SQR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General
[2021] QCAT 405
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
SQR v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 405
PARTIES:
SQR
(applicant)
v
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
CML109-20
MATTER TYPE:
Childrens matters
DELIVERED ON:
15 November 2021
HEARING DATE:
31 March 2021
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Paratz AM
ORDERS:
1. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the Applicant’s case is ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of section 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed.
2. The publication of any information that may enable the applicant, or any witnesses in the proceeding, to be identified, is prohibited pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – GENERALLY –
where the applicant seeks a blue card for working with children – where the applicant had committed offences of assault – where the offences were predominantly alcohol related – whether this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in best interests of children for the applicant to be issued a positive notice
Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 221(2)
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-Represented
Respondent:
C. Davis (In-House Solicitor)
REASONS FOR DECISION
SQR applied for a ‘blue card’ on 30 November 2018.
The Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General (the Department) issued a negative notice to SQR on 20 February 2020 pursuant to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (the Act).
SQR filed an Application to review the decision of the Department, to issue a negative notice to her, in the Tribunal on 19 March 2020.
SQR was seeking to continue employment as a customer service officer with a company which provided employment services.
This matter was heard by me at an oral hearing conducted by telephone on 31 March 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing, I gave directions for the filing of closing submissions, reserved my decision, and made a non-publication order. These are my reasons in the matter.
The offences
The Department submits that SQR has convictions over a protracted number of years for a range of offences, namely assaults against police and other persons unknown to her, and other anti-social offending, and that the nature and extent of the offences for which she has been convicted raises the possibility of a risk to children such that it would not be in the best interests of children for her to be issued with a working with children clearance and a blue card.[1]
[1]respondent's outline of submissions, 14 April 2021, [40-41].
The department notes that SQR’s offending was committed between 1992 and 2016, and that the offences of which she has been convicted are neither serious offences nor disqualifying offences under the Act.[2]
[2]Ibid [42-43].
The offences are summarised in the following table:
Year
Offence
Outcome
1992
Assault police (two charges)
resist police
convicted and fined $60 on each of the charges
1994
Aggravated assault on a female
convicted and fined $150
compensation $75
2000
Grievous bodily harm
conviction recorded
imprisonment 12 months
wholly suspended for a period of two years
2000
Obstruct police officer
convicted and fined $100
2002
Breach of suspended sentence (re: grievous bodily harm)
Common assault
suspended sentence activated in part, sentenced to imprisonment 3 months
conviction recorded, imprisonment 3 months to be served concurrently
2004
Serious assault
Public nuisance
Obstruct police officer
convicted and sentenced 3 months imprisonment
convicted and sentenced seven days imprisonment on each charge
2007
Obstruct police officer
Traffic matters
convicted and fined $1,750
disqualified from holding motor vehicle licence 15 months
2009
Assault or obstruct police officer
conviction recorded, probation 2 years
2014
Public nuisance
Convicted and fined $400
2016
Public nuisance – offensive behaviour in or near licensed premises
$706 enforcement order (SPER)
The grievous bodily harm charge in 2000 concerned SQR being involved in an altercation with a police officer at a hotel, where she punched the officer whilst holding a glass in her hand.
The assault charge in 2002 concerned SQR being involved in an altercation with a person in relation to two dogs being tied up outside a hotel, where she punched the person in the face with a closed fist.
The serious assault charge in 2004 concerned SQR punching a police officer in the face, striking the officer in the face and chest with her right knee, pulling the officer’s hair, striking the officer in the stomach and groin area with her knee, and scratching the officers face with her hand, in the course of police investigating a neighbourhood disturbance involving her.
The public nuisance charge in 2014 concerned SQR being removed by security staff from a hotel after refusing to leave the premises when asked, and becoming aggressive with police who were called to the incident, and threatening and abusing police.
The public nuisance charge in 2016 concerned SQR being involved in an incident at a hotel where the contents of a drink was spilled over patrons.
The Department’s submissions
The department raises queries as to how reliable SQR’s memory of the 2016 offence is, and submits that her witnesses were unable to corroborate her account at the hearing, and submit that her behaviour raises concerns as follows:[3]
65. The applicant’s evidence regarding the frequent loss of her handbag, poor memory of being fined, and poor memory of the most recent offending raises concerns about the nature and extent of her consumption of alcohol and the frequency of her engagement in inappropriate behaviour. Her violent and anti-social offending further raises concerns about her ability to judge appropriate behaviour and present as a positive role model.
[3]Ibid [65].
The Department submits that it remains concerned as to SQR’s issues with alcohol:[4]
89. In light of the above, the respondent remains concerned that the applicant has not yet adequately addressed the most significant factor relevant to her offending and, further, does not consider it a priority to do so. The applicant considers their own views and insight authority on the matter and does not consider it necessary to seek outside input or help. However, by her own admission, the applicant lacked insight into her problems with alcohol in the past, because she did not see it as a problem at the time but now accepts that it was. Accordingly, the respondent submits that the tribunal should exercise caution in accepting that the applicant has addressed, or in the alternative has adequately addressed issues with alcohol, particularly in the absence of expert or independent evidence that corroborates the applicant’s position.
[4]Ibid [89].
The Department refers to various notifications made in 1994, 2003 and 2006 to the Department of Children’s Services in relation to SQR’s treatment of her daughter, and exposure of her daughter to violent situations, and submits that SQR failed to provide her daughter with a protective environment and to protect her from harm.[5]
[5]Ibid [99].
The Department submits that the material suggests a lack of insight by SQR into the likely impact her behaviour has had on her daughter, the seriousness of her behaviour, and why the nature of her behaviour would present a concern for child-related employment.[6]
[6]Ibid [105].
The Department submits that overall, SQR has not demonstrated genuine remorse or insight into her past offending, and as to her ability to safeguard the best interests of children and young people in her care:[7]
137. Overall, the material suggests the applicant lacks the ability to manage aggression, has a propensity to react violently to situations of conflict (or indeed situations involving no conflict or provocation at all), is unable to judge appropriate behaviour, displays little to no regard for the safety and well-being of others, has little regard for the law and authority, and has been unable to express genuine remorse or insight.
138. The applicants continued and pervasive offending over a prolonged period of time reflects adversely on her ability to present as a positive role model to children in her care. Any apparent gap in her offending since June 2016 is not dissimilar to previous gaps in her offending and, further, should not be seen as anything more than a lack of evidence that she has continued to engage in inappropriate behaviour.
139. These matters are of direct relevance to the applicant’s eligibility to work with children because they suggest that the applicant is unable to judge and model appropriate behaviour. The applicant’s violent offending reflects poorly on her ability to safeguard the best interests of children and young people in care.
[7]Ibid [137-139].
SQR’s submissions
SQR submits that she does not dispute the seriousness of her offending and conviction between 1992 and 2016, and that she has taken the necessary steps to change her life. She submits that her previous offending in convictions were in part a result of the abusive relationship she was in, and that she has taken proactive steps to avoid re-offending.[8]
[8]Applicant’s written outline of submissions, 28 April 2021 [11-13].
SQR submits, and acknowledges, that her drinking in pubs and clubs were contributing factors to her previous offending and convictions, but that she has not attended a pub or club in over five years and is extremely remorseful for her actions and has taken responsibility for her conduct.[9]
[9]Ibid [14-17].
SQR points to her employment at the employment service provider as giving meaning to her life and reducing the risk of her re-offending.[10]
[10]Ibid [22].
Life Story
SQR submitted a document relating her life story. She relates a difficult upbringing. Her father committed suicide when she was four years old. Her mother remarried about two years later to a man who was verbally and mentally abusive to her and her siblings during the five years of that marriage. She experienced physical harm from her mother.
When she was 13 years old, her mother started another relationship that was physically abusive. She would spend her early teenage years at the pub either waiting for her mother to finish work, or working there herself, or waiting for her mother who was drinking.
She says that she lost respect for police officers when she was approximately 14 years old when she saw police officers drinking at her sister’s engagement party and saw them driving afterwards.
She left school when she was 15 years old and began working full-time, and started frequenting pubs and nightclubs and drinking alcohol. She used to get into a lot of verbal and fist fights at that time.
She became pregnant when she was 18 years old, but left her partner when she was seven months pregnant after an incident of domestic violence. When her daughter was a toddler she used to go out to pubs and clubs frequently.
SQR was imprisoned on two occasions, when her daughter was nine years old, and then 12 years old.
She said that she knows that alcohol played a huge part in the silly decisions she made.
She said that due to her age (late forties) physical ability and health, office work is her main priority. She is completing a certificate qualification in business administration to advance her career. In her employment at an employment agency she was doing administration work and working with youth and disability customers with whom she had a ‘fabulous rapport’.
She says that she feels ashamed and regretful of the crimes she has committed and the multiple stupid decisions she has made, and is very sorry for the hurt she has caused to her victims.
Evidence of SQR’s friends at the hearing
A female friend of SQR (1), who had known her for a very long time, gave evidence and said that she believed that SQR had changed, and does not get angry as she used to.
Another female friend of SQR (2) gave evidence that she had known SQR from living in the same neighbourhood when they were younger. She said that she knows that SQR has anxiety, but that it had not reached the point where she needed counselling, and that she talked to friends.
Friend 2 said that she was aware of SQR’s criminal history, and believed that SQR had moved on. She said there was a marked difference in SQR today, whereas violence used to be her first reaction.
Friend 2 said that she thinks SQR and her daughter had a falling out. She thought that SQR had definitely reduced her alcohol intake, is a social drinker, and doesn’t drink like she used to, and now just wants a quiet life.
Evidence of SQR at the hearing
SQR gave evidence that she was estranged from her daughter. She said that after her own mother had died, her daughter struggled, and ‘disrespected’ her ‘once too often’ and she asked her daughter to stay away from her 3 or 4 years ago.
She said that she would agree that she had become more of a ‘home-body’, and now has a close-knit group of friends she can trust, and does not want to go out as she did before.
She said that she was diagnosed as diabetic in 2014, and had changed her diet over the past four years. She thinks her previous diet did affect her mood, and that she used to drink a lot of rum and coke, and now still drinks rum but with ‘coke zero’.
She said that she had been to anger management and a psychologist since her last offence, but that the anger management program, which was years ago, did not help her as ‘they told me to go to a lookout and scream’.
She said that losing her job at the employment agency was one of the worst days of her life, and that in the ‘old days’ she would have gone to a pub in response, but was ‘okay’ instead.
She said that she had managed angry customers in her work at the employment agency, and had coped with difficult neighbours without responding herself, and had called police at least 15 times in relation to neighbourhood issues. She said that in the past she would have ‘got herself into all sorts of strife and mouthed off’ in such situations, but now handled the situation.
She said that she had suicidal ideation after her mother died in 2008, and had half a dozen sessions with mental health professionals in 2009.
She said that she had considered quitting alcohol, but that she likes a drink ‘now and then’.
She said that she doesn’t get angry now, but gets irritated and that she had ‘learnt to walk away’.
She said that she was diagnosed with anxiety three years ago and was on medication for a period.
She said that she had ‘stepped away’ from her previous behaviours and that ‘I am happy where I am’. She said that she had done a ‘full about-face’ and had even changed her first name in 2016.
Discussion
SQR had a very difficult and traumatic childhood. For a large part of her life she experienced abusive relationships, and misused alcohol.
She has a criminal history which features assaults and public nuisance. Notably many of those offences involved assaulting or resisting police. The offences are predominantly alcohol-related. She has served two periods of imprisonment.
She has not been charged with any offences since 2016, and says that she has changed her ways, and now wishes to live a quiet life. She maintains that she now handles her anger.
She wishes to obtain a blue card so she can continue in her work at an employment agency, which involves coming into contact with children.
The picture that emerges is that SQR has now sought a quiet life, and socialises with a small close group of mainly female friends, two of whom gave evidence at the hearing.
The two friends who gave evidence were very supportive of SQR and her attempts to rehabilitate herself.
SQR described strategies she has adopted to avoid violent confrontations – these include ‘walking away’ from conflict situations, significantly reducing her social interaction with others, and not frequenting hotels as she used to.
There are worrying aspects as to whether the tribunal can be satisfied that the previous behaviours of SQR, which were violent and alcohol-fuelled, are not likely to re-occur. Whilst it has been over five years since her last offence, there have been periods of that extent in her past between offending, and concerns must remain as to whether she would misuse alcohol in the future.
It is significant that she did not call any evidence from health professionals who could comment on the effectiveness of protective strategies she has adopted to manage her anger, and as to her potential future misuse of alcohol.
SQR still consumes alcohol, and whilst this is in a limited social setting, the extent of her lifelong troubles with alcohol is such that the tribunal cannot be assured, in the absence of any independent health professional opinion, that she may not have such troubles again in the future.
She said that suffers from anxiety, but did not provide any evidence from health professionals as to the extent or effect of that upon her ability to handle stressful situations, and particularly in stressful situations involving children.
Section 221 of the Act provides as follows:
221 Issuing prescribed notice to person with no conviction etc. or conviction for offence other than serious offence
1)Subject to subsection (2), the chief executive must issue a positive notice to the person if –
a)the chief executive is not aware of any police information or disciplinary information about the person; or
b)the chief executive is not aware of a conviction of the person for any offence but aware that there is 1 or more of the following about the person –
i.investigative information;
ii.disciplinary information;
iii.a charge for an offence other than a disqualifying offence;
iv.a charge for a disqualifying offence that has been dealt with other than by a conviction; or
c)the chief executive is aware of a conviction of the person for an offence other than a serious offence.
2)If subsection (1)(b) or (c) applies to the person and the chief executive 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 positive notice, the chief executive must issue a negative notice to the person.
It is apparent that SQR is making efforts to live a new life, and she is to be commended for doing so. The Tribunal however is required to consider whether the risks involved in her being issued a positive notice, and being granted a blue card which would enable her to work with children in any setting, are such that she should be considered to constitute an ‘exceptional case’ in which it would not be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a positive notice.
In the absence of supportive medical professional opinion, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied, having regard to SQR’s significant and lengthy history of violence and problems with alcohol, that she has established to the necessary level of satisfaction that she should not be considered to constitute an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of that term in the Act.
The consequence is that a negative notice should issue to SQR, and she would not obtain a blue card.
Accordingly, the decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that SQR’s case is ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of section 221 (2) of the Act is confirmed.
The previous non-publication order which I made at the conclusion of the hearing is restated, to protect the identity of SQR and her witnesses, having regard to her condition of anxiety, and the personal nature of much of the material, and the harm which she may suffer from being identified.
0
0
0