human rights case notes

The Defendant was charged with contravening an order requiring access to information on a digital device without reasonable excuse. The Defendant submitted he had a reasonable excuse because compliance with the order would unreasonably limit his right to religious freedom on the basis that the device contained photographs of his wife without a hijab and personal communications between them.

The Applicant sought a continued suspension of the Respondent’s teacher registration on the basis that the Respondent posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. In ordering that the Respondent’s submissions against the decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the protection of children generally took precedence over the interests of the teacher.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal identified that the rights to privacy and reputation, to take part in public life and to further vocational education and training may be affected by the decision.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal affirmed the Respondent’s decision. Although the Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), there was no genuine consideration of the rights of the applicant that were engaged or may be limited.

The decision relates to a man in his mid-60s with alcoholic dementia, PGV, who applied to the Tribunal for a declaration about his capacity and a revocation of the appointment of his guardians. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right not to be treated in a degrading way (section 17) and his right to freedom of movement (section 19) in the context of determining whether a guardian should continue to be appointed.

This case concerned an application for an interim order to prohibit the respondent from restricting the applicant’s communications with Matthew Flinders Anglican College or their staff, pending resolution of a discrimination complaint before the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal referred to its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), recognised that the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) was engaged but did not substantively consider any limitation or provide justification for its conclusion that any limitations on the rights of the applicant were justified.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s submissions that contended the grant of an earlier Notice to Produce was a breach of the rights to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to a fair hearing (section 31) pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal otherwise said it considered the applicant’s human rights submissions but that any limitation was justified, without providing reasoning.

This matter concerned an application by a journalist for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to seek orders authorising the publication of information about guardianship proceedings in a way that identified the person to whom the application and orders were about.

This matter concerned a successful application made by Mr Anthony Ferry ('the First Respondent') and the State of Queensland, through the Department of Employment, Small Business and Training ('the Second Respondent') for leave to be given to be legally represented before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.