human rights case notes

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to suspend his employment without normal remuneration after he had been charged with seven indictable offences, including five counts of sexual assault, which allegedly occurred during his work as a ride share driver and not his work for the respondent.

The case concerned an application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and requirements for police officers in circumstances where the Appellant was suspended without remuneration when her exemption was denied.

This application concerned an appeal of a decision to not approve the applicant’s request for an exemption from the requirement to receive the necessary doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.

BIL applied to renew his weapons licence, stating that he had an occupational requirement as a primary producer on rural property (acknowledged as a genuine reason for a weapons licence in s 11 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)).

The applicant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to dismiss him from employment with the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’). There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons, beyond bare acknowledgement that such rights had been considered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision which refused approval to deliver Satanic religious instruction in State schools. The judgment alluded to a submission made by the applicant which argued that s 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) required the phrase ‘religious denomination or society’ to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights: at [44]. His Honour did not consider that this provision was applicable on the facts, and thus no substantive comments were made about human rights.

This case concerned an appeal following a disciplinary finding. The appellant received a disciplinary finding against him following refusal to comply with a lawful direction relating to COVID-19 vaccination. The appellant submitted that the requirement for a hospital health directive to receive two doses of the COVID-19 vaccination was an unjustified breach of their human rights under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This matter concerned an application filed by the respondent to dismiss the application made by the applicant (mother) to review a contact decision designed to facilitate contact between the applicant’s children. In the reasons for the decision, the Tribunal referred to the right to protection of families and children in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (sections 26(1) and (2)) to give context for the obligation to support the family and why the applicant was a person affected by the decision concerning contact with the child. The Tribunal did not engage in any substantive discussion of human rights. The respondent’s application to dismiss the applicant mother’s application was refused.

This case relates to application for an exemption from the operation of sections of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in order to maintain a residency requirement of being over the age of 50. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) is discussed in relation to the right of recognition and equality before the law, and how it’s definition of ‘discrimination’ differs from that provided by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

This matter concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card due to the applicant being charged with a stalking offence. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to this decision as the proceedings commenced before its commencement on 1 January 2020 (section 108). Regardless, the Tribunal acknowledged that it was a public body acting in an administrative capacity and that the decision would potentially impact the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27), cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), the right to education (section 36(2)), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). This was balanced against the right of every child to protection (section 26(2)). The Tribunal was satisfied that the decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card was compatible with human rights as the limits on the applicant’s rights were reasonable and justifiable (section 13).