• R v Morrison [2020] QCA 187

    The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by the District Court on the ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive.
  • RTM v The Queen [2020] QDC 93

    The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it is in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 32(2)(c)) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
  • R v Mitchell [2020] QDC 89

    The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.
  • R v Logan [2020] QDCPR 67

    The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. In written submissions, Counsel for the applicant raised the applicant’s right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Horneman-Wren SC DCJ discussed the relevance of this right in the context of the application and ordered that the trial proceed on a judge alone basis.
  • Crossman v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 122 and 123

    The self-represented applicant appealed against two convictions for driving over the prescribed speed limit, stating that the Magistrates who handed down the convictions had erred with respect to section 35 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which concerns the right to protection against retrospective criminal laws. During oral submissions, the Applicant abandoned this ground of appeal and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was not further mentioned in either of the proceedings.
  • Attorney-General v Carter [2020] QSC 217

    Pursuant to section 13 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the Attorney-General applied to the court for either a continuing detention order or a supervision order in relation to the respondent, Carter, who was convicted of serious sexual offences. The court noted that supervision orders limit the right to liberty and freedom of movement contained in sections 29 and 19 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but that they did so to fulfil the statutory purpose of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) relating to  the safety of the community.
  • R v NGK [2020] QDCPR 77

    The respondent applied for a no jury trial in circumstances where measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic had prevented all new jury trials from proceeding. The respondent raised the right to be tried without unreasonable delay in section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The court found that the appropriate consideration was whether the making of a no jury order was ‘in the interests of justice.’
  • Volkers v The Queen [2020] QDC 25

    An application for a permanent stay of an indictment was brought by a former swimming coach on the basis of lack of fairness and oppression amounting to an abuse of process due to significant delay in proceedings. Reid DCJ found that the delay in prosecution of the accused since 2002 did amount to a breach of his right to a trial without unreasonable delay under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • Re JMT [2020] QSC 72

    This case concerned an application for bail for charges of murder and grievous bodily harm. The court briefly mentioned the rights of detained persons and the obligations the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) casts on the three branches of government, but there was no in-depth discussion as a human rights argument was not made by the applicant.
  • Johnson v Parole Board of Queensland [2020] QSC 108

    A prisoner applied for judicial review of the decision of the Parole Board of Queensland (‘the Board’) to refuse to grant his application for a parole order. Bradley J referenced the fact that, in reaching its decision, the Board must balance the legitimate competing interests of the applicant and the public, including the applicant’s common law and statutory right to liberty.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS

Research Area