PJR v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency - [2015] QCAT 235

CITATION:

PJR v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 235

PARTIES:	PJR (Applicant)
v
Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML220-14

MATTER TYPE:	Childrens matters
HEARING DATE:	6 March 2015

HEARD AT:

Townsville

DECISION OF:

Member Quinlivan

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency to refuse the applicant a positive notice and a Blue card is confirmed

2. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of the names of the applicant and his children and the names of the witnesses.

3. The Reasons will be published in a de-identified format.

CATCHWORDS:

Childrens matters - exceptional case – insight - criminal history

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

PJR

RESPONDENT:

Public Safety Business Agency represented by Ms Natalie Taylor

REASONS FOR DECISION

PJR is a proud indigenous man. He is married to his wife PS and they have three young sons. PJR also has a daughter from a previous relationship. Before October 2014 PJR was employed as a youth worker at a Youth Detention Centre. He had been employed in that role for about 5 years.

At the hearing he said that it had always been a passion of his to provide support and encouragement to young people. He pointed out that this has been a particularly important goal for him because he didn't really have much support from his own family when he needed it most.

He said out that for two years he had proudly served as a Director of the Board of a Reference Group, which is a cultural centre representing four distinct traditional groups.

He maintained that he is a strong supporter and mentor of young people in his extended family and community and a devoted father who is very involved in his children's schooling and recreational pursuits.

PJR needs a Blue card so he can continue his work at the Detention Centre where he was previously a highly regarded employee.

He was issued with a positive notice and a Blue card on 2 June 2011. On 13 March 2014 he applied to the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian for a continuation of his Blue Card. He provided written submissions to the Commissioner including his version of an incident that occurred on New Year's Eve 2013.

On the 17 October 2014 the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Public Safety Business Agency issued him with a negative notice together with reasons for that decision. On 30 October 2014, PJR wrote again to the deputy CEO providing detailed submissions to show cause why he should be granted a positive notice and a Blue card.

On 12 November 2014, PJR applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for a review of the CEO’s decision.

What is the background to this application?

As part of the employment screening procedures conducted by the CEO, a police check is undertaken. Details of the applicant's criminal history are set out in the Statement of Reasons provided by the CEO.

The history identifies charges and a conviction from 7 December 1997 through to recent charges arising out of the incident on 31 December 2013. The Tribunal notes that the applicant was born on 28 January 1982 and that the majority of his offending occurred as a juvenile.

The CEO identified a number of offences involving violence that occurred on 6 & 7 December 1997, 19 February 2000 and 31 December 2013. In relation to the first offences, the result was no convictions recorded pursuant to s124(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act with 12 months probation. Regarding the second offences, no convictions were recorded and again the applicant received 12 months probation.

In relation to the third set of charges, the Tribunal was advised that on 17 February 2015, the two charges of assault occasioning bodily harm were dismissed on the basis that the prosecution offered no evidence.

A summary of the facts of the December 1997 charges were that the applicant attended two parties with friends and was involved in two violent incidents where it was alleged that he had violent altercations with other persons at the parties while under the influence of alcohol.

In relation to the offences in February 2000 it was alleged that the applicant and the victim had been in a relationship prior to the incident and had an infant child together. At the time, the victim was residing with two female friends and the child.

At midnight on 19 February 2000, the applicant entered the victim’s bedroom where the victim was asleep with the child. He woke her up. The victim asked him to leave because he was affected by alcohol. The applicant refused to leave and then verbally abused the victim and hit her across the face with his fist.

Shortly after that the applicant made threats to harm the victim and head butted her in the mouth. The victim sustained injuries to her lower lip, swelling and redness to her face and mouth. No conviction was recorded on either charge and the applicant was placed on probation for 12 months and ordered to pay the victim $200 in compensation.

In his letter to the CEO dated 30 October 2014 the applicant said in an apparent reference to the incident on 19 February 2000 that “the incident on 30 June 2000” occurred as reported. While his date differs from that in the Police report, the comments made by the applicant appear to relate to the February incident.

The applicant said in his letter:
“I am ashamed and remorseful for my actions when I lashed out at the mother of my daughter during a domestic quarrel. I realize now that growing up in a small country town… had its problems. There was absolutely nothing in place for young people and we had a lot of idle time on our hands. Today, in 2014, I have a good balanced relationship with both my daughter, who is now 15 years old, and her mother”.

When questioned about the matter during the hearing, the applicant was unresponsive. He said that he didn't remember the child's age or details of the incident. He said that everything has changed from that day and he now has a good relationship with his daughter and he is remorseful. He admitted that he could have acted differently by not doing what he did, but that he was affected by alcohol at the time.

In relation to the charges of assault occasioning bodily harm and common assault on 31 December 2013, it was alleged by police that the applicant attended at the home of a neighbour to resolve an issue involving children.

It was alleged that there was an altercation where the applicant punched the complainant in the face causing him to fall to the ground. The complainant's partner attempted to stop the applicant by pushing him backwards. It was then alleged that the applicant continued to punch the complainant to his head and body. The complainant then returned the punches in an attempt to create distance between himself and the applicant. The complainant was again struck to the ground. The applicant then left the area.

It appears from the evidence that this incident was witnessed by children from both families.

The Police Report, received at the hearing, indicates that although the Police had obtained a video recording of the incident from an independent person, they could not establish the applicant’s identification beyond reasonable doubt for the purposes of a criminal prosecution.

The Tribunal notes that in the Report, the Police commented as follows:
“… Def appears to be contending from case conferencing that def was set upon by the victim and only threw punches in self-defence.
Given the footage it should not be difficult to overcome this defence, however, there is no positive identification of the defendant.”

The report also outlines the following:
“With regards to the footage, it is clearly evident the defendant is the aggressor and there is no evidence of any provocation from either witness. It should be noted both victims have attended the (local) hospital to have injuries treated and recorded at the time of the incident and have had injuries photographed by Scenes of Crime.
The victims have also taken the time to attend (the local) Police Station to make a formal complaint with regards to the incident. I am of the belief the defendant had no intention to involve Police and therefore did not feel he was a victim of any offence.”

The applicant strongly disagreed with the police version of events. When questioned about it he refused to acknowledge the existence of any video footage.

In his written material, the applicant provided his version of what occurred. He stated that on the date of the incident, his 12-year-old son came home and was upset. He said that his son had had an altercation with another boy who had damaged his son's bike. He then went to where the other boy lived and walked to the front door where the mother of the house came out. He said that he explained to her who he was and what had happened but that the woman started swearing and yelling and would not listen to reason.

He said that the next thing was that her partner kicked the screen door open and yelled “Is this the black c***s that stole our kid’s bike?” The applicant said that the man came right in front of his face in an intimidating and aggressive manner. He said that the man was much taller than him and was making threats to him and his family.

The applicant said that he told the man what had happened and that the man's son, who was apparently present, admitted that he had damaged the other child’s bike. According to the applicant the man then raised his hands in the air and said “Well I don't give a f**k”. He said that the man brought his hand down and moved towards him aggressively with clenched fists. The applicant claimed he was forced to defend himself as the man and his partner both attacked him with punches and scratches. He said that the scuffle in the front yard continued for a few minutes and then he left.

The applicant claimed that he felt sorry for his own son because he wanted to show him how to resolve issues in a non-violent way. He said the behaviour of the other boy and his family was very disappointing to him and his family as he and his wife are trying to instil in their children a positive attitude and a love for their community.

He said he aims to be a positive role model for his three sons, nephews and nieces. He enjoys working with young, indigenous youth especially troubled youth. He plans to work in this field for many years, as he believes in their youth.

In his oral evidence the applicant admitted that he went to the other person's home in a car. He was accompanied by his Uncle who remained in the vehicle. His two sons aged 12 and 11 also came with him.

The applicant strenuously denied that he did what was alleged and pointed out strongly and assertively that he had only been charged and that now he was not guilty. He said that he was trying to use his de-escalation techniques and had only pushed the other man and then went home. He claimed that he walked away to show his boys that it was the right thing to do.

He said that when he left the scene the other man was punching wildly. He denied taking any action towards the mother. He contended that he was attacked but he could not explain, why he did not contact the police.

He said he knew that the matter wasn't resolved and he just wanted to sort it out but that it got out of control. In relation to the charges that were brought against him, the applicant emphasised that the matter was finished because the police did not offer any evidence. He strongly asserted that they did not proceed and that they didn't see what the complainant did.

When asked to reflect on the incident and the impact on his own boys, he said that they had seen their dad go around to sort things out. When asked what he would do if something similar occurred again he claimed that the other parties were high on drugs and very agitated.

With respect to the impact on his own children of seeing the violent incident he said that he talked to his kids and said to them that they were not to think that their dad did wrong because the other party came at him.

With respect to being a role model, he said he was entitled to defend himself and de-escalate the situation. He said that in future he would ring the “man in blue” straight away.

The applicant was asked about boxing and he said training for boxing teaches discipline, respect and loyalty. He said that you must use your skills in an appropriate way because boxing is a sport. He said that he has a brother who is a professional boxer. In his view you need to get into the boy’s heads, that it is a sport and it is all about sport.

The applicant’s case…

The essence of the applicant's case is set out in his letter dated 30 October 2014. He requested the deputy CEO to take into account his particular circumstances and make a positive recommendation in relation to his Blue card application. He said that this would allow him to continue to be employed as a Youth Worker at the Youth Detention Centre. A position he had held for 5 years.

The applicant also provided correspondence between him and his former employer setting out details of his submissions and the decision from the Assistant Director-General of Youth Justice Services regarding the termination of his employment.

The applicant acknowledged that he had made some unfortunate choices in his youth but he claimed that he is no longer the same person and has grown considerably since then.

He pointed out that there was a period in his life when he was extremely unsettled in his family situation. He admitted that for a few years he was a typical angry young man who went in the wrong direction.

However the applicant emphasised that he has learned from his experiences as a young man. He claimed that his past is actually a strength in his work at the Detention Centre. He admitted that he made some wrong decisions but that he is making a concentrated effort to turn his life around. He believes that he is in a powerful position to be a positive influence on the young people in his community and at the Detention Centre.

The applicant submitted that he is a good man, husband and father and a positive community member in both the non-indigenous and indigenous communities in which he lives and works. He expressed concern that young people are running amok and in his view the answer is “to take ‘em out bush”. He is trying to get something happening on his traditional lands so he can teach young people cultural ways.

The applicant is now 33 years old. He gave evidence that alcohol was a problem for him in the past when he was a teenager. He said that he doesn't drink now. He doesn't want to because of his sons. He said that around the age of 22 he came to this “realization” and claimed that he doesn't have a problem with alcohol - that a 6-pack is enough for him. He said that he had not been drinking since 2013.

He said that he joined an Aboriginal men's group because he felt he could relate to them. He said he could support them and get support from them.

In support of his application, the applicant provided a number of written references as follows:

A reference from Dr. BR dated 14 January 2015.
· Dr. BR said that the applicant has been a patient of his clinic since September 2008 and a patient of his since April 2012. In the doctor's opinion the applicant’s mood related problems and stress have increased in severity because of his financial situation and loss of employment.
A reference from PF dated 4 February 2015.
·      PF has known the applicant for over 10 years and has worked with him at the Detention Centre. She says that the applicant is a committed and enthusiastic person who was very supportive in assisting staff with all cultural and recreational activities for the young people at the Centre. She described the applicant as a committed, loyal and devoted family man who is an inspiring role model and tower of support for his wife and family. She said that he is a considerate and committed team player. She also referred to her observations of him at family gatherings where he is affectionately known to all children as “Uncle”.
·      She says he has a caring and empathetic nature and would often engage with young people at the Centre who were upset.
·      In her oral evidence, PF did not appear to have any knowledge of the applicant’s prior history except that the present application related to a personal matter. She said that the applicant is coming out of his shell a lot, with stronger self-esteem and involvement. In her view children “flock to him”.
·      In her opinion the applicant has knowledge that is “priceless”. He knows the Elders and the right people to talk to and provides very good cultural input at the Centre.
A reference from KT dated 11 February 2015.
·      KT is a former Community Participation Officer and has had some experience at the Detention Centre. She stated that she has known the applicant for more than 10 years as a close friend of his extended family. She said that she is aware of the challenges he had in his youth. In her view his overcoming his rocky beginning is a great credit to him. She believes that he has been able to turn his life around with the right support and the love of a good woman and her family.
·      In her opinion “(The applicant) is a success story, not always an easy thing to accomplish for a young Aboriginal man. Stereotypes around his race are so entrenched in our society, that there are many, often unspoken, barriers to overcome before an Aboriginal lad can stand on the same starting line as his non-indigenous peers.”
·      KT stated that she was delighted to provide a reference to the applicant when he sought employment at the Detention Centre. In her opinion, he was the perfect person to influence these young people, considering the facility population is 90% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. She said that he has “walked in the shoes” of these young men and is living proof there is a better way to do things.
·      She described the applicant as a good man and an excellent motivator of young people and she urged the Tribunal to enable him to continue his employment at the Detention Centre.
·      In her oral evidence KT described herself as a confidant of the applicant's mother. She said that she had some knowledge of a recent incident where the applicant was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm and common assault. In spite of this, her opinion is the applicant would be suitable in any situation involving children.
A reference from TL dated 10 February 2015.
·      TL stated that she has known the applicant for over 15 years in both a professional and personal capacity. She said that over the years she has noticed that the applicant is a man with good moral character, a great husband, a great provider for his immediate and extended families and most of all, a great father to his three sons.
·      She said that the applicant has a strong personal commitment and passion for improving the life circumstances and opportunities of indigenous young people and their families. He has great leadership, mentoring and role modelling skills. He has shown dedication and commitment to young people, the staff and community.
·      TL was aware of the recent incident but did not appear to have any knowledge of the applicant’s prior criminal history. She said that it is definitely “out of character” for the applicant to be involved with the court system. She has not seen the applicant in a conflict situation.
The applicant also provided a reference from SA who is the chair of Uncle A's men's group.
·      SA was not available to give evidence at the hearing. He stated that he has known the applicant for most of his life.
·      He said that the Men's Group was formed to work with and assist the community holistically but especially focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, women and children and the judiciary system on a voluntary basis.
·      He described the applicant as an active member of the group who assists him up with his work in the community.
·      He said that he has known the applicant and his family for years and that he has never heard or witnessed any family or domestic violence occurring within their family unit. He described the positive things that he heard about the applicant such as securing a new home loan and his boys excelling in their sporting and education. He described these matters as things to be proud of especially if it involves our Aboriginal men that have turned their lives around from negative business to positive business. He indicated that he was aware that the applicant had a pending court proceedings.

The Chief Executive’s perspective?

In her submissions Ms. Taylor for the CEO emphasised that in these matters all other considerations must yield to the best interests of children. She referred to the Tribunal to the decision of Philippides J. in the matter of Maher[1] where Her Honour said that the Tribunal must identify any risk factors and protective factors.

[1]CCYPCG v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492.

Ms. Taylor submitted that the protective factors in this case include the stable, gainful contribution made by the applicant. She referred to the positive statements made by the various witnesses and acknowledged that the steps that have been taken by the applicant are commendable. She accepted that he is attempting to be a positive role model, engage with the community and establish a good home environment.

She said that the witnesses made positive observations about how the applicant is a good father, role model and approachable person. She accepted that the witnesses demonstrated genuine respect for the applicant. She also acknowledged that the applicant's recent behaviour would appear to be “out of character”.

However, she pointed out that any weight to be attributed to the evidence of the witnesses must be tempered by the limited knowledge that they had displayed regarding the applicant’s offending. She also submitted that there was little corroborating evidence to support the applicant's position.

Ms. Taylor also contended that there were some significant risk factors that need to be considered. She pointed out that the applicant has a criminal history extending from 1997 until 2013, a period of almost 16 years. She pointed out that his history contained examples of violent behaviour and a lack of anger management.

Ms Taylor drew the Tribunal’s attention to the case of Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Scott [No2] [2008] in the Western Australian Court of Appeal 171. At paragraph 128 of that decision Buss J.A. in discussing ‘risk” observed:-
“The analysis and evaluation of risk must be based on all the information and other material properly before the CEO. That material may include, in a particular case, the depositions and evidence of witnesses at a trial.”
Ms. Taylor accepted that the applicant was not convicted on the recent 2013 charges but argued that this was a result of prosecution problems with identification. She submitted that even on the applicant’s own evidence to the Tribunal, he admitted that he was involved in the incident.

The Tribunal notes the information provided at the hearing regarding the allegations received by the Police in relation to the incident on 31 December 2013. The Tribunal accepts that the charges have now been dealt with.

Further, Ms. Taylor pointed out that the applicant did not comment on a number of other issues that were put to him at the hearing.

She said that the applicant has demonstrated that he was not able to resist being involved. She said that this raised significant concerns. While the applicant’s strategies may work well in theory he has not demonstrated that he can put them into action in his daily life. He has the capacity to react impulsively and then to minimize his own responsibility for his actions. Of more concern, he has not demonstrated any insight into the impact of his behaviour on others, particularly children.

The Outcome?

Most of the applicant’s offending occurred as a juvenile and young adult. The evidence suggests that he was prepared to resort to violence in even quite ordinary situations. The CEO argues that despite the applicant’s present maturity and his acquisition of skills and strategies to diffuse conflict and to manage volatile adolescent behaviour, there are ongoing concerns about his ability to manage his own aggression. There is an ongoing risk that he will react violently to conflict situations, particularly involving his family.

The CEO submits that the recent charges are concerning because the alleged offending occurred at the complainant's home in the presence of at least three children. The CEO points out that children and young people have a right to be cared for in safe environments that are free from violence. People who work with children and young people are required to ensure that the safety and well-being of children and young people is the main consideration.

The applicant has provided a number of character references all of which described him as a good person, a good family man and a good role model. Unfortunately, at best these referees demonstrated only limited knowledge of the applicant's previous offending.

The applicant forcefully denied the police allegations in relation to the most recent alleged offending but did not offer any reasonable explanation for the police allegations.

If the applicant were to be issued a Blue card, then the effect would be that he would be able to work in any child related employment or conduct any child related business regulated by the Act. This goes far beyond the purpose for which the applicant is seeking a Blue card.
The task for the Tribunal is set out in section 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (the Act). If the Tribunal is satisfied that it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for it to issue a positive notice, the Tribunal must issue a negative notice to the person.
The approach to be taken by the Tribunal in considering whether this is an “exceptional” case is set out in the Appeal decision of Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v. FGC [2011] QCATA 291. The Tribunal “… is to consider its application in each case unhampered by any special meaning or interpretation”.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities but there is no onus of proof on either the applicant or the respondent[2]. The Tribunal is guided by the decision of Philippides J. in the decision of Maher[3] which requires that the Tribunal must consider the risk factors and the protective factors.
[2] McDonald v Director General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57.
[3]Commissioner for Children and People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492.
The Tribunal accepts the CEO’s submission that there are some protective factors in this case;
·      The stable, gainful contribution made by the applicant;
·      The positive statements made by the various witnesses that he is a highly regarded member of the community;
·      The steps that he has taken to improve his life for his and his family’s benefit; and
·      His desire to be positive role model, preserve the culture of his people, engage with the community and establish a good home environment.
However there are also some significant risk factors. The CEO says that the applicant has not:
·      Adequately addressed the triggers for his violent behaviour;
·      Displayed sufficient insight into his behaviour to prevent a re-occurrence of similar conduct; and
·      Acknowledged and understood the impact of his alleged offending behaviour and its relevance to the continuation of a Blue card so as to allow him to care for the safety and well-being of children.
Section 226(2) of the Act requires that the Tribunal has regard to whether the alleged offence is a conviction or a charge. The evidence is that the most recent offences were dismissed. The only offence for which the applicant appears to have been convicted is not considered to be a serious offence under the Act. As a result the Tribunal must issue a positive notice to the applicant unless it decides that this is an exceptional case.
The applicant has a record of offending extending from 1997 to 2013. During this period there were a number of charges where the alleged offences involved violence in the presence of children or young people.
The last occasion on which the applicant was involved in a violent incident was in December 2013 in front of his own children at the home another family. The versions of the event are strongly disputed by the applicant but the Tribunal accepts that it is likely that the incident resulted in injuries to the other party and that a number of children were present at the time.
The Tribunal considers that the applicant has attempted to minimise the seriousness of his involvement in the incident. In his final submissions he continued to strongly assert his innocence by pointing out that the matter did not proceed and he was found not guilty. In any event he claimed that he acted in self-defence.
He also sought to minimise the serious domestic violence event in 2000, that he admitted “happened as reported” by referring to it as a “domestic quarrel” and not being prepared to address it in a responsive manner when giving evidence.
What is clear to the Tribunal is that the applicant seeks to attribute blame for his previous alleged behaviour to alcohol or other persons. He seeks to limit his own responsibility for these incidents. He has provided only limited evidence to indicate how he would act if placed in a similar situation in the future.
His history of violent responses suggests that he does not react well to such situations. It was only after considerable prompting that he said that he would involve the police in the future if he was in a situation similar to the events of December 2013.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated any insight into his actions. He has made no effort in this application to address the impact that his previous behaviour may have had on children. He has continually asserted that he is a good man and he wants to be a good role model for children but has not addressed the core issues around his violent behaviour.
The applicant has not undertaken any professional counselling regarding his actions and has not provided the Tribunal with any independent professional evidence regarding any risk that he may pose to the welfare of any children in his care.
The Tribunal finds that it is concerning that the applicant continues to drink alcohol although he claims that it is to a lesser degree. His own evidence was that he doesn’t drink now because he doesn’t want it around his sons. He then claims that he doesn’t have a problem – “ a 6 pack - that’s me”.
The Tribunal places great weight on the Commissioner's submissions that the Tribunal must consider the best interests of children and not any detriment or benefit to the applicant that may arise if he were not to get a Blue card. The Tribunal is very conscious of the fact that a failure to get a Blue card will have a significant impact on the applicant and his family.
The Tribunal has taken into account that the applicant has been convicted of an offence that is not defined as serious and that the most recent charges have been dealt with on the basis of the Prosecution not offering any evidence. The Tribunal remains concerned that the incident involved the applicant’s own children and another family. These matters are directly relevant to child related employment.
The applicant has maintained a strong sense of entitlement to be granted a Blue card but the Tribunal considers that he demonstrated a clear unwillingness to reflect on his actions. He continued to rationalise and justify his position in a very assertive manner.
The Tribunal must address the fact that a Blue card is transferable. It accepts the CEO’s submissions that the effect of granting the applicant a Blue card would be that he would able to go out into the community with the authority of the CEO and work in any child-related employment or conduct any child-related business as regulated by the Act.
The Tribunal accepts that the CEO does not have the power to issue a conditional Blue card. It is fully transferable across all areas of employment and businesses regulated by the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that he has addressed the concerns articulated by the CEO.
Overall, the Tribunal found the applicant to be an unconvincing witness. He couldn't remember the details of criminal offences in his past and was unable to relate his versions of what had occurred in a credible manner. The Tribunal was left with a sense that the applicant thought that explanations could jeopardize his application. The Tribunal's formed the view that his case would have benefited from being more “frank and open” and perhaps less assertive and self-serving. This may have demonstrated that he had learned from his previous experiences.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would act any differently in the future if his sons got into a difficult situation. His clear attitude was to go and confront the other party and sort it out. He was unable to demonstrate any understanding about the impact his behaviour might have on any children involved.
However, there is a tension in this case because there are aspects of the applicant's case, which suggest that he is a good person who has made some mistakes but is endeavouring to do something about them. He has apparently demonstrated unique and valuable skills in managing challenging behaviours in extreme situations in the Detention Centre. However he has not demonstrated any insight into how he might manage his own impulsive reactions to personal conflict situations.
The applicant may benefit from obtaining counselling with respect to his management of his anger, stress and mood related behaviour. The Tribunal would encourage the applicant to reapply for a Blue card in the future when he can demonstrate that he has addressed the issues that have been identified.
The Tribunal must decide whether the applicant’s case is an exceptional one. Having reviewed all of these matters the Tribunal has come to the view that this is an exceptional case where on the balance of probabilities it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to issue to the applicant at this point in time
The Tribunal orders that the CEO’s decision to refuse the applicant a positive notice and a Blue card is confirmed.
The Tribunal has determined that it is in the applicant’s children’s best interests and in the interests of justice that a confidentiality order be made in these proceedings so that the children are not able to be identified in any way.
Pursuant to section 66 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal prohibits the publication of the names of the applicant and his children and the names of the witnesses. The Reasons will be published in a de-identified format.