Setback in police, ambulance staff case against vaccine directives

A three-day trial brought by a group of police and ambulance officers challenging vaccination mandates has been adjourned due to changed directives and the emergence of Omicron.

A three-day trial brought by a group of police and ambulance officers challenging vaccination mandates has been adjourned due to changed directives and the emergence of Omicron. Photo: File

A three-day trial brought by a group of police and ambulance officers challenging vaccination mandates has been adjourned due to changed directives and the emergence of Omicron.

Brisbane Supreme Court Justice Jean Dalton on Monday was to hear an application by seven police, 12 ambulance officers and a nurse challenging the lawfulness of Covid-19 vaccination directives.

But counsel for the group asked for the matter to be adjourned, given slightly amended directions and policies had superseded those in place at the time the group made their application to the court.

They argued Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll’s instrument introduced in mid-December and a new Queensland Ambulance human resources policy introduced in late January were made under the different circumstances of an Omicron wave, rather than during a Delta outbreak.

Queensland police officers had been given a deadline of January 24 to get both shots of the vaccine or be suspended with pay. File picture

The group hopes to gather further evidence, including efficacy of the vaccine against Omicron in order to challenge the new directions, which still require the workers to be vaccinated.

The Police Commissioner’s vaccine directive gave police officers and staff until January 24 to have both shots of the vaccine, or be suspended with pay.

Queensland Health workers were also given a date to be fully vaccinated.

Counsel for the Police Commissioner argued police staff should discontinue their case or the matter should be dismissed, given they were notified in early December that an updated direction was being introduced.

He highlighted that an adjournment could give the workers the benefit of a stay which means they aren’t subject to the directives they are challenging until the court matter is finalised.

Justice Dalton said the application for an adjournment was an inconvenience to the court and displayed a lack of consideration.

She said, however, it “would be a waste” to dismiss the application as the group was likely to again bring a similar application to the court challenging the directions.

Justice Dalton said there was common ground between parties that the trial couldn’t proceed as planned this week.

She adjourned the hearing to a date to be fixed and said the issue of the stay would need to be heard in court on another day.

The court on Tuesday will hear submissions about how the matter should proceed.