Falconer v Commissioner of Police

In the case of Falconer v Commissioner of Police, the primary dispute centred around the decision made by the Commissioner of Police to direct that unvaccinated employees of the Western Australia Police Force could not attend the facilities of the Police Force. This case was brought before the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant, Falconer, argued that the decision of the Commissioner was both irrational and unreasonable, especially when compared to the directions issued by the Chief Health Officer. The Commissioner's decision was seen as an overreach of administrative discretion, particularly concerning the enforcement of vaccination requirements among police officers.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the Commissioner's decision was a reasonable and rational exercise of power under the relevant legislative framework, and whether it was proportionate to the risk it sought to mitigate. The court was also tasked with determining if the decision exceeded what was necessary to protect the health and safety of the workforce and the community. Another key issue was whether the court should assess the necessity of the decision or simply whether a reasonable decision-maker could have reached the conclusion made by the Commissioner.

In its reasoning, the court highlighted that while disproportionality could be a factor in assessing the reasonableness of a decision, the court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the decision-maker. The court concluded that the Commissioner's decision was a reasonable and rational exercise of power, aimed at ensuring that members of the Police Force were available to perform their duties. The court emphasised that the Employer Direction was not merely a repetition of the Chief Health Officer Directions but was a distinct measure intended to ensure operational readiness within the Police Force, which included maintaining a vaccinated workforce. The decision was deemed proportionate and necessary within the context of protecting the health and safety of the workforce and the broader community.

The court upheld the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the application, affirming that the decision was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. The court's judgment underscored the importance of evaluating decisions based on whether a reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at the same conclusion, rather than whether the court would have made the same decision.