of his unhelpful thinking and behavioural patterns, taking responsibility for his choices, a positive shift in perspective and identifying and clarifying his valuers to give him positive goals to work towards. Becoming a good man, improving his work ethic, and being a responsible partner and father were important values and goals that he wanted to live by. Treatment also included decreasing the symptoms of his anxiety and depression and helping him with the grief he was still experiencing over the death of his parents. In more recent sessions which commenced in November 2013, it was apparent JCZ had continued to make good progress. He had found a more fulfilling and challenging work position that appeared to have had a significant positive impact on him. He reported that it had helped him be more patient, to appreciate the value of work more, and to keep his thinking focussed, appreciate the opportunity he has been given. Working and being accepted as part of a team had been very beneficial for him and contributed to decreasing his sense of entitlement.

27. Dr WFI considered that JCZ had made good progress in his rehabilitation. He had been active in seeking therapy to understand himself, has been honest in confronting his behaviours and attitudes that he found wanting, and to overcome the barriers to change he could see were holding him back. He appears to be taking his responsibility of being a good parent and partner seriously and has begun to work towards a new career which has been a very beneficial and learning experience for him.

28. I note that Dr WFI’s report was for pre-sentence purposes in regard to JCZ’s criminal charges.

29. QRK, a friend of JCZ, provided a character reference. She had known him since he was about 10 years old through a football club. Her son was a similar age to JCZ. She said she had heard he got into a lot of trouble a few years back, worse luck some people go off the rails, but she knew he lost his parents when they were still young. She said that last year she was very happy to see JCZ and his son join the club and carry on the tradition of father and son. She said he wanted to help with his son’s team and she talked him into coaching this year and straight away he told her of his history. What he has done time for does not affect his ability to coach kids. She said he is very humble about his past but is passionate about helping around the club and helping to coach. She said it is hard to get people to help out at sporting clubs and she would hate to lose him because of something that he did years ago. She said she has watched JCZ with his son and the team he plays with if he is allowed a blue card. She said he interacts well with all of the team, the parents and other coaching staff. She has no trouble with his history as everyone makes mistakes but she feels he has turned his life around.

1. QRK gave evidence at the hearing and confirmed that she had known JCZ for 43 years and that her present role was treasurer of the football club. She said she was trying to help him get a blue card so he could coach at the club. She confirmed that JCZ had told her he was charged and went to jail for dealing in drugs. He had said he was remorseful and it was the worst thing he had done in his life. When asked if he understood the impact of what he had done, she said he was very remorseful. When asked about the impact of selling drugs, she said he was very remorseful about having sold drugs. The difficulty it has caused his family, concerns about whether not in best interests of children, and difficulty with being involved in football club is very important. QRK was asked whether it was in the best interests of children for him to have a blue card, and she said the kids he was involved with really enjoyed being taught by JCZ and it was in their best interests. She agreed that there was a need for coaching and assistance in the maintenance of the sport and that they were always looking for people willing to help.

2. QKR was asked in cross-examination whether she had read the statement of reasons and said she had seen it and was aware of the charges in that he had been dealing in cannabis and gone to jail. She said that JCZ had told her about this when he was applying for the blue card and that he thought he might have trouble. In regard to him being remorseful, she said that he had said he was remorseful on a number of occasions. She was asked if there was any problem with him being a role model and said she thought he has turned his life around. She was asked whether her relationship with him was personal or professional. She said she saw him a couple of times a week when looking at coaching and earlier a couple of times a month. She saw him at the club and when he was at one of his workplaces. She said she was dealing with him professionally while making the blue card application.

3. MOU also provides a character reference, she said she was fully aware of his previous criminal charges/convictions history. She stated that she was a parent of a child that JCZ coaches. She said she was writing the reference in support of him having a blue card and that she had personally witnessed him with the kids, his family and members of the football community and can say with full certainty that he always operates with integrity and honesty. That he is respectful, patient, empathetic, kind and has a vast understanding of the game of football. That he is able to communicate in a manner that engages the kids and he understands learning needs of different children. That she has seen him use different strategies to ensure everyone gets the same opportunity to grow and develop. She says she has seen the kid’s skill set develop along with their confidence and believes that it is testament to JCZ and should prove him to be an asset.

4. MOU recounted a volatile on field situation where JCZ was said to have deescalated it. She said she had heard nothing but good things about JCZ and knows that he gives his time freely to not only helping with training but helping around the club whenever he is required. He shows up and puts in the effort to get things done and she absolutely wants her child to be mentored by someone like that. As a parent, she wants JCZ to be able to share time with his son and create memories of football days like she’s sure his dad did with him. She said she had been to football games and had been appalled by how adults were speaking to children and what types of lessons they were trying to impart. She said she advocates for JCZ and would any day, as he has shown time and time again that his influence is positive and effective.

5. MOU gave evidence at the hearing. She was asked if she aware of his criminal history, to which she responded that he had shared with her details related to his involvement in the supply of cannabis. When asked if he was remorseful, she said of course, he made the decision not to participate in that activity, recognising the impact on the community. She said he would have reflected on who he was selling to, the impact on his children and family, and she knows he is aware of that. He knows what he has done is wrong, he wants to repent, and he has taken steps to exonerate himself. Having discussed this in passing, she can see the change in his behaviour and this is as a result of him being remorseful. Asked if she feared he might use cannabis, MOU replied “Absolutely not. I have seen effort he puts into his child. Goes above and beyond. He understands kids and talks with them perfectly.”

6. During cross-examination of MOU, she said JCZ was a really good role model for kids. She said she has known him personally for 15 years as well the club. She is related to him through marriage, as he is her husband’s nephew. They met through family outings and she has known him since 2008. You can see a change in his behaviour. JCZ, like everyone, wears many hats: parent, friend, member of community. He is now fully employed and his involvement in coaching had a positive result. He doesn’t go out partying all night and holds himself like a responsible adult. He always spoke well with children, is a nurturer, and is softly spoken— always good around children. When asked if there was a specific time period when change happened, MOU explained that after he received conviction, he re-set his life goals. He secured employment, became a law-abiding citizen, removed himself from people who were not positive influences. She said she thought JCZ did provide her with paperwork (reasons statement). He was very transparent with what happened. She said she read the material as to why he was denied the blue card. She recalled that it was because of his previous criminal convictions. She was asked if she knew how long he was engaged with trafficking and she said no. She was also asked whether JCZ ever used cannabis personally. She said she didn’t believe he had, she hasn’t seen him use it, and they had not discussed it. Finally, when asked if, given his history of trafficking, there is any risk he would do it in the future, MOU said he is trying to protect kids and is aware of the impact on children in high-risk situations. She does not believe he has done anything like that now and does not believe it is possible.

7. IEB, public servant, who had known JCZ as a friend for 32 years provided a personal reference. He stated that when asked to, JCZ has taken care of his daughter from an early age. He has the same circle of friends that he did in high school and they have children of the same age as JCZ’s and he engages well with them. He can say with confidence that JCZ is a family man with family morals. That he is dependable, responsible and reliable. That he is of ‘sober’ habits and of moral character. He was a volunteer at a surf club some years ago and he has continued to give back to the community with his recent interest at a football club. He can certainly vouch for JCZ and recommend he receives his blue card. IEB states that he is fully aware of JCZ’s criminal convictions and charge history.

8. IEB provided evidence at the hearing. He confirmed that he had known JCZ for 32 years. When asked if he had spent time with him in the last 5-10 years, IEB said he was a good friend and they had spent time together with their family. He has had a good opportunity to observe him and his lifestyle. IEB has a daughter aged 13-14. He was asked if JCZ had looked after her on numerous occasions. He replied that she had stayed with them and had attended several events with them. When asked to describe the relationship, IEB said JCZ is a great father and good role model. He said he was fully aware of his convictions and situation regarding his current blue card. IEB described JCZ as a good friend and mentioned he attended the court dates with him and his family. They have had a chance to discuss and talk about charges over the years. He explained that friends support each other, and while poor choices were made, JCZ is not in denial. He got the impression that JCZ was remorseful and said he is most certainly a better man for it, as he has paid the price. He was asked if he had seen him consume cannabis since 2012 and he said, “No”. He was also asked if he had any concerns of immoral behaviour. IEB replied, “No”, and added that JCZ would like to give back to community. He is good with children, is a role model and poses no threat to any children.

9. IEB was cross-examined. When asked about his understanding of why he was approached to provide a statement, he explained that JCZ has a desire to volunteer with a local football club and a blue card was needed. Unsuccessful in getting a blue card, he wanted to appeal and IEB asked how he could help. He noted that JCZ had been issued with negative notice and reasons, but could not recall if he had seen the reasons document. When asked if he could advise why blue card denied his application, IEB understood that it was due to concerns about JCZ’s criminal charge history and no other reason. He was then asked to describe what JCZ had done. He replied that it involved the sale of cannabis and he went to the sentencing and one day of the trial when the evidence was put forward. In terms of understanding the offence, trafficking of cannabis, he said he could not advise on how long JCZ engaged in the sale of cannabis. He was asked whether JCZ previously used cannabis. He said, “No he has not. To my knowledge he has not.” Referring to the matter he was aware of, he was asked if there was any risk of JCZ committing similar offences in the future. He said, “No. I see him fortnightly; we are in conversation on the phone. He would not go down that path again.” He added that he saw him Saturday night.

10. BNX provided a statement in support of JCZ. He said that in all the time he has known JCZ he has been a kind and caring man, that he had made mistakes in his past but after paying his debt to society he has been extremely involved around our football club. He regularly volunteers his time to organise ball boys for seniors’ games of which BNX is the coach. He makes it a really fun experience for the boys and gives up a large part of his weekend to do it. BNX would highly recommend JCZ be granted a blue card to help coach his sons football team.

11. BNX gave evidence at the hearing. He confirmed that JCZ had said he was in jail a couple of years ago and that the offences were drug related but he did not have any other details. He confirmed that JCZ helps with the coaching and that it is a fun experience. He confirmed that he could rely on him at club. He also confirmed that it was difficult to get people to volunteer at the club. He said that JCZ was definitely remorseful about his criminal convictions and the impact of selling cannabis. He was asked if JCZ was likely to sell drugs in the future. He said he won’t be doing that, based on discussions with him, and referenced JCZ’s experience of being a father and being separated from his family. He said he had kids aged 13, 10 and 7. He was asked if JCZ were issued a blue card, whether he had any concerns or fear about the interests of children. BNX said, “Definitely not”. He added that the blue card should be issued, that he wants to be involved and it would be a great idea for him to be involved.

12. BNX was cross-examined. When asked about how many years he had known JCZ, he responded that they have been family friends for 25 years. He was best friends with his uncle and engaged through the club. JCZ helps keeps the kids entertained and does a great job with that, having been involved over the last couple of years. Asked, “How regularly would you interact with him?” BNX said he sees him once or twice a year, and since having kids, they do not have as much contact as they used to. When questioned about why JCZ approached him to provide a statement, BNX explained that it was so he could get a blue card. He said he could not get one because of his incarceration. He was also asked if JCZ had provided him with a statement of reasons for why he went to prison. BNX replied because he was dealing drugs. That was the explanation. BNX said he knew JCZ was incarcerated didn’t know details such as the year or length of time he was engaging in criminal behaviour. He also did not know whether JCZ has used cannabis, stating that he hadn’t discussed that with him.

Submissions

1. The Department noted that as JCZ was convicted of a serious offence, the presumption under s 225 of the WWC Act was that he should be issued with a negative notice unless he is found to be an exceptional case. In the decision of Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v RAM,[31] (‘RAM’) the Appeals Tribunal confirmed that changes in a person’s circumstances that simply amount to them living in a law-abiding manner as society expects and functioning on a level expected of a person at their stage and age in life, are generally considered to be the “ordinary course” and not “exceptional”.

   [31][2014] QCATA 27.

2. The Department noted that the material before the Tribunal raises concerns about the extent to which JCZ has previously misused illicit substances. In the absence of any compelling, independent evidence that a person with a history of substance abuse has effectively dealt with any health professional, the Department submitted that the Tribunal should exercise caution in accepting that JCZ has effectively dealt with triggers associated with these behaviours, or the sufficiency of the strategies implemented by JCZ to abstain from these behaviours in the future. In JCZ’s case, the Department submitted that there are further reasons as to why the Tribunal should show caution in this regard.

3. Firstly, the Department submitted there is limited evidence to indicate JCZ’s substance abuse issues have been effectively addressed through any professional assessment or intervention. JCZ asserts that whilst on bail he completed a drug course called “Back in Control” and sought ongoing treatment from a psychologist, Dr WFI. JCZ filed a certificate of completion which indicates he attended six (6) group sessions relating to drug education and relapse prevention program. The Department recognised JCZ’s participation in this course is protective, however, his material does not indicate what knowledge, skills or strategies he is able to implement should the past triggers resurface. In this regard the Department noted the decision in HAM[32] where the Tribunal found:

   For the potential risks to be appropriately assessed, [the applicant] should be able to at least demonstrate an awareness, be insightful and acknowledge any identifiable flaws and deficiencies within himself or his character which provide a nexus to what occurred. [The Applicant] should also possess the appropriate attribute to be able to recognise and accept the subsequent or possible consequences than can flow from any such flaws or deficiencies, if they exist.[33]

   [32]HAM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 28.

   [33]Ibid [54].

4. Secondly, JCZ has filed a letter from Dr WFI dated 3 December 2014. This letter indicates JCZ has attended a total of eight (8) sessions between September 2012 and December 2014. Whilst he was “open” with Dr WFI, she concedes the focus of these sessions was to understand himself better so he could become a better person. At the time Dr WFI’s letter was furnished, JCZ had completed the “Back in Control” program and had self-reported his abstinence to Dr WFI. Whilst JCZ’s engagement with Dr WFI is somewhat protective, the Department submitted there is no evidence to indicate his treatment dealt or addressed his substance misuse issues.

5. The Department noted the recent Tribunal case of KAP[34] where the Tribunal considered the issue of whether an applicant’s counselling was sufficient in and of itself to enable the applicant to identify the triggers of concerning behaviour and enable him to overcome same. The Tribunal found that, notwithstanding the evidence which suggested the applicant had attended counselling, it did not negate the behaviours of concern. Relevantly, the Tribunal held:[35]

   …it is not sufficient for [the applicant] to rely solely upon him attending counselling. He must show he has acquired the necessary ability or skills to cope with stressful situations. That is, there must be evidence to support the hypothesis the counselling he received greatly reduces the risk of his susceptibility to self-harming in stressful situations.

   [34]KAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 457.

   [35]Ibid [63].

6. The Department submitted that although JCZ has identified some of the triggers associated with his past behaviour, it falls short of demonstrating his to be an exceptional case under s 225 of the WWC Act.

7. The Department acknowledged that there is no evidence JCZ has engaged in further offending after 2012, and that given the passage of time since then, the Tribunal may be tempted to consider that the risks associated with JCZ’s offending have been reduced. However, as the Appeals Tribunal has pointed out, the passage of time without remorse and insight does not mean risks associated with working with children have been reduced.[36] In the Department’s submission, there remain questions in relation to JCZ’s remorse and insight into his past offending behaviour. JCZ made submissions in support of his blue card application. He stated that he had never had any allegation involving children, young people made against him and that the offences shown on his criminal history did not involve allegations of a sexual nature. He also noted that he was previously issued with a blue card when in 2013 when he was a volunteer surf life saver.

   [36]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87, [53]-[55].

8. The Department noted that JCZ had filed a life story, in support of his application, where he asserts “I know that my 2012 drug offences were very wrong… I believe I now have an extremely good insight into the harmful effects of distributing cannabis to the community.” The Department submitted that while JCZ’s remorse and ability to reflect on his behaviour are protective factors, it appears as though such insight is recently gained, and accordingly, the weight afforded to such matters should be tempered. That in a recent blue card matter involving an applicant who similarly had drug related offending, the Tribunal held it was a risk factor that “it was not until the applicant was apprehended and convicted that the Applicant displayed concerns about the seriousness of the situation as it impacted her in her employment context and personally resulting in feelings of shame.”[37] Further, the Department remained concerned that there was limited evidence of JCZ’s ‘developing’ insight in the material filed by him.

   [37]TWE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 121, [98].

9. The importance of an applicant possessing genuine insight as a protective factor was noted by the former Children’s Services Tribunal in Re TAA.[38] The Tribunal observed that:[39]

   The issue of insight into the harm caused in these incidents is a critical matter for the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the view that good insight into the harm that has been caused is a protective factor. A person aware of the consequences of his actions on others is likely to reoffend than a person who has no insight into the effect of his actions on others. This is particularly important with children because they are entirely dependent upon the adults around them having insight into their actions and the likely effect on children.

   [38][2006] QCST 11 (‘TAA’).

   [39]Ibid, [97].

10. The decision of Peri[40] restates the importance of possessing insight into the harm that has been caused. Children are entitled to the security of being able to rely upon the adults caring for them to have the insight they lack because they are children.

    [40]Peri v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Agency [2015] QCAT 56.

1. The Department noted that JCZ had filed six (6) character references with his application. That each reference indicated that the author had some awareness of JCZ’s criminal history, and each supports his application for a blue card. The Department notes that while each referee indicate that they have awareness of JCZ’s charges, the depth of the awareness remains unclear. The references were further explored at the hearing.

2. The Department again noted that that the effect of issuing a blue card is that JCZ is able to work in any child-related employment or conduct any child-related business, supervised or unsupervised, regulated by the WWC Act. The Department submitted that the Tribunal must consider transferability of blue cards under the WWC Act when having regard to the best interests of children.

3. The Department acknowledged there are a number of competing human rights relevant to the decision before the Tribunal. These include the rights of JCZ and the human rights of children, specifically the right of every child to “the protection that is needed by the child, and in the child’s best interest, because of being a child”, as provided in s 26(2) of the HR Act. The Department submitted, however, that a decision that JCZ’s case is an exceptional case will be nevertheless compatible with human rights. This is because, despite any limit the decision places on JCZ’s rights, the decision will be justified by the factors outlined under s 13 of the HR Act, the decision will be justified, inter alia, because it will have the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and well-being of children and young people which is itself a human right, s 13(2)(b) of the HR Act. Furthermore, any limitation on JCZ’s human rights is consistent with the object, purpose and paramount principle of the WWC Act that is, the welfare and best interest of children are paramount.

4. The Department finally submitted that the decision before the Tribunal is not whether JCZ pursue his career aspirations, namely becoming a high school teacher. The decision under review is whether JCZ’s case is an “exceptional case”. Pursuant to s 225 of the WWC Act, the decision-maker must issue JCZ with a negative notice unless satisfied that an exceptional case exists in which it would not harm the best interests of children to issue a blue card.

5. The Department submitted that the object of the WWC Act and the principle that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount support a precautionary approach to decision making in child-related employment matters. In the case of convictions, defined as serious offences under the WWC Act, such caution is even more warranted. JCZ has been convicted of the serious offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug schedule 2. The Department contended that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that JCZ has implemented any practical strategies to appropriately address the triggers in his life which contributed to these concerning behaviours. The Department submitted, based on the totality of evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal can be satisfied that the circumstances raise the possibility of a risk to children. The Department submitted that the material before the Tribunal does not meet the threshold of an exceptional case being demonstrated under s 225 of the WWC Act and accordingly, the Tribunal should find that this case is not an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for JCZ to be issued with a blue card. The letter from Dr WFI does not sufficiently detail knowledge of charges and cannabis use. The weight to be given to this letter should be considered carefully. Dr WFI was not available for cross-examination, as the letter was prepared in 2014 for the purpose of a criminal trial. Para 3 not able to cross-examine s 95 weight placed should be tempered. Other witness indicated some knowledge of the offence and support the granting of a blue card. However, their awareness appears limited as three references had no knowledge of previous drug use. It is not clear if witnesses had full knowledge of past offences. Thus, caution should be exercised.

6. The offences are common assault in 1999, trafficking in 2011-12 and bail breach. Charges on criminal history but not convicted. The Department ventilated concerns in regard to serious offences, barrier trafficking serious offence, harm best interests unless exceptional case. Change being in how ability to manage cannabis use and not exceptional. Adult confirmed commenced use 2007 chronic 2011-12 three joints a day. Address risk associated in respect. Use stopped field letter from Dr WFI, Back in Control. When asked whether he was required to tell them how often he used he said no, he only needed to say drug offence general advice. Dr WFI recalled his grief with family. She did not have understanding of financial gain or his personal use, said had already stopped, limited evidence in regard to engagement, question of addressing past triggers, while there are protective factors. Absence of explanation of issues. Not clear how they would prevent future behaviours of concern. No other evidence of not using. Had attended other counsellors. Triggers -grief and financial. Falls short of demonstrating exceptional. Tribunal not bound by other decisions correct and preferable for these reasons submit not in best interest of children.

7. ETQ made submissions on behalf of JCZ. The evidence indicated that he was born in 1974, is 48 years old, is married and has two kids. His application to the Department was because he wished to volunteer as a manager and coach for a team, due to his deep connection to the club. JCZ has a close family relationship with the club, having grown up playing football there. His son is now at an age where wants to be footballer, and JCZ wished to assist and be involved with the club. At the time of the application, he was employed as a sales manager and did not require a blue card for employment purposes. He had contemplated teaching but was unsure.

8. Common assault in 1999, conviction for drug trafficking in 2014, offences occurring in 2011-12. Consequences of having serious conviction for purpose of act. Threshold is this an exceptional case. Not defined in Act. Maher CA in essence said one that does not conform to the general rule of negative notice. Applicants position and risk factors identified in Maher and protective factors. This is an exceptional case.

9. The offences in 1999 and 2011-2012 were isolated. It is not a matter of a lengthy or protracted history of involvement with drugs. There was a complete turn around in the applicant’s lifestyle and behaviour. No further violence/assault in 20 years. Drug trafficking no recent occurrence maintained for period in excess of 10 years of complete abstinence from drugs. Not too strong to say most remorseful on pressure that led to offences. He has taken these matters seriously and, overtime, has gained an insight with maturity through additional life experience. The applicant has completed a drug course and engaged in psychological counselling. Lived with a psychologist for many years with a person who deals with offences of drugs. The applicant is aware of the effects of drugs on society and community, especially on young people.

10. 1999 aggravated assault withdrawn facts would not support. Charges were amended and he pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The victim was a co-worker in his immediate circle of friends and not in an intimate relationship, so not domestic violence. Furthermore, no children were involved. The applicant was 23. No person sustained actual injury, they would have been scared and sent letter. The seriousness was reflected in his sentence. No conviction recorded and severity was at the lower end of the scale. Released on good behaviour bond not fined or community service, ordered to pay restitution but he had already done this voluntarily. He acknowledges seriousness and lack of acceptability of offences. It is apparent he was immature, heartbroken and acted in a way he regretted.

11. With regard to his drug trafficking in 2011-12, he accepts that this is a serious offence. Some of the things that it is exceptional. Reasons relatively young man, prolonged illnesses and death of parents. Accept leadership role in family due to age of siblings. A lot fell into the applicant’s position. Stress and financial pressure. That led to his committing offences with brother-in-law. Short time just over two months. Different from prolonged kind. People who had problems tending to straight and narrow after. Objective severity seriousness of conduct. Good relationship showed. Pleaded guilty, ceased consumption of cannabis prior to police raid, resolve context today. Stresses created with health with stress. Commitment to stick to resolve. Future contribution. Treatment from psychologist. Treatment assisted him because he has not fallen into same trap. Treatment successful. Has consulted others when needed. Not to deal with drugs use, violence.

12. This is an exceptional case. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment. Court service record shows that he was an exemplary prisoner with a positive contribution and was well regarded by prison staff. None of the allegations involved children and there was no evidence of drug use in the presence of children or supplying drugs to children. Protective factors include difference in age between 1999, 2011 and now. This is a large period of time to build character and increase in maturity. Conclude acknowledges accepting conviction. Did not try to blame anyone else. Evidence about insight he now has community as whole and relevantly children. Insight proven by past 10 years. Demonstrates responsibility with his children and those of IEB and MOU. Single stable marriage of 15 years duration. Has the support of wife, children, community and club treasurer QRK. Previously held blue card in 2013 to enable him to volunteer at surf club when children were nippers.

13. Authorities most crimes against children. Where drug use is involved, a significant protective factor is evidence of steps being taken to control drug use, accept decision in RAM mere fact adopts lawful lifestyle. Need evidence of insight this case different. RAM credibility in question. He denied evidence could not be said possessed insight, different. JCZ has accepted his involvement and told anybody who needed to know about his involvement, clearly showing commitment and willingness to make a positive contribution to the community.

14. Witness evidence in relation to his past cannabis use is consistent with evidence he has not used for 10 years. Period of use was limited to 2011-12, and unless witnesses had frequent contact with him at that time, they may not have been aware of it. Only became a problem and regular daily use. Witness were not specifically asked in regard to 2011-12. It is unfair to suggest a lack of credibility, as all the witnesses were trying to assist the Tribunal and, if they lacked knowledge, they were honest about this. If there is a difference in evidence not asked about period then should not draw adverse inference. Breach of bail one failure to report should not be taken into account.

Discussion

1. JCZ had a period around 2011-12 where he was dealing with the pressures of his mother’s failing health and financial issues associated with it. His father had passed away in 2007. He was at the time a heavy user of cannabis. He entered a course of conduct which involved him entering into the trafficking of cannabis which after a short period of time came to the attention of the police. Ultimately, he was arrested and charged and in 2014 he was convicted of trafficking in drugs schedule 2 and served a period of time in prison. Under the WWC Act this is serious offence and he is unable to obtain a blue card unless it can be shown it is an exceptional case where it would not harm the best interests of children for him to be issued with one.

2. JCZ has earlier convictions for common law assault and criminal damage which arose from events in 1999 and withdrawn charges for possession of cannabis and a conviction for breach of bail conditions. It is acknowledged that JCZ was using cannabis around the time of his arrest. JCZ acknowledges the 1999 offences and clearly they were out of character for him. The primary consideration is the drug trafficking charge in accordance with s 225 of the WWC Act.

3. The Tribunal is bound by the principle that best interests of children are paramount and this is not a contest between JCZ’s interests and the general interests of children.

4. The evidence is that JCZ has stopped using cannabis and this is as a result of a course called ‘Back in Control’ he took in March 2014. He also had sessions with a psychologist, Dr WFI, which dealt with the triggers that lead to his drug trafficking charges including grief, anxiety and depression. JCZ confirmed at the hearing that he had not used cannabis since 2012 and this is supported by the evidence of his referees. While the Department had concerns about the veracity of the evidence and the lack of detail. I will accept JCZ’s and his witnesses statements and note that he has been employed consistently and the witnesses interactions with him show that in various social and community settings he has been abstinent.

5. I concur with Judge Reid that the circumstance around JCZ’s drug trafficking being his grief for his father and dealing with his mother’s illness are cause for sympathy but that most people deal with them recourse to drugs and most certainly without recourse to the crimes here. Therefore, while these triggers can be identified they are not excuses and it was of the utmost importance that JCZ be able to deal with those triggers. While, as noted by the Department, Dr WFI was not available for cross-examination and there was no more recent evidence, I accept her report based on the course of behaviour shown by JCZ since then. That is his continuing employment in relatively senior roles, his involvement with family and friends as noted by his witnesses and the evidence in regard to his interactions at the football club which show a person of sense and maturity.

6. The Department noted that the fact JCZ has adopted a normal lifestyle since the convictions is not sufficient to prove an exceptional case and this is true. If there was no more than that it would not show that the future risk of harm to children had been ameliorated. This requires that JCZ can demonstrate insight and remorse into the acts which resulted in his convictions so that there is clear evidence that is unlikely to be a risk of harm to children in the future in accordance with the decision in TAA.

7. There are numerous passages throughout these reasons where JCZ has expressed his understanding of the impact of selling drugs and the potential harm to children and his remorse for his actions. His witnesses have also stated that when JCZ has told them about his convictions he has done so with expressions of remorse. I am particularly impressed with the members of the football club who have supported JCZ knowing of his convictions and wanting him to be involved because of their belief that he has changed his life and noting the positive contributions he has made to the club.

8. A person who traffics in drugs presents an inherent risk to the community and therefore children. Drugs cause many problems and someone who provide the means for people to consume drugs for profit as is the evidence here is rightly someone who should not be placed in a position where they could pose a risk of harm to children. For JCZ to obtain a blue card I must be satisfied that this is an exceptional case where it would not harm the best interests of children for him to obtain a blue card. 

9. I am satisfied that JCZ has the appropriate level of insight and remorse into his criminal acts and that he has dealt with the triggers which led to those acts so that he would not be a risk of harm to children. He has demonstrated this over a period of many years through taking steps to deal with his triggers in the Back in Control and sessions with Dr WFI. He has at every opportunity expressed remorse and his insight into the harm which his acts caused. He has been upfront with people about his convictions, and based on their assessment of his character and his interactions with others, including children, have supported him.

10. In regard to the HR Act I am satisfied that the general rights of children are protected by this decision as this is an exceptional case where it will not harm to children for JCZ to hold a blue card.

11. The decision of the Department made on 21 May 2021 that is not an exceptional case is set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that this is an exceptional case.