Dean-Braieoux v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 209
Item
-
Title
-
Dean-Braieoux v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 209
-
Date
-
June 11, 2021
-
Summary
-
This case concerned an appeal against a written decision under section 175 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) which required the applicant to submit to a medical examination on the basis that she was absent from their duty and the chief executive reasonably suspected that her absence was caused by mental or physical illness or disability. The Commission’s decision was made on the papers as neither party had requested an oral hearing.
The applicant had submitted that the decision was unfair and unreasonable as the respondent’s suspicion was not reasonably held due to, inter alia, arguments based on human rights.
Pursuant to section 37 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), she argued that she had “a right of access to a health service that provides medical advice not to risk travel to prevent serious risks to the health, welfare and safety of her family:” at [43].
She additionally argued that, pursuant section 26 Human Rights Act 2019, 'the government' “should adopt special measures to protect children which means that the best interests of a child should be taken into account in all actions affecting the child and which will depend on the child's personal circumstances:” at [43].
She also submitted that, pursuant to sections 15 and 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019, the respondent's decision to issue an IME despite possessing knowledge of her location, international border shutdowns and the safety risks of international travel was so unreasonable that it appeared to be a ‘disguised attempt’ to access her medical records and harm her reputation: at [44].
The Commission determined that the applicant’s reference to sections 26 and 39 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) were not relevant considerations as the medical examination she was required to undertake was by video link, and thus did not require her or her daughter to leave the United States of America even if there was a risk doing so due to the COVID-19 pandemic: at [71].
The Commission also determined that sections 15 and 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) had not been breached because, as the elements of section 174 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) had been met, her privacy had not been unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with and her reputation had not been unlawfully attacked: at [79].
The Commission concluded that the decision was fair and reasonable: at [11], [84].
