Children and Families

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice (that is, deny the applicant a Blue Card) under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (WWC Act). Member Davies noted a number of competing rights protected by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) including the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to take part in public life (section 23), as well as right of every child to the protection that is needed by the child (section 26). Member Davis ‘narrowly’ came to the view that the applicant should be issued a Blue Card, but did not otherwise explain what consideration or weight was given to each of those competing rights in reaching that view.

The case concerned a challenge to a domestic violence protection order regarding a relationship between two 12-year-olds. In considering whether the appellant was afforded procedural fairness, the Court briefly mentioned ss 31-33 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), namely, the right to a fair hearing (section 31); rights in criminal proceedings (section 32); and rights of children in the criminal process (section 32). On this point, the Court decided that the appellant was not afforded procedural fairness as the proceeding to final orders was premature, the short adjournment did not afford the appellant child a reasonable opportunity to obtain representation by a lawyer, and the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court ultimately set aside the protection order.

The case concerned a review of the Respondent’s decision to refuse to cancel a negative notice that had been issued to the Applicant in 2009 because of his criminal history. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice. After reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal referred to sections 13 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and reached a conclusion that any limitations were demonstrably justifiable without any substantive discussion of the rights engaged or the likely limits imposed by the decision.

This matter concerned an application for review of the decision not to cancel the applicant’s negative notice for a Blue Card. The Tribunal acknowledged it must exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) but considered any limit on the applicant’s rights is justified because it has the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision by the Respondent to refuse to cancel the Applicant’s negative notice because of several drug related offences that included the trafficking of dangerous drugs. The Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Acts 2019 (Qld) as a public entity and noted the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to a fair hearing (section 31), as well as the rights of children generally (section 26). However, in upholding the negative notice, there was no substantive discussion of the engaged rights other than an assertion that they had been “evaluated”.

This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and noted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to a fair hearing (section 31) were engaged but gave no consideration to whether any limit was reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

The Applicant sought a continued suspension of the Respondent’s teacher registration on the basis that the Respondent posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. In ordering that the Respondent’s submissions against the decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the protection of children generally took precedence over the interests of the teacher.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal identified that the rights to privacy and reputation, to take part in public life and to further vocational education and training may be affected by the decision.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal affirmed the Respondent’s decision. Although the Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), there was no genuine consideration of the rights of the applicant that were engaged or may be limited.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal referred to its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), recognised that the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) was engaged but did not substantively consider any limitation or provide justification for its conclusion that any limitations on the rights of the applicant were justified.