Public Law Considerations

Seven police officers sought review of the decision by the Commissioner to issue a Direction requiring all police officers and some frontline staff members to receive two COVID-19 vaccinations by certain dates and to provide evidence of having done so. Contemporaneously, twelve ambulance officers and one nurse brought an application on the same terms against the Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Commissioner of Queensland Ambulance Services. Solicitors and counsel for the applicants in both applications were the same and the matters were heard together.

The four proceedings (Johnston, Whitthahn, Sutton and Baxter) involve applicants challenging the directives of the Executive which require them to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before entering particular premises or attending particular workplaces. There was no substantive discussion of human rights.

The case concerned an appeal of finding and disciplinary decisions concerning five allegations associated with an alleged failure to comply with a workplace directive to wear a facemask.

The case concerned a claim for losses alleged to flow from a body corporate’s termination of letting and caretaking agreements. The Court considered that the authorities relevant to the interpretation of section 229(2) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) did not raise an ‘alternate realistically arguable interpretation’ that ought to be favoured due to the subsequent requirement under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) that statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the respondent to refuse an exemption from COVID-19 Vaccination requirements requested by the applicant.

The case concerned an application for review of a yellow card negative notice. The Department identified that the rights to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 17) and freedom from work (section 18), so far as they related to vulnerable people, are already incorporated into the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld), and the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) supports but does not extend the paramount consideration.

The case concerned an appeal against a failed application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers.

Ms Colebourne was an employee Queensland Police Service. She refused to be vaccinated. Her employment was suspended without remuneration. She challenged this on various grounds including that the decision was to punish her, which was an improper purpose under statute: at [34]. Her evidence for this was an admission by Acting Assistant Commissioner Nelson that the decision limited various of her rights: at [80].

The case concerned an appeal against a suspension without remuneration decision that involved the Appellant’s refusal to meet COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

The appellant sought a review of the decision to suspend his employment from public service without remuneration as a result of his noncompliance with a direction to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.