Scott v Department of Justice - Blue Card Services [2026] QCAT 38

[3] Recent amendments to the WWC Act commenced on 20 September 2025, but having regard to when this Application for Review was filed, the transitional provision in s 625 requires the Tribunal to conduct this review as if those amendments had not been enacted. References in this decision to provisions of the WWC Act are therefore references to the WWC Act as it stood between 20 June 2024 when the negative notice was issued and 20 September 2025 when the amendments to the WWC Act took effect.

[4] It is not in dispute that on 25 June 2021 the Applicant was convicted of trafficking the dangerous drug cannabis, nor that this was a conviction for a Serious Offence as defined in s 15 and Schedule 2 of the WWC Act. That being the case, s 225(1)(b) of the WWC Act required the chief executive to issue a negative notice to the Applicant unless the chief executive was satisfied that this was not an "exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance".

[5] Having ascertained that the Applicant had been convicted of a Serious Offence, on 8 November 2023 the Chief Executive gave the Applicant a notice of the information that the Chief Executive was then aware of, as required by s 229 of the WWC Act, and invited the Applicant to make submissions about why a negative notice should not be issued on the basis that his was an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance.

[6] The Applicant had disclosed his conviction when he applied for a Blue Card and that disclosure included a short statement about the circumstances giving rise to the conviction. He had made further written submissions on 11 August 2023, and further oral submissions on 31 August 2023.

[7] In response to the s 229 notice, the Applicant made further written submissions by email on 10 November 2023.

[8] Each of those submissions were taken into account by the Chief Executive whose task was then to determine whether or not the Applicant's case was an "exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance", and of course the Chief Executive found that it was not.

[9] The decision that the Applicant's case is not an "exceptional case" is a "chapter 8 reviewable decision" as defined in s 353 of the WWC Act. A review of a reviewable decision must be decided in accordance with the WWC Act, the QCAT Act and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

[10] The purpose of the review is to conduct a fresh hearing on the merits and on the evidence before the Tribunal in order to produce the correct and preferable decision.[3] In exercising its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed.[4] It is not necessary for the Applicant to establish error on the part of the primary decision maker and there is no presumption that the decision under review was correct.[5] Neither party bears the onus of proving that an "exceptional case" does or does not exist.

[11] That phrase "exceptional case" is not defined in the WWC Act. It is a term of common use in everyday language. Determining what constitutes an exceptional case should not be hampered by any special meaning or interpretation.[6] It is a question of fact and degree having regard to the intent and purpose of the legislation.

[12] In Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor,[7] McPherson JA said at [4], "An exceptional case in this context is one that does not conform to the general rule..."

[13] In FMA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[8] ("FMA") the Tribunal said at [8] (citations omitted):

'Exceptional case' is not defined in the WWC Act. What constitutes an exceptional case is a matter of fact and degree. It is settled law that it is a broad discretion considering the merits in each case. Hardship or prejudice suffered by an applicant is irrelevant. What amounts to an exceptional case 'must take it out and beyond the ordinary circumstances reasonably expected to occur'. It must be 'of the nature of or forming an exception; out of the ordinary course, unusual special. The passage of time alone is not determinative of whether or not a case is an exceptional case. Allegations and convictions may relate to events a number of years ago, but the passage of time alone does not detract from their seriousness. The decision-maker may consider relevant risk and protective factors.

[14] The obvious question that arises is: what is the general rule or the ordinary course? That must mean that there is a presumption, intended by Parliament, that it would be harmful to the best interests of children for a person who has been convicted of a Serious Offence to be issued a working with children clearance just by reason of that conviction.

[15] In deciding whether or not the Applicant's case is an exception to that general rule, or the ordinary course, the decision maker, and therefore the Tribunal, is required to consider the factors set out in ss 226(2) and 228(2) of the WWC Act as well any other matters that are relevant to the decision.[9]

1. Deciding exceptional case if conviction or charge

(1) This section applies if the chief executive -

(a) is deciding whether or not there is an exceptional case for the person; and

(b) is aware that the person has been convicted of, or charged with, an offence.

(2) The chief executive must have regard to the following -

(a) in relation to the commission, or alleged commission, of an offence by the person -

(i) whether it is a conviction or a charge; and

(ii) whether the offence is a serious offence and, if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence; and

(iii) when the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed; and

(iv) the nature of the offence and its relevance to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children; and

(v) in the case of a conviction - the penalty imposed by the court and, if the court decided not to impose an imprisonment order for the offence or not to make a disqualification order under section 357, the court's reasons for its decision;

(b) any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 318 or 319;

(c) any report about the person's mental health given to the chief executive under section 335;

(d) any information about the person given to the chief executive under section 337 or 338;

(e) information about the person given to the chief executive under the Disability Services Act 2006, section 138ZG;

(f) anything else relating to the commission, or alleged commission, of the offence that the chief executive reasonably considers to be relevant to the assessment of the person.

1. Deciding exceptional case if other relevant information exists

(1) This section applies if the chief executive -

(a) is deciding whether or not there is an exceptional case for the person; and

(b) is aware of -

(i) domestic violence information about the person; or

(ii) disciplinary information about the person; or

(iii) adverse interstate WWC information about the person; or

(iv) other information about the person that the chief executive reasonably believes is relevant to deciding whether it would be in the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance to the person.

(2) The chief executive must have regard to the following matters in relation to the information -

(a) if the chief executive is aware of domestic violence information about the person - the circumstances of a domestic violence order or police protection notice mentioned in the information, including the conditions imposed on the person by the order or notice;

(b) if the chief executive is aware of disciplinary information about the person -

(i) the decision or order of the decision-maker relating to the disciplinary information and the reasons for the decision or order; and

(ii) any decision or order of an entity hearing and deciding a review of, or appeal against, a decision or order mentioned in subparagraph (i), and the reasons for the decision or order;

(c) if the chief executive is aware of adverse interstate WWC information about the person - each adverse interstate WWC decision or decision to issue the conditional interstate WWC authority mentioned in the information, and the reasons for the decision;

(d) if the chief executive is aware of other information about the person mentioned in subsection (1) - the nature of the information, including the circumstances and gravity of the behaviour or conduct the subject of the information;

(e) the length of time that has passed since the event or conduct the subject of the information occurred;

(f) the relevance of the information to employment, or carrying on a business, that involves or may involve children;

(g) anything else relating to the information that the chief executive reasonably believes is relevant to the assessment of the person.

[16] In coming to its decision, the Tribunal must be guided by the object of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland[10] as well as the principles that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount (the "paramount principle") and that every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child's wellbeing.[11]

[17] As the Tribunal stands in the shoes of a "public entity" it must also comply with s 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which imposes an obligation on the Tribunal not to decide this Application in a way that is incompatible with human rights and to consider relevant human rights in making its decision. The Applicant's human rights that are relevant include his right to privacy and reputation[12] and his right to a fair hearing.[13] The human rights of children are also relevant to this review, namely the right to "the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child's best interests, because of being a child".[14]

[18] In conducting this review, the Tribunal has had regard to the following material:

(a) Application to Review a Decision filed on 4 July 2024;

(b) Reasons for the decision to issue a negative notice made by the primary decision maker;

(c) the Applicant's criminal history;

(d) the Applicant's traffic history dated 2 October 2024;

(e) police information in relation to the Applicant's offending;

(f) sentencing remarks in relation to the Applicant;

(g) written submissions made by the Applicant to the Respondent on 11 August 2023;

(h) oral submissions made by the Applicant to the Respondent on 31 August 2023;

(i) written submissions made by the Applicant to the Respondent on 10 November 2023;

(j) the Applicant's statement made on 6 October 2024;

(k) character references in support of the Applicant, namely:

(i) Kade Hobman dated 6 September 2024;

(ii) Varga Anvari dated 10 September 2024;

(iii) Teresi Peterson undated;

(iv) Daphne Santos dated 26 September 2024;

(l) answers given by the Applicant in cross examination on 10 December 2025.

[19] None of the Applicant's character referees attended to give evidence and be cross examined. The Respondent did not oppose the reception of their evidence, but contended appropriately that the weight to be given to them would be reduced. None of the written references went to the real issue in this matter which was the Applicant's insight, the risks he posed to children and the protective factors that might offset those risks, so the Applicant was not disadvantaged by the failure of those witnesses to be available.

[20] At the conclusion of the hearing on 10 December 2025 the Respondent made brief oral closing submissions in order to identify the Respondent's main contentions following cross examination of the Applicant. Leave was given for the parties to file written closing submissions and having regard to the Christmas closure, the time for those closing submissions was extended to 14 January 2026 for the Respondent and 21 January 2026 for the Applicant. No further submissions were received from either party.

The Applicant's Offending and Relevant Background

[21] The criminal history, sentencing remarks and police information show that on 6 September 2018 police searched premises at Redbank Plains and found the Applicant sitting at a table in the garage upon which were several clip sealed plastic bags containing cannabis. The Applicant had $1,265 in cash on his person and he had a mobile phone which he placed down on the table at the instruction of the police. A different "Oppo" brand phone was subsequently found "pushed into the cushions of the couch" the Applicant was seated upon. He provided the code to enable police to unlock that phone and it was later found to contain Facebook messages that appeared to be coded communications regarding the supply of cannabis.

[22] On 25 August 2019 the Applicant was invited to participate in a police record of interview, but he declined, after which he was issued with a Notice to Appear in the Magistrates Court.

[23] On 25 June 2021, the Applicant was convicted upon his own plea in the District Court of Queensland of trafficking dangerous drugs, namely cannabis, and of an associated offence of possessing property suspected of being the proceeds of an offence under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), namely the $1,265 in cash.

[24] The trafficking offence involved 139 transactions over the period June 2018 to September 2018. In mitigation of sentence, the Applicant had submitted that at the time of the offending he was a 21-year-old user of cannabis and his offending was, in part, a means of meeting his own demand for the drug. He was 24 years old at the time of sentencing. A term of imprisonment for two and a half years, wholly suspended for an operational period of three years, was imposed.

[25] Between the time he was charged and the time of sentencing, the Applicant engaged in self-guided rehabilitation, participating in a 15-week church-based program called "Man Up". Since then, he has become a co-facilitator of that course and on 6 December 2023 he changed his vocation from factory worker to disability support worker providing direct care and support services to individuals with disabilities and implementing individualized care plans. He completed a diploma of community services in 2024 and has applied for higher roles within his employer's organization, but his inability to obtain a Blue Card has limited his progression opportunities.

[26] On 22 February 2022 the Applicant applied for the issue of a Blue Card. While he disclosed the fact that he had a criminal history, he appears since then to have downplayed the circumstances of his offending because:

(a) In his Application for review he stated, "I got charged with drug trafficking in Redbank Plains and all I got was a suspended sentence and I've changed my life completely ever since, I was young and dumb and stupid."

(b) In his written submissions of 11 August 2023 he said, "I was eating breakfast at a mates house catching up then his household got raided, that mate had finished his court case then moved away then I got charged for being in the household at the time."

(c) In oral submissions made on 31 August 2023 he said, "I ended up pleading guilty because I was over it and it wasn't me selling."

(d) In a statement attached to his Application for review he said that he had been "put on a suspended sentence due to a silly mistake I had made in my younger years, been at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong group of friends."

[27] Having regard to paragraph [19] above, each of these statements was apt to mislead. The references to "silly mistake", "I got charged for being in the household at the time", and "all I got was a suspended sentence", tend to significantly downplay what actually occurred.

[28] Those statements also tend to distract from, and certainly did not draw the decision maker's attention to, the fact that the Applicant was still subject to the suspended sentence of two and a half years imprisonment at the time that each of the above statements were made to Blue Card Services.

[29] This point was taken up by the Respondent during cross examination of the Applicant who appeared at times to be completely forthright about his own shortcomings, including that his use of cannabis had been heavy, often starting when he awoke and continuing throughout the day; that his drug use had extended to cocaine and had nearly extended to "meth"; that his drug use had been combined on most days with 24 cans of mixed spirits and a one litre bottle of whisky. He said at times he had suicidal ideations.

[30] Despite those frank admissions, the Applicant was reluctant to admit the extent of his offending which led to his conviction for trafficking dangerous drugs on 25 June 2025. He denied that he had been trafficking drugs and reasserted that he had just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. He said the notion of trafficking had been explained to him by his lawyer. He did not agree that he had trafficked but said he had thrown in the towel on fighting the charges because of the time it was taking and the toll it had on his ability to work.

[31] The Tribunal cannot go behind the conviction and the admissions that the Applicant had made which led to that conviction; nor should it. Upon further examination, the Applicant accepted that he had acted as the conduit between people who wanted to buy cannabis and a seller of that drug, and that he had acted as the courier of the drugs so that he could smoke some of it when it was delivered to the purchaser.

[32] The Applicant was examined extensively about the circumstances which led him to drug use and the steps that he had taken to distance himself from that lifestyle. He stated that he had "gone cold turkey" in respect of cannabis and alcohol in about 2020, between the time of being charged and the time he was sentenced. He attributed that to his involvement with a faith-based program called "Man Up". He did not undergo any medical, psychological or other structured treatment, an effect of which is that he does not have any well developed plan for dealing with stressors in his life which might trigger a downturn in his mood and a return to his use of drugs.

[33] The Applicant was cross-examined about his traffic history which showed that in September 2018 he had been convicted of driving while disqualified. He admitted that he had driven but sought to minimize that by saying it was the very last day of his disqualification period, he had no money, had to go to work, he took the risk because he had to get paid. That showed a disregard for the law and a willingness to take risks when his needs were unfulfilled.

[34] Not long after his second disqualification period had ended, and while he was awaiting a decision on his Blue Card application, he had been fined for driving in excess of 13 km/hr over the speed limit on 25 June 2022, but when questioned about that, he said the fine was in fact the result of his sister's driving, not his. On 26 December 2022 he was fined again for driving, this time less than 11 km/hr over the posted speed limit, and again he said that it was his sister who was the driver on that occasion. Pressed on that issue, he acknowledged that he had "taken the rap" for his sister's speeding infringements because she was close to losing her licence. He accepted that this showed a disregard for the law and again put it down to something that just had to be done.

[35] It also became apparent during cross-examination that the applicant had been working with youth while awaiting a decision on his application for a Blue Card. That involved working in residential share homes with eight different families where the clients averaged about 15 to 17 years of age. Some of those youth, he said, were users of cannabis or other drugs. When asked why he engaged in work with youth knowing he did not have a Blue Card, he answered, "I've got a job to do so I just did it", "I got bills, I went and did my job".

[36] That approach reflected the same attitude that he had shown to driving while disqualified, that he was prepared to do what he knew to be wrong because it suited his needs at the time.

[37] The Applicant contends that he should be issued a Blue Card because:

(a) his criminal offending occurred when he was much younger, in a poor state of mental health and at a time when he was influenced by others;

(b) he has changed his life and is not the person he was in 2018;

(c) he is no longer involved in drugs, does not drink any alcohol and does not associate with the people that he did during 2018;

(d) he is motivated to help others in the community, to advocate on behalf of youth and to be a relatable voice that can deter youth from using drugs by telling them about his experiences.

[38] The Respondent contends that the Applicant's case is not an exceptional one because:

(a) his lack of candor in relation to his offending and his tendency to minimize what he did demonstrates a lack of insight;

(b) he had a very significant cannabis and alcohol problem, but had no formal assistance in treating those addictions with the risk that he might revert to his old methods of coping;

(c) he had been working with youth at a time when he knew he needed a Blue Card but was still awaiting a decision from the Respondent and this cavalier approach to the law and restraints upon him was also reflected in his traffic offenses, that he would do things that he ought not do when it was convenient.

[39] To the extent that I need to make findings about the Applicant's past conduct because he has sought to minimize it, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities at the highest end of the scale of proof in civil proceedings, identified in Briginshaw v Briginshaw & Anor,[15] that the Applicant was in fact engaged in the trafficking of dangerous drugs. I do not need to be satisfied that he was selling drugs for a profit. His admitted conduct of collecting money, purchasing drugs, and then delivering those drugs to the purchaser on 139 occasions is sufficient to amount to the offence of trafficking.

[40] On his own evidence he was a heavy user of cannabis at that time and his trafficking enabled him to partake in his own cannabis habit.

[41] In the absence of any specific contention by the Applicant, and any evidence led in support of such a contention, I am equally satisfied that he was also in possession of a mobile phone that had relevant coded messages between him and other persons relating to his trafficking of cannabis.

[42] For the purpose of ss 226(2) and 228(2) of the WWC Act, I am satisfied that on 25 June 2021 the Applicant was convicted in the District Court of Queensland at Ipswich of a Serious Offence, namely trafficking dangerous drugs over the period June 2018 to September 2018. The salient circumstances of the offending are set out in paragraph [24] above. He was sentenced to two and half years imprisonment, wholly suspended for a three year operational period.

[43] I am also satisfied that the Applicant engaged in the associated offence of possessing property suspected of being the proceeds of an offence under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), namely $1,265 in cash, although that is not a Serious Offence. He was convicted and not further punished for that offence.

[44] It is not appropriate to look behind his admissions and convictions in the District Court of Queensland. I accept his convictions as they stand.[16] I would not accept a version of events at odds with the version upon which he was convicted and sentenced.[17]

[45] The relevance of the Applicant's criminal offending is that it demonstrates that, at least in September 2018, he was willing to engage in illegal activities, jeopardizing the health and safety of others for his own personal gain which included money and cannabis. He lacked the ability to judge appropriate behaviour and exercise self-control. As the holder of a Blue Card, the Applicant would be expected to behave in a manner that protects and promotes the safety of children and their physical and psychological well-being, whereas his involvement in the distribution of drugs in the community would have had a direct impact on those who used the drugs that he supplied, as well as an indirect impact upon people who were around them, likely including children.

[46] The Applicant's own use of cannabis is also a concerning feature because the negative impact of that drug upon its users include euphoria, anxiety, panic, impaired motor coordination, attention, and memory. It had the capacity to put children under his care at risk of neglect in terms of their immediate physical and emotional needs. Children have a right to be cared for by people who are not using drugs that might impair their ability to promote and protect their best interests.

[47] While there was evidence in the form of a character reference to show that the Applicant had completed a faith-based "Man Up" program, and had gone on to mentor others in that program, there was no structured relapse plan that could be relied upon in the event that the Applicant relapsed into drug use for any reason.

[48] The statements that he made appearing to downplay the seriousness of his conduct are a concerning feature. It can be accepted that some years have now passed since his offending and conviction, but as was identified in FMA "The passage of time alone is not determinative of whether or not a case is an exceptional case." Downplaying his own conduct indicates that there is a very real risk that if he was involved in activities that put children at risk in the future, he would not be completely forthright about that. His statements also indicate a lack of true insight into the seriousness of his offending and his willingness to accept full responsibility for his own conduct.

[49] His criminal offending also demonstrated a lack of respect for the law and while that conduct occurred in 2018, the material before the Tribunal shows that:

(a) while he was engaged in trafficking cannabis:

(i) his Queensland driver's licence was suspended on 1 August 2018 through the accumulation of demerit points;

(ii) then, on 31 August 2018, he drove while his licence was suspended, again demonstrating a disregard for the law.

(b) on 24 September 2018 he was fined and disqualified from driving for six months, but just four months later on 24 January 2019 he was charged with Disqualified Driving for which he was fined $750 and disqualified from driving for two years;

(c) that disqualification period expired on 22 February 2021;

(d) on 25 June 2022 he was fined for exceeding the speed limit by more than 13km/hr, less than 20km/hr; and

(e) just six months later, on 26 December 2022, he was again fined for exceeding the speed limit, this time by less than 11km/hr.

[50] The two speeding infringements mentioned above were incurred at a time when the Applicant was awaiting a decision on his Application for a Blue Card.

[51] Driving over the speed limit puts other road users including children at real risk of harm. Driving while suspended, driving while disqualified and driving over the speed limit is yet another example of the Applicant's disregard for the law and for restraints that had been put upon him.

[52] The Applicant said that it was his sister who committed those speeding offences, but even that is not a satisfactory answer because, while that might mean that his own driving might have improved, "taking the rap" for his sister's speeding offences in order to protect her licence shows a disregard for the law, ignores the risk to children and other road users, and again reflects an attitude that the Applicant will do things that he knows are wrong if it suits his needs at the time.

[53] It cannot really be said that the Applicant now lives in a law-abiding manner. While he has been conviction free for a reasonable period, during that same timeframe he has repeatedly engaged in risky, unlawful behaviour either in the manner in which he drives a motor vehicle or in assisting his sister to continue to do so.

[54] Even if the Applicant had shown that he was now living a law-abiding lifestyle, that alone is likely not enough. The Appeal Tribunal has previously confirmed that the Applicant's positive lifestyle changes, bringing his conduct into line with community expectations, should not be considered to be beyond the ordinary course.[18] What he is doing is, at best, what the community has always expected of him. It is not, of itself, exceptional.

[55] The Applicant desires to obtain a Blue Card so that he can pursue advancement in his disability support work. This is an industry in which he has seemingly, albeit recently, excelled and in which he has undertaken tertiary studies, all of which he is to be commended for and encouraged to continue. That said, any hardship or prejudice that might be suffered by the Applicant is irrelevant to the decision whether or not his is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for the chief executive to issue a working with children clearance.

[56] Having considered all of the material, having regard to the above matters and the paramount consideration under the WWC Act, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this is an exceptional case in which it would not harm the best interests of children for a Blue Card to be issued to the Applicant. For so long as the Applicant continues to downplay his past offending and continues to demonstrate a disregard for the law there remains a real risk that the best interests of children would be harmed if he was permitted to work with them.

[57] The effect of issuing a Blue Card to the Applicant would be that he would then be able to work in any child-related employment or conduct any child-related business that is regulated by the WWC Act, not just to engage in the activities that he presently seeks to pursue. There is no power to issue a conditional Blue Card, for example requiring the Applicant to be supervised or to give notice of any change in his employment or activities. Once issued, the Blue Card is unconditional and fully transferable across all areas of regulated employment and business.

[58] The Tribunal acknowledges that to affirm the Chief Executive's decision that this is not an exceptional case will prohibit the Applicant from working in child-related employment or carrying on a child-related business which may impact upon his privacy and reputation. That limitation upon his human rights is consistent with the object and purpose of the WWC Act, that is the welfare and best interests of the child which are paramount. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no less restrictive way that the purpose can be achieved other than by the issue of a negative notice and that accordingly the limit on human rights is justified under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

[59] Pursuant to s 610 of the WWC Act, it will be open to the Applicant to apply to the Chief Executive to cancel the Negative Notice after 20 June 2026 which is two years from the issue of the negative notice.

[60] For the reasons set out above, I confirm the decision of the Respondent.

[2] Ibid s 353. "Chapter 8 Reviewable Decision" includes a decision whether or not there is an "exceptional case" for the person if, because of the decision, the Respondent was issued a negative notice.

[5] Oliver v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 50, [11].

[6] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v FGC [2011] QCATA 291, [31]-[35].

[7] [2004] QCA 492.

[8] [2016] QCAT 210.

[9] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher [2004] QCA 492 [42].

[12] Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 25.

[13] Ibid s 31.

[14] Ibid s 26(2).

[15] [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[16] Pritchard v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 25, [36]; Drinkwater v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 293, [19]; Stitt v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 257, [37].

[17] Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Gungor [1982] FCA 99; (1982) 63 FLR 441; Jackson v Commissioner for

Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2014] QCAT 186, [23].

[18] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27, [47].