human rights case notes

The Attorney-General sought a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The Court was required to consider whether a policy of the Queensland Corrective Service in not allowing the provision external support services in precinct housing was compatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The matter concerned the appropriateness of a supervision order under section 13(5)(b) of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) when there was evidence that access to necessary supports would be significantly impacted by the making of that order, but where the Applicant preferred to accept those limitations if the only alternative was to stay in prison. The Court found that a supervision order of 10 years’ duration imposed on Mr Grant was appropriate in the circumstances.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the Respondent to issue a negative notice to refuse the Applicant’s application for a blue card. Neither the Applicant nor Respondent referred to rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal noted that any limitation on the Applicant’s rights under section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) would be justified because it had the purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of young people and children. The Tribunal did not engage in substantive discussion in respect to the Applicant’s human rights.

This case concerned a review of decisions of the District Court to refuse the Applicants (who were each defendants facing charges in that Court) access to counselling communications under section 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The Court considered that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply and, even if it did, the judge would not have been required to adopt a different interpretation than what they had.

This was an appeal relating to a commercial dispute regarding refund fees for a pilot aptitude test: at [6]. The Tribunal ‘had in mind’ the right to a fair hearing both as a matter of procedural fairness and natural justice, and under section 31 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [98]. The requirement imposed by section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), to only limit this right to the extent that is reasonably justifiable, was noted. However, there was no substantive discussion of human rights by the Tribunal.

This case concerned an application by the Mackay Regional Council to receive an exemption under s 113(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to recruit only people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander to apprentice/trainee positions.

This case concerned an application for bail, in which the applicant relied upon the right to liberty and security of person (section 29 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). Specifically, the applicant’s argument rested on unreasonable delay in the circumstances of his case. The Queensland Court of Appeal accepted that, weighing the factors at play, the applicant’s risk of reoffending was ameliorated to an acceptable level and that his continued detention in custody was unjustified.

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements and failure to apply for an exemption. The appellant did not make any submissions expressly regarding the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and there was no substantive discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

The case concerned an application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory
COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers and certain staff members due to concern about a potential adverse reaction.

This case concerned an application for a review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted, but did not consider in detail, the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). The Tribunal also noted the right of children to the protection needed because of being a child (section 26(2)).