Richards v Commissioner of Police

The case of Richards v Commissioner of Police involves a dispute between the applicants and the Commissioner of Police regarding alleged discrimination based on sex, race, and age. The matter was heard by the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the police officers were engaged in the provision of services and if there was any less favourable treatment based on the applicants' characteristics. The court examined the specific services provided by the police in the context of the alleged incidents, focusing on whether the service of restoring and keeping the peace, and protecting the public from physical danger and jeopardy to their health, was provided in a less favourable manner to the applicants compared to others of different characteristics.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the police officers were engaged in the provision of services within the meaning of the relevant legislation. The court considered the broader description of the service involved, which was the service of restoring and keeping the peace, and protecting the public, including individuals involved in the events, from physical danger and jeopardy to their health. The court also needed to determine if the police officers' actions constituted a refusal of a service within the meaning of the Act, and if there was any less favourable treatment of the applicants based on their sex, race, or age.

The court found that the police officers were engaged in the provision of services, which involved the broader service of restoring and keeping the peace, and protecting the public from physical danger and jeopardy to their health. The court held that the service of providing transport to hospital or administering first aid was not the central issue in this case. Instead, the focus was on whether the police had failed to provide the broadly described service in a less favourable manner to the applicants based on their characteristics. The court concluded that the allegations of particular failures by the police should be seen as particulars of the failure to provide the broadly described service, rather than separate services.

The court of appeal ultimately found that the Commissioner of Police was not vicariously liable for the alleged discriminatory actions of the police officers. The court held that the police officers were not engaged in the provision of services in the context of the alleged incidents, and therefore, there was no less favourable treatment based on the applicants' characteristics. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicants' claims were not upheld.