ST v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 337
Item
-
Title
-
ST v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 337
-
Date
-
September 30, 2021
-
Summary
-
This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ST. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s right to privacy (section 25), right to taking part in public life (section 23), right to protection of families and children (section 26), right to education (section 36), cultural rights (section 27) and cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.
The applicant had been issued a negative blue card notice on the basis that the applicant’s circumstances amounted to an exceptional case where the issuing of a positive notice would not be in the best interests of children: at [2]-[3]. The applicant had been charged in 2007 with possessing child exploitation material which would constitute as a ‘disqualifying offence’ but the charge was dismissed and thus considered ‘dealt with’ under s 221(1)(b)(iv) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000: at [10].
The Tribunal noted that under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), it was required to give proper consideration to any relevant human rights in making its decision, and noted that the applicant’s right to privacy (s 25), right to take part in public life (s 23), the right to education (s 36) and the applicant’s cultural rights including rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (ss 27-28) were relevant: at [20]. The Tribunal also raised the right to protection of children and families (s26): at [21]. The Tribunal concluded that its decision was compatible with human rights, but did not discuss these rights in any detail. The Tribunal set aside the respondent’s decision, finding that the applicant’s case was not an exceptional case where it would not be in the best interests of children to deny a blue card: at [103].
