Criminal Law and Corrective Services

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative notice (that is, deny the applicant a Blue Card) under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (WWC Act). Member Davies noted a number of competing rights protected by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) including the applicant’s right to privacy and reputation (section 25) and right to take part in public life (section 23), as well as right of every child to the protection that is needed by the child (section 26). Member Davis ‘narrowly’ came to the view that the applicant should be issued a Blue Card, but did not otherwise explain what consideration or weight was given to each of those competing rights in reaching that view.

The Defendant was charged with contravening an order requiring access to information on a digital device without reasonable excuse. The Defendant submitted he had a reasonable excuse because compliance with the order would unreasonably limit his right to religious freedom on the basis that the device contained photographs of his wife without a hijab and personal communications between them.

The case concerned an application for review of a decision refusing parole. The applicant had been sentenced on two occasions after being found guilty of offences of torture, rape, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, deprivation of liberty, common assault and possession of dangerous drugs.

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed for the appellant’s failure to give way to a motor car vehicle or pedestrian at a stop sign. The appellant referred to their right to fair hearing (section 31) and submitted that law relating to failing to give way is an arbitrary and invalid law.

The case concerned the operation of section 31 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). Bond JA considered the potential application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and opined that this case did not provide the occasion for a consideration of the factors listed in section 13(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in determining the question of the proper construction of the provision in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).

The Attorney-General sought a supervision order under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). The Court was required to consider whether a policy of the Queensland Corrective Service in not allowing the provision external support services in precinct housing was compatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

This case concerned a review of decisions of the District Court to refuse the Applicants (who were each defendants facing charges in that Court) access to counselling communications under section 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The Court considered that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) did not apply and, even if it did, the judge would not have been required to adopt a different interpretation than what they had.

This case concerned an application for bail, in which the applicant relied upon the right to liberty and security of person (section 29 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). Specifically, the applicant’s argument rested on unreasonable delay in the circumstances of his case. The Queensland Court of Appeal accepted that, weighing the factors at play, the applicant’s risk of reoffending was ameliorated to an acceptable level and that his continued detention in custody was unjustified.

This matter concerned an attempted appeal of a conviction on three counts of rape and one count of contravention of a domestic violence order on the grounds that the sentences are manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was raised in the appellant’s submissions in asserting breaches arising in the conduct of the trial.