Public Law Considerations

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice (that is, deny the applicant a Blue Card) under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (WWC Act). Member Davies noted a number of competing rights protected by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) including the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to take part in public life (section 23), as well as right of every child to the protection that is needed by the child (section 26). Member Davis ‘narrowly’ came to the view that the applicant should be issued a Blue Card, but did not otherwise explain what consideration or weight was given to each of those competing rights in reaching that view.

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.

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed for the appellant’s failure to give way to a motor car vehicle or pedestrian at a stop sign. The appellant referred to their right to fair hearing (section 31) and submitted that law relating to failing to give way is an arbitrary and invalid law.

This interim decision concerned whether a litigation guardian would be needed by any of three children who had brought a case alleging age discrimination in respect of the conditions of detention in the Cairns watch house for periods in excess of two days and failure to segregate children from adult detainees.

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 a review of the guardianship and administration appointments for WMJ. The Tribunal applied the General Principles in section 11B(3) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), including, in particular, the principle that the adult is entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms that apply to those with capacity.

This matter concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision made by the respondent that the appellant had not complied with the requirements of the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 by not receiving her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within the relevant time frame. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in an email to the respondent, where the appellant requested specific legislative references from relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), that supported the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

This decision concerned an interlocutory application for a number of separate judicial review proceedings challenging COVID-19 vaccination directives to be heard on the same date. The court noted that one of its primary aims in managing the proceedings was to prevent a multiplicity of decisions that may give rise to different legal conclusions relevant to the provisions of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [4]. There was no specific discussion of the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to the case.