human rights case notes

The appellant sought a preliminary decision about whether information filed by QPS was ‘criminal intelligence’ in proceedings involving a substantive review of three decisions relating to weapons licensing.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment from a Registered Nurse (NG5) to a Clinical Nurse (NG6).

This case concerned an application by the respondent for orders that they be granted leave to be legally represented at the proceedings between the respondent and the applicant. The substantive proceedings concerned the applicant seeking reinstatement of his former position, where he had raised the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [22]. This was not considered by the Commission.

The case concerned objections to an application for a mining lease and an amended environmental authority. The Court discussed that they were required to consider the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and were subject to both substantive and procedural obligations under section 58.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised by the CCC in a draft investigative report to the applicant’s lawyers.

The case concerned an application for leave to be legally represented in any conciliation conferences held before the Commission regarding an unfair dismissal application. The respondent had raised in submissions specific issues that were likely to be disputed, both in fact and law, which included whether the respondent had complied with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There were no further references to or discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Commission did not consider human rights in the decision to grant leave to be legally represented.

ZDA was a 92-year-old hospital inpatient. Her nephew and a solicitor applied for interim appointment as her guardian and administrator respectively. In dismissing their application, Member Kanowski acknowledged ZDA’s right to the freedom to choose where to live (section 19) and their property rights (in restricting their control of their property) (section 24): at [16].

The Appellant appealed against two convictions for failing to provide a specimen of breath as required by police, and contended that the Magistrate who handed down the convictions had erred with respect to consideration of section 37 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which concerned the right to health services.

This was a costs decision. The applicants challenged the directives of the Chief Executive of Queensland Health to make COVID-19 vaccination compulsory for ambulance officers and nurses in public hospitals and sought relief and remedies under ss 59(2) and 58 of the Human Rights Act 2009 (Qld).

The case concerned a finding by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that the applicant had engaged in misconduct. The Tribunal determined that the limitations on the applicant’s human rights were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.