human rights case notes

The case concerned an application for review of a decision refusing parole. The applicant had been sentenced on two occasions after being found guilty of offences of torture, rape, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, deprivation of liberty, common assault and possession of dangerous drugs.

This case concerned applications filed by Dr Graeme Walker about LKZ, a 28-year-old woman who is 10 weeks pregnant and has impaired capacity. Dr Walker seeks the Tribunal’s approval for LKZ to undergo a pregnancy termination and a medical procedure which would involve the surgical removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes.

This matter concerned an application for the appointment of the applicant's son as her administrator as her appointed attorneys sought leave to resign. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s capacity to revoke the appointment and her capacity for financial decisions.

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed for the appellant’s failure to give way to a motor car vehicle or pedestrian at a stop sign. The appellant referred to their right to fair hearing (section 31) and submitted that law relating to failing to give way is an arbitrary and invalid law.

This case concerned an application for a review of a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission by Yin Cheng Jin, where the Queensland Human Rights Commission rejected a complaint by Mr Jin under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

The applicant was coaching children at a community-based sporting organisation when his blue card was cancelled based on new information affecting his criminal record. He had a criminal history relating to supply and possession of drugs. He sought a review of the negative notice.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, JB. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision. Although the Tribunal noted the importance of considering the right to the protection of children, it was satisfied that any limitations on JB’s human rights were justified in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There was no substantive discussion of human rights.

This case concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ISC. The respondent’s decision was made on the grounds that he was convicted in UK for the offence of negligent manslaughter and additionally on the grounds of alleged bullying whilst he was working as a sports coach.

The matter concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice in respect of TJS’s application for a blue card. The Tribunal did not consider human rights in any detail but observed:

This case concerned an application for the renewal of an exemption of specific provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The Tribunal granted an extension of the exemption for an additional three years and noted that the exemption was compatible with human rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).