Bickle v State of Victoria (Victoria Police)

The case of Bickle v State of Victoria (Victoria Police) was heard in the Federal Court. The plaintiff, Bickle, brought proceedings against the State of Victoria (Victoria Police) alleging breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether Victoria Police provides a "service" within the meaning of the Act and whether the plaintiff's points of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court was also required to determine whether the points of claim were likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay, and if they amounted to an abuse of the court process.

The court examined whether Victoria Police's conduct in investigating allegations of criminal conduct could be considered a service under the Act. It acknowledged that certain aspects of police work might amount to the provision of services, as recognised by authorities. However, the court held that not all conduct engaged in by police during investigations qualifies as a service merely because it benefits someone. The court concluded that much of the conduct alleged in the amended points of claim did not amount to the provision of a service, and thus should be struck out. The court allowed the interlocutory application in part and ordered that certain parts of the amended points of claim be struck out.

The court found that paragraph 17 of the amended points of claim, though not well pleaded, did identify the attribute by reason of which the incidents of discriminatory conduct were said to contravene the Disability Discrimination Act. The court held that the alleged incidents were said to have been visited upon the plaintiff because of his disability. However, the court found that the conduct alleged in the amended points of claim did not amount to the provision of a service, and thus much of it should be struck out. The court also found that the parts of the amended points of claim that pertained to the VARE interview were not deficient and should not be struck out.

The court ordered that the parties were to confer and, if possible, agree on suitable orders by which the respondent's interlocutory application should be determined. If the parties could not agree, each party was to file and serve a minute of the orders by which they proposed the respondent's interlocutory application should be determined. Further orders were to be made in chambers by way of determination of the respondent's interlocutory application.