human rights case notes

This case related to a decision concerning applications for protection orders by ex-partners involving their child.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal confirmed the Respondent’s decision in finding that any limitation on the Applicant’s human rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified in that it had the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert his employment to permanent. The respondent’s decision was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

The case concerned an application for review of a yellow card negative notice. The Department identified that the rights to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 17) and freedom from work (section 18), so far as they related to vulnerable people, are already incorporated into the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld), and the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) supports but does not extend the paramount consideration.

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the applicant was an ‘exceptional case’ under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) and to revoke the applicant’s blue card. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was submitted by the applicant but was held as inapplicable, due its commencement coming after the beginning of the proceedings.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to promote him. Both the appellant and respondent referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their submissions but the Act was not substantively discussed by the Commission.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s positive blue card and issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, CTC. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal found that the right to privacy and reputation (section 25), taking part in public life (section 23) and right to protection of families and children (section 26) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant in circumstances where the Applicant’s case was considered an exceptional case.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment to permanent. There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

The matter involved a Section 222 Justices Act appeal. The respondent had been charged with dangerously operating a motor vehicle while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and a permanent stay had been granted by the Magistrates Court to avoid abuse of justice that would occur if a further period of mandatory disqualification was imposed for the failure to supply a specimen of breath charge.