Key Takeaways
- The City of Moreton Bay council is facing a legal challenge for violating the human rights of homeless campers when they destroyed their tents and belongings in April.
- The Supreme Court of Queensland is hearing the case, which has significant implications for how all Queensland councils enforce their local laws.
- The council’s actions have been accused of infringing on the Human Rights Act, including the right to home and privacy, right to property, and freedom from cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
- The case highlights the tension between the rights of homeless people and the rights of local residents, who have complained about increased violence, rubbish, and rodents in the area.
Introduction to the Case
The City of Moreton Bay council is facing a Supreme Court challenge for its treatment of homeless campers in April. The council had demolished a homeless camp at Eddie Hyland Park, prompting several campers to move to a council bush reserve in Kallangur. The council then ordered the removal of the Kallangur campers, but temporarily halted their demolition plans due to the Supreme Court challenge. The case has significant implications for how all Queensland councils enforce their local laws, and both parties have argued that the outcome will have far-reaching consequences.
The Human Rights Argument
Barrister Hamish Clift, acting for Basic Rights Queensland, argued that the council’s actions infringed on the Human Rights Act. He claimed that the council had not considered the human rights of the homeless campers, including their right to home and privacy, right to property, and freedom from cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Clift argued that the council’s compliance notices were made unlawfully and that the disposal of items was also done unlawfully. He stated that the applicants were all homeless and sleeping rough on public land, with nowhere else to go, and that they were all indigent and vulnerable.
The Council’s Defence
King’s Counsel Scott McLeod, acting on behalf of the council, argued that the homeless people had tacitly consented to having their possessions disposed of. He claimed that the homeless people were given an opportunity to retrieve items they wanted before the council disposed of the rest. However, Clift countered that his clients had not given consent freely or willingly, as they were being pressured by council officers and given less than one hour to retrieve their belongings. Clift also argued that at least two of his clients could not have given consent at all, as they were not present when the council officers bulldozed their belongings.
The Issue of Procedural Fairness
Clift argued that his clients had been denied procedural fairness, as they were given 15 days to appeal the council’s decision, but were only given one hour to remove their belongings. This made it impossible for them to use their 15-day appeal period. Justice Paul Smith noted that the case was about balancing the rights of homeless people with the rights of residents, who had complained about increased violence, rubbish, and rodents in the area. The case will resume in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the outcome having significant implications for the enforcement of local laws in Queensland.
Reaction to the Case
Speaking outside court, Basic Rights Queensland legal practice director Sam Tracy said that the case would set an important precedent for other councils. He argued that the Queensland Human Rights Act should protect the homeless, and that the council’s actions had caused significant distress and horror for the campers. John Bobeldyk, one of the homeless people evicted from Eddie Hyland Park, rejected the council’s claim that he had consented to having his possessions thrown away. He said that it was impossible for him to retrieve all his possessions in the time he was given, including his daughter’s ashes. The case highlights the need for councils to balance the rights of homeless people with the rights of local residents, and to consider the human rights implications of their actions.
Conclusion and Implications
The case of the City of Moreton Bay council’s treatment of homeless campers has significant implications for the enforcement of local laws in Queensland. The outcome of the case will determine whether the council’s actions were lawful and whether they infringed on the human rights of the campers. The case highlights the need for councils to consider the human rights implications of their actions and to balance the rights of homeless people with the rights of local residents. The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for the treatment of homeless people in Queensland and will set an important precedent for other councils. Ultimately, the case raises important questions about the role of councils in protecting the human rights of vulnerable individuals and the need for a more nuanced approach to addressing homelessness.