Human Rights Case Law Project

This case concerned an application to review the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice to the applicant, ED. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned only in reference to the Tribunal being a public entity and therefore obligated to make decisions compatible with human rights under section 58.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, FGH.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant.

The case concerned an application to review a contact decision. The Tribunal determined that MKD was not a parent or a member of the children’s family, so he had no standing to bring an application to review that decision and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the application.

This case concerned an administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of four breaches of the Weapons Act 1900 (Qld).

This matter concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card due to the applicant being charged with a stalking offence. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to this decision as the proceedings commenced before its commencement on 1 January 2020 (section 108). Regardless, the Tribunal acknowledged that it was a public body acting in an administrative capacity and that the decision would potentially impact the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27), cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), the right to education (section 36(2)), the right to a fair hearing (section 31) and the right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34). This was balanced against the right of every child to protection (section 26(2)). The Tribunal was satisfied that the decision to cancel the applicant’s Blue Card was compatible with human rights as the limits on the applicant’s rights were reasonable and justifiable (section 13).

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, HK. In confirming the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice, the Tribunal stated that it considered the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and held that any limitations on HK’s human rights were reasonable and justifiable pursuant to section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

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.

This case concerned an application by HMD for review of a decision made by a delegated decision maker of the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women. The Manager refused an application by HMD who sought to become a kinship carer for AR, HMD’s great granddaughter.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, IAR. As the appeal pre-dated the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal held that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply.