Sargent v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency - [2016] QCAT 333

CITATION:

Sargent v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 333

PARTIES:	Daryl Scott Sargent (Applicant)
v
Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

CML095-16

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

HEARING DATE:

13 September 2016

HEARD AT:

Hervey Bay

DECISION OF:

Member Milburn

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Hervey Bay

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency on 8 April 2016 to issue a negative notice to the applicant is set aside.

2. The tribunal substitutes its own decision.

3. The tribunal declares that the applicant’s case is not an exceptional case within the meaning of section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000.

4. The tribunal orders publication of the decision pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

BLUE CARD – EXCEPTIONAL CASE – where applicant has a criminal history – where none of the offences were serious or disqualifying – criminal history of drugs and disorderly conduct, but no direct impact upon children – where applicant’s positive notice was cancelled by the Public Safety Business Agency – where review sought so the applicant can continue in non-child related employment – where the protective factors outweigh the risk factors – whether the applicant’s case is exceptional

PUBLICATION ORDER – where it is not contrary to the public interest to identify the name of the applicant

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) ss 5, 6, 167, 221, 360
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 20, 24, 66

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v. Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492
Volkers v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 243
Commission for Young People v (2002) 56 NSWLR 476

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Daryl Scott Sargent

RESPONDENT:

John J. Thompson, counsel for the respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

The applicant was born in 1971 and grew up in South Australia before moving to Queensland in his 20s. He has a number of criminal convictions that primarily relate to illicit substance use and public order matters. His criminal history is lengthy, spanning approximately 17 years until May 2012, but is punctuated by lengthy periods of time where he did not suffer convictions.
Approximately 9 years ago, the applicant reskilled and began work as a disability support worker. He began work with a local support agency and in 2007, as a work requirement, he obtained a blue card. Given that his work did not actually require him to work with children, he did not renew it when it expired.
Later, the applicant’s employer was effectively taken over by Endeavour Foundation. Endeavour Foundation adopted a policy requiring all staff to hold a blue card even though, as was the case with the applicant, his work was not child-related as such.
That caused the applicant to apply for blue card status once again.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sargent v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Ag...

Details

AGLC: Sargent v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 333
Case: [2016] QCAT 333
Decision Date: 19 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sargent v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Chief Executive Officer to issue a negative notice to the applicant, which effectively prevented the applicant from continuing in non-child-related employment. The applicant, who had a history of minor criminal offences related to drugs and disorderly conduct but no offences that had a direct impact on children, sought to challenge the decision to cancel their positive notice, arguing that their case was exceptional under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000.

The central legal issues before the tribunal involved whether the applicant's criminal history constituted an exceptional case as defined by the Act, and whether the issuance of a negative notice was appropriate given the nature and impact of the applicant's past offences. The tribunal had to balance the risk factors posed by the applicant's criminal history against the protective factors, which included the non-serious nature of the offences and their lack of direct impact on children.

The tribunal found that the applicant's case did not fall within the definition of an exceptional case. The tribunal reasoned that although the applicant had a criminal history, the offences were not serious or disqualifying and did not directly impact children. The tribunal considered the protective factors, including the nature of the offences and the applicant's potential for rehabilitation, to outweigh the risk factors. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the Chief Executive Officer's decision and substituted its own decision, declaring that the applicant's case was not exceptional. The tribunal also ordered that the decision be published, finding it not contrary to the public interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency on 8 April 2016 to issue a negative notice to the applicant is set aside.

2. The tribunal substitutes its own decision.

3. The tribunal declares that the applicant’s case is not an exceptional case within the meaning of section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000.

4. The tribunal orders publication of the decision pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.