Human Rights Case Law Project

The case concerned an appeal of an internal review decision to uphold conditions preventing the appellant from returning to work while holding an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination. The original decision maker acknowledged that the decision may impose a small limit on the right to equality and non-discrimination (section 15), freedom of movement (section 19), and taking part in public life (section 23), but that such limits were justified by the need to ensure the readiness of the health system in responding to COVID-19. The internal review decision-maker outlined that human rights factors were considered in the creation of the policy, and that, while the decision has the potential to limit the appellant’s human rights, those limits on human rights are justified. The Commission did not consider human rights, which it said could be pursued through other avenues, and found that the decision was fair and reasonable.

This matter concerned an appeal against the respondent’s decision not to permanently convert the appellant’s employment appointment to a higher classification level. The decision included an extract from a relevant statutory instrument, confirming decision makers’ obligations under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Commission identified its role as deciding whether the decision was fair and reasonable, and did not engage in any discussion as to whether the decision maker fulfilled their obligations under the HR Act. There is no indication that human rights grounds were raised by the appellant.

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 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 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.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, Sheraton. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31), the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34) and the rights of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Tribunal confirmed the respondent’s decision and was satisfied that its decision was compatible with these human rights.

The case concerned an application for leave to be legally represented. The Court considered that the applicant’s right to equal protection would not be compromised, and ultimately granted leave.

The Appellant was a Security Officer and Crowd Controller registered under the Security Provider Act 1993 (Qld). His licence was suspended for the duration of criminal proceedings where it was alleged that he had, during the course of performing security patrols, instructed an intoxicated woman to enter his car whereupon he sexually assaulted her. The Appellant filed an application to stay the criminal proceedings against him, including on grounds that the decision maker, in deciding to suspend his licence, failed to consider his human rights. He argued that the suspension itself was a breach of his human rights and the presumption of innocence: at [22]. The Tribunal considered a suspension was a justifiable limitation of an individual’s human rights when balanced against matters of public importance, including the protection of the public and the preservation of faith of the community that persons who hold a Security Officer/Crowd Controller licence are appropriate persons to hold such a licence: at [24] - [25]. The stay application was dismissed.

The applicant in this case applied for an administrative review of a decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether his case was an “exceptional case” in which it was not in the best interests of children for the applicant to hold a blue card.

In deciding an appeal against a decision to transfer a public service officer made pursuant to s194(1)(d) of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), the Commissioner addressed a contention that the decision-maker failed to give proper consideration to a number of human rights, as evidenced by a lack of any express reference to human rights in the transfer decision. Citing Hutchison v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 317, the Commissioner expressed a view that it was not always necessary for a decision-maker to write in great detail about the consideration of human rights particularly if the decision-maker has come to the conclusion that human rights are not interfered with: at [65]. The Commissioner rejected the lack of express reference to human rights as grounds rendering a decision unreasonable and, following that line of reasoning, determined there was no utility in returning the transfer decision to the decision-maker to reissue the transfer decision with an expanded explanation regarding the consideration of human rights: at [66]. The Commissioner did find the transfer decision was not reasonably open to the decision-maker, but for other reasons.