SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252
Item
-
Title
-
SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252
-
Date
-
June 17, 2020
-
Summary
-
This case concerned an application for review of the issuing of a negative blue card notice. In April 2019, SSJ, the applicant, filed an application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to review Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General (the respondent)’s ‘decision that the Applicant’s case was an “exceptional case”’ whereby it was not ‘in the best interests of children’ for the applicant to possess a positive notice and blue card: at [1]- [5].
The behaviour of SSJ in question related to a charge of public nuisance at age 17 and a breach of a Domestic Violence Order (‘DVO’). SSJ admitted to the court that his behaviour was ‘stupid’ and that his judgment was ‘impaired under the influence of alcohol’: at [21]. The breach of the DVO arose out of a difficult home situation and the court noted that SSJ has ‘learnt to better manage his anger, develop conflict management skills, learnt to step back and reflect on his decisions and learnt breathing exercises to make him a calmer person’: at [22]- [23].
The Tribunal further noted the steps SSJ has taken to improve himself and better manage his emotions, including making changes to his lifestyle and having a range of supports around him: at [29]- [34]. Taking into consideration all of the evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that SSJ had ‘taken the change given to him to rehabilitate his life’ and held that, on the balance of probabilities, SSJ’s case was not an “exceptional case” that would harm the welfare of children and young people: at [95], [104].
In relation to human rights, the Tribunal noted that it was acting in an administrative capacity and, therefore, was a ‘public entity’ for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and had to make decisions compatible with human rights: at [109]- [110]. The Tribunal was satisfied on the facts and relevant legislation that it had given proper consideration to human rights, acted in a manner that was compatible with human rights, and interpreted provisions in a way that was compatible with human rights: at [111]. The Tribunal was also satisfied that there ‘where the Tribunal identified limits on rights, the Tribunal has determined whether any limits imposed are reasonable and justifiable in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act’ at [112].
