A mandate forcing West Australian police to get the COVID-19 vaccination or lose their jobs, is a "punishment for dissent", the Supreme Court has been told.
Senior Constable Ben Falconer has applied for a judicial review of disciplinary proceedings which could see him dismissed if he does not get the jab.
The court heard the officer refers to himself as "pro-choice".
His barrister Shane Prince SC told the court the power held by authorities needed to be exercised reasonably.
"What's being done here is punishment for dissent," he said via videolink from Sydney.
'The right to be wrong'
Mr Prince said it was an "abrogation of the common law assumption of bodily integrity".
He told the court enforcing a mandate only had the effect of punishing people who felt they could not have the vaccine.
"Some people feel they just can't do it," Mr Prince said.
"[There is] no evidence they provide or pose a risk to anybody.
"People who are unvaccinated are not diseased."
He said part of the freedom of choice in society was the right to be wrong.
He said if Mr Falconer was prevented from accessing WA Police premises, he could perform data entry from his house.
The employer's direction "goes beyond what is reasonable and rational", Mr Prince said.
Mocking laughter threatens to close court
Earlier, counsel for the state Kenneth Pettit SC called for the application to be dismissed and listed the "pros" associated with vaccination.
Among them were averting the risks of mortality, and preventing the overwhelming of hospitals, which he said would happen if the "virus got a foothold".
He spoke of morbidity rates, including "long virus" effects which could last for months.
Mr Pettit argued the vaccines were safe and effective.
This was met with mocking laughter in the public gallery, which caused Justice Jeremy Allanson to warn he may close the court.
Justice Allanson said he although he did not want to close the court, he would do so if that was what it took to hear the case without interruption.
Mr Pettit went on to say there would be a loss of jobs through lockdowns, and a potential economic disaster if Pilbara mines stopped operating and gas was not being exported.
He spoke of the psychological impacts on those who were subjected to lockdowns, and the financial impacts on those who could not travel interstate.
Mr Pettit also said the applicant's inconvenience was not worth one hospitalisation or one lockdown.
He argued the few dozen police workers who did not want the vaccine were not bearing the burden alone, referring to other workplaces subject to directions.
He also said it was sheer nonsense to suggest it was "disproportionate" to prevent the virus through vaccination when there was no virus in WA.
"COVID is at our door," he told the court.
