Karen v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 191

Date: 2 June 2022
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: McLennan IC
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: 13
Rights Considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 89, 562B, 562C; Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld) s 4; Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 26, 59, 137; Directive 16/20 Suspension cl 6.
Keywords: COVID-19

This case concerned an appeal against the respondent’s (Queensland Police Service) decision to suspend the applicant without pay due to her failure to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. The applicant submitted that the decision maker had exercised their discretionary power for an improper purpose in choosing to weigh the balance in favour of the relevant Direction, rather than her human rights: at [40]. The Commission noted that section 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) made it clear that rights are not absolute and allowed to be limited: at [41]. Additionally, the respondent had taken the applicant’s human rights into careful consideration, listing various rights and why limiting those rights was justifiable in the circumstances: at [42]. The Commission cited Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 018 in noting the importance of the public health emergency which in this case outweighed the applicant’s rights: at [44].

Visit the judgment: Karen v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 191