Make a complaint

      Intervened cases

      The Queensland Human Rights Commission may intervene in court and tribunal proceedings where its expertise can assist in applying the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 or the Human Rights Act 2019.

      Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that this webpage contains sensitive material. This content may be distressing and may bring up sadness, grief, or trauma. We encourage readers to take care when engaging with this information and to seek support if needed.

      About interventions

      Interventions allow the Commission to provide expert submissions on the interpretation and application of human rights and anti-discrimination laws. This table outlines the matters in which the Commission has intervened and, where possible, includes the Commission’s submissions to the court or tribunal.

      Find out more about legal interventions.

      Interventions under the Human Rights Act 2019

      Anderson v President of the Parole Board Queensland [2025] QSC 123

      This case involved a 70-year-old prisoner with serious health issues challenging a Restricted Prisoner Declaration that blocked his ability to apply for parole for 8.5 years. The declaration was made under Queensland's restricted prisoner regime, which applies to those convicted of multiple murders or the murder of a child.

      The applicant sought judicial review on the grounds that the President of the Parole Board should have considered the applicant’s right to dignity in determining the public interest as required by the legislation, and a piggy-back claim under the Human Rights Act . The respondent argued that there was no independent ground of review from the rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 , so the application was incompetent.

      The Commission intervened and made submissions on the relationship between a judicial review application based on human rights grounds and a piggy-back claim under s 59 of the Human Rights Act 2019 , the meaning of public interest in light of human rights, and the obligation to give proper consideration to, and act compatibly with human rights. The submissions also outlined the scope of the rights to liberty and security, to humane treatment, to protection from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and of access to health services.

      The court found term of the declaration invalid because the President of the Parole Board failed to consider the applicant’s human rights - particularly his right to dignity - when setting the length of the order. Her Honour found that this was an error of law under the Judicial Review Act 1991 and the term was also unlawful for failure to give proper consideration to human rights under s 58(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 .

      Following agreement by the parties, the court ordered the President of the Parole Board to reconsider the length of the declaration according to law.

      Johnston v Commissioner of Police [2024] QSC 2

      This decision considered three applications for judicial review of employment directions that required Queensland Police Service and Queensland Ambulance Service staff to be vaccinated for COVID-19.

      The court found that the directions limited the applicants’ rights not to be subjected to medical treatment without the person’s full, free and informed consent under section 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (HR Act). This limitation was held to be demonstrably justified and compatible with human rights.

      However, the QPS directions were declared unlawful because the Police Commissioner did not give proper consideration to human rights before issuing the directions.

      The Queensland Ambulance Service direction was declared to have no effect because, for reasons other than under the HR Act, the Court was not satisfied the decision-maker had the power to issue the direction.

      In particular, the decision provides detailed discussion of:

      • the role of the courts in applying section 58 of the HR Act in judicial review proceedings
      • the scope of the obligations to give proper consideration and to deciide compatibly with human rights under section 58 of the HR Act
      • the impact of human rights on curtailing broad discretionary powers
      • the scope of s 15 of the HR Act, and the meaning of political belief or activity under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991
      • the meaning of full, free and informed consent in the context of s 17(c) of the HR Act
      • the scope of beliefs protected by section 20 of the HR Act.

      Further details:

      Youth Empowered Towards Independence Inc v Commissioner of Queensland Police Service & Anor [2023] QSC 174

      An application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made to the Supreme Court for the urgent removal of eight children, who were being held in watchhouses, to a youth detention centre.

      The Commission intervened after the applicant raised a question about the interpretation of section 56 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), which deals with responsibility for a child’s custody while on remand, in accordance with section 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

      The Commission submitted that section 56 of the Youth Justice Act must be interpreted compatibly with children’s human rights, including liberty and security, freedom of movement, humane treatment in custody, and the rights of the child. It followed that the purpose of section 56 is for the Department of Youth Justice to have care and custody of children, and for Queensland Police Service custody (in a watch house) to be only transitional. The Commission also submitted that under section 5(2)(a) of the Human Rights Act, relevant rights directly applied to the Court when making a decision of whether to issue a writ of Habeus Corpus or make a declaration of unlawfulness.

      Ultimately, the application succeeded on the basis that the remanding court had not ordered the police to deliver the children as soon as practicable into the custody of the Department, as it was required to do under subsections 56(4) and (5) of the Youth Justice Act. It was not necessary for the court to determine the issues raised by the Commission’s submissions.

      The Youth Justice Act, including section 56, has since been amended.

      Application re exclusion of evidence

      In June 2023, the Commission intervened in an application by a defendant to have evidence excluded from this criminal trial on the basis it was either obtained unlawfully or given involuntarily. The evidence included material obtained from his mobile phone, and admissions he made in response to police questioning after he asked to speak to a family member.

      The Commission’s submissions concerned how the obligations on police as public authorities under the Human Rights Act were relevant to the court’s consideration of whether to exclude the evidence. As public entities, police must act compatibly with human rights and give proper consideration to human rights when making decisions.

      The Commission submitted there was insufficient evidence to show police had turned their minds to the possible impact on the defendant’s human rights of their decision to seize his mobile phone. Without a clear legal power for police to compel the phone from the man, the right to privacy protected his freedom to choose whether police may search his phone. This right is particularly relevant as the power to search a person’s mobile phone is akin to a power to search through a person’s life. Similarly, the Commission submitted the defendant’s right to privacy was limited by police continuing to question him after he asked to speak to his family member.

      The application ultimately did not proceed, as the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the charge against the applicant on the morning of the hearing.

      Inquest into RHD Doomadgee Cluster

      This inquest investigated the deaths of three young Aboriginal women (Yvette Michelle Wilma Booth, Adele Estelle Sandy, and Shakaya George) who lived in Doomadgee and died from rheumatic heart disease, or complications from rheumatic heart disease, within 12 months of each other.

      The issues to be examined included the adequacy of primary health services provided to the women, the adequacy of hospital services provided to the women, and the adequacy of screening, education and prevention provided in Doomadgee for rheumatic heart disease.

      The Commission made submissions about how the Human Rights Act 2019 applies to coronial inquests, as well as drawing attention to relevant human rights, including the right to life, the right to access health services, cultural rights of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people, and the rights of the child.

      The Coroner held that holding an inquest and making findings and recommendations to prevent deaths in the future is an administrative function of the court and therefore subject to the obligations on a public entity under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019. The Coroner made several observations about human rights, particularly in relation to cultural safety in the provision of health care in Doomadgee and concluded that inadequate primary health care and follow up hospital care had been provided to the women.

      Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Grant (No 2) [2022] QSC 252

      The Commission intervened in an application by the Attorney-General under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. This Act provides a scheme for the Attorney-General to apply to court for convicted sex offenders who have served their term of imprisonment to remain in detention under a continuing detention order, be released under a supervision order or to be released under no order at all.

      The Commission made submissions about how the Human Rights Act applies to the court’s discretion under s 5 of the Act (direct application). The Supreme Court made its decision on 10 November 2022. The decision confirms that a court is required to apply rights that relate to its functions under the so-call immediate approach , rather than adopting the more narrow approach of obliging the court to enforce only those rights that are explicitly and exclusively addressed to courts. In this case, the Court concluded that the function of making a continuing detention order in lieu of a supervision order would involve the application of at least the right to liberty in s 29(1) and the right to protection against arbitrary detention in s 29(2). In contrast, the making of a supervision order in preference to a continuing detention order would involve at least the application of s 30 of the HR Act (right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty).

      SQH v Scott [2022] QSC 16

      The Queensland Supreme Court considered the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 to a decision of the presiding officer at a Crime and Corruption Commission hearing.

      The presiding officer required a person to answer the question what is your knowledge of the involvement [names of alleged co-offenders] in the trafficking of dangerous drugs . The applicant and the applicant’s partner were charged in relation to a number of offences. The applicant claimed a reasonable excuse not to answer the question, because it touched on the charges against the applicant, and may impact on the applicant receiving a fair trial. The presiding officer decided that this did not demonstrate that the applicant had a reasonable excuse not to answer, pursuant to section 194 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001. The applicant appealed this decision.

      The court found that while the applicant’s right to fair trial (s 31 of the HR Act) and right against self-incrimination (s 32(2)(k)) were engaged by the presiding officer’s decision, the limit was justified. This included because of the protections in place under the legislative scheme such as direct use immunity and confidentiality in response of the identity of the witness and any evidence given. A further protective order required limited disclosure of the evidence to prevent it from being given to the prosecution.

      The Commission and the Attorney-General intervened in the appeal. The Supreme Court published its decision on 4 March 2022.

      Owen-D'Arcy v Chief Executive of QCS [2021] QSC 273

      The Commission and Attorney-General intervened in an application for review by a prisoner subject to prolonged solitary confinement.

      The Commission made submissions about the obligations on public entities, including to give proper consideration to the rights of all relevant people, and on the meaning of relevant rights such as the right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty. The parties made further submissions to the court in April 2021. The Supreme Court handed down its decision on 22 October 2021.

      Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v GLH [2021] QMHC 4

      In June 2021, the Mental Health Court made its first published decision considering the role of the Human Rights Act 2019 in the application of the Mental Health Act 2016.

      The matter concerned an appeal by the Attorney-General against a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal to remove a condition from the respondent’s forensic order which provided he not have unsupervised contact with children. The appeal was dismissed.

      Due to confidentiality provisions under the Mental Health Act 2016 , the submissions of the Commission cannot be published.

      Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246

      In August 2020 the Attorney-General successfully sought orders to prevent two planned sit-in protests on the Story Bridge in Brisbane. The Court put complexities about the application of the Human Rights Act to one side and focused on the relevant rights of protest organisers and the public under the Act. While the Court may have granted injunctions merely on the grounds of interference with public movement, including the need for essential services to use the Story Bridge, the threat of COVID-19 transmission was also considered.

      The orders were targeted to the particular occasion and protests, requiring the respondents to post material to Facebook indicating the protests had been cancelled. The respondents were also prevented from participating or encouraging others to participate.

      Australian Institute for Progress v Electoral Commission Queensland

      In March 2020 the Commission intervened, along with the Attorney-General, in a Supreme Court case considering the coverage of Queensland’s electoral donation laws. The Commission’s submission focussed on how the HRA is used to interpret legislation compatibly with human rights. The Supreme Court handed down its decision on 30 March 2020.

      Interventions under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991

      Effect of accepting complaint where earlier settlement agreement

      The Commission applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) to intervene in the hearing of an application to dismiss a complaint that had been referred to the QIRC.

      The complaint had been accepted by the Commission notwithstanding an earlier agreement made in settlement of all claims. The Commissioner has power under section 137 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to accept a complaint in those circumstances if the Commissioner considers it is fair to do so.

      In their application to dismiss the complaint the respondents argued that the Commissioner’s decision to accept the complaint was wrong, and that the earlier settlement agreement precluded the QIRC from dealing with the complaint.

      The Commission made submissions about the jurisdiction of the QIRC on referred complaints and the effect of section 137 of the Act. The Commission submitted that the QIRC does not have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s decision under section 137 of the Act and does not have jurisdiction to consider common law principles of accord and satisfaction and estoppel in relation to the agreement.

      As a result, the respondents withdrew their arguments about the Commissioner’s decision and the effect of the agreement.

      Characteristic of an attribute (Xi case)

      The Commission intervened in an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) on a complaint of race discrimination alleging failure to provide an interpreter.

      The Commission made written submissions about the interpretation and application of indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 , and about language as a characteristic of race.

      The QCAT Appeal Tribunal found the tribunal had made two errors of law relating to language skills being a characteristic of the attribute of race. The tribunal was incorrect in identifying a comparator for direct discrimination, and in considering whether a term had been imposed for indirect discrimination. The complaint was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.

      Statutory interpretation (Attrill case)

      The Commission intervened in an appeal from a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). An application was made to QCAT for an order under section 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to protect the interests of a complainant before the complaint was referred to QCAT. In the original decision, QCAT found the complaint was invalid, and that a provision of the Public Service Act 2008 impliedly repealed section 15 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 because of inconsistency.

      The QCAT Appeal Tribunal overturned the original decision, and the State then appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal.

      In both appeals, the Commission provided written submissions about the relationship between the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 and the Public Service Act 2008 , and about the tribunal's powers on an application for an order to protect the complainant's interests before referral of the complaint. The Commission also appeared at both hearings.

      Equal remuneration (Ergon Energy case)

      The Commission intervened in proceedings in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) for certification of an agreement. An issue before the QIRC was the meaning of the requirement under section 156(1)(m) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 for the QIRC to be satisfied, before certifying a multi-employer agreement, that the agreement provides for equal remuneration for all men and women employees covered by the agreement for work of equal or comparable value.

      Last updated: