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

The case of Map v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General involved the applicant challenging a decision to deny them a working with children check. The decision was based on the applicant’s criminal history, including convictions and charges, which the Director-General deemed relevant to assessing the risk posed by the applicant to children. The dispute was heard and determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the decision-maker correctly interpreted and applied the Working with Children Act when determining that the applicant’s case was not exceptional, and whether the decision-maker's discretion was properly exercised.

The Tribunal examined whether the Director-General appropriately considered the mandatory factors outlined in section 226(2) of the Working with Children Act. The applicant argued that the Director-General did not adequately weigh the specific factors or consider all relevant circumstances. The Tribunal found that the Director-General had considered the statutory factors and the evidence presented, including the applicant's criminal history, in making the decision. The Tribunal concluded that the Director-General’s decision was within the scope of the statutory authority provided by the Act and was not an abuse of discretion.

The Tribunal ultimately upheld the Director-General's decision, finding that the decision-maker had correctly applied the statutory guidelines and exercised their discretion appropriately. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Director-General and denied the applicant a working with children check. The Tribunal's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the weight given to criminal charges, even if they do not result in a conviction.