Background & Proceedings
On 27 February 2024, Justice Martin delivered judgment in three consolidated judicial review cases. Two challenges arose against vaccination directives issued by the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) in Johnston and Sutton, while the third challenged a directive issued by the Director-General of Queensland Health to Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) officers in Witthahn.
Decisions in Summary
QPS Vaccination Directives (Johnston and Sutton)
Findings:
The court held that the QPS Commissioner did not adequately consider human rights, landing the directives outside legal compliance under Section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019.Despite statutory authority under the Police Service Administration Act 1990, the directives were held unlawful due to procedural gaps in human rights assessment.Notably, the court found that the directives, mandating vaccination, interfered with the right under Section 17(c) of the Human Rights Act, medical treatment without informed consent but were substantively justified and not deemed unreasonable.
Relief Granted:
Both Direction No. 12 (7 September 2021) and Direction No. 14 (14 December 2021) were declared unlawful under Section 58 of the HR Act.
The QPS Commissioner is barred from enforcing these directions or initiating disciplinary proceedings on that basis.
QAS Vaccination Policy (Witthahn)
Findings:
The court determined that the vaccination policy set by Queensland Health did not arise from an implied term in the applicants’ contracts due to insufficient evidence about their employment agreements.
Consequently, QAS failed to establish the mandate as a reasonable direction under contract law, rendering the policy non-binding.
While the court accepted human rights were considered and the limitations fell upon the same Section 17(c), the policy itself was lawful and justified.
Relief Granted:
The Employee COVID‑19 Vaccination Requirements HR Policy was declared ineffective.
The Director‑General is injuncted from enforcing the policy or disciplining QAS officers based on it.
Key Legal Implications
-
Procedural Compliance is Critical: Even if a decision is substantively sound, failure to properly document and consider human rights during the decision-making process can lead to its invalidation.
-
Substantive Compatibility vs. Procedural Flaws: This case demonstrates that directives can be justified in substance but still struck down if the required procedural processes are not followed.
-
Scope of Youthful Limits: All challenged directions were found to impact Section 17(c) of the HR Act—medical consent—yet were still deemed justifiable in an emergency context.
-
Policy vs. Contractual Authority: In employment contexts, directives must derive from an enforceable contractual basis—not merely organizational policy—to bind employees.
These rulings underscore the essential role of robust human rights assessment in high-stakes administrative decisions. While the court affirmed the legitimacy of mandatory vaccinations during a public health emergency, it reinforced that procedural due diligence cannot be bypassed. The case serves as a reminder: decision-makers must deliberately consider, record, and balance human rights implications to ensure legal enforceability.