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. Even though I am supportive of the need to take proportionate and strong action to protect the community, these actions have not been subject to sufficient scrutiny. Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (In Liquidation) . NSW Supreme Court will hand down its Judgment in the case of Kassam; Henry v Hazzard TODAY 15 October 4:00pm Case raises very serious legal issues surrounding mandates for essential workers & we'll soon see where the NSW Courts stand https:// youtu.be/wqq2AEAz91o Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 . Proposed Law Would Make Employers Liable for Injuries Arising from Vaccine Mandates. In the judgement published on the NSW Supreme Court website, Justice Robert Beech-Jones remarked that the legislation underpinning the public health orders set out to achieve an abrogation of normal rights in a pandemic, finding that the defendants were doing exactly that with a view to achieving public health outcomes. NSW mandating vaccinations not unlawful | Lander & Rogers But, in terms of vaccines, this was in line with the aims of the PHA. Hazzard originally created the public health order on the grounds that it was reasonable to avert risk to public health under Section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010. Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard Medium Neutral Citation: [2021] . 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. 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. 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. Do they (and their lawyers) genuinely think that every individual should be consulted on a public health order? No one told me I can do BIG bits with the unicorn in CA on MM!!!! To Vax or Sack? Anti-vaxers and the vax-reluctant at work. - LinkedIn 8:45 am. Secondly, the legal challenge sends a salient message to those in positions of power that Australians will challenge rules they believe are unfair. We will call you to confirm your appointment. His Honour makes clear that in deliberating upon these issues, it was not the courts function to consider the merit in the minister having imposed certain rules or to pass judgement on the efficacy of medical treatments, both those rolled out and those that remain unapproved. 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 Delta Order also prescribes that the workers concerned carry with them proof of their vaccination status. Archived post. It was further argued that Brad Hazzard had exceeded the scope of his powers granted under the. 1:02:25 I want to get a summary judgment which outline in the document called order judgment so I'm claiming those reliefs. . One of the key arguments of the plaintiffs was their freedom or right to their own bodily integrity. 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. The problem for the case is that firstly, it only applies to Commonwealth laws and not state laws. The professor has explained that the pursuit of rights-encroaching antiterror laws following 9/11 was in no way confined to our country. ia-petabox.archive.org '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]. YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. 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. 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. 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.. NSW Supreme Court upholds Hazzard's medical tyranny 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. The proceedings were brought by plaintiffs who sought to remain in their industries despite not being vaccinated. This. 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. 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. Rebel News Network Ltd. 2023. The following matters will be live streamed TOGETHER on 30 SEPTEMBER and 1 OCTOBER from 10 AM: Hearing: Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald . 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 which invalidates public health orders which mandate vaccines for certain industries, such as healthcare, aged care and construction. Justice Adamson ultimately found, upon the evidence presented by Dr Kerry Chant, the NSW Chief Health Officer, that it was open to the Minister to accept Dr Chant's advice regarding the public health risk of the COVID-19 virus and the necessity of vaccine mandates for health care workers, and to make the orders recommended by Dr Chant. ICR AF lO th Anniversary 1977-1987 Agroforestry a decade of development Edited by H.A. 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.. Kassam Versus Hazzard: What the Supreme Court Found That the Proceedings be Dismissed. Keep it simple. Th. The proceedings were brought against Health Minister Brad Hazzard, Chief Medical Officer Dr Kerry Chant, the State of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia. Posted October 26, 2021 by Sydney Criminal Lawyers & filed under Criminal Law, NSW Courts. Exclusive Interview with Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors explains today's judgment in Kassam & Henry v Hazzard. 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 . Natasha Henry v Brad Hazzard: Cabinet documents won't be revealed in These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. He also dismissed claims that Health Minister Brad Hazzard acted outside his powers, by not asking the right questions or failing to take into account relevant considerations. 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 plaintiffs are all persons who have refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 but are required to be vaccinated under the health orders in order to perform their work, either because of the sector they worked in or because they resided in one of the identified local government areas of concern. The findings were handed down by Justice Beech-Jones in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam). ESG framework | McKinsey | Kebab shop business plan template PDF Case Note: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 - Integroe [67] Second, the passages relied on and passages to similar . 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. The plaintiffs argued that the health direction was unreasonable, with its attachedterms invalidating consent and effectively compelling individuals to submit to vaccination under coercive directions. Subscribe to access subscriber only items and receive notification of new items. In the early hours of 21 April 2008, a series of altercations bet [], If you've been charged with a criminal offence, get free advice and fixed fee representation from a top team of experienced criminal defence lawyers. ; The case of Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care lends further support to the ability of . Kassam represents the first major legal decision in Australia in relation to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for 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. NSW Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Public Health Orders (a) failed to have regard to various relevant considerations; 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 [] The hearing in the - Supreme Court of New South Wales - Facebook