Human Rights Case Law Project

Published cases referring to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

The UQ/Caxton Human Rights Case Law Project is an initiative of the UQ School of Law and Caxton Legal Centre Inc. The aim of this project is to ensure that practitioners, researchers, students and members of the public have easy access to all published cases that refer to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Case notes for all published decisions that mention the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) will be added to this page. Please be patient with us – we are a small team so the case notes might not appear immediately, but we will do our best to complete them as quickly as possible.

This project is run by Professor Tamara Walsh (UQ Pro Bono Centre) and Bridget Burton (Caxton Legal Centre).

Current team members are: Laura Rowswell (Student Leader), Liisa Kuru (Student Leader), Laura Hall, Kano Nawagawa, Imogen Ryan-Kerr, Emily Gracias, Sarah Millar, Ella North, Elize Atme, Diksha Arora, Ocean Desta-Gebru and Bethany Jones.

Many thanks to our founding members: Elizabeth Aisi, Linden Peacock and Tulli Seton.

Case notes are available by keyword below and in alphabetical order.

Case notes by keyword

Children and Families
Civil Procedure
Commercial
Criminal Law and Corrective Services
Cultural rights
Discrimination
Domestic Violence
Education, Training and Employment
Health, Mental Health and Guardianship
Planning and Environment
Political Freedoms
Privacy and Confidentiality
Public Law Considerations
Tenancy and Social Housing

CDC v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General ([2021]) QCAT 112

The applicant sought a review of a decision to issue her a negative notice in response to an application for a blue card. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply, as the proceedings began before the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Coonan v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2020] QCAT 434

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.
CSG v Director General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 412

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).
CTA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General ([2021]) QCAT 442

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.
CTC v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General ([2021]) QCAT 406

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.
DAN v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General ([2021]) QCAT 229

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.
DEF v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 127

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the Applicant. The Tribunal confirmed the Respondent’s decision in finding that any limitation on the Applicant’s human rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was justified in that it had the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people.
Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v MAP [2022] QCATA 34

This case concerned an appeal of a previous Tribunal decision to set aside a decision of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to issue a negative blue card notice, and replace it with the decision that the applicant’s case was not an exceptional case. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not commenced at the time of the original proceedings so it did not apply. The matter was returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.
DL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General ([2021]) QCAT 61

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the working with children clearance and blue card of the applicant, DL, and to issue a negative notice in its place. This decision meant the applicant could no longer continue to work as a foster carer. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and to take part in public life (section 23), as well as the right to protection of families and children (section 26), and the Tribunal’s own role as a public entity under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
DM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2022] QCAT 199

This case concerned an application for review of the Respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant after he failed to make submissions regarding his eligibility following concerns about his criminal record.

Pages

Flowers v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1467

Human rights breaches by the NSW Police were argued by the plaintiff, but the court considered the argument to be irrelevant to the case.
Isles v State of Queensland [2021] QCAT 135

The applicant applied to the Tribunal claiming that the Queensland Police Service were directly discriminating against him by placing alerts, warnings and flags on his personal profile on their internal database. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was held not to apply as the events in question occurred prior to its commencement. The Tribunal noted that the evidence did not meet the standard required to make any findings of a contravention of human rights.
Johnson v Parole Board of Queensland [2020] QSC 108

A prisoner applied for judicial review of the decision of the Parole Board of Queensland (‘the Board’) to refuse to grant his application for a parole order. Bradley J referenced the fact that, in reaching its decision, the Board must balance the legitimate competing interests of the applicant and the public, including the applicant’s common law and statutory right to liberty.
Jones v Commissioner of Police [2023] QDC 113

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed for the appellant’s failure to give way to a motor car vehicle or pedestrian at a stop sign. The appellant referred to their right to fair hearing (section 31) and submitted that law relating to failing to give way is an arbitrary and invalid law.
Lawler v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 309

The matter concerned an application for a review of the decision from the respondent refusing to renew the applicant’s firearm licence. There were no submissions made from the parties in relation to human rights. Nevertheless, the tribunal was bound to apply the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The tribunal balanced the applicant’s recognition and equality before the law and property rights against the public and individual safety and found that the public interest in safety outweighs the private interest of the applicant. The tribunal considered that any limitation on applicant’s human right was reasonable and justified under Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) but did not engage in any further substantive discussion.
MAP v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 527

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MAP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to the duties it imposed upon the Tribunal, and the relevance of the right not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right to privacy and reputation (section 25) to the operation of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
Morgan v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 280

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a rejected application for a parole order. The court found the Parole Board failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a parole order, and ordered that the original decision be set aside and remade according to law. The court found it was unnecessary to address the human rights put forward by the applicant, other than to highlight the Board’s concession that it failed to give express consideration to the applicant’s human rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD), and that the rights to freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and liberty are not rights which are held by prisoners.
MWCW and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 777

The applicant sought a review of the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to mandatorily cancel his Visa as he did not pass the character test prescribed in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in a report by Queensland Corrective Services where they said they had considered the applicant’s human rights when determining that he required the level of structured supervision afforded to prisoners managed as high security.
Naehu v Parole Board Queensland [2023] QSC 16

The case concerned an application for review of a decision refusing parole. The applicant had been sentenced on two occasions after being found guilty of offences of torture, rape, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, deprivation of liberty, common assault and possession of dangerous drugs.
Owen-D’Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273

An action for judicial review was brought by a prisoner in relation to two decisions: the decision to impose a maximum security order (MSO) for a further six months (following seven years of being subject to such an order); and the decision to impose a no association order. The applicant claimed that the decision-maker breached the obligation to make decisions consistently with human rights, and to consider human rights in the making of decisions. The applicant failed to make out the claims with respect to the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the right to liberty and security of person, but was successful in making out the claim in relation to the right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty.

Pages

ABD v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 57

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant. The Tribunal stated that it had considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and concluded that its decision did not unreasonably compromise any of the human rights affected.
DL v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General ([2021]) QCAT 61

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the working with children clearance and blue card of the applicant, DL, and to issue a negative notice in its place. This decision meant the applicant could no longer continue to work as a foster carer. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and to take part in public life (section 23), as well as the right to protection of families and children (section 26), and the Tribunal’s own role as a public entity under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

BR v State of Queensland (No 2) [2022] QIRC 154

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to suspend his employment without normal remuneration after he had been charged with seven indictable offences, including five counts of sexual assault, which allegedly occurred during his work as a ride share driver and not his work for the respondent.
Campbell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 405

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from her duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements.
Casson v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 113

The appellant sought a review of the decision to suspend his employment from public service without remuneration as a result of his noncompliance with a direction to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.
Cervenjak v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice & Multicultural Affairs) [2022] QIRC 363

This case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary findings decision and suspension without pay decision due to non-compliance with the COVID-19 vaccination requirement policy.
Chinniah v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 186

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to refuse to convert the appellant’s employment from an AO5 Deployment Officer to an AO6 Senior Deployment Officer where she had been effectively acting at the higher level since August 2018.
Chou v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 153

This case concerned an appeal against a deemed decision not to convert the appellant to a higher classification position. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in a quoted passage from ‘Directive 13/20 Appointing a public service employee to a higher classification level’. However, there was no substantive discussion of human rights in the reasons.
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 018

On appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, the appellant sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to suspend her employment without remuneration after she refused to comply with Direction No. 12 that mandated the COVID-19 vaccination for the health and safety of members of the Queensland Police Service.
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 018

Ms Colebourne was an employee Queensland Police Service. She refused to be vaccinated. Her employment was suspended without remuneration. She challenged this on various grounds including that the decision was to punish her, which was an improper purpose under statute: at [34]. Her evidence for this was an admission by Acting Assistant Commissioner Nelson that the decision limited various of her rights: at [80].
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 40

The case concerned an appeal against a failed application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers.
Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215

This matter concerned an appeal brought by an employee of Queensland Health against a decision made by the respondent pursuant to the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 – Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements (‘the Directive’).

Pages

CTR [2022] QCAT 368

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).
DAMA v Public Guardian [2020] QCATA 161

This case concerned an application for a stay of the operation of orders made by the Tribunal in relation to guardianship proceedings arising from a dispute between DAMA and DEA, the attorneys for DA. The Tribunal recognised that section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provides for the right not to have a person’s privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, but noted that human rights may be subject to reasonable limitation.
DKM [2020] QCAT 441

This case arose from an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM. During proceedings, the Tribunal initiated an application for a confidentiality order concerning a photograph of DKM.
DKM [2020] QCAT 443

The Tribunal heard an application for the Public Guardian to be appointed as guardian for DKM.
DLD [2020] QCAT 237

The Tribunal considered the appointment of a suitable guardian and administrator for a woman experiencing impaired decision making as a result of dementia.
DP [2021] QCAT 271

The case concerned an application for an interim order for the appointment of the applicant as guardian and administrator for her mother, DP. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and thus its obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.
EB [2021] QCAT 434

This matter concerned an application for an interim order seeking the appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland. The Tribunal recognised that the right to freedom of movement (section 19) and right to privacy and reputation (section 25) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) may be affected by the appointment of a guardian for accommodation matters. The Tribunal noted that these rights, in addition to the right to a fair hearing (section 31) under the Human Rights Act 2019, would be limited in the short-term pending a hearing held at a later date.
EMC v MMH & Ors [2022] QCATA 139

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal and an application to stay a decision made by the Tribunal regarding EMC’s removal as an Enduring Power of Attorney for ECJ.
FH [2020] QCAT 482

This case concerned an application for the appointment of the Public Guardian to make decisions regarding legal matters for FH. Member Traves recognised that the Tribunal was a public entity acting in an administrative capacity within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and was required to consider the Act when making such an order.
FHV [2022] QCAT 312

This case concerned a review of the appointment of the Public Trustee of Queensland pursuant to s 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld).

Pages

Morgan v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 280

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a rejected application for a parole order. The court found the Parole Board failed to take into account relevant considerations when making its decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a parole order, and ordered that the original decision be set aside and remade according to law. The court found it was unnecessary to address the human rights put forward by the applicant, other than to highlight the Board’s concession that it failed to give express consideration to the applicant’s human rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD), and that the rights to freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and liberty are not rights which are held by prisoners.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21

The case concerned an application for a mining lease and environmental authority. The Court provided a detailed consideration of the mine’s human rights impacts through its contribution to climate change, and effect on the surrounding area. The Court ultimately concluded that the limitations to human rights imposed by the mine were unjustifiable.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 5) [2022] QLC 4

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd (Waratah) sought a mining lease and authorisation to mine thermal coal in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. This hearing concerned an application for an order to take evidence from First Nations witnesses on country. The Court balanced the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples under section 28 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) against the public and private interests of minimising the inconvenience and cost of litigation. The Court held that refusing the application for on country evidence was not reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in the circumstances of the case.
Health Ombudsman v Raynor [2021] QCAT 25

The Tribunal was tasked with considering an application for a prohibition order against a self-represented respondent who provided massage and therapy services despite not being a registered health practitioner. The respondent made human rights submissions including the right to freedom of expression (section 21 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)) and right to protection against retrospective criminal laws (section 35 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)), and the Tribunal noted the balance of these rights with other legislation.
EH v Queensland Police Service; GS v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 205

The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 22) in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was briefly mentioned by Fantin DCJ in Her Honour’s reasons for allowing an appeal and resentencing the two appellants in circumstances where the original sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

Pages

HFI [2020] QCAT 481

This case concerned an application for a confidentiality order, protecting personal information that the Tribunal held pertaining to HFI. In making this confidentiality order, Member Goodman recognised that any infringement of HFI’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were reasonably justified in order to prevent serious harm to HFI.
HM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 13

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, HM. The Tribunal considered whether its decision was compatible with the applicant’s rights to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the rights of children to necessary protection that is in their best interests (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and concluded that its decision promotes and is compatible with human rights.
Hunt v State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) [2022] QIRC 162

This matter involved an application for appeal of a disciplinary decision from the Respondent based on various allegations made in respect to the Applicant’s conduct during his employment.
IMM v Department of Housing and Public Works [2020] QCATA 73

This case concerned the right to a fair hearing, particularly the right to have all judgments or decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available pursuant to section 31(3) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The applicant sought an order that his name be suppressed to protect his mental health, and the Tribunal ordered a non-publication order on this basis.
JDT v PDL (No 2) [2022] QDC 147

This decision concerned an interlocutory application regarding matters of civil procedure arising from defamation proceedings that were yet to be determined. The applicant sought to have their name anonymised in the court’s published reasons.
LKZ [2023] QCAT 315

This case concerned applications filed by Dr Graeme Walker about LKZ, a 28-year-old woman who is 10 weeks pregnant and has impaired capacity. Dr Walker seeks the Tribunal’s approval for LKZ to undergo a pregnancy termination and a medical procedure which would involve the surgical removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes.
MB [2022] QCAT 185

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MB. In affirming the respondent’s decision, the Tribunal considered property rights, the right to privacy and reputation, the right to protection of families and children, the right to a fair hearing, the right not to be tried or punished more than once and the right to education.
MK v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2021] QCAT 62

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, MK. In conducting its review, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant's right to take part in public life (section 23), right to privacy and reputation (section 25), and right to further vocational education and training (section 36(2)), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)), under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Mohr-Edgar v State of Queensland (Legal Aid Queensland) [2020] QIRC 136

In her complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), the Applicant referred to employees of Legal Aid Queensland. Legal Aid Queensland made an application seeking suppression orders within these proceedings, citing the right to privacy and reputation contained in section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
MXQ [2021] QCAT 381

This application concerned the appointment of a guardian and administrator for MXQ, the making of a confidentiality order, and the making of orders limiting information sharing with particular individuals.

Pages

Brown v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 312

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to refuse to exempt the appellant from COVID-19 vaccination requirements on the basis of a genuinely held religious belief.
Burleigh Town Village Pty Ltd (3) [2022] QCAT 285

The applicant applied for an exemption pursuant to section 113 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of owning and operating a manufactured home park supplying special accommodation solely for persons aged 50 and older. The Tribunal weighed the application against the infringement of rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and subsequently refused the application.
Campbell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 405

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from her duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements.
Casson v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 113

The appellant sought a review of the decision to suspend his employment from public service without remuneration as a result of his noncompliance with a direction to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.
Clarke v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 415

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to revoke the applicant’s weapons license. The Tribunal upheld the decision on the grounds that the applicant was no longer a fit and proper person to hold such a license.
Clarke v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 70

The case concerned an appeal against a suspension without remuneration decision that involved the Appellant’s refusal to meet COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 018

On appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, the appellant sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to suspend her employment without remuneration after she refused to comply with Direction No. 12 that mandated the COVID-19 vaccination for the health and safety of members of the Queensland Police Service.
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 018

Ms Colebourne was an employee Queensland Police Service. She refused to be vaccinated. Her employment was suspended without remuneration. She challenged this on various grounds including that the decision was to punish her, which was an improper purpose under statute: at [34]. Her evidence for this was an admission by Acting Assistant Commissioner Nelson that the decision limited various of her rights: at [80].
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 40

The case concerned an appeal against a failed application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers.
Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215

This matter concerned an appeal brought by an employee of Queensland Health against a decision made by the respondent pursuant to the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 – Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements (‘the Directive’).

Annual report

2020/21 Annual Report for the Human Rights Case Law Project (PDF, 123.7 KB)

Contact

Please contact our group with any enquiries at humanrights@uq.edu.au.

Disclaimer

These case notes are intended to provide summarised general information only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If the subject matter of any case note relates to a transaction or matter of particular concern, you should seek your own independent formal legal advice from an admitted legal practitioner. Please note, UQ does not offer legal services to the public.