Both plaintiffs refused to be vaccinated and claimed that various Public Health Orders requiring vaccination were invalid. Proposed Law Would Make Employers Liable for Injuries Arising from Vaccine Mandates. 4 Communication Theory 00 (2019) 1-23. fM. Plaintiffs . The court disagreed with every argument presented by the plaintiffs, rejecting all challenges on all grounds. The NSW Supreme Court has today delivered a strong judgment upholding the validity of public health orders requiring vaccinations in certain workplaces. According to media reports, Mr Larter had crowdfunded nearly $250,000 to contribute to his legal expenses so far, which he said did not cover the full costs of the three barristers and two paralegals commissioned to represent him. But there are a number of measures that may well be problematic. Video: Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald Hazzard, Directions Hearing of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, 3 September 2021 (start 11:12 mins) . Archived post. Many believe she already has, some time ago, and in typical fashion they will get around to making a distraction of it when it suits them. [4] Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB at [115] - [129]. Natasha Henry and five other citizens have launched legal action against Health Minister Brad Hazzard in a bid to overturn rules requiring aged care workers to get the Covid-19 jab or face losing . judgment for plaintiff in sum of $1,273,125 Taylor Construction Group Pty Ltd v Strata Plan 92888 t/as The Owners Strata Plan 92888 (NSWSC) - planning and development - Appeal Panel upheld decision of Tribunal that In fact, if you look at section 7 of the Act, it says that the section applies if the minister considers on reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is a risk to public health. It is also not the courts function to conclusively determine the effectiveness of some of the alleged treatments for those infected, or the effectiveness of Covid19 vaccines especially their capacity to inhibit the spread of the disease. So, that itself is highly problematic: that you would have such extraordinary powers exercised without the protections needed to ensure that they are proportionate. Nothing in LEPRA indicates that the powers it confers on police officers to make requests of a persons identity are exhaustive, Justice Beech-Jones found. And thats problematic because it really emphases what extraordinary powers our politicians have. Credit: Dominic Lorrimer The lawsuits were brought by multiple plaintiffs, including . 'The police officer who was challenging her vaccination order had her case dismissed by the Supreme Court a few days ago' [Belinda Kay HOCROFT v Bradley Ronald Hazzard, Minister for Health and Medical Research]. One set of proceedings was brought by Al-Munir Kassam and three other plaintiffs against the health minister, the Chief Medical Officer, the state of NSW and the Commonwealth, specifically around whether section 7 of the PHA legitimately or reasonably allowed for the imposition of Order No 2. The Minister for Health and Medical Research, Bradley Hazzard (, The health orders are either outside of the power conferred by the. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. He also dismissed claims Health Minister Brad Hazzard acted outside his powers, by not asking . The plaintiffs failed on all grounds of their challenge. Supreme Courts Rules COVID Fines Invalid as the Penalty Notices Did Not Specify the Offence, Young Man Acquitted of Murder, After Key Witness Exposed as a Police Informant, Prosecution Must Prove Date of Alleged Criminal Offence. More than a million people tuned into the live stream of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard via the NSW Supreme Court's YouTube channel over the past couple of weeks, many hoping for a judgment which invalidates public health orders which mandate vaccines for certain industries, such as healthcare, aged care and construction. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. Discrimination against vaccination status now LEGAL. The suits were filed against NSW Health and Medical Research Minister Bradley Ronald Hazzard, who issued the order. These have eroded the rights of all Australians, often in ways that are not fully understood. The professor has explained that the pursuit of rights-encroaching antiterror laws following 9/11 was in no way confined to our country. The case was the first in Australia challenging various limitations on unvaccinated people, although there are several other similar challenges, such as the one by NSW paramedic John Larter, which is yet to be heard by the courts. To the contrary, Part 15 of LEPRA suggests that it applies to regulate the exercise of powers conferred by various laws including the making of requests.. terms invalidating consent and effectively compelling individuals to submit to vaccination under coercive, directions. In NSW the Supreme Court decision of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard . 16 votes, 15 comments. NSW Supreme Court Judgment - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard (4:00pm) Reignite Democracy Australia. On May 02, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed its judgement in a matter titled Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors[1], wherein it closely examined the details of the vaccination policy, the dissemination of clinical trials data, veracity of emergency approvals of vaccines and the reporting of adverse impacts of vaccination. The Court found that: The plaintiffs in Henry added that the restrictions in place upon refusing the mandatory vaccinations would exclude [them] from participating in a significant aspect of social life. The plaintiffs said that the implementation of the order would deny them the right to continue working in their chosen vocation at their current place of employment, as well as the ability to earn a living and sustain themselves and their families as they only presently know how.. By effectually compelling individuals to be vaccinated, their right to bodily integrity is violated. The plaintiffs also argued that Hazzard exceeded the scope of the powers granted to him by the Public Health Act. There's another decode opportunity below. Curtailing the free movement of persons including their movement to and at work are the very type of restrictions that the Public Health Act clearly authorises, Justice Beech-Jones found. The Court's role is to adjudicate on the legality of the administrative action and not the merits of the decision. issued by NSW Chief Health Officer Brad Hazzard. What this particular clause in the Constitution says is the Commonwealth cannot force doctors to provide services. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Australia urgently needs a Bill of Rights to protect the fundamental democratic freedoms of us all.. Across the road from Justice Precinct carpark. Please enter your email address below and click on Sign Up for daily newsletters from Australasian Lawyer. Now Kassam and Henry et al and the Hazzard team have to confer about. Not Guilty of Sexual Assault and Legal Costs Awarded, Doctor Permitted to Continue Practising During Proceedings and Ultimately Found Not Guilty of Sexual Assault, Not Guilty of All Six Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Bail Granted Before All Charges Dropped Over Sexual Assault and Strangulation Allegations, Charges of Sexual Touching Without Consent Dropped, Bail Granted Despite Allegations of Serious Child Sexual Offences, Not Guilty of Sexual Touching Without Consent, District Court Severity Appeal Successful for Middle-Range Drink Driving, No Criminal Record, Licence Disqualification or Fine for Mid-Range Drink Driving, RMS Driver and Rider Licence Suspensions Set Aside on Appeal, RMS Driver Licence Suspension Set Aside for Red P-Plater, No Criminal Record for Mid Range Drink Driving, NSW Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Public Health Orders, In the judgement published on the NSW Supreme Court website, such as the one by NSW paramedic John Larter, which is yet to be heard by the courts, the backlash from the public over these mandates, Australia urgently needs a Bill of Rights. []Curtailing the free movement of persons, including their movement to and at work, are the very type of restrictions that the Public Health Act clearly authorises. The NSW Government Health had implemented the Delta Order to deal with the public health risk of COVID-19 and its possible consequences. The order was based on section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010, which allows the health minister to implement actions and directives upon consideration of reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health.. In his judgement, Justice Beech remarked that while the plaintiffs sought to deploy the principle of legality which is a rule of statutory construction to the effect that, in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is presumed that statutes are not intended to modify or abrogate fundamental rights. By mandating a trial J (as is stated on the one doctors adverse reactions letter, after receiving the j, that the trail will continue for another 12 months) you can not coerce all citizens to participate. We note that prior to the judgement, on 3 October 2021 the Minister made an order which repealed Order (No 2) from effect on 11 October 2021. The broad finding was that rather than impinging upon a right to bodily . Nair Agroforestry decade of development Edited by Howard A. Steppler and P.K. Hi All, I'm pleased to announce our next live stream on the 8th of October at 6pm (AEST) with Greg Dunstan, Mona Vale lawyer, discussing the court cases in t. No responsibility for the loss occasioned to any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any material published can be accepted. Why do the plaintiffs keep adding that they weren't consulted about the public health order? Despite this, both sets of . Keep it simple. If Australia had a bill of rights, for example, which guaranteed bodily autonomy or freedom of movement. And this led to health measures being imposed throughout Greater Sydney, which placed extreme restrictions on peoples freedoms, especially on those not vaccinated. The NSW Supreme Court is set to make a decision regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for essential workers. The Henry and Kassam cases will also attempt to show the laws are for an improper purpose, breach privacy, breach natural justice and that the minister considered irrelevant matters when writing the laws. Can I Be Refused Entry to a Premises if I am Unvaccinated? But, in terms of vaccines, this was in line with the aims of the PHA. For example, this could be forcing them to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to others. Sign up so we can always stay in touch. Instead the courts only function is to determine the legal validity of the impugned orders, which includes considering whether it has been shown that no minister acting reasonably could have considered them necessary to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences.. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. Hazzard is defending each case and plans to tender statements from a deputy chief health officer in support of his public health orders. The broad finding was that rather than impinging upon a right to bodily integrity in requiring the COVID-19 vaccine in relation to certain jobs, the measure instead violated the right to freedom of movement if the jab was refused in these circumstances. In that decision, the Court concluded that to impugn public health orders on the grounds . [66] First, the relevant parts of the decision relied on by the Henry plaintiffs do not address the case law concerning consent to a medical treatment. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October 2021 . The case sought to overturn and invalidate Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Delta Order) issued by NSW Chief Health Officer Brad Hazzard. These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. Posted October 26, 2021 by Sydney Criminal Lawyers & filed under Criminal Law, NSW Courts. Instead, it applies a discriminate, namely vaccination status, and on the evidence and the approach taken by the minister, is very much consistent to the objects of the Public Health Act.. of "necessarily" was to a judgment of Higgins J in 1910, in a case . The Minister did not give evidence directly, despite being the relevant decision-maker. Theres a range of pretty basic rights that are missing in our system. The judgement made in the case poses issues such as, whether or not courts have authority to put a stop to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) . NSW Supreme Court Judgment - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard (4:00pm) That is Auss. NSW Supreme Court Justice Robert Beech-Jones delivered his ruling on the Kassam versus Hazzard case, which raised close to a dozen grounds contesting the validity of public health order restrictions, as well as vaccine mandates, which have recently been imposed in this state.. All grounds of contention were dismissed. You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. The Court affirmed that the orders do not violate the right to bodily integrity as the orders do not . So, its very difficult to argue the orders that were made are beyond power in the circumstances. The case of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard confirms that the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research has the legal authority to introduce state-specific public health orders that require particular workers from declared industries to be vaccinated against COVID-19. This is especially the case when it comes to the broad range of laws passed in the name of counterterrorism and national security since the New York 9/11 attacks two decades ago. Get business, like every business, is deeply intertwined with environmental, social, the administration (ESG) affairs. All information on this site is of a general nature only and is not intended to be relied upon as, nor to be a substitute for, specific legal professional advice. Your businesses, like every business, exists deeply intersecting with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) concerns. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299 (on Caselaw). Hazzard originally created the public health order on the grounds that it was reasonable to avert risk to public health under. It has not taken long - less than 3 weeks, in fact - for Deputy President Dean's widely-publicised minority dissent in the recent Full Bench decision of Jennifer Kimber v . All NSW Courts (b) are inconsistent with the. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. Kassam v Hazzard 6 January 2022; S3/2022 [2021] NSWCA 299; Eliezer v The . challenged by several workers including one in construction, teaching, and healthcare who have all been required to receive a Covid19 vaccination. The following matters will be live streamed TOGETHER on 30 SEPTEMBER and 1 OCTOBER from 10 AM: Hearing: Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald . But these hopes were dashed on Friday, October 15, when the court . But give Goverment employees an exemption. 1Simon Harding & Ors v Brett Sutton & Ors (S ECI 2021 03931) and Belinda Cetnar and Jack Cetnar v State of Victoria & Ors (S ECI 2021 03569). 5 Comments. Beech-Jones J's judgement is a very strong judicial endorsement that compliance with Public Health Orders is non . Posted on October 15, 2021 January 4, 2023 Author Editor . And thats the power that has enabled the wide variety of health orders around lockdowns and the like. "This is one of the grandest thought experiments of our time, a tremendous feat of imaginative reporting!" Bill McKibben, author of Deep Economy and The End of Nature Tel No one told me I can do BIG bits with the unicorn in CA on MM!!!! There are also a range of articles designed to inform and ease the stress of those who are going to court. In his judgment, Justice Robert Beech-Jones noted that the function . Applying for a grant of administration with the Will annexed, 3. By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim Subscribe to our FREE newsletter service and well keep you up-to-date with the latest breaking news, cutting edge opinion, and expert analysis affecting both your business and the industry as whole. In a public letter to Hazzard, he wrote that a competent adult patient has the right to refuse medical treatment for whatever reasons, rational or irrational.. So, if you had a Commonwealth law that said doctors must provide vaccinations, for example, that would be in breach of that conscription guarantee. (b) asked the wrong question or took into account irrelevant considerations; These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. Save (2) Please login to bookmark Username or Email Address Password Remember Me A judge has found three lawsuits contesting compulsory COVID-19 vaccination orders by [] Your thoughts! Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. All on Government sites and with person references. . In terms of the contention as to whether a power in Order No 2 that required police officers to check a persons documentation if they were exempt from the mask mandate was inconsistent with the powers contained in the LEPRA, this assertion was again dismissed. Visit, Public Health (COVID19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW), View all posts by Sydney Criminal Lawyers, Hi there can bail be put on a person after first mention at court if not on bail conditions from the police. ; The case of Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care lends further support to the ability of . I'm reading through the whole thing, because I'm curious about the actual legal argument around the public health orders, so I've got some thoughts and questions. Mr Larter contended that the public health orders are not reasonable, meaning that it was not legally permissible for Brad Hazzard, the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research (Minister) to make the orders, having regard to the risk to public health posed by the COVID-19 virus. The second proceedings were raised by aged care worker Natasha Henry and five other plaintiffs, solely against Hazzard in relation to vaccine mandates contained within the impugned orders, which included Order No 2, and two other orders relating to age care and education workers. YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. Aren't they just taking the piss at this point? NSW Supreme Court Judgement Kassam, Henry v Hazzard. Remember this cannot be viewed afterwards and do not re-record and distribute. (a) failed to have regard to various relevant considerations; These people were from the health, aged care, construction and education industries and Kassam v Hazzard: NSW Supreme Court - Challenging the . Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors told Monica Smit of Reignite Democracy he disagreed with the dismissal of the cases, but he was also an advocate for a bill of rights. Across the road from Justice Precinct carpark, Kassam v Hazzard Was Bound to Fail: An Interview With Professor George Williams. All information on this site is of a general nature only and is not intended to be relied upon as, nor to be a substitute for, specific legal professional advice. 4Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of Police & Anor; Witthahn & Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Director General of Queensland Health & Ors [2021] QSC 275. The Court has provided a detailed headnote which is reproduced below. Box 30677 . For more information, please see our Instead, the health orders curtailed the freedom of movement including their movement to and from work, which "are the very types of restrictions that the PH Act clearly authorises".8.