Victorian Police Lose Supreme Court Case on Police Officer Who Refused the Vax By Brain Simpson
In a case which sets a precedence, legally for Victoria, and for other states, highly suggestive law to be considered, the Victorian police have lost their Supreme Court of Victoria case for reprimanding an officer who refused to take the jab. It was held that his refusal to take any dose of the Covid vax did not violate any terms of the Victoria Police Manual-Covid 19 vaccination requirements (VPM), so the police therefore lacked the power to discipline the officer. There does not appear to be a written judgment up at the Victorian Supreme Court website today.
The case will be important for further litigation in Victoria, which was one of the most draconian in the Covid lockdowns, and mandates.
The time for justice is here. Let a thousand lawsuits bloom!
"A Victoria Police officer charged with failing to comply with his employer's Covid vaccination policy has won his case, setting a precedent for others in a similar situation.
Leading Senior Constable Simon Peter Shearer took the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police to the Supreme Court after the former was charged and subsequently reprimanded for failing to receive any dose of the Covid-19 vaccination by August 16, 2022.
The court on Friday quashed the order, saying his failure to receive a dose of the vaccine did not breach the Victoria Police Manual-Covid 19 vaccination requirements (VPM).
Further, the court said Leading Senior Constable Shearer was denied procedural fairness as the charge did not provide adequate notice of the case against him and that the disciplinary inquiry officer failed to disclose to him issues that were critical to the decision to find the charge proven.
A Victoria Police spokeswoman said the organisation would carefully review the court ruling but didn't say whether it would appeal the judgement.
Leading Senior Constable Shearer said through his lawyer Irene Chrisopoulidis that his employer has prohibited him from speaking about the case but Ms Chrisopoulidis said the judgement not only reaffirmed our faith in the justice system, it reflected the courageous and tenacious character it took to stand up for your rights in pursuing justice.
"The ramifications of this judgment, for so many other individuals in Victoria and across Australia, who were unfairly and unjustly treated during one of the most challenging times in our history, have now been brought into question by this landmark case,'' she said,
"The lives of these employees and their families, impacted by such organisational policies and decisions such as the one by Victoria Police in this case, has undoubtedly impacted those individuals personally and professionally.
"Victoria Police are supposed to be model litigants but this did not seem to stop them from using their considerable economic power to try to put pressure on Mr Shearer."
Leading Senior Constable Shearer began working as a lawyer for Victoria Police in 2013 and two years later, he was diagnosed with Graves' disease, an autoimmune condition affecting the thyroid.
He received treatment from 2015 to 2018 but had a severe reoccurrence of the disease in mid-2021 for which he is still receiving ongoing treatment.
Leading Senior Constable Shearer obtained a medical exemption from the requirement to be vaccinated in October 2021 and again in November 2021. The exemption expired in December 2021 and he then went on lengthy annual and long service leave.
After the Chief Commissioner issued the VPM in July 2022, Leading Senior Constable Shearer wrote to his employer and said he was not subjected to any requirement to provide his vaccination status or that he be vaccinated in order to perform his duties. He argued that it would be unreasonable to prevent him from returning to work.
Supreme Court Judge Michael McDonald said a clause in the VPM set out "requirements" as opposed to "directions" for all employees to receive a dose of the Covid vaccination.
Therefore, he said non-compliance with the requirements did not render an employee liable to disciplinary action.
Justice McDonald said the VPM also did not prescribe a timeframe within which an employee was to obtain up-to-date vaccination status."
Comments