Law School

Du Preez v Chelden [2020] ICQ 008

  1. Home
  2. Research
  3. Vulnerable Persons Project
  4. Human Rights Case Law

Date: 15 June 2020
Court: Industrial Court of Queensland
Judicial Officer: Martin J, President
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 108
Rights Considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW); Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld); Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 556, 558, 567; Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld); Occupational Health and Safety Act 1993 (NSW); Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld); Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth); Workplace Relations Act 1997 (Qld)

Keywords: Non-retrospectivity

This case concerns conduct occurring prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). It was agreed by both parties that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the case pursuant to s 108, which confirms that the Act has no retrospective application, and so it was not considered in any depth.

This case concerned an appeal by the Commissioner for Mine Safety and Health, Ms. Du Preez. The Commissioner sought orders to set aside the Industrial Magistrate’s decision in a 2018 case to acquit Mount Isa Mines Ltd (‘MIM’) and Chelden Pty Ltd on charges of breaching provisions of the  Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) and to find both defendants guilty on all charges: at [2]-[3].

Both parties agreed that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply due to section 108, whereby proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Act are not to be affected: at [24]. Regardless, MIM argued that the court should consider Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially Article 14(7) which is ‘identical in terms to s 34’ of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [25].

Martin J, however, deemed it ‘unnecessary’ to consider the impact of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in light of section 108: at [25]. The application for leave to appeal by the Commissioner was ultimately ruled ‘incompetent’ and struck out: at [44].

Visit the reported judgement: Du Preez v Chelden [2020] ICQ 008