SDE v Director-General, Department of Justice - [2025] QCAT 351

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

SDE v Director-General, Department of Justice [2025] QCAT 351

PARTIES:

SDE

(applicant)

v

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

CML375-23

MATTER TYPE:

Childrens matters

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Paratz AM

ORDERS:

1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice, that the Applicant’s case is ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of s 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (Qld), is confirmed.

2. The publication of the name of the applicant, his family, and witnesses, or material filed in these proceedings, other than as referred to in these Reasons; is prohibited pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – BLUE CARD – application to review a negative notice – whether this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the applicant to be given a working with children clearance – where the applicant had life-long mental health issues and suffered from a number of medical conditions – where the applicant had convictions for breach of domestic violence related orders, and for stalking – where the Applicant did not provide appropriate medical professional evidence

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 66, Division 3

Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (Qld), s 221

BPM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 286
RPG v Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331
Vaeau v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCATA 142

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

P. McNeill (Legal Officer)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Acting Director of Blue Card Services (Screening Services), Department of Justice and Attorney-General (‘the Department’) made a decision to cancel a blue card held by SDE and to issue a negative notice under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act2000 (‘the Act’) on 9 November 2023.
SDE filed an Application to review the decision in the Tribunal on 16 November 2023.
The Application was heard in a one day oral hearing before me on 26 May 2025. SDE conducted the proceedings as a self-represented litigant. He was assisted by a support person, Mr Thorpe, who described himself as the Founder and Principal of the ‘Blue Card Negative Notice Support Group’.
SDE made oral closing submissions at the hearing.
I gave directions for the Department to file written closing submissions, which were filed on 6 June 2025.
SDE made final written closing submissions in Reply, which were filed on 12 June 2025, and were noted as having been prepared with the assistance of Mr Thorpe.

The Department’s Reasons

The Department stated in its reasons for its decision that ‘an exceptional case exists in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a blue card to be issued to the applicant’[1] and referred to the following issues:[2]
· While the applicant’s eligibility for a blue card was previously assessed and he was considered eligible, he has since been convicted of two further domestic violence related offences. When these offences are considered in conjunction with his prior offending, the concerns raised that the applicant has not addressed the triggers to his offending. As such, all of the entries on the applicant’s criminal history are highly relevant and will be considered in the reassessment of the applicant’s eligibility to continue to hold a blue card.
· The applicant has multiple convictions for antisocial, threatening and harassing behaviour that raise concerns regarding his eligibility to continue to hold a blue card. This has included the following:
oIn July 2015, the applicant allegedly engaged in stalking and intimidating behaviours towards his ex-partner where he verbally threatened her, allegedly stating he was going to shoot the complainant and her parents and get custody of their daughter.
oIn August 2015, the applicant was convicted of two counts of contravening a domestic violence order by breaching a no- contact condition and contacting the complainant in excess of 551 times through text messages and phone calls.
oIn May 2017, the applicant contravened a domestic violence order by attending the complainant’s address in breach of the order and engaging in an argument with the complainant. During the argument, it is alleged that the applicant threatened to kill the complainant. The complainant consequently barricaded herself in her daughter’s room.
oBetween January 2022 and November 2022, the applicant engaged in stalking and intimidating behaviours towards the complainant in breach of a domestic violence order. The applicant called and messaged the complainant incessantly and made threats to take his life. The applicant also sent the complainant photographs of him progressively driving to her house and attended the outside of a residence belonging to an ex-partner of the complainant. The applicant’s conduct caused the complainant to feel concerned and harassed.
oFollowing the applicant’s interactions with police in relation to his offending in 2022, the applicant was taken for an emergency examination authority after he called police stating he was going to kill the people in his house, namely his father and grandmother.
[1]Reasons for the decision to issue a negative notice of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, 9 November 2023, [8].
[2]Ibid.
The Department expressed that the applicant’s offending and alleged offending was inconsistent with the behaviour expected of a person entrusted to care for the safety and well-being of children in activities regulated by the Act;[3] and expressed concern:
(a)about his ability to restrain his aggressive and intimidating conduct even in the presence of children;[4]
(b)that the applicant’s police and domestic violence information demonstrates that he has repeatedly engaged in threatening and domestically violent behaviour between 2012 and 2022; and
(c)that the applicant’s offences ranged from when he was only 18 years of age to his latest offending when he was 36 years of age and did not demonstrate maturity to have understood the criminal nature of its behaviour and its impact on others; and
(d)that the applicant’s offending in 2015 and 2022 occurred while he was a holder of a blue card, and the Department cannot be assured that if the applicant were issued with a further blue card this would deter him from further offending.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Ibid.

Evidence of SDE

SDE gave oral evidence, and was cross-examined on that evidence. He did not call any witnesses for oral examination. He had proposed to call his partner to give evidence, but she was at work and was uncontactable and did not give evidence.
SDE said that he was currently employed by an organisation as an NDIS support worker.
SDE did not dispute the facts alleged by the Department as to any of the court proceedings.
He said that he was ‘against Domestic Violence’, and described it as ‘a scourge’.
In the course of his evidence, SDE made frequent criticism of the Department, as to their qualifications and as to their having ‘an agenda’, and that he was ‘calling Blue Card Services out for their mistakes and failings’, and described himself as a victim.
He accepted the convictions that were referred to, and said that he was going through medical issues at the time related to his testosterone levels, and that he was in therapy for that still. He said that he still had ‘scars’ from having been sexually assaulted in the course of his work as a carer.
He said that he can now confidently say that he ‘can handle matters’ and is under therapy and medication.
SDE was asked about saying that he was going to kill people and slit their throats, but explained that he was delusional at the time, and that this was not directed at actual people, but was a cry for help, as if he went to ‘mental health’ they would have made him wait for hours; and that the behaviour hasn’t been repeated.
He said that he was 39 years of age, was in therapy and takes medication. He said that he has to ‘take my responsibility for my actions’ but has to question inconsistencies in the material alleged by the Department.
He said that he was previously a binge drinker, but now lives a healthy life, and doesn’t smoke or drink.
A Probation Order for a period of 18 months was made against SDE on 8 February 2023 by a Magistrates Court in South-East Queensland after his conviction for an offence of ‘unlawful stalking – domestic violence offence’ committed between 11 January 2022 and 13 November 2022.
SDE was asked about comments in material which was obtained from Queensland Corrective Services (‘QCS’) in relation to his probation. That material contained observations made on 14 March 2023 that he ‘continues to present with anti-authority opinions’.[5]
[5]Queensland Corrective Services, Offender File, p 32 (NTP-104).
SDE said that his comments and behaviour at the time were affected by his medical condition. The QCS material noted on 4 April 2023 that ‘(SDE) stated he was recently prescribed TNT by his GP. This is a testosterone replacement program as his levels are not accurate currently due to a history of steroid abuse’.[6]
[6]Ibid p 23 (NTP 102).
The QCS material noted on 19 December 2023 that he said that he was being victimised by the Court, QCAT and Police, and reported that he remained engaged with his psychologist on a fortnightly basis and that his next appointment would be his tenth visit.[7]
[7]Ibid p 4 (NTP 83).
SDE said that he agreed that he has anger management issues which relate to his anxiety and depression for which he has medication.
He said that ‘it wasn’t the best probation’.
He said that his depression and anxiety is now being treated, that he is in constant contact with his doctor and therapist, and had an appointment with his therapist the day after the hearing. He said he was being medicated for his conditions, and has recently been diagnosed with sleep apnoea. He said that his GP suggested he may also have ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) and he wanted to have that diagnosed.
He said that he was rehabilitated, and was determined not to repeat his bad behaviour. He said that he was continuing to have sessions on symptom reduction, coping strategies and emotional regulation.
He was asked if he had obtained health reports for the purposes of the hearing, and replied that he hasn’t been able to afford a report and that there are long waiting lists to obtain one.
He described himself as having chronic current conditions of Testosterone deficiency; Hashimoto’s disease; Depression; Anxiety; and Hypogonadism. He identified specific medication he was taking for those conditions. He expressed the view that once this application was ‘out of the way’ that he would be good.
He said he currently lives with relatives, and that his daughter lives with her mother in another State and that he does not have regular contact with his daughter.

Evidence filed by SDE

SDE filed a substantial amount of material which filled a large ring binder. The material was referred to in the course of the hearing, and in the course of submissions.
I will not attempt to list, or outline all of that material, which included extensive emails to and from SDE, and commentary by him.

Evidence of the Department

The Department relied on a very substantial amount of material which had been filed in the matter.
It provided material in accordance with section 21(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) (being ‘any document or thing in the decision-maker’s possession or control that may be relevant to the Tribunal’s review of the decision’) as follows:
(a)1,149 pages (BCS 001-BCS 1149);
(b)173 pages (NTP 001 to NTP 173) comprised of material obtained from courts; the Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services; Queensland Corrective Services, the Queensland Police Service; and the New South Wales Police Force;
(c)2 related USB data sticks.
SDE did not seek to cross-examine on that material.

Submissions of SDE

SDE made oral closing submissions. He said that he believes he deserves a second chance. He was critical of Blue Card Services, and said that they do not protect human rights.
He acknowledged that he has made mistakes in the past. He said that he is engaged with his Doctor, and has had mental health issues which are now being addressed.
He said that Blue Card Services are not giving him a chance.
He said he has dealt with sexual harassment, and has been assaulted, and has dealt with difficult clients as a carer. He said that if he can deal with difficult clients, he can deal with children. He said that he is more than capable of being around children, and has young relatives who he is around.
He referred to his role in breaking up a paedophile ring that was operating in a suburb he has contact with, and said that he has done more for child safety than Blue Card Services has done, whilst working with very little resources.
He submitted that he is medically stable now, and had proved that.
He said that he hates domestic violence, and that it is heartbreaking to be put in that category. He said that he just wants to get back to work, as he is facing poverty, his human rights are being breached, and his prime objective is working with children. He said he had a lot of lived experience, and had a lot of skills. He said that he had never hurt children.
He agreed that he had punched holes in the wall of a house in one of the events leading to charges, but was now ashamed of that and would never do anything like that again.
He said that he had a stable relationship, and that his partner was aware of his circumstances.
He said that he did not have the funds to see a forensic psychiatrist.
He referred to a decision of the Tribunal in BPM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[8] as an example of a decision of the Department being set aside ‘in a similar case’.
[8][2022] QCAT 286.

Submissions of the Department

The Department filed an Outline of Submissions prior to the hearing, and filed Closing Submissions after the hearing which referred to, and relied on the earlier Outline of Submissions.
The Department noted the volume of correspondence and material which had been sent to it, and/or filed by, SDE in the matter, and commented as follows as to his material:[9]
11. The respondent notes that the applicant has filed an application to review a decision.
12. The respondent otherwise notes that the applicant has emailed the respondent on approximately 130 occasions. The nature of those emails ranges from administrative, to substantive, to abusively vitriolic. Some of the emails have been sent to the Tribunal only but later forwarded to the respondent, some of the emails have been sent to both the Tribunal and the respondent simultaneously, and some of the emails have been sent to only the respondent. The respondent is unaware whether there have been further emails the applicant has sent only to the Tribunal without forwarding to the respondent.
[9]Respondent's Outline of Submissions, 28 April 2025, [11]–[12].
The Department noted that SDE had been charged and convicted of offences within the meaning of the Act as follows:[10]
[10]Ibid [45].
45. The applicant’s criminal history contains convictions for the following offences:
a)wilful destruction of property which is part of a school/education Centre/College/University or other educational institution (on 15/12/2003)
b)commit public nuisance (on 01/08/2009)
c)contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic)
d)contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic)
e)contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic)
f)unlawful stalking (domestic violence offence) (between 22/09/2022 and 13/11/2022)
g)contravention of domestic violence order (between 26/09/2022 and 13/11/2022)
It submitted that the relevance of the offences by SDE to employment or carrying on a business that involves or may involve children relates to:[11]
(a)his offending on various dates that involved offending that is domestically violent, and
(b)the offending raises questions about his ability to manage his anger, regulate emotions, judge appropriate behaviour, exercise sound judgement and respond to situations of stress or conflict in a manner that is rational and law-abiding.
(c)his offending suggests that he may not be able to judge appropriate behaviour and therefore present as a positive role model to children.
(d)his offending raises concerns regarding his respect for the law and lawful behaviour.
[11]Ibid [50].
The Department submitted that SDE was not forthright on many occasions, and referred to a meeting note made on 12 March 2024 by his Probation Officer, which noted as follows:[12]
(SDE) presented with an overwhelmingly poor attitude to today’s appointment. He constantly spoke over the writer and was asked not to on several occasions – he appeared to make no effort to hold a respectful conversation.
(SDE) failed to answer any questions posed by the writer, constantly diverting attention to his victimisation in DV and ‘Men in court’ contexts. He proceeded to harm minimise and victim blame in relation to his offending behaviours.
When it was raised with (SDE) that he was failing to engage adequately and that he continues to display DV aligning attitudes, (SDE) argued that he had attended 10 counselling sessions and that the writer held no clinical qualifications to make the aforementioned assessments.
(SDE) was unable to identify any domestic violence related support that he had received during counselling aside from ‘lip serving’ the criminal justice system in relation to his sentence.
(SDE) verbalised that he attended the office to ‘tick a box’ and that any further conversation would be a ‘waste of (his) time’ and ‘a breach of his Human Rights’. The interview was terminated due to (his) poor presentation noting none of the interview presented as of any value.
[12]Ibid [80] (NTP 81).
The Department submitted that there is substantial material before the Tribunal to raise concerns in relation to SDE’s insight into an understanding of the concerning nature of his offending behaviour, or other behaviours of concern in the terms of section 221 of the Act.[13]
[13]Ibid [82].
The Department submitted that the material suggested that SDE’s mental health may have been a contributing factor towards his criminal conduct and otherwise for his behaviour of concern, and that the Tribunal should be satisfied that the mental illness is appropriately managed such that the risk of further offending or repetition of any behaviours of concern is adequately mitigated.[14]
[14]Ibid [87], [90].
It submitted overall that:[15]
99. Overall, the applicant’s offending, alleged offending, domestic violence information and all other material produced to the Tribunal raises questions about the degree to which the applicant may pose a risk to children and young people who may be in his care in addition to concerns raised about the applicant’s forthrightness, insight and mental health.
[15]Ibid [99].
In its closing submissions the Department referred to the submissions of SDE as to the importance of work to him, but submitted that any hardship or prejudice that may flow to SDE as a result of any potential adverse decision is not a relevant consideration which the Tribunal is entitled to consider, and referred to the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in Vaeau v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General[16] where it observed as follows:
… the paramount consideration is the welfare and best interests of children. It is clear from the authorities that any hardship or prejudice to an applicant such as Ms Vaeau is irrelevant in deciding the proceeding.
[16][2021] QCATA 142, [52].

As to forthrightness, and the ability to handle stress, the Department referred to the conduct and comments of SDE at the hearing, when he was asked about having made threats to kill people, namely his father and grandmother, in a telephone call to police on 8 September 2022,[17] and submitted as follows:[18]
27. The applicant was also specifically taken to a submission wherein he stated:
For example I have never made threats or engaged in threatening behaviour there is no written threats from me such as text messages or documents, there is no evidence such as me being caught on film engaging in threatening behaviour, there is multiple allegations that I’ve threaten to kill the applicants, applicant’s family and my own family. None of these have ever been proven there’s no text messages or written statements. I refute this biased accusations, police and applicants have agendas.[19]
The applicant responded by stating that he made threats to an imaginary person and that we can’t live in Peter Pan’s imaginary world. The applicant then, in a particularly heightened state, said he wanted to go to the toilet and repeated that it was irrelevant, it was irrelevant.
28. The Respondent notes that the recording of this phone call is in evidence before the Tribunal and it speaks for itself – the applicant did threaten to kill people, despite his previous protestations to the contrary, and the Tribunal can be satisfied of same.
29. In the respondent’s submission, the applicant’s evidence in relation to this aspect of the hearing is bizarre, unbelievable and highly concerning. The respondent submits that this aspect of the hearing is highly relevant in so far as it demonstrates the manner in which the applicant has responded to situations of stress or conflict in the past, it suggests a possible risk to children of both emotional and physical harm (particularly noting the applicant is alleged by his father to have been threatened and chased by the applicant with a knife), and despite the applicant’s assertion that he was not lying and his accompanying assertion that the respondent’s representative was lying or otherwise manipulating the circumstances, the respondent submits that the Tribunal would be satisfied that the applicant is not a witness of credit.
[17]BCS-41.
[18]Respondent’s closing submissions [27]–[29].
[19]BCS 1122.
As to rehabilitation, the Department noted[20] that SDE’s offending in relation to the contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic) between 13 July 2015 and 5 August 2015 involved excessive contact on 551 occasions, something which the applicant accepted at the hearing of this matter;[21] and that his offending in relation to the AVO on 9 August 2015[22] again involved contact breaches, which the applicant accepted were numerous text messages.[23]
[20]Respondent’s closing submissions [38].
[21]BCS 35–36.
[22]Respondent’s closing submissions [39].
[23]BCS 33–34.
The Department then noted the comments of the Presiding Magistrate when SDE was sentenced on 8 February 2023 as to his behaviour:[24]
It is a – it is fair to say protracted campaign of you not desisting and contacting your ex-partner over a period of a couple of months.
What is identified in the material is that it causes some real concern and there is - it is just the sheer volume of the calls and the contact that bring you before the court with a – a stalking charge, as opposed to just a contravene.
[24]Respondent’s closing submissions [40].
The Department submitted that the conduct of SDE in the aftermath of being issued a negative notice ‘has the same or a similar character to his offending behaviour’,[25] and together with what the respondent submits are concerns regarding the applicant’s credibility, suggest that ‘the applicant has not yet rehabilitated from whatever triggers or mental health concerns existed to cause that behaviour in the past.’[26]
[25]Ibid [45].
[26]Ibid [46].
As to insight, the Department submits that there are substantial concerns raised regarding SDE’s insight, and noted that ‘For example, a very substantial quantity of the applicants filed material is focused on perceived wrongs of his ex-partner’s, of perceived wrongs of the police, and of perceived wrongs of the respondent’.[27]
[27]Ibid [56].
The Department acknowledged that SDE gave evidence that appeared to suggest that he was wrong to engage in his offending behaviour, and his stated rehabilitation from the same suggests an acceptance of the problematic nature of the offending behaviour’,[28] but that it is a genuine insight which is of significance, and that the Tribunal would have difficulty in accepting that SDE has the requisite insight.[29]
[28]Ibid [59].
[29]Ibid [60].

Reply Submissions of SDE

The Reply submissions by SDE were prepared with the assistance of Mr Thorpe, and are presented in a clearly different format as to setting out, and use of language, to his previous submissions and correspondence.
He submits that the Department’s closing submissions ‘rely on mischaracterisations of fact, selective legal citations, and systemic disregard for procedural fairness in human rights obligations’.[30]
[30]Applicant’s final submission to Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 12 June 2025, [1].
It is notable that the submissions raise issues as to SDE having disabilities which impaired his capacity to conduct the proceedings:[31]
The respondent’s submissions fail to engage with the applicant’s documented disabilities (generalised anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and metabolic dysfunction), which directly impaired his capacity to present evidence and respond to allegations during proceedings. This constitutes a breach of section 24 (2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (C’wealth) which mandates reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities in administrative processes.
[31]Ibid [1].
The submissions refer to ‘Proportionality under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)’ and submit that the Department’s decision imposes a ‘disproportionate limitation on the applicant’s rights’ by:[32]
· Failing to consider less restrictive means of mitigating risk (e.g. workplace supervision)
· Disregarding the applicant’s stable employment history and lack of child-related incidents.
[32]Ibid [2.2].
His submission identifies that SDE’s diagnosed conditions ‘directly impaired his organisational capacity and stress management’[33] and that the Tribunal’s failure to intervene under section 58 of the Human Rights Act2019 (Qld) rendered the hearing process fundamentally unfair.
[33]Ibid [3.1].
He submits that his risk profile is negligible, and is evidenced by:[34]
· Zero child-related incidents over several years in disability support roles.
· Compliance with probation post-2023 (despite respondent’s misleading claims as the respondent is prone).
[34]Ibid [5].
As to rehabilitation, SDE submits that he has demonstrated sustained rehabilitation through:[35]
·      Voluntary engagement with mental health services since 2022.
·      Stable employment in disability support roles (references submitted).
·      Compliance with court orders, as confirmed by Corrective Services records.
[35]Ibid [6.1].
As to expert evidence, SDE submits that the Department ‘dismissed expert psychological evidence without providing countervailing testimony’, contrary to section 108 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (right to evidence-based decisions), and section 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
SDE concludes his reply submissions seeking the following relief:[36]
[36]Ibid [9].
9. Conclusion and relief sought
The respondent’s decision is unlawful, disproportionate, and discriminatory.
The Tribunal must:
1.Set aside the negative notice under section 24 of the QCAT Act;
2.Issue a positive notice under section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld);
3.Refer the respondent’s conduct to the Queensland Human Rights Commission for investigation.
4.Consider as an option an immediate rehearing for (SDE) with legal representation afforded to him at cost to Blue Card Services if his application is unsuccessful given his clear difficulties of organisational skills and combined health conditions that should have been already addressed.

Sentencing remarks

The Department has filed sentencing remarks from the Court proceedings on 9 December 2015, 29 February 2016, 24 July 2017, and 8 February 2023.[37]
[37]BCS 1073–1088.
The proceedings in a Local Court in New South Wales on 9 December 2015 related to a breach of an Apprehended Violence Order on 13 July 2015. SDE said that ‘There was no threat or anything. The only time he contacted the aggrieved ‘was to find out information about my daughter.’[38]
[38]BCS 1084.
The Magistrate in that matter on 9 December 2015 made the following comments:
His Honour: You are convicted. I am going to place you on a good behaviour bond under s 9 for a period of 12 months.
It goes without saying, it is a condition of the bond that you strictly comply with the apprehended violence order.
Accused:Yep.
His Honour: Now, I’d advise you, if you want to see your child, get some legal advice. In most cases, and I hope it’s in your case, children do benefit by having a father in their lives, so do something about it. All right, you can go.
The proceedings on 29 February 2016 were before a different Magistrate in the same Local Court in New South Wales, and related to another contravention of an Apprehended Violence Order which occurred four days after the matter which was dealt with on 9 December 2015.
The Magistrate in that matter on 29 February 2016 noted there had been no further offending behaviour since August 2015, and made the following comments:[39]
His Honour: … I understand why you thought that you’d already been sentenced on this matter. The other offences only cover the period from July up until 5 August. I don’t know why the police have waited until now to do it. (SDE), given I’d have to have regard to considerations of totality, it would be my intention to deal with the matter by way of an order under 10A, that is to record a conviction but not impose further penalty.
[39]BCS 1087.
The proceedings on 24 July 2017 were before a Magistrate in a different local Court in New South Wales and dealt with a contravention of an Apprehended Violence Order.
The Magistrate in that matter on 24 July 2017 made the following comments:[40]
His Honour: Sir, if you continue to breach these orders, at some point someone – probably me – sitting here is going to say enough is enough. As you stand there today, I could lock you up for two years. Given this is a contact breach, I do not propose to lock you up for two years. I am not going to lock you up at all. I am going to deal with it by way of a fine and given this is the third time you are here, this will be the last time it is dealt with by final alone. If this sort of behaviour continues sir, we will start looking at community service which is a direct alternative to jail or we will start looking at jail.
[40]BCS 1073.
The proceedings on 8 February 2023 were before a Magistrate in South-East Queensland and dealt with a charge of stalking. The Magistrate referred to the sheer volume of calls and contact, as submitted by the Department, and further noted as to his mental health as follows:[41]
Her Honour: There is – it is clear, both from the Prosecution material and the submissions that have been made on your behalf, you had some significant mental health issues at the time and it is completely consistent with existence of those – of depression and anxiety. The breakup of the relationship that you effectively decompensated that is the basis that I am going to proceed to sentence. There is mention in the schedule of threats of suicide and some PTSD…
Defendant:Yep
Her Honour: …and it is not men… Mentioned in the other material. What is important in your matter, is that you have demonstrated some real insight into your mental health issues. Importantly, you self-referred yourself to a psychologist. In November 2022, you have attended four sessions. So you have started to take significant steps in relation to your own rehabilitation. You also are medicated. I also take into account that, as part of the factual matrix, there must’ve been some effect to you losing your job partway through that offending period and the effect that had on your mental health. You were taken to the hospital under an EEO.
[41]BCS 1077.
The Magistrate went on to discuss penalty as follows:[42]
Her Honour: Alright. Thank you. And that in itself, is relevant to my sentencing discretion today, that you have spent some time in custody. I accept the fact that employment is an important part in the stabilisation of mental health, and it is certainly in the community’s interest that you have positive supports in place, both retreatment and positive engagement in the community. It seems that you have done so in the past. There is – your Blue Card, obviously, is under review. I cannot do anything about that. I take it – that into account in the exercise of my discretion under section 12. But, ultimately, it is up to the Department as to what they do with it. So, in the circumstances, I accept – I am going to impose a penalty in relation to Charge 1, being the stalking, and convict; and not further punish in relation to Charge 2.
[42]BCS 1078.

Section 221 of the Act

Section 221(2)(b) of the Act provides as to whether an ‘exceptional case’ exists as follows:
221   Deciding application—no relevant information or conviction etc. for non-serious offence
(1)     The chief executive must issue a working with children clearance to the person if the chief executive—
(a)is not aware of any relevant information about the person; or
(b)is not required to issue a negative notice to the person under subsection (2).
(2)     The chief executive must issue a negative notice to the person if the chief executive—
(a)is aware of relevant information about the person; and
(b)is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance to the person.
(3)     For subsections (1) and (2), the following information about the person is relevant information—
(a)information that the person has—
(i)a charge for an offence other than a disqualifying offence; or
(ii)a charge for a disqualifying offence that has been dealt with other than by a conviction; or
Note—
For charges for disqualifying offences that have not been dealt with, see chapter 7, part 4, division 4 and sections 199, 295(1) and 296.
(iii)a conviction for an offence other than a serious offence;
(b)investigative information;
(c)domestic violence information;
(d)disciplinary information;
(e)adverse interstate WWC information;
(f)other information about the person that the chief executive reasonably believes is relevant to deciding whether it would be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance to the person.

Discussion

Whilst there is a great deal of material in this matter, the issues to be determined are clear, and not difficult to decide.
SDE strongly wishes to regain a Blue Card. He disputes the concerns of the Department, and has questioned its competence, its motives, and the validity of its decision.
The Tribunal’s role under Chapter 2, Part 1, Division 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) in conducting a review of the decision of the Department is to stand in the shoes of the decision-maker, and to make a decision based on the merits that is the correct and preferable decision.
I do not propose to enter into discussion of SDE’s complaints against the Department. That is not the role of the Tribunal in this matter.
The outcomes numbered 2, 3 and 4 that are sought by SDE in his Final Submissions in Reply are either not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, or are not appropriate. Those are the outcomes being sought of Orders to issue a positive notice (which has been clearly held to not be within jurisdiction);[43] to refer the Department’s conduct to the Queensland Human Rights Commission (which is not a matter related to the making of a fresh decision by the Tribunal); and granting an immediate rehearing if the application is unsuccessful (as the application itself will have been determined by this decision after a proper hearing and consideration).
[43]RPG v Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331, [27].
These Reasons will therefore only consider the issues properly raised by an Application to review a decision to cancel a blue card and issue a negative notice.
It is not disputed that SDE has convictions for breaches of domestic violence related orders, and for stalking. Those convictions range from the end of 2015 to the start of 2023, and are clearly matters for consideration.
I place particular significance on the conviction in 2023, and the Magistrate’s comments at that time.
SDE’s convictions for breaches of domestic violence related orders and stalking raise question as to his ability to handle conflict and to respond in an appropriate manner; as to his general health and mental health and their effect upon his ability to make good decisions; and whether any of his past behaviours or current presentation raise concerns as to the safety of his working with children.
SDE has clearly in the past displayed behaviours of responding to situations of personal conflict and stress with anger, threats, and damage to property. In order to satisfy the Tribunal that the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the decision of the Department, SDE would need to satisfy the Tribunal that such past behaviour is unlikely to re-occur.
It is striking that SDE in his Reply submissions has raised his general health and mental health conditions as being matters which not only previously affected him, but that they ‘directly impaired his capacity to prevent evidence and respond to allegations during proceedings’.[44] That submission can only be read as an acceptance that SDE has both general and mental health conditions that currently affect him adversely.
[44]Applicant’s Final Submission to Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 12 June 2025, [1].
Directions were given on 28 March 2024 requiring SDE to file statements of any witness, including any expert reports, by 4:00pm on 18 July 2024.[45]
[45]Directions, 28 March 2024, [3(a)].
SDE has filed very little health professional evidence, and no recent professional assessments from a psychologist or psychiatrist. Instead, he has relied upon his own assurances, and declarations, that he has developed coping mechanisms to deal with stress, and that his mental health issues are under control.
The health professional evidence that is before the Tribunal from 2022 is limited and inconclusive. It confirms his conditions of concern, and provides no indication that they would not remain of concern.
(a)A letter from a medical centre in south-east Queensland which is a referral to a specialist, and appears to be by a General Practitioner, dated 2 December 2022 notes as follows:[46]
[46]BCS 91.
Thank you for seeing (SDE) who is 36 years and a disability care worker, for an opinion and management regarding his depression and anxiety.
He was on (names drug) and this didn’t help.
We started him on (names drug) and we increased the dose. But his depression and anxiety has been worse.
(b)A letter from the same medical Centre in south-east Queensland, dated 5 December 2022, as follows:[47]
To whom it may concern
(SDE) have asked me to provide a character reference for him.
I have known (SDE) for over eight years.
He has been through a rough time since then being through a relationship breakdown and being not able to see his daughter. He has battled with mental health issues all his life.
He is prone to have angry outbursts and impulsive behaviour. But to the best of my knowledge he has never hurt anyone physically.
He can be quite emotional and this often makes him prone to make wrong decisions, like sending text messages to his ex-partner.
[47]BCS 90 (Exh 7).

The most recent health professional evidence that was provided is also inconclusive. This is a letter dated 8 May 2025 from Change Futures, an organisation which provides psychological counselling. It was written by a ‘provisional psychologist’ and provides information as to sessions that SDE has attended, and notes that he has ongoing mental health concerns, but does not come to any conclusions. I will set out the full letter for completeness:[48]
This is a support letter for (SDE)
(SDE) self-referred to Change Futures on 1 April 2025 to re-engage in psychological services.
(SDE) has attended (# of service contacts) 15 appointments face-to-face or via telehealth between 15 December 2022 and 1 May 2025. Five sessions were held in 2022, six sessions in 2023, two sessions in 2024, and one session on 23 January 2025 with other Change Futures practitioners. The most recent session was held face-to-face on 1 May 2025 with myself, provisional psychologist, (Names herself).
Service continuation: further sessions are planned at this stage.
(SDE) has recently re-engaged in psychology services and has asked me to provide this support letter to confirm his attendance of previous appointments and to confirm that future sessions have been planned.
(SDE) presented with a history of mental health concerns which were exacerbated by a previous relationship breakdown and resulting conflict that occurred prior to the original psychologist referral in December 2022. (SDE) has acknowledged that his conduct was inappropriate during this time (with regards to stalking behaviour) and is acutely distressed due to having his blue card revoked due to this incident and implications of this with regards to his future employment opportunities.
(SDE) has acknowledged and understands that I am not able to provide a forensic psychological assessment of him, however I can provide information that he has attended sessions and intends to continue to utilise psychological support.
(SDE) future sessions will focus on assessment and referrals to other health practitioners were appropriate), symptom reduction, coping strategies, and emotional regulation. Please consider the information provided in this report when determining the outcome of decisions made regarding (SDE).
[48]Letter from Change futures, 8 May 2025, (Exh 6).
SDE submitted that the 2022 QCAT decision in BPM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General[49] (‘BPM’) was an example of a decision of the Department being set aside ‘in a similar case’. That decision is of direct relevance in this matter, but rather than being an example of a similar case that benefits the arguments of SDE, it demonstrates the differences in SDE’s application by highlighting the great importance of an applicant obtaining appropriate health professional evidence as to their insight into their offending, and their manner of responding to situations of conflict and stress.
[49][2022] QCAT 286.
BPM committed offences of unlawful stalking and trespass in late 2019 to early 2020, and had also committed an earlier offence of unlawful stalking in 2010. The victim was the same woman in all three offences.[50]
[50]Ibid [3].
The Tribunal in BPM described the comments of a psychologist who gave a detailed report and evidence as follows:
[36]    The psychologist Mr Pershouse provided a detailed report dated 2 March 2022. He also gave oral evidence. He confirmed that BPM has attended numerous therapy sessions. Mr Pershouse described several psychometric tests carried out. His report also has a focus on whether there are indications of risk of BPM targeting children as sexual objects of interest. This is frankly a little surprising, as there has been no suggestion of paedophilic tendencies in BPM. I assume it must be a standard practice for Mr Pershouse in preparing such reports for legal proceedings. Mr Pershouse concluded that BPM poses a low risk of offending generally, and also specifically against children. Another conclusion was that BPM is unlikely to place his own needs before those of children under his care. Therapy and testing raised no concerns about emotional regulation and impulse control.
[37]    Mr Pershouse comments that BPM ‘impressed as being a particularly focused and essentially open individual’. Mr Pershouse considers that BPM has dysthymia, described as a ‘a long-term depressive condition … which in lay terms relates to sadness about self, or incomplete identity formation’. This warrants ‘ongoing support, monitoring and as-needed intermittent intervention to consolidate therapeutic gains’ in BPM as an individual who ‘responds positively to therapeutic engagement and personal challenge’.
[38]    In oral evidence, Mr Pershouse described BPM’s offending as related to him not looking after his mental health, but added that dysthymia itself does not give rise to behavioural risk. Mr Pershouse also commented that losing the role of pastor has been very stressful for BPM, but he has navigated it without relapsing or turning to a secret life. Mr Pershouse outlined potential risk factors, such as if BPM were not to continue looking after himself, and protective factors such as better self-understanding and growth in the marital relationship.
[39]    Mr Pershouse was very impressive under cross-examination. He demonstrated both command of his field and understanding of BPM. I place considerable weight on Mr Pershouse’s opinions.
In coming to a decision, the Tribunal relied heavily upon the evidence of the psychologist:
[60] Mr Pershouse was a highly credible witness. He conceded the limitations of psychological science. He satisfactorily answered questions put to him in cross-examination including why particular responses in tests did not invalidate his conclusions. While there might be unanswered and perhaps unanswerable questions about why BPM offended, the steps taken since in therapy and self-growth mitigate the risk of further offending of a similar nature. However, even if such a risk remains, it has no real bearing on child-related employment when one considers the wider picture. BPM has consistently demonstrated good judgment, emotional regulation, self-control, appropriate modelling, and similar relevant qualities, in the sphere of his child-related work over many years. There is no reason to anticipate that will change.
[61] As earlier explained, the object and principles of the Working with Children Act place the welfare, wellbeing, rights and interests of children, and their protection from harm, front and centre. The welfare and best interests of children are paramount. The human right of children to protection is relevant as well. Accordingly, when a person has broken the law, it is important to scrutinise their conduct and their circumstances to evaluate whether the best interests of children would not be served by that person holding a blue card.
[62] In BPM’s case, having regard not only to his offending but to the other circumstances discussed, I conclude that his is not an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for him to hold a working with children clearance.
The important message to be taken from BPM is the high importance of quality health professional evidence being obtained, and presented to the Tribunal, which addresses the relevant issues as to insight, treatment of any relevant conditions, and the likelihood of re-offending. SDE has not provided such evidence.
SDE said that he wasn’t able to afford a psychologist’s report, and that there are long waiting lists.
SDE said that he was undergoing current counselling at the time of the hearing, and in fact was going to see the psychologist from Change Futures the day after the hearing. He said that he was continuing to have sessions on symptom reduction, coping strategies, and emotional regulation.
The combination of SDE’s description of his own physical conditions and mental health issues, as related by him at the hearing, and as set out in his final submissions, together with the limited medical reports from 2022 and 2025 confirms that SDE does continue to suffer from a number of physical and mental health conditions which are ongoing. He receives only occasional counselling for these conditions, and receives ongoing medication, but his conditions are not shown by independent professional evidence to be resolved or properly managed, and to not be of ongoing concern.
I note particularly the comment of the sentencing Magistrate in 2023, referred to earlier, that SDE was only then starting to set forward on a path of rehabilitation:
So you have started to take significant steps in relation to your own rehabilitation.
SDE has not provided any satisfactory appropriately qualified health professional evidence (as was done in BPM) that would satisfy the Tribunal that his conditions, specifically those relating to depression, anxiety, anger management and impulse control, are not of concern; and that he is unlikely to further display behaviours from his past such as aggression, disrespect for authority, and mental health episodes, which are highly relevant in considering whether his is an ‘exceptional case’ under the Act.
In the absence of satisfactory evidence as to SDE’s insight into his past offending, and satisfactory reassurance that SDE is unlikely to offend in the future, or to engage in poor decision-making or poor behaviour, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the decision of the Department that his is an ‘exceptional case’ under the Act should be set aside, but rather is satisfied that the decision should be confirmed.
The order of the Tribunal will be that the decision of the Department, that SDE’s case is ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of s 221 of the Act, is confirmed.
SDE has requested that a non-publication order be made, which the Department does not oppose. I consider it is in the interest of SDE’s mental health, well-being, and in the interests of his child, that they not be identified, and order that the publication of his name, or of his family or witnesses, or material filed in these proceedings, other than as referred to in these Reasons, is prohibited pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).