HRCN 2022

This matter concerned a review of the refusal of an application for a Blue Card by BJM, an individual who had been charged (but not convicted) with sexual assault of a child and investigated for possession of child exploitation material. The Tribunal confirmed human rights may only be limited so far as is reasonable and justifiable (s 13) and outlined that all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights (s 48).

This interim decision concerned whether a litigation guardian would be needed by any of three children who had brought a case alleging age discrimination in respect of the conditions of detention in the Cairns watch house for periods in excess of two days and failure to segregate children from adult detainees.

The Attorney-General sought a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The Court was required to consider whether a policy of the Queensland Corrective Service in not allowing the provision external support services in precinct housing was compatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The matter concerned the appropriateness of a supervision order under section 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) when there was evidence that access to necessary supports would be significantly impacted by the making of that order, but where the Applicant preferred to accept those limitations if the only alternative was to stay in prison. The Court found that a supervision order of 10 years’ duration imposed on Mr Grant was appropriate in the circumstances.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the Respondent to issue a negative notice to refuse the Applicant’s application for a blue card. Neither the Applicant nor Respondent referred to rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal noted that any limitation on the Applicant’s rights under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) would be justified because it had the purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of young people and children. The Tribunal did not engage in substantive discussion in respect to the Applicant’s human rights.

This case concerned an application by the Mackay Regional Council to receive an exemption under s 113(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to recruit only people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander to apprentice/trainee positions.

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements and failure to apply for an exemption. The appellant did not make any submissions expressly regarding the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and there was no substantive discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted, but did not consider in detail, the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). The Tribunal also noted the right of children to the protection needed because of being a child (section 26(2)).

McLennan IC considered whether the interference with the complainant's right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified in granting the disclosure of documents in pre-trial proceedings.

This case concerned a review of an application seeking to appoint the Public Advocate as guardian and the Public Trustee as administrator for PC by DB (PC’s carer and long-time friend and partner) and to remove a 2001 enduring power of attorney appointing PC’s daughters.