human rights case notes

The appellant, a teacher, appealed against the Department of Education’s decision to suspend her without pay due to her failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination direction. The appellant argued that the decision made ‘an unjustifiable incursion’ on her human rights, and that the decision maker had no authority to ‘overrule’ section 4 of the Covid-19 Emergency Response Act (2020) (Qld) which states that it does not override the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to allow Terrace-Haven to operate a retirement village with an age restriction. The Tribunal considered that the limitation on the right to equality, which would only be impacted in a small way, could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom by facilitating the freedom of residents to live as they choose, with similarly-aged and similarly-minded people, and enhancing dignity by allowing people to live as they choose, and that there was no less restrictive and reasonably available way to achieve the purpose.

The appellant was a technical officer at Redlynch State College whose employment was suspended without pay due to her failure to provide evidence of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in accordance with the Department of Education Employment Direction 1/21.

This matter concerned an application for exemption under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) concerning a proposed policy with the effect of allowing the applicant to grant permits to conduct certain tourism businesses on Council land solely to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ST. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s right to privacy (section 25), right to taking part in public life (section 23), right to protection of families and children (section 26), right to education (section 36), cultural rights (section 27) and cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.

The case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant on 6 April 2020. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that this was an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 221(1) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) was confirmed.

The applicant was issued with a negative Blue Card notice following his being charged with criminal offences related to an incident he described as a ‘prank’. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice and stated that the respondent had appropriately acknowledged and considered the applicant’s human rights.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision to issue a negative notice for a Blue Card where the applicant had been convicted of breaching domestic violence orders, breaching a suspended sentence, breaching a probation order, failing to appear in accordance with undertaking, breaching bail conditions, possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RLJ. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s rights to a fair hearing (section 31) and not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34) as well as the right to protect families and children (section 26) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.