Children and Families

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.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. In ordering that the Respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal considered the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2) and cultural rights (sections 27-28) as contained in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The case concerned a review of a decision to issue a negative notice pursuant to the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), where the applicant’s case was found to be ‘exceptional.’

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.

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.

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.

This matter concerned an application filed by the respondent to dismiss the application made by the applicant (mother) to review a contact decision designed to facilitate contact between the applicant’s children. In the reasons for the decision, the Tribunal referred to the right to protection of families and children in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (sections 26(1) and (2)) to give context for the obligation to support the family and why the applicant was a person affected by the decision concerning contact with the child. The Tribunal did not engage in any substantive discussion of human rights. The respondent’s application to dismiss the applicant mother’s application was refused.

This matter concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card due to the applicant being charged with a stalking offence. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to this decision as the proceedings commenced before its commencement on 1 January 2020 (section 108). Regardless, the Tribunal acknowledged that it was a public body acting in an administrative capacity and that the decision would potentially impact the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27), cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), the right to education (section 36(2)), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). This was balanced against the right of every child to protection (section 26(2)). The Tribunal was satisfied that the decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card was compatible with human rights as the limits on the applicant’s rights were reasonable and justifiable (section 13).

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant after he failed to make submissions regarding his eligibility following concerns about his criminal record.