Police and health workers mount court challenge, win reprieve on vax mandate

A group of twenty police and health workers who are challenging a mandatory vaccine order in court will now not have to comply before October 12 in order to give the challenge time to be heard.

Twenty police and health workers will not have to comply with mandatory Covid-19 vaccination orders while they seek exemptions by October 12.

Seven people opposing vaccinations of police and 13 health workers, including paramedics, took the State Government to the Supreme Court to challenge vaccination directives.

The police group of applicants claimed Commissioner Katarina Carroll’s vaccine mandate, removed their “fundamental common law rights”.

Ms Carroll had told officers they must have their first Covid-19 vaccine by October 4 and their second by January 24, showing proof to their superiors.

If they did not they would be suspended with pay before being given seven days to say why they shouldn’t be suspended without pay.

There was a similar stay application by 13 people, including health workers and paramedics, against Director-General of Queensland Health, Dr John Wakefield, and the State of Queensland.

Commissioner Katarina Carroll said she was confident the challenge would fail. Picture: Liam Kidston

Queensland Health workers had been told they must get at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by midnight on September 30 and be fully inoculated by the end of October.

While barrister Kris Byrne, for the police and health applicants, initially asked for a 90-day stay, Justice David Boddice said that was too long and allowed a stay of the directive until 4pm on October 12.

A two-day hearing of the challenges against the police and health mandatory vaccination directives will be set down for two days within three weeks.

Mr Byrne, who claims the directive is invalid, said there had been no infections within the police force and some of the police officer applicants were on stress leave and not circulating with other officers.

“We all know this is a pandemic. You do not know from day to day what is going to happen, in respect of the matter,” Justice Boddice said.

“Presumably, the argument is you get ahead of the pandemic…You don’t wait for the cases and then say oh, what’s going to happen now.”

Justice Boddice said it was a matter that went to public health issues.

“The decision maker has made a decision in relation to the impact it has on the particular workforce “ Justice Boddice told Mr Byrne.

“You are challenging that decision. If you are wrong in relation to it, the consequences of stopping the directive could be dramatic.

“It could impact harm to people.”

Seven people – Dylan Mark Johnston, Benjamin Owen Oakley, Kevin Joseph Gheringer, Tony Adam Payne, Connan Keith Barrell, Benjamin Shanahan and Tonia Marcelle Lance – challenged the police directive.

They say the decision impairs, affects or removes their “fundamental common law rights and statutory rights and obligations”.

The applicants say the vaccine mandate decision impairs, affects or removes their “fundamental common law rights and statutory rights and obligations”

The application listed a number of grounds including a breach of the rules of natural justice; a failure to comply with the requirements of the laws, industrial instruments and management support manual; improper exercise of the power; error of law; no evidence or other material to justify making the decision; and that the decision was otherwise contrary to the law.

It is understood the majority of applicants are police officers, including Connan Barrell, a former New Zealand rugby union player turned police officer.

Mr Byrne said the police officers he represented were under a high amount of stress regarding applying for an exemption, because they believed they could not get one on medical grounds.

Other exemption grounds are religious and exceptional circumstances.

The 13 health workers in the application also have been allowed to avoid mandatory vaccination deadlines until the matter returns to court on October 12.

They are expected to seek exemptions before then.

Justice Boddice said a question of a stay required a balance between the reasoning behind the directive and public health concerns and the consequences for the individuals challenging it.

He said lawyers for the applicants could argue for an extension of the stay on October 12.

The judge told counsel for the State, Jonathan Horton, QC, that he hoped that there would be an undertaking that there would be no disciplinary action against the applicants for non-compliance with the directives while the matter was before the court.