Public Law Considerations

The appellant sought a preliminary decision about whether information filed by QPS was ‘criminal intelligence’ in proceedings involving a substantive review of three decisions relating to weapons licensing.

This case concerned an application by the respondent for orders that they be granted leave to be legally represented at the proceedings between the respondent and the applicant. The substantive proceedings concerned the applicant seeking reinstatement of his former position, where he had raised the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [22]. This was not considered by the Commission.

This was a costs decision. The applicants challenged the directives of the Chief Executive of Queensland Health to make COVID-19 vaccination compulsory for ambulance officers and nurses in public hospitals and sought relief and remedies under ss 59(2) and 58 of the Human Rights Act 2009 (Qld).

The case concerned a finding by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that the applicant had engaged in misconduct. The Tribunal determined that the limitations on the applicant’s human rights were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

The appellant, a teacher, appealed against the Department of Education’s decision to suspend her without pay due to her failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination direction. The appellant argued that the decision made ‘an unjustifiable incursion’ on her human rights, and that the decision maker had no authority to ‘overrule’ section 4 of the Covid-19 Emergency Response Act (2020) (Qld) which states that it does not override the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The appellant was a technical officer at Redlynch State College whose employment was suspended without pay due to her failure to provide evidence of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in accordance with the Department of Education Employment Direction 1/21.

The appellant, a Registered Nurse, appealed against Queensland Health’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a vaccination directive, which he requested on the basis of his religious beliefs: at [7], [8], [13], [31]. As an aspect of the appeal, the appellant alleged that his human rights were breached through religious discrimination: at [36].

The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].

The case concerned a decision to substantiate an allegation by the Respondent against the Applicant in circumstances where the Applicant was a Queensland Health employee and had contravened a direction to provide evidence of her COVID-19 vaccination.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision from the respondent to refuse to exempt the applicant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.