Criminal Law and Corrective Services

The Appellant appealed against two convictions for failing to provide a specimen of breath as required by police, and contended that the Magistrate who handed down the convictions had erred with respect to consideration of section 37 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which concerned the right to health services.

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.

The case concerned an application for a permanent stay of all the charges faced by the applicant in the Magistrates Court. The applicant broadly contended that he would never be in a position to obtain a fair and impartial hearing as the charges brought against him were fabricated ‘due to a sexual relationship between…[his] former de facto wife…and the arresting officer...’

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).