LPE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General - [2025] QCAT 345

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

LPE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2025] QCAT 345

PARTIES:

LPE

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML043-23

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2025

HEARING DATES:

9 July 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Davies

ORDERS:

1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the Applicant’s case is ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of s 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.

2.     The applicant’s Form 40 application for miscellaneous matters filed on 8 August 2024 is dismissed.

3. Pursuant to section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the publication of:

(a)     the contents of a document or thing filed or produced to the Tribunal;

(b)     evidence given before the Tribunal;

(c)     any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal,

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the applicant, any family member of the applicant, any child, or non-party to the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – review of decision by respondent to issue the applicant with a negative notice

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – blue card – application for review of decision to issue a negative notice – where applicant has convictions – where the offences were not a serious or a disqualifying offences under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) – where there is other information reasonably believed to be relevant to deciding whether there is an exceptional case – decision that applicant’s case is ‘exceptional’ is upheld

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)

Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Scott (No 2) [2008] WASCA 171

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28
Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6
DVL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2023] QCATA 52

Johnston v Carroll [2024] QSC 2

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

K Malouf Legal Officer Department of Justice and Attorney-General

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

In February 2023, the applicant (‘LPE’ or ‘Applicant’) filed an application with the Tribunal to review a decision of the Director, Blue Card Services (Screening Services), Department of Justice and Attorney-General (‘Decision Maker’). In so doing, LPE invoked the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The decision under review was made by the Decision Maker in January 2023. It was a decision to cancel LPE’s working with children clearance, also known as a blue card, and issue him with what is referred to as a negative notice (‘Negative Notice Decision’). In coming to the Negative Notice Decision, the Decision Maker concluded that it would not be in the best interests of children for LPE to hold a blue card. In his application LPE contends that the Negative Notice Decision was wrong and he seeks, from this Tribunal, re-instatement of his blue card.
The principal legislative enactments relevant to a review by this Tribunal of the Negative Notice Decision are the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘WWC Act’) – under which a blue card is issued and under which the Negative Notice Decision was made – and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) which governs the Tribunal’s exercise of its review jurisdiction.
Before addressing the role of the Tribunal in determining LPE’s application and reviewing the evidence in this matter, it is appropriate provide some context to the Negative Notice Decision.

Background to Negative Notice Decision

LPE was issued with a blue card in 2017 and again in November 2020.
After the issue of the November 2020 blue card, the Respondent was notified of a change to LPE’s police information. This notification triggered a reassessment, by the Decision Maker, of LPE’s eligibility to continue to hold a blue card. His reason for obtaining and holding a blue card was so that he could be a kinship carer to two of his nephews.
The police information that prompted the reassessment was that LPE had contravened a domestic violence (‘DV’) order. The essence of the police information was that LPE had contacted a person he had been in an intimate relationship with (‘Complainant’) multiple times and had left voice mail messages in which he threatened to kill the Complainant and other persons associated with her, including members of her family.
After considering this police information, the Decision Maker invited LPE to make submissions about whether his case was exceptional. After assessing LPE’s submissions and further considering the matter, the Decision Maker cancelled LPE’s blue card and issued him with a negative notice.

Issue

The invitation by the Decision Maker to LPE to make submissions about whether his case was exceptional highlights the ultimate issue that was before the Decision Maker and which is now before this Tribunal. That issue, phrased in the form of a question, is as follows – is LPE’s case exceptional so that it would not be in the best interests of children and young people for him to hold a blue card?
Although the issue remains the same as the one that was addressed by the Decision Maker, the context is now different. This Tribunal addresses the issue by having regard to the evidence that was presented at the Tribunal hearing. As expanded on below, the evidence before the Tribunal was not the same as the material that was before the Decision Maker.
Before addressing the evidence presented to the Tribunal, it is appropriate to set out the legislative framework that governs this review and the role of the Tribunal in determining the application.

Legislative framework and role of Tribunal

The object of the WWC Act is to promote and protect the rights, interests, and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland. It does this by a scheme requiring the development and implementation of risk management strategies and for the screening of persons who work with children and young people.[1]
[1]WWC Act s 5.
The Negative Notice Decision is a ‘chapter 8 reviewable decision’ as that phrase is defined in s 353 of the WWC Act.
The purpose of a review by this Tribunal of the Negative Notice Decision is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[2] In meeting that purpose this Tribunal must hear and decide this matter by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[3] That is to say, this Tribunal must come to a decision on the evidence before it. As adverted to above, the evidence before the Tribunal in this matter is not the same as the material that was before the Decision Maker at the time of the Negative Notice Decision.
[2]QCAT Act s 20(1).
[3]Ibid s 20(2).
It is not necessary for LPE to establish that the Decision Maker fell into error in either the process or the reasoning that gave rise to the decision. Further, there is no presumption that the decision under review was correct.[4]
[4]Oliver v Queensland Racing IntegrityCommission [2017] QCAT 50, [11].
In deciding this matter, this Tribunal has all the functions and responsibilities of the Decision Maker. Relevantly, in coming to a decision, this Tribunal is also guided by the principles set out in the WWC Act.
Those principles are, in summary, that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount and that every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[5]
[5]WWC Act ss 6, 360.
The WWC Act provides, as a starting point in this matter, that a person in the position of LPE, should be allowed to hold a blue card unless that person’s situation is an ‘exceptional case’. An exceptional case is one where the Tribunal, is satisfied that it would not be in the best interests of children for the applicant to be issued with a working with children clearance.[6]
[6]Ibid s 221.
The term exceptional case is not defined in the WWC Act. As to what constitutes an exceptional case is a question of fact and degree having regard to the intent and purpose of the legislation.
Further, it is a term of common use in everyday language and the application of the concept of what constitutes an exceptional case should be unhampered by any special meaning or interpretation.[7]
[7]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, [31]–[35].
In determining whether LPE’s circumstances constitute an exceptional case an appropriate framework for consideration of the material before the Tribunal is to consider:
(a)The matters that the WWC Act mandates must be considered.[8]
(b)Any other matters that are relevant to the decision.[9]
This consideration must be conducted having regard to the principles for the administration of the WWC Act, summarised in [16] above, and any human rights relevant to the Tribunal’s determination.
[8]WWC Act ss 226, 228.
[9]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492, [42].
With respect to human rights relevant to the decision, the Tribunal is a ‘public entity’ and is therefore also required to comply with s 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HRA’). Subject to some presently irrelevant exceptions, that section imposes two obligations on the Tribunal. They are the substantive obligation[10] not to decide this application in a way that is incompatible with human rights and the procedural obligation[11] to consider relevant human rights in making a decision.[12]
[10]HRA s 58(1)(a).
[11]Ibid s 58(1)(b).
[12]Johnston v Carroll [2024] QSC 2, [65]–[77].
The human rights that are relevant include LPE’s right to privacy and reputation[13] and the right to a fair hearing.[14] The human rights of children are also relevant to this review. Those rights relevantly are that every child has the right to ‘the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child.’[15]
[13]HRA s 25.
[14]Ibid s 31.
[15]Ibid s 26(2).

Evidence

As mentioned, a determination of whether an exceptional case exists can only be made after evaluating all the available evidence.[16] In this regard it is important to emphasise that a determination under s 221(2) of the WWC Act is an evaluative exercise rather than a fact-finding exercise.[17]
[16]Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Storrs [2011] QCATA 28, [19].
[17]Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6, [19].
In evaluating the evidence, the ‘ultimate question’ of what is in the best interests of children involves consideration of how children might be affected and a degree of speculation as to what might happen in the future and the potential future risks to children’.[18]
[18]Ibid [16].
Whilst there can never be absolute certainty as to future events, speculation as to what might happen is, under the WWC Act, conditioned by having regard to past events. So, by mandating consideration of ‘relevant information’,[19] the WWC Act makes clear that past events provide guidance for speculating as to what might happen and potential future risks to children.
[19]WWC Act s 221(3).
Further, in assessing the evidence before the Tribunal “it is not productive to approach the question of whether the Tribunal is ‘satisfied’ from the viewpoint of an onus or standard of proof”.[20]
[20]Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6, [21].
With this as background, what evidence was before the Tribunal? The Respondent put before the Tribunal two bundles of documents. Firstly, documents that were related to the Negative Notice Decision.[21] This bundle included a document entitled the ‘Reasons’ document. This was a document that set out the basis on which the Negative Notice Decision was made.
[21]Exhibit 1 (also referred to as the BCS documents).
Also in this bundle were a National Police Check Results Report which set out court outcomes in respect of charges faced by LPE, court briefs and transcripts and a summary of Domestic Violence Orders and Conditions.
The second bundle of documents that were put into evidence by the Respondent[22] consisted of documents that were produced to the Tribunal as a result of four Notices to Produce (‘NTPs’) issued by the Tribunal in July 2023.[23] The documents produced pursuant to the NTPs (‘NTP documents’), ran to almost 500 pages. The NTP documents consisted of material supplied to the Tribunal by the (Queensland) Magistrates Court, the Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services (‘Child Safety’) and Queensland Corrective Services (‘QCS’). The NTP documents were not before the Decision Maker at the time of the Negative Notice Decision.
[22]Exhibit 2.
[23]The NTPs were issued pursuant to s 63 of the QCAT Act.
LPE put before the Tribunal various documents, namely his personal statement,[24] a Kinship Carer Initial Assessment Report from Child Safety,[25] and statements of three of his witnesses.[26] These three witnesses, essentially character witnesses, also gave oral evidence at the hearing. The statements of two of these three witnesses[27] had not been prepared in respect of this proceeding but rather had been prepared for earlier criminal proceedings against LPE.
[24]Exhibit 3.
[25]Exhibit 4.
[26]Exhibits 5, 6 and 7.
[27]Exhibits 6 and 7.
In addition to the three witness who had provided written statements, leave was given for other witnesses to give oral evidence on behalf of LPE. This leave was given despite the absence of written statements from these witnesses.[28] In total 10 witnesses, including LPE, gave oral evidence for the Applicant.
[28]The requirement for written statements arises from Tribunal Directions made on 22 June 2023.
LPE’s witnesses fell into one of three broad categories – relations, friends and current or former work colleagues of LPE. These categories were not mutually exclusive.
LPE’s evidence did not include a health report prepared for the hearing of this application.[29] As a result, the Tribunal did not have the benefit of an independent psychological or psychiatric assessment of LPE. There was, however, a document that accompanied LPE’s application to the Tribunal. The author of this document described himself as an Accredited Mental Health Social Worker. This document was prepared for proceedings against LPE for contravention of a DV order in 2022. Although the author describes the document as a character reference, there is reference to LPE attending 10 counselling sessions with the author in 2022. The author states that his practice ‘focuses on providing assessment and treatment for those who displayed sexual and violent behaviour.’ As this person was not called as a witness and the document was a character reference, it was only of very limited assistance in evaluating whether LPE’s case was exceptional.
[29]This was despite a Tribunal direction made on 22 June 2023 requiring LPE to file ‘any health reports, including any reports by a psychologist or psychiatrist.’
From the evidence before the Tribunal, it is apparent that certain matters, relevant to addressing whether LPE’s case is exceptional,[30] are either agreed between the parties or are apparent from uncontested evidence. In summary, they are:
(a)LPE was named as the respondent to a DV order issued by a Magistrate on 20 December 2007. This order expired on 19 December 2009.[31]
(b)In 2008 LPE faced the Magistrates Court on three occasions. His first appearance was in April when he was convicted of ‘burglary and commit an indictable offence’. The offence was alleged to have been committed in August 2007. No conviction was recorded in respect of this offence, but LPE was placed on probation for six months. LPE’s second court appearance was in September when he was before the Magistrates Court on a charge of breaching the DV order mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph. LPE was also convicted of this charge. Again, no conviction was recorded and LPE was placed on probation, and a community service order was made. LPE’s third court appearance in 2008 was for a breach of the first probation order – the order made in respect of the burglary and commit an indictable offence conviction. In respect of this offence a conviction was recorded and a fine of $300 was imposed. At the time of these 2008 convictions LPE was still a teenager.
(c)In May 2022 LPE was named as the ‘respondent’ to another DV order.[32] This order was made on 18 May 2022 and remains current; it does not expire until 18 May 2027. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that this order has been revoked or modified. This DV order names LPE’s former partner as the aggrieved and three other persons as protected persons. There are several conditions attached to this order including restrictions on contact and a prohibition on LPE being in the proximity of the aggrieved’s residence.
(d)In August 2022 LPE was in the Brisbane Magistrates Court facing a charge of wilful damage. The transcript of proceeding before the Magistrate[33] reveals that this charge – in relation to which LPE pleaded guilty – arose out of his domestic relationship. A relationship which, at the time, had or was in the process of breaking down. The wilful damage that gave rise to the charge was that LPE ‘keyed’ a motor vehicle owned by the ‘aggrieved’ named in the May 2022 DV order. The penalty imposed on LPE for this offence was a fine of $400. No conviction was recorded.
(e)In November 2022 LPE was charged with two counts of ‘contravention of a domestic violence order.’ That is, a contravention of the May 2022 DV order mentioned above. The gravamen of these charges was that, between July and November 2022, LPE made repeated telephone calls threatening violence to the complainant, her relatives and associates. The complainant, once again, was the ‘aggrieved’ under the May 2022 DV order. These charges were heard in the Magistrates Court in January 2023. LPE pleaded guilty to the charges. The penalty imposed on LPE was probation for 24 months. A conviction was recorded. In sentencing remarks, the Magistrate made several comments and observations on the conduct of LPE including ‘your offending is aggravated by prior history’, ‘the offending here is serious. It involves expression by you (LPE) of very significant threats, including threats to kill’ which had ‘the potential to seriously undermine a person’s sense of safety and their ability to navigate the ordinary matters of their life.’[34]
[30]The WWC Act, in ss 226 and 228 mandates that certain matters must be considered in the determination of whether or not there is an exceptional case.
[31]Exhibit 2 at NTP-2 to 3.
[32]Exhibit 1 at BCS-53.
[33]Exhibit 1 commencing at BCS-73.
[34]Exhibit 1 commencing at BCS-76.

Evaluation

In deciding whether LPE’s case is exceptional I am required to have regard to a range of matters specified in ss 226 and 228 of the WWC Act. In summary these matters include LPE’s convictions, whether any of the offences that he has been convicted of are serious offences,[35] when the offences were committed, the nature of the offences and their relevance to employment or carrying on business that involves or may involve children and the penalties imposed upon conviction. In addition, I am required to have regard to anything else relating to the commission of the offences that I reasonably consider relevant to the assessment of LPE. As there is DV information regarding LPE, I am also required to have regard to the circumstances of the DV information involving LPE including the conditions imposed and other information such as the circumstances and gravity of the behaviour that gave rise to the DV information.
[35]It is not contended by the Respondent that the offences are ‘serious offences’ for the purposes of the WWC Act.

Although many of the matters that I must pay regard to (for example, the convictions and penalties) are set out above, the bare recitation of these matters does not address the nuances of LPE’s case.
A framework for consideration of whether LPE’s case is exceptional is provided by the structure adopted by the parties’ post hearing submissions. The issues, identified in these submissions and phrased as questions to facilitate an evaluation of the evidence, are as follows:
(a)Does the evidence reveal sufficient probative material to address matters of concern highlighted by the Respondent?
(b)In considering the evidence, what weight should be given to LPE’s most recent conduct, in particular, the 2022 convictions?
(c)Does LPE have appropriate insight into his offending and behaviours?
(d)Does the evidence support the conclusion that the risk of LPE engaging in further DV or abusive behaviour is reduced or eliminated?
Before evaluating the evidence by addressing the four questions set out above, some context regarding LPE is appropriate.
LPE was born in mid 1990. His evidence, supported by the evidence of his mother, is that during his childhood the relationship between his parents was marred by episodes of DV.
As can be appreciated, LPE’s DV information and criminal convictions in 2007 and 2008 were whilst he was still a teenager.
LPE’s reason for acquiring a blue card in 2017 and its renewal in 2020 was to be a kinship carer for two of his nephews. LPE’s evidence which is supported by his relatives and friends who gave evidence on his behalf, is that he cares deeply about these nephews and, until the revocation of his blue card, he had substantial contact with them.
In or about late 2021 a 12-year domestic relationship that LPE had been in came to an end. This caused LPE significant personal stress. The termination of the relationship also meant that he was unable to provide care and assistance to his nephews to the extent that he had been prior to the relationship breakup. As a result, LPE’s nephews are in the care of Child Safety and reside with foster carers. In addition, the end of this long-term domestic relationship also gave rise to the 2022 DV order referred to above and was a foundational factor in the two criminal charges preferred against LPE in 2022.
As is acknowledged by the Respondent in post hearing submissions, in addition to the relationship breakdown LPE has, in the period from about 2021, experienced several stressful incidents including the deaths of his father and one of his brothers. Further, his mother went missing and was, for a time, homeless. This conduct seems to stem from an unaddressed mental illness.
The witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of LPE spoke of him in positive terms. For example, the general manager of his employer gave evidence that he has an outstanding work ethic and has solid interpersonal skills. His family members referred to his concern for his nephews.
In the Kinship Carer Initial Assessment Report that LPE put into evidence,[36] there are several comments made by Child Safety officers and recorded in the Report. These comments, which support the evidence of LPE, note that LPE had a strong commitment to his nephews, the subject of the Report.[37]
[36]Exhibit 4.
[37]See, by way of example, comments in exhibit 4 at pages 59–61.
Although the above matters are substantially positive for LPE there are other matters in the evidence that are not positive. When questioned about matters in the NTP Documents and the Kinship Carer Initial Assessment Report LPE was prepared to adopt the positive comments made about him but substantially rejected any negative comments. Two examples of negative comments are:
(a)File notes in a ‘Contact Summary List’, a document created by QCS on 4 August 2023, made various observations including that LPE could become ‘hostile upon being challenged’,[38] that his ‘criminogenic need was identified as anti-social cognitions’ and that ‘These cognitions are relevant to his views of intimate partner relationships and the imbalance of power and control, resulting in domestic violence.’[39]
(b)The observations of a Child Safety officer made in the Kinship Carer Initial Assessment Report[40] that, if LPE had full time care of his nephews, ‘there would be stressors that surpasses his capacity to cope, and he may become dysregulated towards or around’ these children.[41]
[38]Exhibit 2 at NTP-309.
[39]Ibid at NTP-310.
[40]The Assessment Report, exhibit 4, was tendered by LPE. It bears an assessment completion date of 1 August 2022.
[41]Ibid at page 9 of 70.
I now turn the framework for consideration of the evidence adopted by the parties in their post hearing submissions.

Does the evidence reveal sufficient probative material to address matters of concern highlighted by the Respondent?

The Respondent submits that this question should be answered in the negative. In support of this submission the Respondent highlights that LPE’s 2022 offending (and DV information) is relatively recent and that he remains on parole. The Respondent contends that the evidence viewed as a whole, shows a concerning pattern of behaviour provoked by the breakdown of his domestic relationship. The Respondent further notes that LPE did not provide any independent or clinical material, or reports that are recent or written for the purpose of this proceeding. As a result, it is contended that there is little or no relevant material before the Tribunal as to the current state of LPE’s mental health addressing such matters as his response to stressors, or any strategies or coping mechanisms, he has developed in relation to his concerning behaviour.
In response, LPE submits that he has presented reports that attest to his current mental health status and highlights the positive comments made by Child Safety officers in the Kinship Carer Initial Assessment Report in relation to his suitability to be a kinship carer. Further, that he has taken ‘ownership’ of his role in ‘creating these issues’ – which I take to be a reference to the 2022 DV information and offences.

In considering the evidence, what weight should be given to LPE’s most recent conduct, in particular, the 2022 convictions?

The Respondent submits that LPE’s 2022 offending is extremely concerning. In making this submission the Respondent highlights that this offending is recent and the particulars of the offending include LPE making multiple threats of extreme violence and death.
LPE, whilst commendably acknowledging his past behaviour and expressing remorse and regret for his conduct, contends that he has ‘taken substantial and proactive measures to ensure such actions are never repeated.’[42] In support of this proposition LPE refers to the self-reflection that he has undertaken, his engagement in counselling programs and activities designed to foster positive behavioural changes and personal development.
[42]Applicant’s post hearing submissions at page 7.

Does LPE have appropriate insight into his offending and behaviours?

The Respondent submits that LPE does not have a demonstrated insight into these matters. In support of this contention the Respondent highlights LPE’s interaction with Child Safety, the fact that he attributes his conduct, including his offences and DV conduct, as being triggered by the actions of others rather than fully recognising them as being a result of the choices he made in reacting to situations that LPE found stressful.
LPE in response to the contention that he does not have insight into his offending and behaviour states that he recognises his past actions and is remorseful for his conduct and the impact that his actions have had on others.

Does the evidence support the conclusion that the risk of LPE engaging in further DV or abusive behaviour is reduced or eliminated?

To support the contention that the evidence before the Tribunal does not support the conclusion that the risk is reduced or eliminated, the Respondent cites as examples the evidence of LPE’s lack of insight into his deteriorating domestic relationship in late 2021 and his response to the termination of the relationship – the wilful damage and the threatening phone calls and messages – together with the affidavit evidence of his former partner that LPE both threatened to kill himself and that he verbally abused his nephews’ carers.[43]
[43]Exhibit 2 at NTP-438.
In response, LPE asserts that his case is not exceptional in a negative sense and that he represents no risk to his nephews and that he can provide a nurturing and caring environment for them – as he has in the past.
Although I accept that LPE has a strong commitment to his nephews and a deep concern for their welfare, there are several factors that taken together make LPE’s case exceptional.
Firstly, LPE’s criminal conduct and DV information from 2022 is of significant concern. Whilst I appreciate that his conduct occurred at a time when he was under significant personal stress, the conduct admitted to by LPE,[44] without more, makes LPE’s case exceptional. Further, I do not consider that LPE has fully faced the nature of his conduct. For example, in his written post hearing submissions LPE contends that in his 12-year intimate domestic relationship ‘there was no evidence of domestic violence.’[45] This proposition, even if it is correct with respect physical interpersonal violence, cannot stand against the conviction for wilful damage of his former partner’s car or the making of violent threats to, amongst others, his former partner.
[44]By both pleading guilty and in answers given during the course of the hearing.
[45]Applicant’s post hearing submissions at page 7.
Secondly, the evidence does not, in my view, support the conclusion that LPE has, since 2022, developed mechanisms for dealing with stressful situations. Although, it seems LPE has undergone some form of counselling, there was no independent evidence of the extent and results of this counselling. In short, there was insufficient probative evidence put before the Tribunal to give me confidence that LPE has addressed his reactions to stressful situations and that he has adopted positive behavioural changes. For example, I do not consider that LPE’s sometimes aggressive and confrontational conduct toward officers of Child Safety[46] is evidence that can be overlooked as a response to a situation that he found to be stressful.
[46]For example, the conduct referenced at exhibit 2 at NTP-126.
Thirdly, although LPE’s expressed reason for obtaining, once again, a blue card is so that he can act as a kinship carer for his nephews, it is necessary to consider the transferability of a blue card. The Respondent submits, and I accept, that a blue card is unconditional and fully transferable. LPE’s inability to react in a measured manner to incidents of stress does not give me confidence that, if faced with stressful situations, involving children or young people, including but not limited to his nephews, he is currently appropriately equipped to deal with these situations. Further, any prejudice or hardship to an applicant for a blue card are not relevant in determining whether a case is exceptional.[47]
[47]Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Scott (No 2) [2008] WASCA 171, [109].
In coming to this decision, I have had regard to the competing human rights of both LPE and of any children. I have concluded that any compromise of LPE’s human rights will be justified by the factors set out in s 13 of the HRA. In this regard, I consider that any limitation justification is based on the purpose of the WWC Act which provides that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount.

Post hearing application

On 8 August 2024, a month after the conclusion of the oral hearing in this matter, LPE made an application for miscellaneous matters by filing a Form 40 (‘August 24 application’). In Part B of the form, LPE inaccurately described what he was applying for as an ‘application for directions.’ A review of the form reveals that a proper description of the application was that it is an ‘application for direction requiring another party to produce a document.’ That is, an application pursuant to s 63 of the QCAT Act.
That section relevantly invests the Tribunal with the discretion to make an order requiring a person who is not a party to proceeding, but who has, or is likely to have, in their possession or control documents relevant to a proceeding to produce the documents to the Tribunal.
LPE’s August 24 application mirrors a decision of the Tribunal made on 26 July 2023 (‘July 23 decision’). The July 23 decision required the Director-General of Child Safety to produce certain specified documents to the Tribunal.
Child Safety responded to the July 23 decision by producing to the Tribunal a large number of documents amounting to some 232 pages. These documents formed a substantial part of exhibit 2, the NTP documents.
The reasons advanced by LPE for the August 24 application are set out in his post hearing written submissions dated 8 August 2024. He asserts ‘that critical evidence from Child Safety, covering the periods from June 2017 to early August 2017, and from March 2018 to January 2022, was (sic), not submitted for this hearing as requested by the courts (sic).’
LPE goes on, in his post hearing submissions, to contend under the heading of ‘Missing Evidence’ that the asserted omission of this ‘evidence’ is significant ‘as it fails to present a comprehensive picture of all my hard work, commitment to my nephews, and consistent corporation with Child Safety during those years.’ In essence, LPE is asserting that Child Safety failed or neglected to properly comply with the July 23 decision.
Even if LPE is correct in asserting that Child Safety may have unproduced documents I am not prepared to grant the August 24 application.
The reasons for this decision are as follows:
(a)Firstly, the application is not timely. The Tribunal’s Directions of 22 June 2023 gave the parties leave to apply for a Notice to Produce. The Respondent applied for a Notice to Produce to be issued to Child Safety – along with notices to produce directed to other entities. The Tribunal responded to this application by issuing, inter alia, a notice to produce to Child Safety on 26 July 2023. This notice was in substantially the same form as LPE’s August 24 application. Child Safety produced material to the Tribunal in answer to the notice to produce. By a decision dated 28 August 2023 the Tribunal allowed the parties (and their legal representatives) to view and copy the material produced by Child Safety. It is not clear on the material whether LPE viewed the material. Nonetheless he had the opportunity to inspect the Child Safety material and the concomitant opportunity to bring an application regarding the adequacy of the material produced well before the hearing of this matter. An application about a month after the hearing of this matter is too late. Granting the application will essentially involve a reopening of the matter.
(b)Secondly, LPE envisages that Child Safety has further material which will ‘present a comprehensive picture of all my hard work, commitment to my nephews, and consistent cooperation with Child Safety during those years.’[48] As is set out in [56] above, I have accepted that LPE has a strong commitment to his nephews and a deep concern for their welfare. Further, I have considered and taken into account the positive comments made by employees of Child Safety regarding LPE’s relationship with his nephews that are contained in exhibit 4. No further evidence is necessary to persuade me that LPE has a deep concern for the welfare of his nephews.
[48]Applicant’s post hearing submissions, paragraph 27.
LPE’s August 24 application is dismissed.

Non-publication order

The Tribunal, under section 66 of the QCAT Act, may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that might enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified. Such an order was made by a Tribunal decision on 28 August 2023. Having regard to the evidence in this matter, I do not consider it appropriate to amend or revoke this order as to do so could lead to, amongst other matters, the identification of LPE’s former partner, members of her family and LPE’s nephews. As a result, the names of persons have been de-identified in these reasons.