QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	JRL v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2023] QCAT 499	
PARTIES:	JRL	

(applicant)	

	v	
	Director GeneraL, Department of justice and attorney general	

(respondent)	

APPLICATION NO/S:	CML192-22	
MATTER TYPE:	Childrens matters	
DELIVERED ON:	15 December 2023	
HEARING DATE:	6 October 2023	
HEARD AT:	Southport	
DECISION OF:	Member Mewing	
ORDERS:	1.	The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General that the Applicant’s case is “exceptional’ within the meaning of s 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.
2.	Publication of the name or identifying information of the Applicant or any person associated with him, other than to the parties of these proceedings is prohibited pursuant to section 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 – whether exceptional case – whether not in best interests of children to issue positive notice
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – where protective factors – where no issues with drugs or alcohol – where applicant has no criminal offences on record for more than 16 years
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – where risk factors – where few positive referees – where allegation of indecent assault – where allegation involved a minor – where criminal history includes numerous convictions for drink driving offences – where criminal history includes convictions for violence offences – where criminal history includes convictions for dishonesty offences – where attempts to minimise responsibility
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – exceptional case – where children depend on adults to have insight into their behaviour and its likely effect – where interests of children must take priority over applicant’s interests – where those who work with children must act responsibly – whether protective factors outweigh risk factors

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld)
Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott (No 2) (2008) WASCA 171
Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27
FMA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 210
Re TAA [2006] QCST 11	
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	

Applicant:	
Self-represented	

Respondent:	
C Davis, Legal Officer	

REASONS FOR DECISION
Background to application
[1]	In April 2020, an application was made for a working with children clearance and renewal of a blue card under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (‘WWC Act’) for the Applicant.
[2]	A check was undertaken of the Applicant’s criminal history in Queensland and interstate which disclosed offences between 1979 and 1998. These offences had previously been disclosed and known to the Respondent when blue cards were issued to the Applicant in 2010, 2014 and 2017.
[3]	In July 2020 the Respondent received police information about the Applicant which gave more detailed information about the offence of ‘indecently assault a person – aggravated offence’, allegedly committed in 2007.  
[4]	This offence came to light during assessment of the Applicant’s 2014 blue card assessment, but the Applicant denied any knowledge of it at that time, and the Respondent did not have sufficiently detailed information about the offence to issue a negative notice on the basis of it.     
[5]	The new police information received by the Respondent in July 2020 included a Police Apprehension Report from the South Australian Police containing offence details and versions of the alleged offence provided by the victim and a witness. 
[6]	Details of the offence are that, in 2007 in South Australia, the Applicant is alleged to have kissed a 13-year-old girl on the mouth without her consent and rubbed her leg. The Applicant was in his late forties at the time. In 2009 a warrant was issued for the arrest of the Applicant by South Australia Police but the Applicant was never located. The charge was discontinued in April 2018 when the complainant informed police she did not wish to proceed.      
[7]	On the basis of that information together with his full police history and submissions made by the Applicant on invitation by the Respondent, his eligibility to hold a blue card was assessed. 
[8]	On 26 May 2022 the Respondent decided that it would not be in the best interests of children for the Applicant to be issued with a blue card at that time, and a negative notice was issued. Reasons for that decision were provided to the Applicant on the same date (‘Reasons Document’).
[9]	The Applicant has applied for review of that decision. The decision is reviewable under the WWC Act and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). 
[10]	This review is not an appeal of the decision to issue the negative notice and to refuse to cancel that negative notice. Rather, the purpose of a review is to produce the correct and preferable decision, which can be done by fully setting out the facts and circumstances relevant to the Applicant holding a blue card, particularly in light of the paramount consideration under the WWC Act which is the welfare and best interests of children.
[11]	The Tribunal must apply the same law as the Respondent did when it assessed the original application. 
The Blue Card Legislative Framework 
[12]	Employment screening for child-related employment is dealt with in chapter 8 of the WWC Act. The object of the WWC Act is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children by screening persons engaged in employment or businesses that may involve working with children. The legislation is intended to be protective of children and precautionary in its approach.
[13]	A child related employment decision is to be reviewed in accordance with the principle that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount. The primary concern is whether there is a risk of future harm to children. 
[14]	Section 221 of the WWC Act requires that, in the absence of conviction for a serious offence, or a charge for a disqualifying offence that did not proceed to conviction, a blue card must be issued to an applicant unless the Chief Executive is satisfied it is an ‘exceptional case’ in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a blue card to be issued.  It is this Tribunal’s role to determine whether the Applicant’s case is an ‘exceptional case’. 
[15]	What amounts to an ‘exceptional case’ is a matter of discretion, to be determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances of each case, and having regard to the intention of the WWC Act, which is to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children in Queensland.
[16]	Section 226(2) sets out matters which must be considered in deciding whether an exceptional case exists in circumstances of the Applicant having a conviction or charge for an offence. Consideration must be given to: 
(a)	Whether the Applicant’s record comprises a conviction or charge; 
(b)	Whether the offence is a serious offence or a disqualifying offence; 
(c)	When the offence was committed; 
(d)	The nature of the offence and its relevance to employment that may involve children; and 
(e)	In the case of a conviction, the penalty imposed by the Court and the Court’s reasons for its decision. 
[17]	Section 226(2) also compels regard to any other police information, information about the Applicant’s mental health, and anything else that may be relevant to the offences. 
[18]	The list of matters to be considered in section 226 is not exhaustive, so other considerations that the Tribunal deems relevant may be taken into account. 
[19]	The WWC Act is to be applied with a view to restricting employment of people with certain criminal or disciplinary histories in child-related employment in an effort to protect children from harm. The WWC Act is not intended to further punish a person with a criminal history. Any hardship or prejudice that may be suffered by the Applicant by such a restriction is irrelevant to determination of a whether an applicant should be issued with a blue card. 
Law relating to Human Rights
[20]	In a review of a child-related employment decision, the Tribunal is a ‘public entity’ pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HRA’).
[21]	A public entity must interpret statutory provisions, to the extent possible and consistent with their purpose, in a way that is consistent with human rights.
[22]	In making a decision, the Tribunal is required to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision, at least by identifying human rights that may be affected by the decision, and considering whether the decision would be compatible with those rights.   
[23]	A decision will be compatible with human rights if it does not limit a human right, or if it limits a human right in a way that is reasonable or justifiable. 
Applicant’s Submissions
[24]	I have taken account of all material provided by the Applicant in support of his application for a positive notice, including written submissions to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review hearing and oral submissions at the hearing.
Written Submission of the Applicant
[25]	JRL is 63 years of age. He has worked in the health services industry as an Aboriginal Health Worker for a number of years. He has been in a relationship with MRS for approximately 23 years.  He has two children from a previous marriage and has been stepfather to MRS’s nine children.
[26]	The Applicant made a written statement to Blue Card Services in September 2020 refuting the allegation against him of indecent assault and recounting his version of events surrounding the alleged incident. He stated that he talked with the complainant and showed her family photos on his laptop but did not touch or kiss her as alleged.
[27]	Blue Card Services submitted a record of oral submissions made by the Applicant to its officers between August 2008 August 2020.  In submissions in 2013 and 2020 about the alleged offence, the Applicant denied the offence happened and said that he had never been summonsed or charged in relation to the incident.
[28]	In July 2023 the Applicant provided several additional documents in support of his good character, including certificates and letters of appreciation from various community groups and professional organisations, recognition that a group he worked with was a finalist in the 2023 Queensland Reconciliation Awards, and a Graduate Diploma earned in 2022 from a university. The Applicant also provided two statutory declarations from witnesses made in June 2023, affirming and repeating their previous statements made in support of the Applicant in 2009.
[29]	In September 2023 the Applicant again wrote to the Respondent after he stated that he was innocent of the allegations, and responded to (and corrected) some of the material the Respondent sought to rely on at the hearing.
Oral Evidence Given by the Applicant at the Hearing
[30]	At the hearing, the Applicant said he needed a blue card for the type of work he does, even though he only deals with adults. He said that he recognised his criminal history between 1979 and 1998 contained several driving offences (including drink driving, unlicensed driving and speeding), an offence of stealing, possessing stolen property, and offences of break and enter with intent, unlawful wounding and assault occasioning bodily harm. He said, however, that since 1998 he has shown that he had changed and improved his life.
[31]	When questioned by Ms Davis, Legal Officer for the Respondent, about issues of dishonesty in his past, he admitted some instances of being untruthful with police and others, but said in some cases he had been “set up”. He admitted that his driving offences may have indicated disregard for the safety of other road users, including children. He said he drinks a limited amount of alcohol now as he is receiving treatment for cancer, and in any case is a co-facilitator of a course on drug and alcohol addiction so he better understands the risks.  
[32]	With regard to the charge of indecent assault in 2007 (which never proceeded to conviction and which is denied by the Applicant) Ms Davis suggested that his failure to recognise that being alone with a young girl 30 years his junior who he did not know well when he was intoxicated (which was admitted by the Applicant) nevertheless showed a lack of insight. The Applicant said if he knew being alone with the young girl made her feel uncomfortable, he would have left. He said he was not a paedophile. 
[33]	With regard to the 1995 convictions for break and enter with intent, unlawful wounding, and assault occasioning bodily harm, the Applicant said it was in the context of an argument with his former wife. He said he had leaned on a door and it broke open because it was in a poor state. He said he stabbed himself as a selfish act to show his ex-wife what she’d put him through. He said his two children were home at the time but they did not witness anything, although a neighbour reported they were crying and in hysterics. He said he is sorry that incident ever happened and accepts his behaviour was not appropriate, and that he’d done his time for that and not seen his children for 15 years. He said he has since repaired the relationship with his children, and that he and his former wife are on good terms. 
[34]	The Applicant said his current support network comprised his partner, nurses and social workers that he works with, and friends he has had for more than 50 years. 
References in Support of the Applicant
[35]	MRS made a statutory declaration in June 2023 and appeared at the hearing to give evidence in support of the Applicant.  She said she had read some of the Reasons Document.
[36]	MRS has been the Applicant’s partner since July 2001. She said that, apart from living together, they also deliver mental health workshops and presentations together on a professional basis.   
[37]	MRS said she was aware of the allegation of an indecent assault in Adelaide, but as far as she was aware the Applicant had never been charged. She said they were both interviewed by South Australian police more than 10 years ago, and she thought that as nothing had come of it the matter was at an end.
[38]	She said she was aware of some of the Applicant’s criminal history, but that it was in his past so she didn’t want to ask questions about it. She said that the Applicant’s former wife was “nasty” and “damaging”, and that she used to phone the Applicant late at night intoxicated, screaming and yelling. MRS said that had never seen any violence or aggression from the Applicant towards her or her children.
[39]	She said both she and the Applicant have ‘Uncle’ and ‘Aunty’ status in their community and are highly respected. She said the Applicant has a good professional reputation and qualifications, and that he regularly receives great feedback about his work. She said he has made a great difference to people in their community.
[40]	TCKS, daughter of MRS, provided a statutory declaration in support of the Applicant in June 2023. She does not mention whether she had read the Reasons Document outlining why the Applicant was issued a negative notice.
[41]	TCKS says that she had known the Applicant since 2003, and that he had played an important role in the life of TCKS’s nine-year-old son.  She affirmed the statutory declaration she made in 2009, which describes the Applicant as a good, helpful, caring and respectful stepfather who had been a major part of her life.
[42]	TCKS did not appear in person to give evidence in support of the Applicant at the hearing.
[43]	The Applicant provided a further six personal and professional references written in 2009. All references were very complimentary of his character and work ethic. It appears that these references were provided for a previous Blue Card application, but the Applicant submitted them again for this review. Other than MRS, none of the other referees appeared at the hearing in person to give evidence in support of the Applicant.     
Respondent’s Submissions
[44]	The Respondent relied on the following submissions:
(a)	A bundle of documents marked BCS 1-226, which included:
(i)	the Applicant’s criminal history;
(ii)	police reports, transcripts and other information provided by South Australia and Queensland police;
(iii)	information from the Queensland Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and
(b)	A bundle of documents marked NTP 1-57, which included material produced by Order of the Tribunal by the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads and the South Australia Police;
(c)	The Reasons Document; and
(d)	Written submissions handed up and oral submissions made at the hearing.
[45]	The Respondent argues that while the Applicant had not been convicted of a criminal offence since 1998 and is not alleged to have committed any criminal offences since February 2007, the passage of time without further conviction or charge is not, of itself, conclusive that risk of harm to children is reduced.
[46]	The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s criminal history reflects adversely on his ability to hold a blue card because;
(a)	With regard to the 2007 charge:
(i)	it is categorised in the WWC Act as a serious and a disqualifying offence;
(ii)	the fact that the charge was discontinued was because the Applicant could not be located and the complainant withdrew her complaint, and not due to a finding of no guilt on the evidence; and
(iii)	there was no apparent incentive or motivation for the complainant to have made a false complaint;
(b)	Some of the Applicant’s offences and the circumstances surrounding them involved dishonesty, which reflects on the Applicants credibility generally;
(c)	The Applicant failed to act protectively of his own children by exposing them to domestic violence between he and his former wife in 1994, and prioritised his own feelings above theirs;    
(d)	The Applicant’s extensive traffic and drink driving history shows that the Applicant has no respect for the law or authority, and does not respect the rights and wellbeing of other road users;
(e)	The Applicant’s history raises doubts about his ability to present as a positive role-model for children and young people in his care;
(f)	The Applicant’s offending raises questions about whether he has the skills, attitude and abilities necessary to work with children and young people, including the ability to control his emotions, comply with rules and obligations, and respect personal boundaries; and
(g)	The Applicant’s past behaviour suggests a likelihood that he would engage in harmful behaviour in future.             
[47]	The penalties imposed on the Applicant have included terms of imprisonment, fines, disqualification of driver’s licence, probation, community service orders, and good behaviour orders. Sentencing remarks by Wolfe DCJ, for the 1994 offences of break and enter, unlawful wounding and assault, point out the absence of prior violent offences and note that a suspended prison sentence was ordered because the Judge accepted that the Applicant wished to have an ongoing relationship with his children and didn’t want to hurt his employment prospects.
[48]	The Respondent noted that in addition to those matters that must be considered under section 226(2) of the WWC Act, the Tribunal may also take into account anything else relevant to the Applicant holding a blue card, and in that context suggests that the Applicant’s responses and submissions show poor insight into his past offending. It was also argued that minimal (if any) weight should be given to statements of witnesses made in 2009 who did not seem to have been aware of the Applicant’s full criminal history and did not appear in person at the hearing to give evidence in support of the Applicant.
[49]	The Respondent said that there was little to no evidence that the underlying causes, triggers and risk factors that had led to the Applicant’s previous offending had been addressed.  
[50]	The Respondent correctly notes that the effect of issuing a blue card to the Applicant is that the Applicant is able to work in any child-related employment or conduct any child-related business. It is irrelevant that the Applicant may not work with children often or at all.   
Consideration of the Submissions
[51]	The Applicant has been charged with a disqualifying offence that was dealt with other than by conviction and has been convicted of offences other than serious offences. The Tribunal must therefore decide, considering all of the evidence now before it and bearing in mind the gravity of the consequences involved, whether or not an exceptional case exists such that it would not be in the best interests of children for the Applicant to hold a blue card. 
[52]	Relevant to that decision are the considerations in s 226 WWC Act:
(a)	Whether the Applicant has convictions or charges.  He has: 
(i)	One charge of indecent assault – aggravated offence (not proceeded with) for an offence allegedly committed in 2007; 
(ii)	Four convictions for dishonesty offences between 1984 and 1988;
(iii)	One conviction for break and enter dwelling house with intent in 1995;
(iv)	One conviction for unlawful wounding in 1995;
(v)	One conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm in 1995; 
(vi)	Two breaches of probation order and one breach of suspended sentence related to the 1995 convictions; 
(vii)	Nine drink driving convictions between 1978 and 2006; and
(viii)	At least eight other traffic infringements between 1979 and 2022;
(b)	The fact that indecent assault charge is classified as a serious offence and a disqualifying offence, but the other offences are not;      
(c)	The charge of indecent assault was allegedly committed in 2007, and other offences (other than speeding) committed up to 2006;
(d)	The alleged offence of indecent assault involving a child is directly relevant to employment or carrying on a business that may involve children, and the protracted nature of the Applicant’s drink driving and traffic infringement history indicate a general disregard of the law, public safety and the ability to judge appropriate behaviour—all relevant to child-related employment; 
(e)	With regard to penalties imposed on the Applicant:
(i)	No penalty was imposed for the indecent assault charge because the matter was discontinued;
(ii)	A six-month prison sentence was imposed for the dishonesty offences of making a false statement and obtaining a benefit not payable;
(iii)	A three-year prison sentence was imposed for the break and enter, unlawful wounding and assault convictions (suspended for five years) of which one day was served for breach of the order, with sentencing remarks noting the Applicant’s numerous drink driving offences, but also the absence of prior violent offences and desire to keep up good family connections and employment opportunities;
(iv)	Various fines, licence disqualifications and community service orders were imposed for the other offences; and
(f)	The material provided in connection with the indecent assault charge (while it is acknowledged that it did not proceed to conviction) provides statements about the allegations from the complainant and other alleged witnesses which must still be considered.
[53]	It must, however, be noted that the Tribunal’s role is one of evaluation of potential future risk to children based on the Applicant’s past behaviour.  The Tribunal cannot make findings about his guilt or innocence with regard to the indecent assault allegation when a court has not done so. Nor is the Tribunal concerned with proving that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed the offence. 
[54]	Rather, the material before the Tribunal is read in the context of the Applicant’s entire offending history to see if there are individual incidents or patterns of behaviour which suggest the presence of ongoing risk to children that may be in the Applicant’s care, and whether there are protective factors which might indicate that any future risk is minimised or removed.  
Protective Factors in Favour of the Applicant Holding a Blue Card
[55]	The Applicant’s professional role as a co-facilitator in indigenous mental health and drug and alcohol counselling work over a number of years may be regarded as a protective factor, as he has daily exposure to professionals in the field, is privy to the consequences that emanate from poor lifestyle choices, and he enjoys the respect of his colleagues (past and present), as shown from the various acknowledgements  and certificates of appreciation he submitted. In this context the Tribunal accepts that the pattern of drink driving offences to 2005 are unlikely to be repeated. 
[56]	The Applicant’s efforts to gain additional professional skills and qualifications in his field is also a protective factor, as it indicates a genuine commitment to bettering himself in the mental health and addiction counselling field.  
[57]	The testimony of MRS was compelling in its honesty and support of the Applicant, and the important role he plays in their extended family. She said she had never witnessed any violence or anything untoward from the Applicant. She also confirmed the availability to him of a strong professional and social support network. The strong family connection within that large family with no evidence of domestic violence since 1994 is a protective factor. 
[58]	The Tribunal considers it a protective factor that the Applicant has matured and, although the passage of time is itself not determinative that a past transgression will not be repeated, it is noted that only the drink driving offences (up to 2005 but not since) and other traffic infringements were repeat offences, and that no repeat offending has occurred with respect to the violence or dishonesty offences. 
[59]	With respect to the indecent assault charge, it is a protective factor that no similar event appears on the Applicant’s record. The passage of some 16 years since the alleged offence is again a relevant consideration. While the complainant’s statements were powerful and there was no reason to doubt their veracity, there is limited weight that could be placed on them in the absence of a finding by a court and when the Applicant was not questioned about it. 
[60]	The Applicant showed insight into his past offending at the hearing, saying he was remorseful for the domestic violence incidents that happened in 1994, and that he recognised he had an issue with self-restraint at that time. He said his “moral compass” would not allow him to act in such a way now. He said he completed a court-ordered domestic violence course in 1995 at which he learned respect and resilience, and the importance of talking about issues and seeking professional help. With no further violence offences on his record since then, it may be assumed that the course was somewhat of a protective factor and continues to be so.
 Risk Factors Against the Applicant Holding a Blue Card
[61]	Only the Applicant’s wife MRS appeared to give evidence in support of his review.  While the letters of thanks, certificates of appreciation and various letters about the Applicant’s work submitted in July 2023 confirmed his recent participation in certain professional and cultural activities, there were no recent references submitted by people who knew of the reason for this blue card review, to support the Applicant’s and MRS’s testimony that he is highly respected member of his professional and cultural community. Such references might have helped to confirm that the Applicant is indeed admired and held in high regard as asserted, and perhaps allay any concerns of a risk of reoffending and any consequent risk to children.
[62]	The Applicant occasionally sought to minimise offences for which he had been convicted, for example, telling the Tribunal that he’d been “set up” for one of the dishonesty offences, and not seeming to fully appreciate the impact on his own children of the 1994 wounding and assault offences which occurred while they were nearby. He said he didn’t “break in” to the house; the door opened very easily when he leaned on it because it was rotten, which seemed at odds with the violence that followed on that night. He also sought to blame his ex-wife’s behaviour for that incident. The Applicant did say that he was sorry the incident ever happened, but with the passage of time since those events, the maturity of the Applicant and the fact he was convicted after police investigation, it would be reasonable to expect that he might show slightly more insight and remorse about his role in those incidents. 
[63]	Additionally, the Applicant did not seem to fully recognise or accept the danger he posed to other road users (including children possibly on the road at the time) by his nine drink driving offences, saying he “didn’t like the way the question was framed,” rather than acknowledging the risks with the benefit of hindsight. Once prompted, he did accept that his behaviour posed a risk, but it did not seem readily evident to him without that prompting.
[64]	Lack of insight increases the risk that similar incidents might be repeated:
A person aware of the consequences of his actions on others is less likely to reoffend than a person who has no insight into the effect of his actions on others. This is particularly important with children because they are entirely dependent on the adults around them having insight into their actions and the likely effect on children.   
Conclusion
[65]	In my assessment of the evidence, I find that the protective factors outweigh the risk factors with respect to the Applicant holding a blue card. I find that the passage of time since offending, the absence of a pattern of offending with respect to his most concerning past offences, the stable and supportive family and professional life, presence of insight gained with maturity and experience, and reasonable understanding of the impact of his past behaviour on others suggest that the Applicant would pose no risk to children if he were to hold a blue card. 
[66]	In making this decision, I have identified that the relevant human rights of the Applicant that may have been impacted are the right to privacy and reputation, the right to take part in public life, right to further vocation education and training, and the Applicant’s cultural rights. Given my decision, none of the Applicant’s rights have been limited or impacted in any way.
Orders
[67]	Consequently, I make the following orders:
(a)	The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General that the Applicant’s case is “exceptional’ within the meaning of section 221 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) is set aside and replaced with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case.
(b)	Publication of the name or identifying information of the Applicant or any person associated with him, other than to the parties of these proceedings is prohibited pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).