• 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).
  • Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Haynes [2020] QSC 348

    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.
  • JF [2020] QCAT 419

    This case concerned an application for an interim order that the Public Trustee be appointed for all financial matters for JF. Member Traves recognised that the Tribunal was a public entity acting in an administrative capacity within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and recognised the making of an interim order for guardianship was ‘a serious incursion on a person’s human rights’.
  • FH [2020] QCAT 482

    This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian to make decisions regarding legal matters for FH. Member Traves recognised that the Tribunal was a public entity acting in an administrative capacity within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and was required to consider the Act when making such an order.
  • R v Hickey [2020] QCA 206

    This case concerned an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against a sentence, in which the applicant relied on the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the argument faced ‘insurmountable hurdles’ and dismissed the application.
  • Dowling v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 340

    This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Satisfied that its decision was compatible with these rights, the Tribunal ordered the respondent’s decision to be set aside and replaced.
  • Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 1) [2020] QSC 273; Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC 293; Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 3) [2020] QSC 320

    A self-represented litigant applied to the Court of Disputed Returns for orders to quash the result of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council election and bring about a new election. The Court found that the applicant’s submissions alleged a breach of the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15) and the right to take part in public life (section 23). However, the Court held that any limitation on human rights was reasonable and justifiable pursuant to s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
  • PXS v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 342

    This case concerned the reassessment of an applicant’s eligibility to hold a blue card after criminal charges against him had been finalised. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was included in the respondent’s written submissions, but was not considered in-depth by the Tribunal.
  • River Glen Haven Over 50s Village [2021] QCAT 26

    This case concerned age discrimination pertaining to an application for an exemption from section 127 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The company in question had in its trading name ‘over 50s village’ which was found to contravene this section. Given this finding, the Tribunal did not engage in an analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) despite submissions by the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS

Research Area