Alphabetical listing of cases

The matter involved a Section 222 Justices Act appeal. The respondent had been charged with dangerously operating a motor vehicle while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and a permanent stay had been granted by the Magistrates Court to avoid abuse of justice that would occur if a further period of mandatory disqualification was imposed for the failure to supply a specimen of breath charge.

This case involved an application for review of a decision made by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to register the parent who gave birth to his child as the child’s ‘mother’, in circumstances where that parent identifies as male. The Tribunal briefly considered the right to recognition and equality before the law, the right to privacy and reputation and the right to protection of families and children (sections 15, 25 and 16 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) but ultimately decided that as the proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), it was not applicable.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment to permanent. There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

The self-represented applicant appealed against two convictions for driving over the prescribed speed limit, stating that the Magistrates who handed down the convictions had erred with respect to section 35 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which concerns the right to protection against retrospective criminal laws. During oral submissions, the Applicant abandoned this ground of appeal and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was not further mentioned in either of the proceedings.

This case concerned an application for review of a decision by the respondent to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, on the basis the applicant’s case was ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of s 221(2) of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening Act 2000 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant in circumstances where the Applicant’s case was considered an exceptional case.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s positive blue card and issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, CTC. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal found that the right to privacy and reputation (section 25), taking part in public life (section 23) and right to protection of families and children (section 26) were relevant, but did not substantively discuss these rights.

The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee as guardian and administrator respectively for CTR, in circumstances where it was accepted that the limits imposed by this order were reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) on CTR’s right to privacy (section 25), freedom of movement (section 19) and property rights (section 24).

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to promote him. Both the appellant and respondent referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their submissions but the Act was not substantively discussed by the Commission.

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General that the applicant was an ‘exceptional case’ under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) and to revoke the applicant’s blue card. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was submitted by the applicant but was held as inapplicable, due its commencement coming after the beginning of the proceedings.