human rights case notes

This case concerned an appeal by the applicant against the respondent’s decision not to permanently appoint the applicant within Queensland Health. The applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Registry. The Industrial Relations Commission noted that, in making the decision, particular attention was paid to Directive 09/20 (fixed term temporary employment). The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) is considered under 4.5 of the Directive. There was no substantial discussion of human rights.

This case concerned a review of the guardianship and administration appointments for WMJ. The Tribunal applied the General Principles in section 11B(3) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), including, in particular, the principle that the adult is entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms that apply to those with capacity.

The case concerned an application for interim orders for the appointment of a guardian and a guardian for restrictive practices. The adult was aged 49 years, resided in a Blue Care aged care facility and wished to move into a supported living home. A regional general manager for Blue Care had made the application due to concerns that VTA’s family members had impeded the preparation of a comprehensive positive behaviour support plan and that family involvement would also negatively impact any future transition into a supported living home.

This matter concerned an attempted appeal of a conviction on three counts of rape and one count of contravention of a domestic violence order on the grounds that the sentences are manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised in the appellant’s submissions in asserting breaches arising in the conduct of the trial.

This matter concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision made by the respondent that the appellant had not complied with the requirements of the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 by not receiving her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within the relevant time frame. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in an email to the respondent, where the appellant requested specific legislative references from relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that supported the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The case concerned an application for leave to file an amended application for review of various administrative decisions under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). The Tribunal considered that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as it does not affect proceedings commenced before 1 January 2020.

This case concerned an application to the Tribunal to review the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s positive notice and issue her with a negative notice, following a change to the applicant’s police information. In reviewing the decision, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), and cultural rights (sections 27 and 28) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal also had regard to the competing right of every child to ‘the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child’ as provided for in s 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This decision concerned an interlocutory application for a number of separate judicial review proceedings challenging COVID-19 vaccination directives to be heard on the same date. The court noted that one of its primary aims in managing the proceedings was to prevent a multiplicity of decisions that may give rise to different legal conclusions relevant to the provisions of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [4]. There was no specific discussion of the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to the case.

This decision concerned an interlocutory application regarding matters of civil procedure arising from defamation proceedings that were yet to be determined. The applicant sought to have their name anonymised in the court’s published reasons.

The case concerned a challenge to directions of the Chief Health Officer (CHO) under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which came about because the applicants' requested reasons for the making of the decisions to make the relevant directions. The CHO refused to give reasons on the basis that his decision to make the directions was of a legislative character, not an administrative character, and that therefore he was not obliged to give reasons. The Court agreed with the CHO. There was no discussion of human rights.