Alphabetical listing of cases

This matter concerned the appeal of a decision made by the respondent to transfer the appellant to a new managerial position. The respondent claimed that the transfer was made due to ‘complex difficulties’ in the workplace, mental or physical illness or disability caused by work and an account from a medical practitioner that the appellant’s workplace issues were the source of their health issues.

A self-represented litigant sought judicial review after being issued a negative notice by Blue Card Services arguing that his case was ‘exceptional’. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal analysed limiting the applicant’s human rights and issued a non-publication order in light of the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)).

This case concerned applications for the removal of PL, PJ’s mother, as guardian and administrator of PJ, and the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal briefly considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and was satisfied that the limits imposed by the guardianship order were reasonable and justified in accordance with section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

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)).

This case concerned the reassessment of an applicant’s eligibility to hold a blue card after criminal charges against him had been finalised. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was included in the respondent’s written submissions, but was not considered in-depth by the Tribunal.

This case concerned a review of the applicant’s decision to suspend the respondent’s registration as a teacher on the basis that the respondent had been charged with indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age. The respondent submitted that this suspension amounted to a breach of his right under section 34 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to not be tried or punished more than once for an offence. In upholding the decision of the applicant, the Tribunal noted that the suspension was not punitive and was in the best interests of children.

Following their indictment before the Court in respect of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care, this case concerned an application by the defendant for leave to subpoena ‘protected counselling communication’ records and information; and produce to the court, adduce evidence of or otherwise ‘use protected counselling communication’; and otherwise disclose, inspect or copy a ‘protected counselling communication’.

This matter concerned the sentencing of the defendant, an Afghanistan war-veteran who developed PTSD and other mental health issues after serving three tours of duty. The Court was concerned, after reading a psychologist’s sentencing report, about the failure of Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) to facilitate the defendant’s treatment and rehabilitation and uphold the defendant’s rights to access medical treatment.

This case concerned an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against a sentence, in which the applicant relied on the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the argument faced ‘insurmountable hurdles’ and dismissed the application.

This matter concerned an attempted appeal of a conviction on three counts of rape and one count of contravention of a domestic violence order on the grounds that the sentences are manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised in the appellant’s submissions in asserting breaches arising in the conduct of the trial.