Why the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Was Unlawful in Queensland
Photo by Macourt Media on Pexels
In January 2024, the Queensland Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that the COVID-19 vaccination directions issued to Queensland Police and Queensland Ambulance officers were unlawful. The decision confirmed that the directions violated the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) because they failed to properly balance individual rights against public health objectives. This case has significant implications for employers and employees across Queensland, particularly regarding how workplace vaccination policies must be crafted and enforced.
Key Takeaways
The Queensland Supreme Court found that the vaccine mandates for police and ambulance officers were invalid.
The court held that the directions were not a reasonable limit on human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019.
The ruling does not automatically invalidate all employer vaccine mandates, but it sets an important precedent for how such policies must consider human rights.
Employers should review their vaccination policies to ensure they comply with human rights obligations.
Affected employees may have grounds for legal claims, such as breach of contract or unfair dismissal.
Why Did the Queensland Supreme Court Rule the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Unlawful?
In Johnston & Ors v Carroll (Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service) & Anor; Witthahn & Ors v Wakefield (Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Director General of Queensland Health); Sutton & Ors v Carroll (Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service) [2024] QSC 2, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered whether the vaccine directions issued by the Police Commissioner and the Director-General of Queensland Health were lawful.
The court found that while the directions had a legitimate public health purpose, they were invalid because the decision-makers did not adequately consider the human rights of affected workers. Section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 requires public entities to properly consider human rights when making decisions. The court held that the directions were not a reasonable and justified limit on the right to privacy and the right to work, among others, because there was no evidence that the decision-makers weighed these rights against the public health benefits in a meaningful way.
This case is a powerful illustration of how the Human Rights Act operates in practice. It does not prevent public health measures, but it requires that such measures be proportionate and that the decision-maker demonstrates genuine engagement with human rights.
Practical Application in Queensland
For Queensland employers, especially in the public sector and those in essential services, this ruling sends a clear message: vaccination policies must be individually justified, with a proper human rights assessment. Simply issuing a blanket mandate without considering individual circumstances may be unlawful.
In practice, this means employers should:
Conduct a human rights impact assessment before implementing a vaccination policy.
Consider reasonable accommodations for employees who cannot be vaccinated for medical, religious, or other reasons.
Avoid punitive measures like termination without first exploring alternatives.
Ensure any policy is based on current, evidence-based public health advice and is proportionate to the risk.
For employees, the ruling provides a potential avenue to challenge mandates that were not properly considered. However, each case will depend on its specific facts and the applicable legislation.
Common Risks or Mistakes
One common mistake is assuming that all vaccine mandates are now invalid. The Queensland Supreme Court ruling was specific to the directions issued to police and ambulance officers. It did not strike down all workplace vaccination requirements. Employers who hastily abandon lawful, properly considered policies may face different risks, including WH&S obligations.
Another mistake is failing to document the decision-making process. The court emphasised that the absence of evidence showing human rights were considered was critical. Employers should keep records of how they balanced rights and public health.
How Employers Can Ensure Compliance
Review existing policies – Assess whether your vaccination policy is still legally sound after this ruling.
Conduct a human rights impact assessment – If you are a public entity or acting under government directives, ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act.
Consult legal advice – Engage an experienced litigation solicitor to review your policy.
Communicate with employees – Be transparent about the reasons for any mandate and the options available for exemptions.
Document everything – Keep records of decision-making processes, consultations, and risk assessments.
Comparison Table: Lawful vs Unlawful Vaccine Mandate Approach
| Aspect | Lawful Approach | Unlawful Approach (as per this case) |
|---|---|---|
| Human Rights Consideration | Explicitly considered and balanced against public health objectives | Not properly considered; no evidence of balancing |
| Individual Assessment | Reasonable accommodations and exemptions offered | Blanket mandate without individual circumstances |
| Proportionality | Policy is proportionate to the risk, with less restrictive alternatives considered | No analysis of whether less restrictive measures could achieve the same outcome |
| Decision-Making Process | Documented, transparent, based on evidence | Inadequate documentation; unclear reasoning |
Practical Next Steps
If you are an employer or employee affected by a vaccine mandate, it is essential to understand your legal position. At Enlight Lawyers, we have a dedicated litigation practice with experienced solicitors who can help.
Employers: Contact us to review your policies and ensure compliance with the latest legal developments.
Employees: If you believe your rights were violated, we can assess your case and advise on the best course of action.
We offer fixed fees and a free initial consultation. Call us on (07) 3495 1884 or visit our contact page to schedule an appointment. Our team is multilingual, providing services in Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Mandarin.
We are located at 10/1-3 Noel Street, Slacks Creek QLD. Rely on our team, trusted by clients across Queensland with a 5.0 Google rating, to guide you through your legal matter.