Alphabetical listing of cases

Foster parents applied to the Tribunal to review decisions made by the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women to remove two children from their care and cancel their certificate of approval as foster carers. The Tribunal had regard to the applicants’ right to recognition and equality before the law but held that the right to protection of families did not apply as foster carers do not constitute “family” for the purpose of s 26 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The protection of children under s 26(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), was also considered in relation to the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for bail, in which the applicant relied upon the right to liberty and security of person (section 29 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). Specifically, the applicant’s argument rested on unreasonable delay in the circumstances of his case. The Queensland Court of Appeal accepted that, weighing the factors at play, the applicant’s risk of reoffending was ameliorated to an acceptable level and that his continued detention in custody was unjustified.

This case involved an appeal of a Mental Health Review Tribunal decision to approve treatments of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for the appellant against her wishes. The Court had to consider whether the appellant could provide informed consent and whether ECT was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court acknowledged the appellant’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy (section 25), right to liberty and security of person (section 29), right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 30), and right to access health services without discrimination (section 37(1)) and considered the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was consistent with its task under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for bail for charges of murder and grievous bodily harm. The court briefly mentioned the rights of detained persons and the obligations the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) casts on the three branches of government, but there was no in-depth discussion as a human rights argument was not made by the applicant.

The case concerned an application to grant an exception under section 113 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) so that the applicant could complete their contracted works. The Commission ultimately concluded that it would be appropriate and reasonable to grant the exemption.

In the course of their employment, the applicants must comply with obligations pursuant to US Export Authorizations and, were concerned that, to ensure compliance, they may be obliged to engage in conduct in respect of certain persons which may contravene these sections of the Act: [3].

The case concerned an application seeking an exemption from the operation of s 14 and s 15 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of undertaking an affirmative action recruitment plan that targets only female waste truck drivers. The Commission was satisfied that the exemption was compatible with human rights and granted the exemption to the Ipswich City Council for a period of three years.

This case concerned an application by the Mackay Regional Council to receive an exemption under s 113(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to recruit only people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander to apprentice/trainee positions.

This case concerned an application for the renewal of an exemption of specific provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The Tribunal granted an extension of the exemption for an additional three years and noted that the exemption was compatible with human rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by a Queensland-based defence contractor, in order to ensure compliance with US laws prohibiting sharing technology and data with persons holding citizenship or permanent residency in a group of specified countries. The Commission considered that the exemption would impact on the entitlement to equal protection of the law without discrimination (section 15(3)), and right to equal and effective protection against discrimination (section 15(4)), but that the limitation was justified on the basis of contract compliance and national security. The exemption was ultimately granted.