Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 40

Date: 17 February 2022
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Pidgeon IC
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 17
Rights Considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Industrial Relations Act 2016, ss 562B, 562C; Police Service and Administration Act 1990, ss 2.5, s 4.9; Public Service Act 2008, ss 119, 194, 197
Keywords: Public Law Considerations: Covid-19 Directions; Education, Training and Employment

The case concerned an appeal against a failed application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers. The appellant contended that the decision did not have sufficient regard to her rights, and that given her work involved limited contact with others, there were ‘other ways to achieve the purpose’ than the limits on her human rights, such as a transition to fully remote work: at [87]. The Commission noted the potential application of s 17 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which provides that a person ‘must not be subject to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without the person’s full, free and informed consent’: at [95]. However, the Commission considered that it was not unreasonable to refuse the exemption request after taking into account human rights, and no evidence that the respondent failed to do so: at [96]. The Commission did not provide any substantive discussion of human rights.

Visit the judgment: Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 40