QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

Case [2025] QIRC 249

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION

PARTIES:

QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 249

QR

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2025/182

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

 18 September 2025

DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Appeal Notice (9 September 2025)

Respondent's submissions (15 September 2025)

Appellant's submissions (17 September 2025)

HEARD AT:

MEMBER:

On the papers

Pidgeon IC
ORDERS:

The orders contained in paragraph [42] of these reasons for decision.
CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – appeal against a suspension without remuneration decision – application in existing proceedings – consideration of whether to exercise discretion in granting a suppression order – where the suppression order is granted
LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS:

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) s 10

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 97(3)

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 451
CASES:

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263

BR v State of Queensland [2022] QIRC 146

Mr A v Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd [2021] QIRC 309

Reasons for Decision

Introduction and Background

  1. QR ('the Appellant') filed an appeal against a decision of the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Respondent') dated 19 August 2025 to suspend him without remuneration. Within his appeal notice, QR seeks an order suppressing his name and any information identifying his workplace or location and a further order suppressing the contents of his file from search and copy.

  2. QR has been suspended with remuneration since 19 May 2025. On 16 May 2025, QR was charged by the Queensland Police Service with one count of digital rape under s 349(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899. The Respondent says it was notified of the charge by the Queensland Police Service and that the charge relates to an incident which allegedly occurred in the workplace, during work hours while QR was on shift. The complainant is a person who was attending X Hospital with a family member.[1] QR's registration as a nurse has been suspended since 5 August 2025.[2]

    [1] Respondent’s submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 15 September 2025 [3], [4].

    [2] QR's appeal notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 9 September 2025[22].

  3. QR strongly denies the allegations and intends to plead not guilty if the matter is to proceed to trial.[3]

    [3] Ibid [15].

  4. The Courier Mail has published an article identifying QR by name and including photos of him.[4]

    [4] Respondent’s submissions (n 1) Attachment 4.

  5. At a mention of the matter, QR requested that a decision about his application for suppression orders be rendered before his substantive appeal proceeds.

  6. I issued directions to hear the matter on the papers pursuant to s 451(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act'). These reasons for decision only address QR's application for suppression.

  7. For the reasons which follow, I will exercise the discretion to suppress…

Continue reading QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 249
Case
[2025] QIRC 249
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission was tasked with deciding on an application for a suppression order concerning the publication of certain information related to an employee's suspension without remuneration. The primary issue before the Commission was whether to exercise its discretion to de-identify the employee's name and workplace information from the decision to be published. The decision was made in the context of an ongoing appeal by the employee, QR, against a suspension without pay decision. The case hinged on the balance between the principle of open justice and the potential harm to QR if his identity and workplace were disclosed.

The Commission considered the statutory authority under Rule 97(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), which allows for the modification of documents to de-identify information if it is deemed appropriate. The Commission also took into account the Practice Direction Number 4 of 2023, which provides guidelines for modifying documents before publication. Additionally, the Court examined the principles outlined in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), which provides exceptions to the publication of complainants' identities. The Commission noted that while open justice is a fundamental principle, it is not absolute and can be limited where necessary to secure the proper administration of justice or to avoid harm.

The Commission determined that granting the suppression order was in the interests of justice, particularly given the early stage of the proceedings and the absence of any public sector disciplinary process. The media had already reported on the charges against QR, his name, and his workplace, leading to adverse impacts and safety concerns for QR and his family. The Commission found that suppressing QR's name and workplace information would not affect the essence of the decision and would be consistent with the intention of the CLSO Act. The potential limited utility of the suppression order did not outweigh the benefits of granting it. The Commission acknowledged the respondent's concerns about the public interest in knowing about Queensland Health's actions but concluded that there were alternative ways to communicate this information without disclosing sensitive details.

The Commission granted the suppression order, as outlined in paragraph [42] of the reasons for decision. This decision balances the need for open justice with the protection of individuals from potential harm arising from the disclosure of sensitive information.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders contained in paragraph [42] of these reasons for decision.

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

Rule 97(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) provides the Commission with a power to de-identify decisions and redact information from decisions where it is considered appropriate and the modifications will not affect the essence of the document:97 Publishing decisions etc. …(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. Practice Direction Number 4 of 2023 – Guideline for the Modification of a Document Before Publication ('the Practice Direction') includes the following:Open justice is one of the fundamental principles of our justice system. Generally, all hearings and records of proceedings before the Court or Commission are open to the public. The open justice principle may, on rare occasions, be limited where it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice. Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) ('CLSO Act') provides the following:10 When other publication of complainant’s identity is prohibited(1)A person who, by a statement or representation made or published otherwise than in a report concerning an examination of witnesses or a trial, reveals the name, address, school or place of employment, or any other particular that is likely to lead to the identification of a complainant commits an offence except where the statement or representation is made or published for an authorised purpose referred to in section 11.… In Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd,[5] his Honour Vice President O'Connor considered an application for the names of individual workers to be de-identified and relevantly held that: [40] The starting point in considering an application to suppress or to withhold names of witnesses or parties is a fundamental principle of open justice; 'that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done'.[6] This is a central feature of the administration of justice under the common law.[41] The open justice principle operates not only as an overarching principle guiding judicial decision-making and various aspects of procedure,[7] it also gives rise to a number of substantive open justice rules that, in the usual course of events, a court must follow. Such rules include: first, that judicial proceedings are conducted,[8] and decisions pronounced, in 'open court';[9] second, that evidence is communicated publicly to those present in the court;[10] and third, that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, including by the media.[42] However, the rules to which the open justice principle gives rise are not absolute. Whilst the principles of open justice will usually require the publication of the names of those involved in the proceedings, there are numerous statutory exceptions.[43] The Commission has the power to de-identify judgments and redact information from judgments if there is a good reason to do so. Rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) recognises that power…[44] It is accepted that the discretion to anonymise a decision might be exercised in favour of not identifying persons who are the victim of sexual assault or discrimination, children, or persons whose private financial affairs are relevant to a decision. It is also accepted that the discretion may be exercised in circumstances where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice in particular proceedings or to avoid some other relevant harm.Submissions [5] [2021] QIRC 263.[6] R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] KB 256, [259]. [7] Chief Justice James Spigelman, ‘Seen to Be Done: The Principle of Open Justice’ (Pt I) (2000) 74 Australian Law Journal 290, 292. [8] Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 434–5 ('Scott v Scott'); Dickason v Dickason (1913) 17 CLR 50, 51; John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465, 476–7 ('John Fairfax') .[9] Wandin Springs v Wagner [1991] 2 VR 496; Carra v Hamilton (2001) 3 VR 114, 122; Ho v Loneragan [2013] WASCA 20.[10] A-G (UK) v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440, 450.QR's appeal notice

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

QR submits that his reasons for seeking the suppression orders go beyond a 'mere loss of privacy, embarrassment or distress',[18] and that an order for suppression is justified.[18] J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 2 Qd R 10 [45].Consideration The starting point in any decision as to whether to exercise discretion to supress information from a decision prior to publishing or of a file from search and release is that of open justice. It is a matter for QR to demonstrate that the circumstances warrant a departure from the fundamental principle of open justice. QR's name, workplace and the nature of the charges against him are publicly available due to media reporting. The media has also reported that QR's registration has been suspended and that he has been suspended from duty. It appears that the media reporting has led to adverse impacts and safety concerns for QR and his family. QR's public sector appeal against a suspension without pay decision does not involve the Commission considering evidence pertaining to the charges or making any determinations about whether the allegations have been substantiated. In fact, no public sector disciplinary process has commenced. The test under the Suspension (Directive 06/23) requires the decision-maker to form a reasonable belief that the employee is liable for discipline. It is well-established in the Commission that forming such a belief does not involve testing the evidence or establishing that the conduct occurred. However, in circumstances where the proceedings are at a very early stage and the criminal matter is yet to be heard, I consider it in the interests of justice for the suppression order to be made. Mindful of the intention of the CLSO Act, I also find that the identity of the complainant is less likely to be identified through a decision of this Commission if the identity of QR and the workplace and location of the workplace are suppressed. Pursuant to r 97(3)(b), I consider that the suppression of QR's name and information identifying his workplace will not affect the essence of the decision or the capacity of a reader to understand the decision. The criminal charge against QR, his name and the name of his workplace are already freely available on the internet as a result of media reporting. It may be that there is limited utility in granting the suppression order if the reason it has been requested is to ensure QR and X Hospital are not identified. However, in the circumstances, I do not find that the limited utility of such an order weighs against granting it. I appreciate the Respondent's acknowledgement that a decision granting the suppression order will cause it limited prejudice. However, I also acknowledge the submission that it is in the public interest to know that Queensland Health has taken appropriate action in the circumstances. I am of the view that the media reporting makes it clear that Queensland Health immediately suspended QR from duty. The Respondent points out that there has been no non-publication order made under the CLSO Act. I am satisfied that where there is a legitimate public interest in the question of QR's current employment or registration status, there are ways for this to be communicated by the Respondent or the relevant regulatory authority other than through the publishing of decisions of this Commission.