Natasha Henry, Al-Munir Kassam v Brad Hazzard: Vaccination a 'free But theres nothing that can be done in our legal system to challenge them, and thats where this sort of instrument would assist. What this particular clause in the Constitution says is the Commonwealth cannot force doctors to provide services. NSW Supreme Court to rule on mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for workers 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. Comment: Court rejects challenges to vax laws - The Echo !and I don't even feel bad because I didn't even ask Noah to pick me at the recoupling . . PDF Submissions of The State Defendants 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) . Or perhaps the fall of London Bridge . The courts function, he further outlines, was to determine the legal validity of the impugned orders, including whether any of the grounds reveal that no reasonable minister could have considered them necessary to deal with the identified health risk and its possible consequences. Defendants . When a gossip columnist for a prominent Australian mastheadwas [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim You can find our COVID-19 collection here. Cases on appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal or Court of Criminal Appeal heard by the High Court and awaiting judgment. 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. and that these health orders interfered with fundamental rights and freedoms. So, to simply argue that some pandemic measures rolled out by the NSW government are discriminatory due to their impact solely upon unvaccinated people wasnt a possibility, as his Honour advised that the common law fails to protect against discrimination. We will call you to confirm your appointment. We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. 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. The plaintiffs. Information about Sydney Criminal Lawyers is also provided. BREAKING: from the court filings in the #NSW Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination. For many Australians it was an important test case, given concerns raised over mandated vaccination policies being implemented by both the NSW Government and, in some cases, by private businesses. The court heard the final submissions for two suits against the health minister on Wednesday. So, for example, some of the very severe travel restrictions that prevent Australians even exiting the country, let alone citizens returning home from overseas. And secondly, there is no compulsion upon doctors to provide vaccinations. In Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320, the Court ruled in favour of the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research, upholding various public health orders that require vaccination against COVID-19 in declared industries. Applying to have accounts passed and applying for commission, Protocol for a minors share on intestacy, Representing yourself in civil proceedings, Things to consider before taking formal legal action, Courtroom technology including the Virtual Courtroom, European River Cruise (Flooding) Class Action, European River Cruise (Insufficient water) Class Action, Junior Doctors Underpayments Class Action, Murray Darling Basin Authority Class Action, The War Memorial Project - The Photographs. In particular, issue was raised around the stipulations in Public Health (COVID19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Order No 2), which presiding Justice Robert Beech-Jones, stated is likely the mostly widely read legal instrument in the history of NSW. **Do not ask for legal advice in this subreddit. The Kassam plaintiffs also questioned whether the police powers created by Order No 2 were inconsistent with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), as well as whether the order is rendered invalid by section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution. They are the sorts of powers that you expect to find in a dictatorship, not a country that values its democratic freedoms and ensures theyre respected. Applying for a grant of letters of administration, 4. NSW Supreme Court Judgement Kassam, Henry v Hazzard. Using the adverse reactions as another tool. Deline & Kahlor, 2019 Planned Risk Information Avoidance | PDF - Scribd . PEOPLE were hoping and praying for an outcome in the Kassam and Henry v Hazzard cases that reflected Australia's . 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. It provides addresses and contact details of courts throughout NSW, as well as short videos about the general location and how to get to each court. So, we are certainly in that situation here, and in those circumstances, the minister can take such action and give such orders that the minister considers necessary to deal with the situation. Applying for a grant of administration with the Will annexed, 3. So, the freedom infringements raised had to relate to those rights protected in common law, which ruled out discrimination as this body of law doesnt specifically protect against it. 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. By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim The court disagreed with every argument presented by the plaintiffs, rejecting all challenges on all grounds. But until we get that, then people are just going to find themselves disappointed in courts arguing for rights that the legal system doesnt protect. In NSW the Supreme Court decision of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard . It might have been a more successful argument if there were other restrictions that applied. Discrimination against vaccination status now LEGAL. The Supreme Court of New South Wales recently published a decision that found the NSW public health orders mandating COVID-19 vaccination for some workers were not unlawful. The Offence of Failing to Comply With a Public Health Order. Supreme Court of New South Wales - Facebook 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 . Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. Statement of Claim: 10.09.21 02: Plaintiff Submissions 03 Kassam & Henry - State Submissions 29.09.21 04 Commonwealth Submissions 05 Judgment 15.10.21 . He ruled that the right to bodily integrity was not violated as the orders did not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone, while the degree to which the freedom of movement was impaired differed depending on whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated. Justice Adamson cited the recent decision of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (learn more about the decision here), which has become a leading case in respect of the validity of public health orders made regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. We will call you to confirm your appointment. Nor did you have the public seeing the debate and scrutiny that would give them confidence that the right actions were being taken. Case of interest 001/2021 - NSW Supreme Court homepage First hearing in mandatory COVID-19 vaccination legal - Lawyerly Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299 (on Caselaw). More than a million people tuned in to the live stream of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard via the New South Wales Supreme Court's YouTube channel over the past couple of weeks, many hoping for a judgement that invalidates public health orders which mandate vaccines for certain industries, such as healthcare, aged care and construction.. Last Friday, the court delivered its judgement, and . Al-Munir KASSAM v Bradley Ronald Hazzard . So, I can understand why that has left people very concerned about whether the decisions are correct, and whether they have been properly justified. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard (NSWSC) - public health - administrative law - . 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. The plaintiffs in Kassam submitted that the order is legally unreasonable, indicating in their suit that the extreme threat of prohibiting an individual from undertaking work, unless they become vaccinated, has the effect of requiring an individual in circumstances where they may not have otherwise given their consent to be vaccinated to receive a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Coercive Vaccination! Explaining the Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India There is a lack of knowledge about the state of affairs of the trauma treatments in Europe. It is critically important because this is the . In July, Ashley, Francina, Leonard and Associates director Tony Nikolic had spoken out against the public health orders. Supreme Court Ruling live today Australian time 15 October 2021 local time 16:00. ESG framework | McKinsey | Wyden-Grassley Sovaldi Investigation Finds So, its just not a clause that applies to the circumstances they were complaining of. Th. Judgment: Kassam Henry v Hazzard DISMISSED#mandatoryvaccination health orders issued by #Hazzard for authorised workers ruled LEGAL.Bodily integrity is not violated because health orders impair freedom of movement. Read the Kassam v Hazzard judgement and have some questions 2; February 2022 Case Name; Date leave granted HCA File Number; . 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. The Kassam plaintiffs asserted that vaccine mandates were a form of civil conscription, in that they force citizens to get the jab. Vaccine Mandates: Recent Case Law. The highly contagious Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus entered NSW in mid-June. These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. PDF Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales Kassam v Hazzard; Henry As his Honour explained, Kassam consisted of two proceedings brought against NSW health minister Brad Hazzard, around restrictions upon "authorised workers" to leave "areas of concern" and the prevention of some from continuing to work in the construction, aged care and education industries. - the government is in full social-destruction mode; this is the attitude that gets us 'Alice Springs' today. Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald Hazzard. Both plaintiffs refused to be vaccinated and claimed that various Public Health Orders requiring vaccination were invalid. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. To support the challenges, evidence was presented about concerns regarding the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations including that they are ineffective against the contracting or spread of the disease, and the insufficiency of data regarding both short and long term potential side effects. India - Coercive Vaccination! Explaining The Jacob Puliyel V. Union Of One of the proceedings was brought by Mr Al-Munir Kassam and three other people, whose legal team argued that they had made an informed choice not to be vaccinated, that the choice should be respected on grounds of among other things protecting bodily integrity, and that the state has exceeded its power by making order which, in practical terms, amount to a vaccine mandate. 6. (b) asked the wrong question or took into account irrelevant considerations; Now Kassam and Henry et al and the Hazzard team have to confer about. Thats the bedrock problem. 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. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. This is a subreddit for Australians (or anyone interested in Australian law) to discuss matters relating to Australian law. It was further argued that Brad Hazzard had exceeded the scope of his powers granted under the. 12th European Conference on Traumatic Stress - Academia.edu Please remember this corrupt woman is the expert witness called on to help defend Brad Hazzard yesterday. Posted October 26, 2021 by Sydney Criminal Lawyers & filed under Criminal Law, NSW Courts. Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. - Constitution Watch No matter what the outcome is, we keep looking forward. 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. The Supreme Court has dismissed the proceedings in Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard and has published its reasons. The public health orders in question prohibit a person from working as a health care worker (which included paramedics) in New South Wales if that person has not received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 30 September 2021, and two doses by 30 November 2021. View Kassam v. Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320.pdf from ART 6 at Cavendish University Uganda. NSW Supreme Court rejects challenges to Public Health Orders - Mondaq So, thats my concern. 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. 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. These have eroded the rights of all Australians, often in ways that are not fully understood. Indeed, of late, rights issues have been front and centre in Middle Australia, whereas quite often freedoms and liberties have been taken for granted. On Friday 15 October 2021, two challenges to the NSW public health orders, restricting activities of residents who had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 (including their ability to work in certain industries) were dismissed by Justice Robert Beech-Jones in the NSW Supreme Court.