human rights case notes

The Tribunal considered whether a school directly discriminated against a student, on the basis of his impairment. The Tribunal noted that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply in this case as the legislation commenced after the relevant events took place. Nonetheless, it found no evidence to suggest that the student’s human rights had been contravened.

​​​​​​​This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, CA, due to his lengthy criminal history. In conducting its review, Member Fitzpatrick had regard to the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of families and children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned a review of the applicant’s decision to suspend the respondent’s registration as a teacher on the basis that the respondent had been charged with indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age. The respondent submitted that this suspension amounted to a breach of his right under section 34 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to not be tried or punished more than once for an offence. In upholding the decision of the applicant, the Tribunal noted that the suspension was not punitive and was in the best interests of children.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ML. Member Ashman stated that ‘[t]he Tribunal must...consider the intent of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)’ but did not elaborate as to which specific considerations were relevant to this matter.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, DTH. As the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time proceedings began, it was not considered in any depth.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, IAR. As the appeal pre-dated the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal held that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply.

This case concerned an appeal against a decision to not convert the appellant to a higher employment classification. The obligation imposed by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on public entities to consider human rights when making decisions was referenced within the relevant departmental directive, but there was no in-depth analysis of the Human Rights Act 2019.

The appellant filed an appeal against a decision to not convert their employment to a higher classification level. Contained within a relevant policy directive was an acknowledgement of the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of this provision or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally. 

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s decision to not convert the appellant’s employment status to a higher classification. Contained within a relevant policy directive was an acknowledgement of the requirement of public entities to make decisions compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of this provision or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally. 

The appellant sought to challenge the outcome of a review of her employment status. Contained within the relevant policy directive was a provision acknowledging the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of the provision in the directive or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally.