The plaintiffs also sought to rely upon the dissenting judgment in Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB. This is a subreddit for Australians (or anyone interested in Australian law) to discuss matters relating to Australian law. 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.. challenged by several workers including one in construction, teaching, and healthcare who have all been required to receive a Covid19 vaccination. 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. There is a strong petition on this at Change.org. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. 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. Kassam represents the first major legal decision in Australia in relation to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for workers. This case is important to every state, please tune in at 4pm to watch LIVE. 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. Arguments were presented regarding the infringement of public health orders on the rights to bodily integrity and privacy, asserting that they amounted to civil conscription, represented a breach of natural justice and were made by Health Minister Brad Hazzard without clear legislative authority. India - Coercive Vaccination! Explaining The Jacob Puliyel V. Union Of Supreme Court challenge to mandatory vaccination orders Accordingly, Justice Adamson drew a distinction between the requirement for the Minister to consider "on reasonable grounds" that a situation has arisen that could become a risk to public health, and what Mr Larter alleged is a requirement that such order made by the Minister be reasonable. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (on Caselaw) saw the Court dismiss two proceedings which in substance sought orders that certain Covid 19 public health orders were invalid.Justice Beech-Jones, the Chief Judge at Common Law, stated at [9] - [11]: 9 Although it was contended that the impugned orders interfere with a person's right to bodily integrity and a host of other . Applying for a grant of administration with the Will annexed, 3. 2QNurses First Inc & Anor v Nurses Professional Association of Queensland v Monash Health (VID610/2021). On 15 October 2021, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down its decision on a challenge against New South Wales' COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The state defended the Delta Orders restrictions, maintaining that they can reasonably be regarded as necessary to protect public health and safety. Section 7 of the Public Health Act and the NSW Delta Order do not impose civil conscription, the Commonwealth said in its submission. No one told me I can do BIG bits with the unicorn in CA on MM!!!! Your thoughts! The overarching story is well known. The Delta Order also prescribes that the workers concerned carry with them proof of their vaccination status. One of the key arguments of the plaintiffs was their freedom or right to their own bodily integrity. Comment: Court rejects challenges to vax laws - The Echo The court disagreed with every argument presented by the plaintiffs, rejecting all challenges on all grounds. []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. ia-petabox.archive.org Orders and directions made under the Public Health Act that interfere with freedom of movement, but differentiate between individuals on arbitrary grounds unrelated to the relevant risk to public health such as on the basis of race, gender, or the mere holding of a political opinion, would be at severe risk of being held as invalid and unreasonable. The health orders were challenged by several workers including one in construction, teaching, and healthcare who have all been required to receive a Covid19 vaccination. All Rights Reserved. Subscription Information Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. 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. []. So, thats my concern. 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. The decision concerns two legal challenges to the health orders by multiple plaintiffs including, among others, aged care workers, a paramedic, a high school special education teacher and a construction worker (Plaintiffs). Should Individuals Be Allowed to Sue the Media for Serious Invasions of Privacy? KASSAM v HAZZARD. Chainsaw and Harpsicord Duet for KASSAM v - YouTube Good, people must be severely punished when accusations are false and used as a weapon against another, more so against the other parent to prevent their children from seeing their other parent or people meaningful to the child. Natasha Henry v Brad Hazzard: Cabinet documents won't be revealed in PO Box 61056, Eglinton/Dufferin RO, Toronto, ON M6E 5B2, Canada. These proceedings were brought against the Health Minister only. 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. Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to the eminent Professor George Williams about the constitutional ground raised in Kassam, the difference a bill of rights could have made to the case, and why, until we get such a law at the federal level, its near impossible to get any traction in such cases. While many see this test case as a significant defeat over the policy of mandatory vaccinations, there are some important takeaways which shouldnt be dismissed. We will call you to confirm your appointment. For example, this could be forcing them to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to others. And his decisions cant even be disallowed by parliament. Hazzard is defending each case and plans to tender statements from a deputy chief health officer in support of his public health orders. And thats problematic because it really emphases what extraordinary powers our politicians have. 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.. We will call you to confirm your appointment. However, as the Henry plaintiffs sought to rely on the reasoning it is necessary to record why that judgment is of no assistance. . However, there are also current challenges in: Although the health orders in those states are different, it is likely that Kassam will provide a guide for courts in other jurisdictions. Across the road from Justice Precinct carpark, Kassam v Hazzard Was Bound to Fail: An Interview With Professor George Williams. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October 2021, when the court delivered its judgement dismissing the cases. Then, one would hope that the trail would have to cease. And an obligation of procedural fairness to certain individuals had not been breached, as when decisions are made that affect such large numbers of people no such obligation needs to be met. However, this country does not have a bill of rights and thus as important as the principle of legality is, it is only a rule of construction. Vaccine mandate upheld in NSW | enableHR But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October . NSW Supreme Court rejects challenges to Public Health Orders - Mondaq Instead, the court's function is to determine the legal validity of the orders, which includes considering whether no Minister acting reasonably could have considered the health orders necessary to deal with the risk to public health and its possible consequences. It is critically important because this is the . The implementation of this health order has resulted in workers in New South Wales being forced to choose between being vaccinated by the state-given deadline, or losing their jobs.

Mikasa Crystal Candy Dish, Articles K