BRH v Department of Justice and Attorney General [2025] QCAT 473

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: BRH v Department of Justice and Attorney General [2025] QCAT 473 PARTIES: BRH (applicant) v DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – BLUE CARD SERVICES (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: CML229-24 MATTER TYPE: Childrens matters DELIVERED ON: 18 November 2025 HEARING DATE: 19 September 2025 HEARD AT: Southport DECISION OF: Member Mewing ORDERS: The time for BRH to comply with Direction 3 of the Tribunal’s Directions dated 19 September 2025 is extended to 18 October 2025. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice that the Applicant’s case is “exceptional” within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed. Publication of the name or identifying information of the Applicant or any person or entity associated with the Applicant, other than to parties to these proceedings, is prohibited pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – review of decision by Respondent to issue a negative notice FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant seeks review of decision to refuse to cancel a negative notice – where applicant has charges for criminal offences – where whether exceptional -- 1 of 16 -- 2 case where not in interests of children for applicant to have a working with children clearance Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2009) Qld s 20, s 28(3), s 66 Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 221, s 294, s 360, Schedule 1 part 1, Schedule 1 part 2 AM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6 AVJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 267 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492 Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney- General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6 KAP v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2020] QCAT 457 at [63] ML v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2020] QCAT 376 SLH v Director General, Department of Justice [2025] QCAT 13 WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: In person Respondent: Ms C Davis, Solicitor, Department of Justice REASONS FOR DECISION Background [1] BRH1 applies to the Tribunal to set aside the decision of the Acting Director, Blue Card Services to issue a negative notice issued on 16 July 2024. A negative notice prevents a person from obtaining a working with children clearance—and therefore a Blue Card—in Queensland. 1 Orders of the Tribunal made on 30 May 2025 prohibit the publication of identifying information about the Applicant, a family member of the Applicant, and child or any non-party to these proceedings. -- 2 of 16 -- 3 [2] BRH is 49 years old. He was issued a Blue Card on 16 July 2021. In June 2022 police notified Blue Card Services about a change in BRH’s police information arising from one encounter with police on 24 June 2022, namely: charges for possession of dangerous drugs (2 counts), possession of utensils/pipes etc that had been used, and being in charge of a motor vehicle while relevant drug present in blood or saliva. [3] BRH was informed that Blue Card Services was reassessing his eligibility to hold a Blue Card and on three occasions between 30 June and 2 November 2022 BRH was invited to make submissions about that, but he did not do so. [4] BRH was charged with a further drug-related offence on 15 April 2024. [5] On 16 July 2024 Blue Card Services decided to cancel his Blue Card and issue a negative notice. [6] On 15 August 2024 BRH applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision. To assist the review, Blue Card Services applied to the Tribunal for orders that Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads produce to the Tribunal any additional documents on their records concerning BRH. These documents revealed BRH’s full criminal and driving offence history from 1996 to 2024. [7] A hearing was conducted on 19 September 2025 to consider BRH’s application, at which BRH gave oral evidence and three witnesses attended to speak in support of his application. [8] The main issue for consideration by the Tribunal is: (a) whether the general rule should apply to BRH which is that he must be issued with a working with children clearance because he has not been charged with or convicted of a disqualifying offence or convicted of a serious offence; or (b) whether, based on all of the relevant information, BRH’s is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for him to be issued with a working with children clearance.2 Interim applications [9] BRH made an informal application for a non-publication order on 19 September 2025,3 with (as he put it) “exceptions to allow me to obtain and retain a copy of the hearing transcript and audio recording.” [10] An order de-identifying BRH and others mentioned in these proceedings was previously made on 30 May 2025, so no further non-publication order is required. Any information that would be likely to identify the Applicant or others involved in these proceedings has been obscured in these reasons for decision. BRH may obtain a transcript of proceedings at any time, which may be ordered at qtranscripts.justice.qld.gov.au. [11] BRH also made an application for an extension of time for filing of some submissions. His application refers to submissions made prior to the hearing (which is now redundant, as the submissions have been accepted and considered), and closing submissions pursuant to directions made on 19 September 2025 which were to be filed by 17 October 2025. BRH seeks an extension of time until 18 October 2025 to file his 2 Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 221. 3 Document marked A773, Applicant’s Additional Statement of Evidence, at part A4. -- 3 of 16 -- 4 closing submissions. As there is no obvious disadvantage to the Respondent and the extension requested was very short, the application is granted. Material and Evidence Before the Tribunal [12] The following documents were submitted by BRH: (a) The application for review filed on 15 August 2024; (b) A letter to Blue Card Services dated 1 November 2024; (c) A document titled ‘Applicant’s Statement of Evidence’ (with Annexures marked 1 through 10) filed on 20 March 2025; (d) A letter written by BRH to the Director, Blue Card Services dated 1 November 2024 (with Annexures marked A through F); (e) A letter to dated 12 August 2025; (f) A bundle of documents marked A1 through A772; (g) A document titled ‘Applicant’s Additional Statement of Evidence’ dated 10 September 2025 (with Annexures 1 through 6, marked A773 to A798); (h) A document titled “Broad Range Urine Toxicology Drug Screen Menu” (tendered at the hearing and Exhibit 1); and (i) An email dated 29 September 2025, with attachment titled “Frequently asked questions regarding drug screen tests”. [13] BRH gave oral evidence on 19 September 2025; and [14] RAH, AJ and KG appeared in person (or by phone) on 19 September 2025 to give oral evidence in support of BRH. [15] The following documents were submitted by Blue Card Services: (a) Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Outline of Submissions filed on 8 August 2024; (b) Material marked BCS001-BCS056 filed between 25 September 2024 and 16 April 2025; (c) Material marked NTP001-NTP024 filed on between 16 April 2025 and 24 June 2025; (d) Videos on USB device, filed on 16 April 2025; (e) Closing Submissions filed on 3 October 2025. [16] I have taken all of the material and evidence noted above into account in deciding this matter. Legislative Framework [17] The Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (‘WWC Act’) is the source of law with respect to eligibility for Blue Cards. [18] The object of the WWC Act is to promote the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people through a scheme involving the screening of persons -- 4 of 16 -- 5 employed in particular areas of employment or carrying on particular businesses.4 Screening is to ensure that the persons are suitable to work with children.5 [19] The WWC Act is to be administered under principles that: (a) the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount; and (b) every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.6 [20] When a person has sought the cancellation of a negative notice, section 294 of the WWC Act requires consideration of section 221 of the Act as if it were a fresh application. This is because BRH has convictions for offences other than ‘serious offences’ as defined. In that situation, Blue Card Services (or the Tribunal on review) must keep the negative notice in place only if satisfied the person’s case is an exceptional one in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a working with children clearance to be issued to the person. Whether or not an exceptional case exists must be decided on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved.7 [21] Section 226 sets out matters to which regard must be had where the person has a conviction or charge. The relevant matters are: (a) whether it is a conviction or a charge; (b) whether the offence is within the category of either serious or disqualifying offence; (c) when the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed; (d) the nature of the offence and its relevance to working with children; (e) in the case of a conviction, the penalty imposed by the court and, if the person was not imprisoned, the court’s reasons for not imposing a sentence of imprisonment; and (f) anything else in relation to the commission or alleged commission of the offence that is reasonably relevant. [22] The Tribunal must conduct a fresh review on the merits, with the aim of producing the correct and preferable decision.8 The Tribunal, while obliged to observe the rules of natural justice, is not bound by rules of evidence and may inform itself in any way it sees fit.9 [23] In conducting this review the Tribunal is acting as a public entity. As such, it must act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights, or in making its decision, give proper consideration to relevant human rights. A decision is compatible with human rights if it does not limit a human right, or if it limits a human right in a way permitted by the Human Rights Act 2019. 4 Section 5, WWC Act. 5 WJ v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCATA 190, [17]. 6 Sections 6 and 360, WWC Act. 7 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher and Anor [2004] QCA 492. 8 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2009), s 20. 9 QCAT Act, s 28(3) -- 5 of 16 -- 6 Applicant’s submissions Pre-hearing written submissions10 [24] BRH acknowledges his offending, takes full responsibility for his actions, deeply regrets those actions and understands the concerns raised by Blue Card Services. [25] He says that at the time of the 2022 offence, he was struggling with undiagnosed ADHD, together with previously-diagnosed PTSD, depression and anxiety. He also says that he did not respond to the invitations from Blue Card Services in 2022 to make submissions about their intention to reassess his eligibility to hold a Blue Card because “some matters remained before the courts”, and after that he forgot to respond, but as BCS did not issue a negative notice at that time (or any time until July 2024) he believed it showed that BCS did not consider BRH an unacceptable risk to children. [26] BRH says that he has gained significant insight into the impact of his past actions and has made substantial efforts to change his behaviour, actively working on self- improvement and accountability. He says he has completed various rehabilitation programs, engages in professional psychiatric and medical support to maintain his progress, participates in group counselling sessions, and has demonstrated his ability to abstain from drug use through periodic drug screening. [27] BRH speaks proudly of his children, who are achieving good academic results and studying at university. He notes his own experience of being raised in a supportive family environment. [28] BRH has earned an undergraduate university degree and post-graduate diploma in a business-related discipline and worked professionally with those qualifications for a number of years. He is currently undertaking another degree and needs a Blue Card to finish that degree. [29] He notes his twenty-year appointment in a community-based and voluntary “position of trust”, plus fund-raising and completion of a mental health first aid course. [30] BRH submits that he does not pose a risk to children, and that the Tribunal should consider his rehabilitation, ongoing medical treatment, strong support network and positive lifestyle changes to find that his is not an exceptional case in which it would not be in the interests of children for him to hold a Blue Card. [31] BRH’s Additional Statement of Evidence includes a section titled “Challenging the Exceptional Case Characterisation”, noting the following points not made elsewhere in his submissions: (a) Police can now divert people found with small amounts of drugs to education rather than prosecution; (b) Research indicates that most adult Australians have used drugs; (c) A review of the Blue Card system in 2017 has shown that there has been inappropriate focus in some Blue Card review decisions, with specific concerns about whether there is adequate focus on the risks of harm to children; and 10 Including the Applicant’s Additional Statement of Evidence, marked A773. -- 6 of 16 -- 7 (d) The community expects Blue Card Services to focus on threats like violence and sexual offending. [32] The Additional Statement of Evidence also asks the Tribunal to take into account what he describes as “procedural irregularities”. He says that Blue Card Services’ handling of his matter was “not consistent with the statutory framework or principles of fairness” because there was no evidence that Blue Card Services “substantively decided” BRH’s application for renewal of his Blue Card despite him paying the renewal fee. This, he submits, raises concerns of: (a) A failure to exercise statutory power; (b) Denial of procedural fairness; (c) Potentially acting outside statutory power; (d) Using cancellation and a negative notice improperly as a shortcut instead of considering renewal of his Blue Card on the merits.11 Cross examination at the hearing [33] BRH admits that he “relapsed” in 2022, explaining that he stepped back into problematic drug use at that time. He admitted “decades” of drug use of various kinds, and that methamphetamine became “problematic” eventually but said he was never addicted. He said he took methamphetamine initially to have fun, as a coping mechanism, and to “not feel” when going through two relationship breakups. [34] When asked about his history of drug use, BRH said he started to use marijuana just after he left school, never used needles, used acid/LSD in his early twenties, then speed/ecstasy/MDMA in the 1990s/early 2000s. He said his drug use became problematic and he decided to stop all substances in 2012. He abstained for about three years, then resumed drug use in 2015/16. [35] BRH said he had certain neighbours “about seven years ago” who were a bad influence on him and he on them. He notes at that time having clinical depression, and being on medication for that. [36] BRH admitted that he used methamphetamine before and after his university exams around the time of the 2022 incident. About that he said: “I used [meth] the day before [my exam] as a study aid, I suppose. With so much going on, I didn’t have time for something like sleep. That right there is the mindset of someone engripped in the use of drugs”.12 [37] Struggling to study, he said he slipped back into “high stress dysfunction.” [38] Ms Davis for the Respondent asked BRH if he could explain why he was non- responsive for more than a minute when police first intercepted him. BRH said being non-responsive was him exercising his right to remain silent, but he was also sometimes non-responsive when he realised the gravity of his situation. [39] When asked why he failed to respond to Blue Card Services’ three written requests for submissions in June, August and November 2022 when they informed him they were reassessing his right to hold a Blue Card, he said it was because the charges 11 Document marked A773, Applicant’s Additional Statement of Evidence at A774, part C, paras 12-16. 12 Recording of proceedings, 12:31:47-12:32:08. -- 7 of 16 -- 8 against him didn’t involve children, and his September 2022 court matter was not yet finalised. He said he missed the November letter. He also said given the long delay between Blue Card Services becoming aware of his charges in 2022 but not issuing a negative notice until 2024 he concluded that the 2022 charges must not have been considered serious enough for them to act sooner. [40] BRH admits he was not truthful with police during the 2022 incident, but says he is not a bad person, and prides himself on doing the right thing by his fellow human beings. [41] When asked about the April 2024 incident, he said it was a spontaneous lapse into methamphetamine use while around people with who he no longer associates. He admits using methamphetamine, but says he was not impaired when pulled up by police despite a test showing it was present in his saliva. Post-hearing written submissions [42] BRH says that the term “exceptional case” is not defined in the WWC Act, so must be interpreted purposively and contextually. He says that none of his offences involved children nor did they occur in a child-related environment. He notes that there is no evidence or suggestion that he has ever harmed or posed a risk to a child. [43] BRH also says that the two events in 2022 and 2024 do not represent a continuous pattern: the 2022 incident was a relapse from which he pulled himself out with therapy and medical intervention, and the 2024 incident was a lapse addressed through therapy, accountability and participation in rehabilitation program. He maintains that he has not used drugs since then. [44] BRH completed a court-ordered drug diversion program in 2022, has engaged in counselling and therapy (one-on-one and group) through an organisation which provides support for people affected by drugs, with reports from 2022 and 2024 confirming his insight, motivation emotional regulation, treatment compliance and low risk of relapse. He also notes that he has medical reviews multiple times each year and is subject to periodic drug testing. [45] BRH says he has been in recovery since prior to 2022. He said he relapsed in 2022, had a minor lapse in 2024, but has been in sustained recovery since then with the support of medical professionals. He says he has an extensive framework of protective factors across medical, psychological, social, behavioural and lifestyle domains. [46] BRH was diagnosed with ADHD in 2023 which he attributes to past impulsivity and poor coping. Since beginning medication and psychiatric treatment for ADHD he says his life has fundamentally changed. [47] BRH says he has purpose and a clear pathway which are incompatible with drug use and harming children. He claims his age is a protective factor as he has lived experience, wisdom, reached the point where enough is enough, and has chosen a clean, healthy and meaningful life. He says the evidence shows that he is a safe, stable, reflective and rehabilitated individual. References in support of BRH [48] RAH (BRH’s father) provided a written statement in support on BRH and attended the hearing to give evidence orally. RAH noted that one of BRH’s great qualities was empathy. He believed BRH had accepted his failures and taken great steps to avoid -- 8 of 16 -- 9 repeating them. RAH believed BRH may have started using narcotics originally due to the death of his brother in a car accident when BRH was much younger. [49] RAH said he has never had any issues with how BRH had dealt with and raised his own children, and attributes BRH’s children’s academic success to the efforts of BRH and his former wife. He would unreservedly trust BRH with children, believes he is a safe and positive role model and believes there is no nexus between BRH’s drug- related charges and children. [50] On questioning from Ms Davis for Blue Card Services, RAH said he had not read Blue Card Services written ‘Reasons’ document outlining why BRH was issued with a negative notice, nor had he seen the police body camera footage of the 2022 arrest, but that BRH had “fully informed” him of details of the episode. He said BRH’s recent ADHD diagnosis and the medication he takes had “very significantly altered his outcome and where he’s going in life,” and that “these proceedings had been a real wake-up call,” so RAH was confident BRH would not repeat past behaviours. [51] He said he was aware that BRH’s “substance difficulties went back quite some time” (which he clarified to mean about seven years) and that when it became obvious (they observed reactive and physical signs, such as agitation, lack of self-care, thought processes not always rational) he and BRH’s mother paid for psychology sessions for him. By 2022 they noticed no more signs of drug use. RAH said that around seven years ago BRH moved out of a flat which had neighbours who were a bad influence. He said that he was not aware that BRH was unresponsive for over a minute when police first encountered him in 2022. [52] AJ also attended the hearing in person to speak in support of BRH. AJ has known BRH for approximately three years. AJ noted that BRH had stopped sending time with certain people and avoided certain events to distance himself from the drug scene. AJ believes BRH’s recovery is genuine: he is calmer, more composed and centred, and has a positive approach to life. AJ noted seeing BRH refuse an offer of drugs at a music event and has seen him put into practice the things he has learned in therapy. [53] AJ is complimentary of the way BRH interacts with AJ’s own children, and considers him a positive role model for them. AJ believes it is nonsense that it is not in the best interests of children for BRH to have a Blue Card. [54] AJ had read Blue Card Services’ reasons for issuing a negative notice to BRH, which focused on the 2022 charges. AJ believes that the 2024 incident was a slip up, and that BRH has learned his lesson now. [55] KG attended by telephone. KG has known BRH for three years. KG trusts BRH around KG’s own children and believes he would use his experiences in a positive way. KG has never known BRH to have taken methamphetamine and had not seen him socially in the past year, but was aware of the 2022 and 2024 police incidents. KG believes that his taking of drugs may have been self-medicating. KG believes people have “lost out” because BRH is so passionate about his work. [56] Written references were provided from RH (BRH’s former wife), and BRH’s two children. They are all complimentary of BRH as a father and the way he conducts himself generally, and supportive of this application. [57] While not written as a reference for these proceedings, it is nonetheless acknowledged that KB (counsellor) wrote on 29 September 2024 that BRH indicated a strong desire -- 9 of 16 -- 10 to remain drug and offence free. She said he is an honest and forthcoming participant in group counselling sessions and that she had no reason to believe that he poses any risk to children. She provided a follow-up report on 8 August 2025 in which she added that he consistently attends counselling sessions, is motivated and committed to positive change. [58] Dr BB (general practitioner) also wrote on 3 September 2024 that BRH had been adherent to medication and compliant with the management plan related to his ADHD diagnosis. Dr also BB wrote that: “With the ongoing support, BRH was able to cope and manage his day to day personal and university demands and stresses. His disappointments and frustrations have become fleeting and less debilitating. He has learned to build up his core values that keep his steady and stable. … On 8 July 2023, he was referred to and accepted to the 6-week CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) for Adult ADHD. [BRH] attended and participated actively and found the sessions very helpful. His routine and structure improved, his mood and sleep improved. He passed his assignments and exams. In November 2024 [which the tribunal takes to mean 2023, given the date of the letter] he proudly shared that he did great in this trimester and that he received 2 recognitions!” [59] RH, BRH’s children, KB and Dr BB did not attend the hearing, so their statements could not be cross-examined. Respondent’s submissions [60] The Respondent submits that BRH’s is an exceptional case, in that it would not be in the best interests of children for him to be issued with a Blue Card at this time because: (a) The recency of his offending represents a significant risk factor; (b) He was of mature age, actually held a blue card at the time of the offences, was aware that he needed a Blue Card for his studies and desired occupation, ought to have been aware that Blue Card Services would be concerned with the behaviour, was informed that Blue Card Services did indeed have concerns and were considering cancelling his Blue Card, yet allowed himself to be in the position that led to the 2024 charge; (c) He withheld information and provided inaccurate information to police during the 2022 incident so the Tribunal should have little confidence that he is forthright and that his evidence is reliable, and little confidence in his claim that he has maintained sustained abstinence from drugs; (d) Road users are subjected to significant risks by drivers who are under the influence of drugs, and drug users generally prioritise their drug use over the needs of children in their care; (e) His DUI charge in 2001 and drug-driving charges in 2022 and 2024 show that he failed to act proactively then and indicate he will fail to act proactively in other contexts, including child-related employment; and (f) There are questions about the behaviour that BRH can be expected to model to children and young people in the future. -- 10 of 16 -- 11 [61] Blue Card Services acknowledges some of the protective factors (presumably ongoing counselling and therapy), but says that insufficient time has passed to be satisfied that his use/misuse of substances is under control. In that regard: (a) Many of the protective factors present now were present prior to the 2024 incident, so there must be doubt about whether these factors will prevent repeat behaviours; (b) It is inevitable that the stressors which led to his offending will recur, and there is little comfort that BRH would not return to his “maladaptive coping strategies” of the past; (c) His use of drugs in 2024 calls into question the reliability of a reference in support of him in 2024 which states that he is “able to cope and manage” stress; (d) He claims he has removed himself from influences which previously led to drug taking but there is no evidence to support this claim; (e) The recency of the offending means there has been insufficient time to demonstrate sustained abstinence; (f) The lapse into drug use in 2024 calls into question the efficacy of the therapy and counselling and suggests an absence of adequate strategies to prevent that lapse; and (g) That BRH was unresponsive a for at least a minute during the 2022 incident is not explained by the drug use and not otherwise explained in the material, nor is there evidence that a similar incident would not happen again and possibly pose a risk in the context of child-related employment. [62] Blue Card Services also notes the transferability of a blue card, allowing BRH to work with children of any age. [63] Finally, any limitation placed on BRH’s human rights by not setting aside the decision to issue a negative notice would nevertheless be justified given the potential risks to children. Consideration and Findings [64] I must issue a negative notice if I am aware of ‘relevant information’ and I am satisfied that this is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for BRH to be issued with a positive notice.13 [65] The phrase ‘exceptional case’ must be considered in the context that the intent and purpose of WWC Act is to protect the interests of children.14 [66] It has been noted in previous cases that the ultimate question (ie, of what is in the best interests of children) does not lend itself to exact proof. Addressing this question involves a consideration of how children might be affected and a degree of speculation as to what might happen in the future and of potential future risks to children.15 13 Section 221 WWC Act. 14 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Eales [2013] QCATA 303, at [10] citing Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, at [33] 15 Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6, at [16]. -- 11 of 16 -- 12 [67] Section 226 prescribes the Tribunal’s mandatory considerations for deciding whether an exceptional case exists. Having regard to the s 226 considerations: (a) BRH has convictions for: (i) possess dangerous drugs (two counts) (in June 2022); (ii) possess utensils or pipes that had been used (in June 2022); and (iii) be in charge of a motor vehicle while relevant drug is present in blood or saliva (in June 2022); and (iv) drive motor vehicle while relevant drug is present in blood or saliva (in April 2024);16 (b) None of the offences are classified as serious or disqualifying, as defined in the WWC Act; (c) The offences were committed between in June 2022 and April 2024; (d) Referring to the nature of the offences and their relevance to employment or running a business that involves children BRH says that his offending did not involve children, which I take to refer to children not being present during his drug-use or which police became involved and which I accept; (e) The courts imposed the following penalties: (i) For the 2022 charges: $400 fine, disqualification of licence for one month, no conviction recorded, mandatory drug diversion program, good behaviour order ($300 recognisance); and (ii) For the 2024 charges: $500 fine, disqualification of licence for three months, no conviction recorded. [68] The determination of whether there is an exceptional case involves the exercise of a broad discretion that should be “unhampered by any general rule and is to be construed in the particular context of the legislation”.17 [69] BRH displayed significant remorse about the incidents which make up his offending history. In oral testimony before the Tribunal he seemed open, reflective and did not blame others. These can be important mitigants to reoffending.18 [70] BRH entered early guilty pleas on all charges, did not challenge the facts of his arrests, accepted the outcomes and satisfied the conditions of his sentences. [71] He has been consistent with his drug-diversion counselling and medical screening, including random drug screening,19 which are also protective factors. He has a history of community service. 16 BRH also has two further convictions and traffic information on his record which the Tribunal does not consider to be relevant in this review. 17 Maher, and Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FCG [2011] QCATA 291, at [31]. 18 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Lister (No 2) [2011] QCATA 87, at [51]-[55]. 19 BRH provided two drug screening outcomes, dated 23 November 2024 and 28 June 2025: at Applicant’s documents marked A57 and A58. -- 12 of 16 -- 13 [72] BRH presented as a cheerful, articulate, polite, conscientious and candid person. He made erudite, well-researched written submissions. Among those submissions is the contention that the test I should apply in determining whether his is an “exceptional case” is whether he poses a “real or appreciable risk of harm to children that is unacceptable”, which is in line with amendments to the WWC Act which came into force on 20 September 2025.20 [73] However, I agree with the Respondent’s submission that the Tribunal cannot apply that test given the date of the hearing was one day prior to the commencement of those amendments. I also agree with the Respondent’s submission that the process for determining whether a case is exceptional is a two-stage one:21 the first stage is to find the relevant facts and circumstances, and the second is evaluate those findings “which involves a degree of speculation and assessment of risk.” In any case, given the fact- finding and evaluation tasks of the former and new test are similar in practice, the outcome in these proceedings would likely not be any different. [74] The “relevant facts and circumstances” in this case are not just BRH’s criminal and traffic history (most particularly since 2022), but also the evidence surrounding that. This includes that: (a) He admitted to “decades” of drug use;22 (b) BRH’s parents arranged a psychologist to help him when they his “substance difficulties” became obvious some years prior to 2022,23 but he nevertheless continued to use drugs; (c) Despite a counsellor remarking in October 202224 on his “active engagement”, “solid insight into the ill effects of substance use”, demonstration of “a committed motivation to make positive changes” he lapsed into further drug use within 18 months; (d) Dr BB’s statements in September 2023 indicate a work in progress with regard to BRH’s ADHD management. Dr BB mentions that BRH was “progressing well”, and “has learned to build up his core values that keep him steady and stable”. This was 7 months prior to the 2024 lapse; (e) He says he was regularly engaged in drug counselling and rehabilitation between 2022 and 2024 yet consumed drugs in spite of that; (f) He held a Blue Card at the time of the 2022 charges so should have known that his actions on that day (and previous days where he admitted to drug use) were inconsistent with the responsibilities of a Blue Card holder and might jeopardise his Blue Card holder status; (g) He knew in 2022 that Blue Card Services was considering cancelling his Blue Card for the 2022 incident, yet failed to respond to their three requests for 20 Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024. 21 As noted by the Appeal Tribunal in Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General v CMH [2021] QCATA 6. 22 Evidence of BRH in cross-examination. 23 Evidence of RAH in cross-examination. 24 Letter authored by TW (employee at a non-government drug and alcohol treatment organisation) dated 14 October 2022, Annexure 5 to BRH’s Statement of Evidence. -- 13 of 16 -- 14 submissions and then proceeded to engage in drug use of a similar nature again in April 2024; (h) With further regard to his failure to respond to the requests for submissions, it is no excuse that he was waiting on court outcomes (a fact he could have informed them of, but did not). The first request invited a submission by 18 July 2022, and he knew his non-traffic outcome before that deadline on 13 July 2022. While the traffic-related charge was still outstanding, that outcome was known on 13 September 2022, only one day after the deadline for his submission noted in the 22 August 2022 request. A prudent person who wished to minimise their chances of losing a Blue Card might be expected to at least notify Blue Card Services about why he could not respond timely, or seek an extension; (i) While I accept that there is no evidence that children were present during any of BRH’s drug use or the encounters with police in 2022 and 2024, all of the charges are drug-related and two involve either driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while a drug is present. The possession and consumption of illicit drugs by a mature person over “decades” shows a long-term disregard for the law, indicates poor decision-making and reflects poorly on the user as a role- model for children. The traffic charges show that BRH was a potential risk to other road users (which includes children) and displayed a reckless disregard for their welfare. [75] In light of these relevant facts and circumstances, it is very difficult to have confidence that the results of BRH’s counselling, therapy, and treatment for ADHD have yet reached a point that they will be adequate protective factors against future lapse or relapse into drug use, or that BRH has gained adequate insight into the risks his drug use posed to children generally. The recency of the offending is the Tribunal’s main concern in this case. BRH admittedly relapsed in 2015 after a three year period of abstinence,25 relapsed again in 2022, then lapsed once gain in 2024 even while actively engaging in drug-diversion therapy. Viewed in the context of “decades” of drug use the current period of 18 months of abstinence and therapy is of marginal comfort. [76] BRH’s positive demeanour, his obvious motivation to complete his studies and the confidence of his friends and family that he will abstain from future drug use are insufficient on their own to satisfy the Tribunal that his risk of lapse or relapse is so minimal as to be of little concern, particularly in light of the 2024 lapse. [77] BRH’s submissions about “procedural irregularities” in the assessment of his Blue Card renewal in 202426 are outside this Tribunal’s jurisdiction. QCAT’s review function is limited to those considerations in chapters 7 and 8 of the WWC Act, and does not extend to a review of the exercise of statutory functions of the Chief Executive. [78] His submissions about the 2017 Blue Card review noting an inappropriate focus on perceived rather than actual risks to children neglects, I think, to appreciate the concern that many judicial decision-makers have expressed over the years about drug- use and its indirect (if not direct) effects on children. The Respondent’s closing 25 In 2012, according to BRH’s oral evidence in cross examination. 26 Outlined at para [32] in these reasons. -- 14 of 16 -- 15 submissions provided clear examples of this.27 This, combined with the ability of a Blue Card holder to work in any child-related employment brings the focus of any potential harm to children to the front of a decision-maker’s mind. [79] BRH cites three Tribunal decisions at first instance in which it was found that there was no exceptional case, and which, he says, support his application.28 I am not bound by previous decisions of the Tribunal. Rather, I am obliged to assess each case on its own facts. That said, the cases cited are distinguishable from BRH’s for a number of reasons (eg, because the time span of the applicant’s drug use was limited to a few years, they had been drug-free for at least a few years prior to the hearing, the applicant was young when the offences occurred, they did not hold Blue Cards at the time of the offences, they were not using drugs while engaged in rehabilitation, enough time had passed for the Tribunal to be satisfied of the genuineness of their assurances about their protective factors, etc). Human Rights Act [80] I must also consider Human Rights Act, the main objective of which is to protect and promote the fundamental human rights of all people. While statutory provisions, as far as is consistent with their purposes, must be interpreted in a way that is compatible (or mostly compatible) with human rights,29 the rights listed in the Human Rights Act may be limited provided it is reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances.30 [81] In deciding whether a limit on one or more human rights is reasonable and justifiable relevant factors include the nature of the human right, the nature and purpose of the limitation, whether there are any less restrictive and reasonably available ways to achieve the purpose, the importance of the purpose of the limitation, the importance of preserving the human right, taking into account the nature and extent of the limitation on the human right, and the balance between the last two points. [82] I consider that human rights that might potentially touched or limited by the Tribunal’s review and its findings include BRH’s right to privacy and reputation and his right to a fair hearing.31 BRH also mentions his right to “rehabilitation and participation in society”,32 and submits that: “preventing my participation in education, work, and community life despite clear evidence of rehabilitation imposes a disproportionate burden on my rights without protecting children.”33 27 Respondent’s Post-Hearing Submissions, page 5, at para 31(d) (iii)(A) and (B). 28 ML v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2020] QCAT 376; AM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 6; AVJ v Director- General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 267. 29 Human Rights Act (2019), s 48(1) and (2). 30 Human Rights Act (2019), s 13(1) and (2). 31 Human Rights Act (2019) ss 25, 31. I do not consider that there has been any limitation placed on these human rights, as people and organisations mentioned matter have been de-identified to protect the privacy and reputation of the Applicant, and the hearing was conducted and decision made consistently with the rules of natural justice and after consideration of all available evidence. 32 Document marked A773, Applicant’s Additional Statement of Evidence, at page A778, part G para 24. 33 Document marked A773, Applicant’s Additional Statement of Evidence, at page A782, part K para 43. -- 15 of 16 -- 16 [83] The Tribunal must balance BRH’s rights with the right that every child has to protection.34 Accordingly, a decision that BRH’s case is exceptional for the purposes of s 221 of the WWC Act, to the extent it limits his human rights, will nevertheless be compatible with the Human Rights Act because the decision will be justified by the factors outlined under section 13 of the Human Rights Act due to its purpose of promoting and protecting the right, interests, and wellbeing, of children and young people. Any limitation on BRH’s human rights remains consistent with the object, purpose and principle of the WWC Act, being that the welfare and best interests of children is paramount. Conclusion [84] After reviewing the relevant information, the context of that information, the mitigating factors that might help to protect against future risk to children, but also the risks that still remain, I am satisfied that the information before the Tribunal shows that BRH’s is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for him to be issued with a positive notice at this time The decision is confirmed. Orders [85] I make the following orders: (a) The time for BRH to comply with Direction 3 of the Tribunal’s Directions dated 19 September 2025 is extended to 18 October 2025. (b) The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice that the Applicant’s case is ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working With Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is confirmed. (c) Publication of the name or identifying information of the Applicant or any person or entity associated with the Applicant, other than to parties to these proceedings, is prohibited pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). 34 Human Rights Act (2019) s 26. -- 16 of 16 --