Biddle v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (No. 2) - [2021] QIRC 321

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Biddle v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 321
PARTIES:	Biddle, Andreas (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	PSA/2021/214
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	17 September 2021
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner McLennan
HEARD AT:	On the papers
ORDER:	1. The application for a suppression order is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – application for de-identification of name in substantive decision – consideration of r 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 97
CASES:	Algahamdi v State of Queensland (Cairns Hinterland Hospital and Health Service) [2021] QIRC 223 Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263 J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] 2 QD R 10 John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131 R v O’Dempsey (No 3) [2017] QSC 338 Sheri Schiffer v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 286

Reasons for Decision

Background

On 11 June 2021, the Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland (the AWU) filed an Appeal Notice on behalf of Mr Andreas Biddle (the Appellant) against the State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (the Respondent; the Department).
Mr Biddle appealed the Department's decision that allegations made against him were substantiated on the balance of probabilities. I determined the appeal on the papers and released the decision to the parties on 17 August 2021. The decision appealed against was confirmed.

On 20 August 2021, the AWU filed a Form 4 Application in existing proceedings on behalf of Mr Biddle (the Application).
The Application seeks that Mr Biddle's "name be suppressed/de-identified throughout the case and in notation" in accordance with r 97(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) (the Rules). Rule 97(3) provides:
(3) The court, commission or registrar may, in the public interest or for another reason the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate—
(a) withhold publication of a document; or
(b) modify a document, before publication, in a way that does not affect the essence of the document.

The parties filed written submissions in accordance with a Directions Order issued on 23 August 2021.[1] I have carefully considered all submissions and have determined not to approach the writing of this decision by summarising the entirety of those submissions but will instead refer to the parties' key positions in my consideration.
[1] By email dated 14 September 2021, the AWU stated that Mr Biddle did not wish to file any submissions in reply to the Respondent's submissions.
Broadly, Mr Biddle seeks to have his name suppressed in the substantive decision on the basis that:
·The matter relates to the exercise of physical force. In the event Mr Biddle is terminated from his current role and is required to seek alternative…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Biddle v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth...

Details

AGLC: Biddle v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 321
Case: [2021] QIRC 321
Decision Date: 17 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Biddle, the applicant, against the State of Queensland, represented by the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute arose from an application by Biddle for de-identification of their name in a substantive decision made by the Industrial Relations Tribunal. The application was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The legal issues before the tribunal were primarily centred on the interpretation and application of rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011. Biddle argued that their right to privacy and protection of personal information warranted the suppression of their name in the tribunal's decision. The tribunal was required to balance Biddle's privacy interests against the public interest in transparency and accountability of tribunal decisions.

The tribunal found that while the right to privacy is important, the public interest in transparency and accountability in industrial relations matters generally outweighed the privacy interests in this case. The tribunal noted that the decision in question was already subject to limited disclosure provisions, which sufficiently protected Biddle's privacy while allowing for the dissemination of the decision's legal and factual findings. The tribunal concluded that the suppression of the applicant's name was not warranted under the circumstances and dismissed the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for a suppression order is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.