Case Law Database
Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal
| Date of Application: | Fri, 18 Mar 2022 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Fri, 25 Nov 2022 |
| Decision Making Body: | Queensland Land Court |
| Law Applied: | Human Rights Act, Australia |
| Keywords: | Right to life, protection of children, right to culture, duty to future generations, intergenerational equity |
| Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf) |
Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal [2020] QLC 33; [2021] QLC 4; [2021] QLC 36; [2022] QLC 3; [2022] QLC 4
At Issue: Australian youth challenged proposed coal mine on human rights grounds.
Summary: On May 13, 2020, the environmental group Youth Verdict lodged an objection to the proposed Galilee Coal Project in the Queensland Land Court on human rights grounds. The plaintiffs allege that by contributing to climate change, the mine will infringe on their right to life, the protection of children, and the right to culture as protected by the Queensland Human Rights Act. Thus, approval of the mine would be unlawful. The Galilee Coal Project had received federal approval but needed a recommendation that it be approved by the Queensland Land Court before the environmental authority and mining lease could be granted by the Queensland Department of Environment and Science and Minister for Resources, respectively. The recommendations are not finally determinative but must be considered by the Minister for Natural Resources Mines and Energy and by the Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Science when making a final decision on the mining lease.
On August 28, 2020, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. On November 25, 2022, the Queensland Land Court recommended to the Minister for Natural Resources Mines and Energy and the Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Science that the Mining Lease and Environmental Authority respectively be rejected. In reaching this decision the Court considered factors including climate change, the economic and social benefits and costs and the limitation of human rights associated with the Project. The Court found that the development of the Project would unjustifiably limit the right to life, the protection of children, the right to culture of First Nations People, the right to property, the right of certain groups to enjoy human rights without discrimination, and the right to privacy and home.
On December 2022 the Queensland Land Court recommended to the relevant ministerial bodies that the Mining Permit and the Environmental Authority be rejected. Waratah Coal Companye appealed the decision but withdrew it in February of the following year.
Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com)
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre
Court documents:
Related CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 3. Right to have child’s/children’s best interests taken as primary consideration in all matters affecting them (CRC Article 3)
- 4. States will take measures for the implementation of the CRC (CRC Article 4)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
- 16. Right to privacy, family, home, communications and reputation (CRC Article 16)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
- 30. Right to minority culture, language, religion (CRC Article 30)
- 43. Procedural CRC provisions (CRC Articles 43-54)
- CRC Optional Protocols
The Court found that the development of the Project would unjustifiably limit the right to life, the protection of children, the right to culture of First Nations People, the right to property, the right of certain groups to enjoy human rights without discrimination, and the right to privacy and home.
Cited CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 3. Right to have child’s/children’s best interests taken as primary consideration in all matters affecting them (CRC Article 3)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
- 43. Procedural CRC provisions (CRC Articles 43-54)
- CRC Optional Protocols
The court makes reference to:
- The Saachi complaint to the CRC Committee (at par 1583)
- The CRC Committee's General Comment 5, 14 and 26 (at para 1585).
- The four pillars of children's rights (par 1576).
The decision at para [1586]:
"The CRC’s decision and reasoning are helpful in interpreting s 26(2). The scope of the right protected by s 26(2) encompasses the climate change implications of the Project, because of the vulnerability of children to climate change impacts and the disproportionate burden those impacts will have on children today and in the future."
Involvement of children in hearings
- Written presentation
The lawyers represented them via organisation 'Youth Verdict Ltd'. The children do not seem to have had direct contact with the court, although one party gave evidence to the court of the impacts on her young daughter.
However, the court travelled to some of the islands and heard evidence from various families. Children may have been involved in this process. The court refers to the families in the decision and calls the children by their names and ages.
Intergenerational rights
Decision:
[1580] “There is an additional dimension to the principle of participation in the context of climate change. The decisions we make today have far more consequences for children alive and those yet to be borne than it does for today’s adults. While today’s children have some influence over the decisions I must make, by Youth Verdict’s participation in this hearing, the same is not true of the children of the future. The only way I can give meaning to that reality is to acknowledge the significance of this generation making decisions that could lock-in climate trajectories, the impacts of which will be felt by future children.”
[1588] “The intergenerational nature of climate change is critical to the proportionality exercise.”
[1603] “The principle of intergenerational equity places responsibility with today’s decision makers to make wise choices for future generations.”
[1836] “The principle of intergenerational equity calls on the present generation to ensure the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations”.
[1938] “I have applied the principles of ecologically sustainable development in deciding what recommendation to make. Approving the application would risk disproportionate burdens for future generations, which does not give effect to the goal of intergenerational equity”.
Future generations
Decision:
[1580] “There is an additional dimension to the principle of participation in the context of climate change. The decisions we make today have far more consequences for children alive and those yet to be borne than it does for today’s adults. While today’s children have some influence over the decisions I must make, by Youth Verdict’s participation in this hearing, the same is not true of the children of the future. The only way I can give meaning to that reality is to acknowledge the significance of this generation making decisions that could lock-in climate trajectories, the impacts of which will be felt by future children.”
[1603] “The principle of intergenerational equity places responsibility with today’s decision makers to make wise choices for future generations.”
[1836] “The principle of intergenerational equity calls on the present generation to ensure the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.”
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants granted
The Court found that the development of the Project would unjustifiably limit the right to life, the protection of children, the right to culture of First Nations People, the right to property, the right of certain groups to enjoy human rights without discrimination, and the right to privacy and home.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- Yes
The judge decided the importance of preserving the human rights outweighed the potential A$2.5 billion of economic benefits of the proposed mine.
In yet another Australian first, the court heard submissions on the human rights implications of the mine.
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
Lawyers
E Nekvapil with K McAuliffe-Lake (instructed by the Environmental Defenders Office) for Youth Verdict Ltd and The Bimblebox Alliance Inc
NGOs
Available information on how children got involved in the litigation
Our cultural & human rights case against Palmer's Waratah Coal mine | Youth Verdict
Age range of litigants
- 13-17
- 18-25