Isles v State of Queensland [2021] QCAT 135

Date: 18 May 2021
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Member Hughes
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 15
Rights Considered: Right to recognition and equality before the law
Other Legislation: Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 7, 8, 10, 40, 44, 101, 103, 108, 130, 210, Schedule 1; Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) s 2.3(d)
Keywords: Discrimination; Criminal Law and Corrective Services: Police

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.

The applicant had several interactions with the Queensland Police Service (QPS) following the disappearance of the applicant’s father: at [19]. These interactions led the police to place various alerts on the applicant’s personal profile on their internal database: at [17]-[18]. The applicant claimed that QPS treated him less favourably, by placing those alerts. The applicant argued he was ‘treated differently because he was presumed to have a mental illness and because of his political beliefs about the QPS’: at [6].

The Tribunal found that ‘the evidence [was] not sufficient to support a finding that the alerts, warnings and flags were placed because of a presumed mental illness or [the applicant’s] views relating to the QPS’: at [20]. The Tribunal determined that the alerts, warnings and flags did not refer to the protected attributes and were simply a tool to assist police, enhance officer safety and inform police officers in their interactions with the applicant: at [20], [22] and [24]. The Tribunal noted that such alerts are necessarily subjective and based on officers’ perspectives: at [24]. Further, the Tribunal reviewed the body camera footage and found that QPS had not treated the applicant less favourably than anyone in a similar situation: at [23].

The Tribunal concluded there was no direct discrimination: at [34].

The Tribunal held that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply as the events occurred before commencement: at [32]. The Tribunal observed that the evidence did not reach the threshold to make a finding of a contravention of human rights, referencing the right to recognition and equality before the law in the footnotes: at [33].

Link: https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qcat/2021/135?mview=human%7Crights%7C