Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2025] QIRC 249

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

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

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

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION

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

PARTIES:

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:

On the papers

MEMBER:

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. [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.
  1. [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. [3]
    QR strongly denies the allegations and intends to plead not guilty if the matter is to proceed to trial.[3]
  1. [4]
    The Courier Mail has published an article identifying QR by name and including photos of him.[4]
  1. [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.
  1. [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.
  1. [7]
    For the reasons which follow, I will exercise the discretion to suppress QR's name and any information identifying his workplace. I will also exercise discretion to supress the contents of QR's file from search and copy.

Legal framework

  1. [8]
    The onus of demonstrating that circumstances exist which justify a suppression order lies with the party seeking suppression.
  1. [9]
    Section 451 of the IR Act bestows general powers on the Commission, and relevantly provides:

451  General powers

  1. The commission has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions.
  2. Without limiting subsection (1), the commission in proceedings may-

…

(c) make an order it considers appropriate.

  1. [10]
    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.

…

  1. The court, commission or registrar may, in the public interest or for another reason the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate –
  1. withhold publication of a document; or
  2. modify a document, before publication, in a way that does not affect the essence of the document.
  1. [11]
    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.

  1. [12]
    Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) ('CLSO Act') provides the following:
  1. 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.

…

  1. [13]
    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:
  1. [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.
  1. [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.
  1. [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.
  1. [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…
  1. [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

QR's appeal notice

  1. [14]
    QR submits that it is appropriate for the Commission to make orders of suppression on the basis that there are ongoing criminal proceedings and an order of suppression would avoid prejudice to the administration of justice.[11]
  1. [15]
    QR submits that the suppression of his name and any information identifying his workplace or location would not affect the essence of documents in the proceeding.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [16]
    The Respondent states that open justice is one of the most fundamental principles of the justice system in Australia and that exceptions to the principle are few and are strictly defined.[12]
  1. [17]
    The Respondent submits that QR has not established any public interest in the suppression sought and has not established any other sufficient reason that the application for suppression should be granted.
  1. [18]
    The Respondent notes that QR's identity is not the subject of a non-publication order in the criminal proceedings and that the publication of QR's identity in this decision will not identify the complainant.
  1. [19]
    With reference to the Courier Mail article referred to above, the Respondent observes that QR's criminal proceedings have already been subject of media attention, and both his full name and workplace are clearly mentioned. The Respondent notes that it has been approached by the media for comment and has responded that QR has been suspended from duty and has been referred to the Office of the Health Ombudsman and the Crime and Corruption Commission.
  1. [20]
    The Respondent notes that a google search of QR's name returns multiple results from media articles about the charges he faces and the announcement from the Office of the Health Ombudsman that QR's registration has been suspended.
  1. [21]
    For those reasons, the Respondent submits that the minimal utility in granting the application should be given significant weight by the Commission when balancing the relevant considerations in this matter. The Respondent also notes that it is unlikely that significant details relating to QR's personal details or the criminal charges will be published in the substantive appeal which have not already been the subject of media coverage.
  1. [22]
    With regard to QR's submission that an order of suppression would avoid prejudice to the administration of justice, the Respondent says that QR has not provided any further submission as to how the publishing of his name and workplace would prejudice the administration of justice. The Respondent says that the fact that the administrative decision to suspend QR without pay is related to his criminal charges does not mean that scrutiny of the appeal decision would prejudice his criminal proceedings.
  1. [23]
    The Respondent argues that the factors to be considered in determining whether it was fair and reasonable to suspend QR without pay are 'vastly different' than the subject of QR's criminal proceedings.
  1. [24]
    The Respondent acknowledges that the principles of open justice are not absolute and that it is generally accepted that there will be certain circumstances where some parties to proceedings should have their identities suppressed,[13] including but not limited to police informers, victims of blackmail or sexual assault or children. The Respondent observes that QR is not a category of person whose identity should be generally suppressed.
  1. [25]
    The Respondent says that QR has not demonstrated anything which would satisfy granting an exception to the principles of open justice and that his application for suppression should be dismissed.
  1. [26]
    The Respondent acknowledges that it will not suffer significant prejudice if the application for suppression is granted but submits that it is in the public interest to know that Queensland Health has taken appropriate action in circumstances where QR's conduct is subject to discipline. The Respondent submits that this is particularly the case where QR's criminal matter has been subject of media attention and QR's suspension from duty is already subject to media coverage.

QR's submissions in reply

  1. [27]
    QR's submissions set out the background of the matter and the relevant legal framework.[14] I have had regard to those submissions but will not set them out here.
  1. [28]
    QR notes that both the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and the CLSO Act place limitations on the publication of information in relation to sexual offences.[15]
  1. [29]
    QR submits that the Commission should have regard to several cases as authority for the proposed orders as to suppression of his identifying information and prohibiting search or release of the Commission file for this matter.
  1. [30]
    QR refers me to Mr A v Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd,[16] where Deputy President Merrell granted orders to suppress the name of a party where the matters concerned allegations of a sexual nature. QR also cites BR v State of Queensland,[17] where Deputy President Hartigan agreed to suppress the identity of a party in order to give effect to the CLSO Act.
  1. [31]
    With regard to the Respondent's submissions that the matter has already been reported in the media, QR says that following the media coverage:
  1. I have received anonymous death threats;
  2. My residential address was leaked and my wife and I and our three children were required to vacate our home due to safety concerns;
  3. My private mobile phone number was leaked, and I received numerous telephone calls from anonymous callers threatening me; and
  4. My wife's business was linked to me, which resulted in threatening telephone calls to the business, as well as adverse google reviews which have significantly affected her business and safety.
  1. [32]
    QR submits that his identity and identifying information is not material to any decision made by the Commission on the Appeal and would not infringe upon the principles of open justice.
  1. [33]
    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.

Consideration

  1. [34]
    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.
  1. [35]
    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.
  1. [36]
    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.
  1. [37]
    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.
  1. [38]
    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.
  1. [39]
    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.
  1. [40]
    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.
  1. [41]
    QR has established a satisfactory reason for me depart from the fundamental principle of open justice to suppress his name and workplace details from publication. For the same reasons, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for QR's file to be suppressed from search and copy.

Order

  1. [42]
    I make the following orders:
  1. That the identity, workplace and location of the Appellant be suppressed from publication.
  1. Only reasons for decision and orders excluding the Appellant's name, workplace and location be released by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.
  1. PSA/2025/182 is withheld from search and copy.

Footnotes

[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] Ibid [15].

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

[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.

[11] Citing AB v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2024] QIRC 49 [3].

[12] John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court (NSW) [17]-[20]; J v L&A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 2 Qd R 10 44-45 ('Fairfax').

[13] Ibid.

[14] QR’s submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 17 September 2025 [1]-[14].

[15] Ibid [15].

[16] [2021] QIRC 309.

[17] [2022] QIRC 146.

[18] J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 2 Qd R 10 [45].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 249

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Pidgeon IC

  • Date:

    18 Sep 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
AB v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2024] QIRC 49
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 49
Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd (1979) AC 440
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1979) AC 440
Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 263
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 263
BR v State of Queensland [2022] QIRC 146
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 146
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 146
Carra v Hamilton (2001) 3 VR 114
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 3 VR 114
Chief Justice James Spigelman, ‘Seen to Be Done: The Principle of Open Justice’ (Pt I) (2000) 74 ALJ 290
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) 74 ALJ 290
Dickason v Dickason (1913) 17 CLR 50
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1913) 17 CLR 50
Ho v Loneragan [2013] WASCA 20
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] WASCA 20
J v L & A Services Pty Ltd[1995] 2 Qd R 10; [1993] QCA 12
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] 2 Qd R 10
Cite 2 - [1995] 2 Qd R 10
John Fairfax & Sons -v- Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSW LR 465
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1986) 5 NSW LR 465
Mr A v Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd [2021] QIRC 309
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 309
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 309
R. v Sussex Justices [1924] KB 256
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1924] KB 256
Scott v Scott (1913) A.C., 417
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1913) A.C., 417
Wandin Springs v Wagner [1991] 2 VR 496
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1991] 2 VR 496

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.