• ZB v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 82

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ZB. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the proceedings, as they were commenced before the legislation came into effect. However, the Tribunal noted that if the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, its decision would potentially impact ZB’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to a fair hearing (section 31), and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the rights of children (section 26(2)).
  • WW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 7

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, WW. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair trial (section 31), the applicant’s right to not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the rights of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • VDG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 506

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of filming a person’s private parts without consent. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • TSG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 98

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of theft, drug-related and traffic offences. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the Act’s commencement. If the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, the Tribunal would have considered the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27) and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), right to a fair hearing (section 31); right to not be tried more than once (section 34), and right to education (section 36); as well as the competing right of every child to protection (section 26(2)).
  • Sheraton v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 431

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, Sheraton. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34) and the rights of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal confirmed the respondent’s decision and was satisfied that its decision was compatible with these human rights.
  • SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252

    The applicant in this case applied for an administrative review of a decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether his case was an “exceptional case” in which it was not in the best interests of children for the applicant to hold a blue card.
  • HAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 273

    This case concerned an administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of four breaches of the Weapons Act 1900 (Qld).
  • REB v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 312

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, REB, due to a previous conviction for contravening a Protection Order naming his former partner and her children.
  • FBN v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 260

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of offences in relation to the possession of cannabis.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS

Research Area