human rights case notes

This case arose from an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM. During proceedings, the Tribunal initiated an application for a confidentiality order concerning a photograph of DKM.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, HK. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal stated that it considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and held that any limitations on HK’s human rights were reasonable and justifiable pursuant to section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, TWE. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and found that the ‘paramount consideration’ of the best interests of children justified any limitations imposed on TWE’s human rights.

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.

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).

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.