Ryle v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) & Pitt [2021] QIRC 307

Date: 7 September 2021
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Dwyer IC
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 9, 25
Rights Considered: Right to privacy and reputation
Other Legislation: Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 138, 166, 174B, 175, 191; Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 9, 429, 447, 451, 454, 580, sch 1, sch 5; Limitation of Action Act 1974 (Qld) ss 31, 32; Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld) ss 13, 40, 44; Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 301, sch 4.
Keywords: Discrimination.

The case concerned a complaint accepted by the now Queensland Human Rights Commission out of time and, inter alia, a secondary matter concerning a suppression of identity application made out of time. The Commission refused the application for the suppression of identity application as well as the complaint. The Commission determined that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had no application and, even if it did, the decision having included the applicant’s name would not be an unlawful or arbitrary interference with her privacy or an unlawful attack on her reputation.

The case concerned a complaint accepted by the now Queensland Human Rights Commission out of time. This complaint revolved around allegations made to the court by a legal practitioner on behalf of the defendant which were of a nature that potentially represented misconduct within her employment relationship. This had prompted an investigation, where the applicant was swiftly and comprehensively cleared of any misconduct and impropriety.

The case also concerned, inter alia, the secondary matter of a suppression of identity application made out of time. In considering this secondary matter, the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was determined to have no application. Even if the proceedings did not pre-date the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), section 9(4)(b) provides that a public entity, to fulfil section 9(1)(f) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), does not include a court or tribunal, except when acting in an administrative capacity, whereas here the Commission was a court of record where the substantive proceedings and the application for suppression involved an exercise of judicial powers: at [43]-[45]. Even if the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did apply, the Commission considered that the decision including Ms Ryle’s name would not be an unlawful or arbitrary interference with her privacy or an unlawful attack on her reputation within the meaning of these terms as they appear in section 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [46].

The Commission subsequently refused the suppression of identity application made out of time: at [57]. The Commission also ultimately determined that it would be unreasonable to allow the complaint to succeed due to the absence of a compelling explanation for the significant delay, the length of the delay and the prejudice likely to be suffered by the respondents: at [236].

Visit the judgment: Ryle v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) & Pitt [2021] QIRC 307