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

In the case of PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the applicant, PIM, sought review of a decision made by the Director-General under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld). The primary issue before the court was whether PIM's case constituted an 'exceptional case' under section 221(2) of the Act, which would allow for a positive notice to be issued despite a recent conviction for an offence other than a serious offence, with the victim of the offence being an adult.

The court had to determine whether, despite PIM's recent conviction, there were compelling reasons to classify his case as 'exceptional'. This involved examining the nature of the offence, the recency of the conviction, and any other relevant factors that might influence the best interest of children. The decision hinged on whether PIM's case met the stringent criteria outlined in section 226 of the Act, which mandates specific considerations including the nature of the offence, the time elapsed since the conviction, and the potential risk to children.

The court concluded that the Director-General's decision did not meet the statutory requirements for an 'exceptional case'. It was found that PIM's conviction, while recent, did not present a significant risk to children, and thus did not warrant a positive notice under the Act. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the mandatory considerations set out in the Act and found that PIM's case did not sufficiently align with the criteria for an exceptional case. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the Director-General's decision was set aside.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the Director-General's decision that PIM's case was 'exceptional' and to prohibit the publication of any materials that could identify PIM, witnesses, or third parties involved in the proceedings. This ruling underscores the stringent criteria that must be met to classify a case as 'exceptional' under the Working with Children Act.