human rights case notes

The case concerned an application for review of the decision to decline an exemption for COVID-19 vaccine requirements pursuant to Health Employment Directive No. 12/21. The Appellant submitted, inter alia, that a requirement to provide medical evidence may have unreasonably limited her right to privacy and reputation pursuant to s 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Commission considered the original decision maker discharged their obligations under the HR Act and ultimately found that the decision was fair and reasonable.

The case concerned a review of the Respondent’s decision to refuse to cancel a negative notice that had been issued to the Applicant in 2009 because of his criminal history. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice. After reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal referred to sections 13 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and reached a conclusion that any limitations were demonstrably justifiable without any substantive discussion of the rights engaged or the likely limits imposed by the decision.

This matter concerned an application for review of the decision not to cancel the applicant’s negative notice for a Blue Card. The Tribunal acknowledged it must exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) but considered any limit on the applicant’s rights is justified because it has the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children.

This matter concerned an appeal against the respondent’s decision not to permanently convert the appellant’s employment appointment to a higher classification level. The decision included an extract from a relevant statutory instrument, confirming decision makers’ obligations under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Commission identified its role as deciding whether the decision was fair and reasonable, and did not engage in any discussion as to whether the decision maker fulfilled their obligations under the HR Act. There is no indication that human rights grounds were raised by the appellant.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision by the Respondent to refuse to cancel the Applicant’s negative notice because of several drug related offences that included the trafficking of dangerous drugs. The Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Acts 2019 (Qld) as a public entity and noted the relevance of the Applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to a fair hearing (section 31), as well as the rights of children generally (section 26). However, in upholding the negative notice, there was no substantive discussion of the engaged rights other than an assertion that they had been “evaluated”.

This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal acknowledged its obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and noted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to a fair hearing (section 31) were engaged but gave no consideration to whether any limit was reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

This case concerned an application for review of a decision by the respondent to refuse payment of a HomeBuilder Grant to the applicants on the basis that the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal noted the applicants’ rights to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), but found that, in the circumstances, any limitation of such was compatible with human rights because the Tribunal lacked discretion to make a different decision.

The case concerned an appeal of an internal review decision to uphold conditions preventing the appellant from returning to work while holding an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination. The original decision maker acknowledged that the decision may impose a small limit on the right to equality and non-discrimination (section 15), freedom of movement (section 19), and taking part in public life (section 23), but that such limits were justified by the need to ensure the readiness of the health system in responding to COVID-19. The internal review decision-maker outlined that human rights factors were considered in the creation of the policy, and that, while the decision has the potential to limit the appellant’s human rights, those limits on human rights are justified. The Commission did not consider human rights, which it said could be pursued through other avenues, and found that the decision was fair and reasonable.

The case concerned an application for interim orders seeking urgent cessation of the Public Trustee of Queensland’s appointment as administrator for RFJ for all financial decisions except for day-to-day finances and Centrelink payments. In dismissing the application, the Tribunal acknowledged the ongoing appointment would limit RFJ’s right to freedom of movement (s 19), property rights (s 24), the right to privacy and reputation (s 25), and the right to liberty and security of person (s 29) but was satisfied the limits were reasonable and justified, particularly in the absence of urgent and compelling evidence to counter the initial appointment.

This case involved an appeal of a Mental Health Review Tribunal decision to approve treatments of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for the appellant against her wishes. The Court had to consider whether the appellant could provide informed consent and whether ECT was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court acknowledged the appellant’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy (section 25), right to liberty and security of person (section 29), right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 30), and right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) and considered the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was consistent with its task under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld).