Alphabetical listing of cases

The appellant sought to challenge the outcome of a review of her employment status. Contained within the relevant policy directive was a provision acknowledging the requirement of public entities to make decisions that are compatible with human rights. There was no in-depth analysis of the provision in the directive or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) generally. 

This case concerned a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to reject the applicant's renewal of her weapons licence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and their obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision to issue a negative notice for a Blue Card where the applicant had been convicted of breaching domestic violence orders, breaching a suspended sentence, breaching a probation order, failing to appear in accordance with undertaking, breaching bail conditions, possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence.

The applicant was issued with a negative Blue Card notice following his being charged with criminal offences related to an incident he described as a ‘prank’. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice and stated that the respondent had appropriately acknowledged and considered the applicant’s human rights.

This case concerned an application for review of the Department of Education’s decision to refuse SF’s application to home school her child on the basis that they require an address to be provided. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was relevant in assessing whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the procedural requirements and the terms of the application form to home school were compatible with SF and her children’s right to recognition and equality before the law (section 15), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to protection of families and children (section 26), and right to education (section 36).    

The case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant on 6 April 2020. The decision of the Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General that this was an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 221(1) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) was confirmed.

This matter concerned an application for review of the decision not to cancel the applicant’s negative notice for a Blue Card. The Tribunal acknowledged it must exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) but considered any limit on the applicant’s rights is justified because it has the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children.

The case concerned a review of the Respondent’s decision to refuse to cancel a negative notice that had been issued to the Applicant in 2009 because of his criminal history. The Tribunal upheld the negative notice. After reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal referred to sections 13 and 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and reached a conclusion that any limitations were demonstrably justifiable without any substantive discussion of the rights engaged or the likely limits imposed by the decision.

The case concerned an application for review of the decision to decline an exemption for COVID-19 vaccine requirements pursuant to Health Employment Directive No. 12/21. The Appellant submitted, inter alia, that a requirement to provide medical evidence may have unreasonably limited her right to privacy and reputation pursuant to s 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Commission considered the original decision maker discharged their obligations under the HR Act and ultimately found that the decision was fair and reasonable.

The case concerned a challenge to a domestic violence protection order regarding a relationship between two 12-year-olds. In considering whether the appellant was afforded procedural fairness, the Court briefly mentioned ss 31-33 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), namely, the right to a fair hearing (section 31); rights in criminal proceedings (section 32); and rights of children in the criminal process (section 32). On this point, the Court decided that the appellant was not afforded procedural fairness as the proceeding to final orders was premature, the short adjournment did not afford the appellant child a reasonable opportunity to obtain representation by a lawyer, and the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court ultimately set aside the protection order.