Criminal Law and Corrective Services

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.

The applicant was a police officer who was charged with four disciplinary allegations and found guilty by the respondent. The Tribunal noted that it was required under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to have regard to the applicant’s human rights, and found that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21) and right to not have his reputation unlawfully attacked (section 25(b)) were potentially limited. The Tribunal was satisfied that limitations on these rights were consistent with the proper purpose of upholding public confidence in the police service and ensuring police discipline. 

This case concerned an appeal of a previous Tribunal decision to set aside a decision of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to issue a negative blue card notice, and replace it with the decision that the applicant’s case was not an exceptional case. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time of the original proceedings so it did not apply. The matter was returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MAP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to the duties it imposed upon the Tribunal, and the relevance of the right not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) to the operation of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).

The applicant sought a review of the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to mandatorily cancel his Visa as he did not pass the character test prescribed in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in a report by Queensland Corrective Services where they said they had considered the applicant’s human rights when determining that he required the level of structured supervision afforded to prisoners managed as high security.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal claiming that the Queensland Police Service were directly discriminating against him by placing alerts, warnings and flags on his personal profile on their internal database. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was held not to apply as the events in question occurred prior to its commencement. The Tribunal noted that the evidence did not meet the standard required to make any findings of a contravention of human rights.

​​​​​​​An action for judicial review was brought by a prisoner in relation to two decisions: the decision to impose a maximum security order (MSO) for a further six months (following seven years of being subject to such an order); and the decision to impose a no association order. The applicant claimed that the decision-maker breached the obligation to make decisions consistently with human rights, and to consider human rights in the making of decisions. The applicant failed to make out the claims with respect to the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the right to liberty and security of person, but was successful in making out the claim in relation to the right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty.  

The Attorney-General applied for a supervision order pursuant to ss 13(5)(b) and 16 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) in relation to the respondent, who was convicted of serious sexual offences. The court noted the respondent’s right to a fair hearing (s 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) when considering the appellant’s submissions, which were not considered further.