Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2)
Case
•
[2022] QIRC 16
•28 January 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 16
[2022] QIRC 16
28 January 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2), the appellant, Ms Colebourne, contested the Queensland Police Service's decision to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for its employees, including herself, and to reject her application for an exemption from the requirement. The Queensland Police Service had issued a direction that all employees, unless exempted, must receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Ms Colebourne, who was employed as an Administration Officer at the Queensland Police Academy and had been seconded to the position of Injury Management Advisor, applied for an exemption from this requirement but was unsuccessful. She appealed against the decision under the Public Service Act 2008.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision not to grant Ms Colebourne an exemption from the vaccination requirement was fair and reasonable. The court considered whether the decision was consistent with the statutory language and whether there were any procedural or substantive grounds on which the decision could be deemed unfair or unreasonable. The court noted that the task in conducting a public service appeal was to review the decision for fairness and reasonableness, rather than to assess the decision against a legal standard of reasonableness.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the decision not to grant Ms Colebourne an exemption was fair and reasonable. The court found that the decision-making process was appropriate and that the reasons provided were sufficient. The court concluded that there were no procedural or substantive grounds to overturn the decision. Consequently, the court confirmed the decision appealed against.
In light of the court's determination, it made the following order: pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decision appealed against is confirmed. This means that the original decision by the Queensland Police Service to not grant Ms Colebourne an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement stands.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision not to grant Ms Colebourne an exemption from the vaccination requirement was fair and reasonable. The court considered whether the decision was consistent with the statutory language and whether there were any procedural or substantive grounds on which the decision could be deemed unfair or unreasonable. The court noted that the task in conducting a public service appeal was to review the decision for fairness and reasonableness, rather than to assess the decision against a legal standard of reasonableness.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the decision not to grant Ms Colebourne an exemption was fair and reasonable. The court found that the decision-making process was appropriate and that the reasons provided were sufficient. The court concluded that there were no procedural or substantive grounds to overturn the decision. Consequently, the court confirmed the decision appealed against.
In light of the court's determination, it made the following order: pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decision appealed against is confirmed. This means that the original decision by the Queensland Police Service to not grant Ms Colebourne an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement stands.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Judicial Review
-
Public Service Act 2008
-
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Camillos v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) [2025] QIRC 1
Cases Citing This Decision
68
Hopkinson v State of Queensland (Department of Education)
[2025] QIRC 308
Pyke v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
[2025] QIRC 306
Margetts v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No 2)
[2025] QIRC 305
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service)
[2021] QIRC 380