human rights case notes

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s (Queensland Health’s) decision to refuse the applicant’s application for an exemption to COVID-19 vaccine requirements under a directive. The applicant submitted that his human rights had been limited by the directive: at [23]. The Commission noted that his submission failed to “address the legal reality” that human rights can be limited in appropriate circumstances under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that there could not be a “more important reason” than the protection of the applicant’s colleagues, patients and visitors against the possibility of contracting a potentially deadly virus from an unvaccinated employee: at [46].

This case concerned allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Whilst no particular breach of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was alleged, the Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under sections 4(f) and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and considered itself bound to consider the extent to which the applicant’s human rights were affected by this proceeding.

This case considered whether consent should be given for a 21 year old female with impaired capacity to undergo a sterilisation procedure. The Tribunal referred to the adult’s right to not be subjected to medical treatment without full, free and informed consent (section 17(c)) and their right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This matter concerned a woman with an intellectual disability on behalf of whom consent was sought for a hysterectomy to mitigate an increased risk of cancer. In having regard to her right to recognition before the law, freedom of movement and privacy, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, the Tribunal found that limits were reasonable and justified in consenting to the hysterectomy.

This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Trustee of Queensland pursuant to s 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld).

The case concerned an application for a permanent stay of all the charges faced by the applicant in the Magistrates Court. The applicant broadly contended that he would never be in a position to obtain a fair and impartial hearing as the charges brought against him were fabricated ‘due to a sexual relationship between…[his] former de facto wife…and the arresting officer...’

The case concerned an application for an interim order for the appointment of the applicant as guardian and administrator for her mother, DP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and thus its obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant after he failed to make submissions regarding his eligibility following concerns about his criminal record.

The case concerned an application for a review of an exclusion from working in the disability sector. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant’s rights to fair hearing and not to be tried or punished more than once had not been limited, and that it could lawfully make a decision incompatible with the applicant’s right to reputation as the Disability Services Act 2000 (Qld) compels it to conduct a risk assessment, and to make the safety of persons with a disability the paramount consideration. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application.

The applicant applied for an exemption pursuant to section 113 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of owning and operating a manufactured home park supplying special accommodation solely for persons aged 50 and older. The Tribunal weighed the application against the infringement of rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and subsequently refused the application.