Alphabetical listing of cases

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant.

The appellant in this case had sought an exemption to mandatory vaccination requirements on the basis of exceptional circumstances. These circumstances included concerns regarding a lack of consultation, safety, and efficacy of the vaccine, and the incursion upon the appellant’s human rights. The appellant asserted that mandatory vaccinations were a breach of section 17 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which provided the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Human rights breaches by the NSW Police were argued by the plaintiff, but the court considered the argument to be irrelevant to the case.

The case concerned an application to review a contact decision. The Tribunal determined that MKD was not a parent or a member of the children’s family, so he had no standing to bring an application to review that decision and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the application.

The Tribunal considered whether there was a need to appoint a guardian and administrator for GCS, an 89 year-old woman with impaired capacity. The Tribunal had regard to the interpretation provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (s 48), GCS’s property rights (s 24), freedom of movement (s 19), and right to privacy (s 45) when making its decision to appoint the Public Guardian to manage GCS’s affairs.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, GEE. In weighing the risk and protective factors in consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s prior ten child concern reports for children in her care, her history of domestic violence (as both a protected and respondent person) and limited criminal history, the applicant’s ongoing interpersonal conflict with others and authorities, the circumstances in her home, the lack of independent social supports, and the perceived lack of insight and accountability the applicant had for her own actions related to harm suffered to a child in her care.

This matter concerned a woman with an intellectual disability on behalf of whom consent was sought for a hysterectomy to mitigate an increased risk of cancer. In having regard to her right to recognition before the law, freedom of movement and privacy, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, the Tribunal found that limits were reasonable and justified in consenting to the hysterectomy.

The applicant relied upon the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association contained within section 22 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in seeking declaratory relief against the respondents. There was, however, no in-depth analysis of this provision provided in the Commission’s decision.

The applicant sought declarations that the respondents had acted unlawfully under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) by acting in a way that was incompatible with her right to freedom of expression (sections 21) and freedom of association (section 22(2)), and by failing to give proper consideration to her human rights. The Commission dismissed the application, on the basis that limitations were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

This case considered whether consent should be given for a 21 year old female with impaired capacity to undergo a sterilisation procedure. The Tribunal referred to the adult’s right to not be subjected to medical treatment without full, free and informed consent (section 17(c)) and their right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).