Crosland v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 529

CITATION: Crosland v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 529 PARTIES: Richard Bryan Crosland (Applicant) v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: CML168-15 MATTER TYPE: Childrens matters HEARING DATE: 12 November 2015 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Senior Member O’Callaghan DELIVERED ON: 15 December 2015 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. The application for a non-publication order is dismissed. 2. If no application to withdraw the review is filed by 12 January 2016 the application will be determined and the decision published. CATCHWORDS: BLUE CARD – where applicant seeks non- publication order – whether sufficient evidence that order necessary under s 66(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 32, s 66 Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCAFC 115 Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Richard Crosland has applied to QCAT to review the decision of the Respondent to issue him with a negative notice in response to his application for a blue card. [2] The negative notice was issued on the basis of Mr Crosland’s criminal history of a conviction for trespass in 2006, and a charge in 2015 of committing public nuisance. [3] The review application was heard by the Tribunal in November 2015. At the close of the hearing Mr Crosland said he wanted the Tribunal to make a non-publication order so that he was not identified. He was given the opportunity to file submissions in support of the application, as was the Respondent. [4] I have now considered that application for non-publication and the submissions filed by the parties. [5] Mr Crosland in his submission asks: …that the decision, yet to be handed down, be non-publicised or de- identified, if published, to protect all names and places, so that there can be no unwelcome publicity towards the church, which I attend or the congregation of that church, including children. [6] The ordinary position is that Tribunal decisions are published. This is consistent with the overriding principal of open justice, which aims to ensure court proceedings are fully exposed to public scrutiny and to maintain the integrity and independence of the courts.1 [7] This is also consistent with the objects of the QCAT Act which include ‘to enhance the openness and accountability of public administration’.2 [8] The Tribunal does however have power to prohibit the publication of the contents of a document; evidence given before the Tribunal; or, relevantly, information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or who is affected by a proceeding in the Tribunal, to be identified.3 [9] Section 66(2) of the QCAT Act sets out the grounds for making such an order, and provides that the discretion to prohibit publication can only be exercised if the Tribunal considers it necessary for reasons, including that 1 Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89, citing Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495, at [520] per Gibbs J. 2 QCAT Act, s 3(e). 3 QCAT Act, s 66(1). -- 2 of 4 -- 3 relied on by Mr Crosland, ‘to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest’.4 [10] Mr Crosland says that as he lives in a small regional town, if his name is published the church of which he is a board member would be identified and that this may bring ‘unwelcome publicity about the church’. He says that there are children that attend the church and that publication of his identity could cause ‘possible unwelcome criticism towards these children and their families’. [11] The Respondent opposes the application for a non-publication order. It says that Mr Crosland’s concerns do not constitute a ground for, or necessitate, the making of a non-publication order under s 66. [12] I agree with the Respondent’s position. [13] The mere fact that publication or identification might produce embarrassment or humiliation for Mr Crosland or the church is not a sufficient reason to prohibit publication, particularly if his name has already been published.5 [14] I note that Mr Crosland’s criminal history, the publication of which he is concerned about, is already on the public record. It is not confidential information. I accept that if there was a possibility that publication of his identity might identify a particular child or children then it may be more appropriate to make a non-publication order. [15] As is pointed out by the Respondent, there is no evidence or material that would identify or lead to the identification of specific children. Further, whilst the church may be identified, the mere identification of an organisation where children attend, and where child related services are provided would not reasonably lead to an identification of those children, nor would publication of the nature of Mr Crosland’s case likely to subject them to criticism. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that these children are of familial relation to Mr Crosland, or in anyway involved whatsoever with the matter. [16] I am not satisfied, as required by s 66, that a non-publication order is necessary to avoid publication of confidential material or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest. I dismiss the application for a non-publication order. [17] I note Mr Crosland says in his submissions that if a non-publication order (or de-identification order) was not made, he would withdraw his application for review. In those circumstances, I direct that Mr Crosland file any application to withdraw within 28 days. 4 QCAT Act, s 66(2)(d). 5 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCAFC 115. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [18] If no notice of withdrawal is filed, and no other communication received, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the application and publish the decision. -- 4 of 4 --