R v CMA [2022] QDCPR 56

Date: 12 August 2022
Court/Tribunal: District Court
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Justice Long
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 25
Rights Considered: Right to privacy and reputation
Other Legislation: Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) ss 686, 694; Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 30, 31; Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ss 14A, 14F, 14H, 14I, 14L, 14M
Keywords: Criminal Law and Corrective Services; Civil Procedure

Following their indictment before the Court in respect of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care, this case concerned an application by the defendant for leave to subpoena ‘protected counselling communication’ records and information; and produce to the court, adduce evidence of or otherwise ‘use protected counselling communication’; and otherwise disclose, inspect or copy a ‘protected counselling communication’: [2]. The particular issue which arose was the standing of the ‘counselled person’ to be heard upon it: [3]. Reference is made in the submissions for the counselled person to section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in recognition of the counselled person’s right to privacy: [15]. However, Justice Long notes that this provision has no real bearing in respect of the interpretation of a legislative scheme which is clearly calculated itself to protect against arbitrary access to ‘protected counselling communication’ and to protect the privacy of counselled persons: [22]. It is implied under s 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) that all statutory provisions must, to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights. The Court did not engage in any further substantive discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

Visit the judgment: R v CMA [2022] QDCPR 56