The Queensland, Australia Supreme Court has ruled it was unlawful to compel front line workers to get the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine or face losing their jobs.Frontline workers, including police and ambulance workers, pushed back against the COVID-19 vaccine mandates through legal channels when they were first enforced in 2022. Justice Glenn Martin ruled Tuesday from the Brisbane court the vaccine mandates put in place by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) and Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) were a gross breach of human rights laws under the Human Rights Act (HRA), according to local media reports. Martin wrote in the final decision the vaccine mandates failed to comply with section 58 of the HRA, which states all public service employees must act and make decisions in ways that are compatible with human rights. He found the police commissioner breached this section of the act despite the fact he was given “human rights compatibility assessments.”.Attorney Justin Sibley, who represented staff at QPS, said his clients are doing “excellent” since hearing the verdict. However, Premier Steven Miles, on hearing the verdict said he stands by his government’s decision to force people to take the vax or face unemployment. "Certainly no regrets, the steps that we took to keep Queenslanders safe were the right steps and they worked," said Miles. "I'm very proud of Queensland's response. That's a testament to all the decisions we took."QPS took the ruling seriously and said it will "carefully consider the judgement and our options moving forward."Bond University associate law professor Wendy Bonython believes this was just “the first of a wave of claims,” indicating the decision would “definitely” influence other states, according to local media reports. "This is the first of a wave of claims of this type that we're going to see come before the courts," she said. "It's an interesting decision because it's the first one of its type."She said other workers employed “by the state” are "certainly going to be caught up" by the verdict, as the mandates made by high-profile public authorities impacted industries across the board, including public servants, teachers and healthcare workers."Their bosses imposing those directions are essentially following directions made by public offices," said Bonython. "If they don't follow through on the directions, they'll potentially be in breach of what they have reasonable belief is a legal direction."Criminal lawyer and former Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts called the ruling "a very live can of worms.” He explained the courts have the authority to decide if workers would be compensated for “loss of employment" or "lost and suffered damages.""It's indicated what things that future commissioners must take into account, particularly around individual human rights and the vulnerabilities of individuals," he said. "It's not a decision which will solve everything, but it raises as many questions as it answers."Bonython, however, noted the workers who took this claim to court were not looking for compensation for lost pay, but for the court to agree the mandates were unlawful. "All they've sought, and all they've got, is a correction from the court saying that these directions are unlawful," she said.The court process was funded by billionaire businessman Clive Palmer, who financed the legal team to the tune of a bill up to AUD$3 million. "I've been happy for the last two years to fund this application," he said. "It wasn't appropriate that I said I was doing that until we got a result, I didn't want them in anyway to feel prejudiced."Palmer said he was proud of Queensland front-liners "who stood up against the government" in court and would dole out the cash again for more cases like it, calling it a “worthwhile project.""It's very easy for the government or people with a lot of money to squash litigants who haven't got the money, who can't afford to have justice before the court," he said. "It's very important that they get equal access.”"We will enjoy getting the costs from the government and we'll enjoy reinvesting those costs in the battle to make sure Australians can be free and have the right to choose."
The Queensland, Australia Supreme Court has ruled it was unlawful to compel front line workers to get the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine or face losing their jobs.Frontline workers, including police and ambulance workers, pushed back against the COVID-19 vaccine mandates through legal channels when they were first enforced in 2022. Justice Glenn Martin ruled Tuesday from the Brisbane court the vaccine mandates put in place by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) and Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) were a gross breach of human rights laws under the Human Rights Act (HRA), according to local media reports. Martin wrote in the final decision the vaccine mandates failed to comply with section 58 of the HRA, which states all public service employees must act and make decisions in ways that are compatible with human rights. He found the police commissioner breached this section of the act despite the fact he was given “human rights compatibility assessments.”.Attorney Justin Sibley, who represented staff at QPS, said his clients are doing “excellent” since hearing the verdict. However, Premier Steven Miles, on hearing the verdict said he stands by his government’s decision to force people to take the vax or face unemployment. "Certainly no regrets, the steps that we took to keep Queenslanders safe were the right steps and they worked," said Miles. "I'm very proud of Queensland's response. That's a testament to all the decisions we took."QPS took the ruling seriously and said it will "carefully consider the judgement and our options moving forward."Bond University associate law professor Wendy Bonython believes this was just “the first of a wave of claims,” indicating the decision would “definitely” influence other states, according to local media reports. "This is the first of a wave of claims of this type that we're going to see come before the courts," she said. "It's an interesting decision because it's the first one of its type."She said other workers employed “by the state” are "certainly going to be caught up" by the verdict, as the mandates made by high-profile public authorities impacted industries across the board, including public servants, teachers and healthcare workers."Their bosses imposing those directions are essentially following directions made by public offices," said Bonython. "If they don't follow through on the directions, they'll potentially be in breach of what they have reasonable belief is a legal direction."Criminal lawyer and former Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts called the ruling "a very live can of worms.” He explained the courts have the authority to decide if workers would be compensated for “loss of employment" or "lost and suffered damages.""It's indicated what things that future commissioners must take into account, particularly around individual human rights and the vulnerabilities of individuals," he said. "It's not a decision which will solve everything, but it raises as many questions as it answers."Bonython, however, noted the workers who took this claim to court were not looking for compensation for lost pay, but for the court to agree the mandates were unlawful. "All they've sought, and all they've got, is a correction from the court saying that these directions are unlawful," she said.The court process was funded by billionaire businessman Clive Palmer, who financed the legal team to the tune of a bill up to AUD$3 million. "I've been happy for the last two years to fund this application," he said. "It wasn't appropriate that I said I was doing that until we got a result, I didn't want them in anyway to feel prejudiced."Palmer said he was proud of Queensland front-liners "who stood up against the government" in court and would dole out the cash again for more cases like it, calling it a “worthwhile project.""It's very easy for the government or people with a lot of money to squash litigants who haven't got the money, who can't afford to have justice before the court," he said. "It's very important that they get equal access.”"We will enjoy getting the costs from the government and we'll enjoy reinvesting those costs in the battle to make sure Australians can be free and have the right to choose."
