Alphabetical listing of cases

The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. In written submissions, Counsel for the applicant raised the applicant’s right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Horneman-Wren SC DCJ discussed the relevance of this right in the context of the application and ordered that the trial proceed on a judge alone basis.

The court considered an application for a no-jury trial and whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed on a judge alone basis. The right to be tried without unreasonable delay pursuant to section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered relevant, but there was no substantive discussion of the right or its application.

The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by the District Court on the ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive.

The respondent applied for a no jury trial in circumstances where measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic had prevented all new jury trials from proceeding. The respondent raised the right to be tried without unreasonable delay in section 32(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The court found that the appropriate consideration was whether the making of a no jury order was ‘in the interests of justice.’

This case concerned an application of the defendant to subpoena documents or records from an organisation that provided counselling services and support to a child complainant. Accordingly and on behalf of the defendant, an objection was raised as to the standing of the counselled child to be heard under criteria in s 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Long SC DCJ allowed the objection of the defendant to the counselled child being allowed leave to be heard, upon the broad basis on which the application had been sought. Sections 25 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were mentioned in the header, but there was no discussion of human rights.

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 matter concerned an application for a declaration that the applicant had been unlawfully imprisoned after being failed to be released from custody after a Magistrate had ordered the applicant be admitted to conditional bail on 30 March 2022.

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.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RAH. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RD. RD had previous convictions for matters of violence but for offences which were neither ‘serious’ or ‘disqualifying’ under the Act.