Criminal Law and Corrective Services

This case concerned a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to reject the applicant's renewal of her weapons licence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and their obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

The applicant sought a declaration from the District Court, under section 29(7) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that his detention for offences for which he failed to appear was unlawful. Upon referral to the Supreme Court, it was held that section 29(7) recognises a human right to apply for a declaration as to the lawfulness of detention, but does not vest jurisdiction for declaratory relief in lower courts. The human right contained in section 29(7) would be accommodated in this, and other cases, by applying for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court.

This matter concerned an application for a declaration that the applicant had been unlawfully imprisoned after being failed to be released from custody after a Magistrate had ordered the applicant be admitted to conditional bail on 30 March 2022.

This case concerned an application of the defendant to subpoena documents or records from an organisation that provided counselling services and support to a child complainant. Accordingly and on behalf of the defendant, an objection was raised as to the standing of the counselled child to be heard under criteria in s 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Long SC DCJ allowed the objection of the defendant to the counselled child being allowed leave to be heard, upon the broad basis on which the application had been sought. Sections 25 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were mentioned in the header, but there was no discussion of human rights.

This matter concerned the sentencing of the defendant, an Afghanistan war-veteran who developed PTSD and other mental health issues after serving three tours of duty. The Court was concerned, after reading a psychologist’s sentencing report, about the failure of Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) to facilitate the defendant’s treatment and rehabilitation and uphold the defendant’s rights to access medical treatment.

Following their indictment before the Court in respect of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care, this case concerned an application by the defendant for leave to subpoena ‘protected counselling communication’ records and information; and produce to the court, adduce evidence of or otherwise ‘use protected counselling communication’; and otherwise disclose, inspect or copy a ‘protected counselling communication’.

This case concerned an application for a stay of proceedings by the Commonwealth defendants regarding the proceedings brought by the plaintiff. By application, the plaintiffs, Palmer Leisure Coolum Pty Ltd and Clive Palmer, sought an order that would result in a summary judgment for criminal prosecutions involving a breach of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a rejected application for a parole order. The court found the Parole Board failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a parole order, and ordered that the original decision be set aside and remade according to law. The court found it was unnecessary to address the human rights put forward by the applicant, other than to highlight the Board’s concession that it failed to give express consideration to the applicant’s human rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD), and that the rights to freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and liberty are not rights which are held by prisoners.

The matter concerned an application for a review of the decision from the respondent refusing to renew the applicant’s firearm licence. There were no submissions made from the parties in relation to human rights. Nevertheless, the tribunal was bound to apply the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The tribunal balanced the applicant’s recognition and equality before the law and property rights against the public and individual safety and found that the public interest in safety outweighs the private interest of the applicant. The tribunal considered that any limitation on applicant’s human right was reasonable and justified under Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) but did not engage in any further substantive discussion.