Human Rights Case Law Project

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

The UQ 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 (Assistant Leader), Ben Cornwell, Emma Kendall, Carolyn Farago, Genevieve Rule, Georgia Williams.

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

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).
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).
ML v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 376

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ML. Member Ashman stated that ‘[t]he Tribunal must...consider the intent of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)’ but did not elaborate as to which specific considerations were relevant to this matter.
NGV v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 319

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to vocational education (section 36), and cultural rights (section 27) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to proceedings.
NN and IN v Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women [2020] QCAT 146

The right to protection of families and children (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 26) was argued by the applicants and analysed by the court in the context of a foster child and his foster family. The court held that the term “family” was to be given a broad interpretation and understood in the society of a particular country.
PIM v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 188

A self-represented litigant sought judicial review after being issued a negative notice by Blue Card Services arguing that his case was ‘exceptional’. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal analysed limiting the applicant’s human rights and issued a non-publication order in light of the right to have all judgments and decisions made by a court or tribunal publicly available (Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 31(3)).
PRH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 331
PXS v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 342

This case concerned the reassessment of an applicant’s eligibility to hold a blue card after criminal charges against him had been finalised. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was included in the respondent’s written submissions, but was not considered in-depth by the Tribunal.
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher TNE [2020] QCAT 484

This case concerned a review of the applicant’s decision to suspend the respondent’s registration as a teacher on the basis that the respondent had been charged with indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age. The respondent submitted that this suspension amounted to a breach of his right under section 34 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to not be tried or punished more than once for an offence. In upholding the decision of the applicant, the Tribunal noted that the suspension was not punitive and was in the best interests of children.
RAH v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 406

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, RAH. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the right to protection of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Pages

Volkers v The Queen [2020] QDC 25

An application for a permanent stay of an indictment was brought by a former swimming coach on the basis of lack of fairness and oppression amounting to an abuse of process due to significant delay in proceedings. Reid DCJ found that the delay in prosecution of the accused since 2002 did amount to a breach of his right to a trial without unreasonable delay under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Young v Dawson (No. 2) [2022] QCAT 48

The applicant was a police officer who was charged with four disciplinary allegations and found guilty by the respondent. The Tribunal noted that it was required under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) to have regard to the applicant’s human rights, and found that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21) and right to not have his reputation unlawfully attacked (section 25(b)) were potentially limited. The Tribunal was satisfied that limitations on these rights were consistent with the proper purpose of upholding public confidence in the police service and ensuring police discipline.

Pages

Sheraton v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 431

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.
SSJ v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 252

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.
Storch v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 152

The self-represented applicant argued that the respondent’s decision to issue him with a negative blue card notice, despite him being acquitted at trial of a charge of indecent treatment of a child, was a breach of several rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
Taniela v Australian Christian College Moreton Ltd [2020] QCAT 249

This case concerned a complaint made on behalf of five-year-old Cyrus Taniela that his school’s decision to discontinue his enrolment for the second semester of 2020, unless he cut his hair to satisfy the school’s uniform policy, amounted to discrimination on the basis of race and sex. The applicant also argued that several human rights provided for in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were relevant to the discrimination experienced by Cyrus: recognition and equality before the law (section 15); freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 20); the rights of children (section 26(2)); cultural rights (section 27); and the right to education (section 36).
TSG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 98

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of theft, drug-related and traffic offences. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the Act’s commencement. If the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, the Tribunal would have considered the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), cultural rights (section 27) and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (section 28), right to a fair hearing (section 31); right to not be tried more than once (section 34), and right to education (section 36); as well as the competing right of every child to protection (section 26(2)).
Vale v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2021] QCAT 438
VDG v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 506

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of filming a person’s private parts without consent. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the proceedings were commenced prior to the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
WDE v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2020] QCAT 301

This case concerned an application for administrative review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice after the applicant was convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of Schedule 2 of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld).
WW v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 7

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, WW. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s right to a fair trial (section 31), the applicant’s right to not be tried or punished more than once (section 34), and the rights of children (section 26(2)) under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
ZB v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2021] QCAT 82

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, ZB. The Tribunal found that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply to the proceedings, as they were commenced before the legislation came into effect. However, the Tribunal noted that if the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, its decision would potentially impact ZB’s right to freedom of expression (section 21), right to take part in public life (section 23), right to a fair hearing (section 31), and right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 34), as well as the rights of children (section 26(2)).

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.

Connect with our researchers

We are looking for organisations to collaborate with to solve today's pressing challenges. Find out how we can work together.

Find a researcher by name
Find researchers by research area
Research themes & challenges
Potential HDR projects
Summer/Winter research scholarships
What's on

Follow UQ Law research on Twitter Subscribe for updates

Online resources

UQ Law Journal
ANZ Maritime Law Journal
Submissions and reports
Deaths in Custody Project
Domestic & Family Violence Bench Book
Domestic Violence Case Studies
Australian Feminist Judgements Project
Human Rights Case Law Project

All publications and resources

Funded projects

Research groups

Australian Centre for Private Law
Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law
Food Security and Intellectual Property
Indigenous People and the Law
Law and the Future of War
Law and Religion in the Asia-Pacific
Law, Science and Technology
Marine and Shipping Law Unit
UQ Solomon Islands Partnership