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 Tribunal identified that the rights to privacy and reputation, to take part in public life and to further vocational education and training may be affected by the decision.

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.

The Applicant sought a continued suspension of the Respondent’s teacher registration on the basis that the Respondent posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. In ordering that the Respondent’s submissions against the decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the protection of children generally took precedence over the interests of the teacher.

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.

The Defendant was charged with contravening an order requiring access to information on a digital device without reasonable excuse. The Defendant submitted he had a reasonable excuse because compliance with the order would unreasonably limit his right to religious freedom on the basis that the device contained photographs of his wife without a hijab and personal communications between them.

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.

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.