Falconer v Chief Health Officer [No 2]

The case of Falconer v Chief Health Officer [No 2] involves the applicant, Mr Falconer, challenging the legality of directions made by the Chief Health Officer under the Public Health Act 2016 (WA). These directions prohibit unvaccinated police officers from accessing any police premises. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Mr Falconer argued that the directions were unlawful for various reasons, including that they failed to take into account relevant considerations, were disproportionate, and were based on irrelevant considerations.

The court was required to determine whether the directions were made within the scope of the powers granted under the Public Health Act 2016 (WA) and whether they were lawful. This involved examining whether the directions took into account relevant considerations, were proportionate to the risk they aimed to mitigate, and did not consider irrelevant factors. The court had to consider the principles of legality and proportionality in its analysis.

The court found that the directions were made within the scope of the powers granted under the Public Health Act 2016 (WA) and were lawful. It concluded that the directions were proportionate to the risk of COVID-19 transmission and took into account relevant considerations. The court also found that the directions did not consider irrelevant factors. It held that the Chief Health Officer was entitled to consider the public health benefit of mandating vaccination and the critical function of workplaces in making the directions. The court rejected the applicant's arguments that the directions were unlawful.

The court dismissed the applicant's application and found in favour of the Chief Health Officer. The directions prohibiting unvaccinated police officers from accessing any police premises were upheld as lawful. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings.