Supreme Court of New South Wales - Facebook (d) acted unreasonably; The health orders are inconsistent with the Constitution, in that they: appropriate and adapted) to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences by making the orders. All grounds of contention were dismissed. The plaintiffs in the Kassam proceedings . 6. Cookie Notice 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. It is critically important because this is the . 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 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. The suits were filed against NSW Health and Medical Research Minister Bradley Ronald Hazzard, who issued the order. NSW Supreme Court strikes down latest challenge to vaccine mandate The proceedings were brought by plaintiffs who sought to remain in their industries despite not being vaccinated. Steppler and P.K.R. The Kassam case was the pointy end of what has become known as the freedom movement, which is opposed to many of the pandemic measures. 4 Communication Theory 00 (2019) 1-23. fM. So far as the right to bodily integrity is concerned, it is not violated as the impugned orders did not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone. 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. No. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. 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. 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. Then, one would hope that the trail would have to cease. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Health and Medical Research (2021/00259688). All Rights Reserved. Has an ultra vires argument ever worked in Australian law? ESG framework | McKinsey | Wyden-Grassley Sovaldi Investigation Finds 2QNurses First Inc & Anor v Nurses Professional Association of Queensland v Monash Health (VID610/2021). The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and its re-emergence in June this year, sparked powers under section 7 of the PHA that permit the state health minister to issue far-reaching orders without parliamentary oversight aimed at curbing a public health risk. His Honour outlined that the imposition of Order No 2 was genuine. NSW Supreme Court Judgment - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard (4:00pm) 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 . Yes. We will call you to confirm your appointment. Even following the staunch decision delivered by His Honour in Kassam there can be no doubt that with hundreds of plaintiffs still currently before Australian courts and tribunals, and millions of others affected by the public health orders in place across the country, the issue of COVID-19 vaccinations will continue to dominate the employment law landscape in the coming weeks and months. 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. 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. In that decision, the Court concluded that to impugn public health orders on the grounds of legal unreasonableness, it was necessary to show that no Minister acting reasonably could have considered it necessary (i.e. Australian Police & Local Govt Workers Legally Challenging Vax Mandates So, if you had a Commonwealth law that said doctors must provide vaccinations, for example, that would be in breach of that conscription guarantee. In accordance with the Court's policy, the following is a summary of its publishedreasons . 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. The decision made by Justice Beech-Jones in the case of Kassam v Hazzard 18 to dismiss a similar claim was predicated on the common law principle that governs consent to a trespass to the . Mandatory vaccination health orders issued by the NSW Chief Health Officer have been upheld. This debate spilled out onto the streets in the form of freedom protests, as well as into the NSW Supreme Court with the case of Kassam versus Hazzard, which challenged the powers in the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) (PHA) that permitted numerous orders that affected citizens rights. In fact, a UN resolution called for it to happen. Hazzard is defending each case and plans to tender statements from a deputy chief health officer in support of his public health orders. Secondly, the legal challenge sends a salient message to those in positions of power that Australians will challenge rules they believe are unfair. Or perhaps the fall of London Bridge . PEOPLE were hoping and praying for an outcome in the Kassam and Henry v Hazzard cases that reflected Australia's . Read the Kassam v Hazzard judgement and have some questions You can find our COVID-19 collection here. Validity of NSW public health orders. - Bill Madden's WordPress Where the ground of legal challenge is unreasonableness as it was in this case, some investigation of the merits of the decision is necessary but the limitation in the Courts ability to review the merits is extremely confined. 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. It might have been a more successful argument if there were other restrictions that applied. 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. In some cases, arguably not. 'assault occasioning'! Vaccine Mandates: Recent Case Law | Moray & Agnew All NSW Courts However, there are also current challenges in: And the Fair Work Commission has made a judgment on Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd. So, for example, some of the very severe travel restrictions that prevent Australians even exiting the country, let alone citizens returning home from overseas. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. But theres nothing that can be done in our legal system to challenge them, and thats where this sort of instrument would assist. (c) was obliged to but failed to afford them natural justice; and The plaintiffs. For more information, please see our 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. Deline & Kahlor, 2019 Planned Risk Information Avoidance | PDF - Scribd 16 votes, 15 comments. The NSW Supreme Court is set to make a decision regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for essential workers. Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. - Constitution Watch 1:02:40 For my case for my, yeah. 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. Visit, Charged with drug possession or supply? Australia: A Police Officer and Two Others Are Challenging the 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, With No Bill of Rights, Kassam v Hazzard Was Bound to Fail: An Interview With Professor George Williams, NSW Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Public Health Orders, COVID Restrictions Are Legal, Australian Courts Rule, The Need for a Bill of Rights: An Interview with UNSW Professor George Williams, COVID-19 Highlights the Need for an Australian Bill of Rights, Australia Needs a Bill of Rights: An Interview with MP Andrew Wilkie, Workers Push Back Against Covid-19 Vaccination Mandates. In terms of the reasonableness of orders, especially those having a greater impact upon the unvaccinated, his Honour set out that if the laws differentiated on an arbitrary measures, like race or class, there would be an issue. The Court's role is to adjudicate on the legality of the administrative action and not the merits of the decision. p 28128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Proceedings 2021/249601 Al-Munir Kassam (First Plaintiff) George Nohra (Second Plaintiff) . Firstly, the backlash from the public over these mandates, along with the coercive tactics of the government, is becoming stronger, businesses too, are pushing back against rules that decree they must only serve vaccinated customers. 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.. The Court has provided a detailed headnote which is reproduced below. Facts Between 20 August and 23 November 2021, the Hon Bradley Hazzard MLA, Minister But we dont. In NSW the Supreme Court decision of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard . But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October 2021, when the court delivered its judgement dismissing the cases. NSW Supreme Court rejects challenges to Public Health Orders - Mondaq I'm reading through the whole thing, because 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. Please enable scripts and reload this page. This. Defendants . and our 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. 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. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, October 15, when the court . And thats the power that has enabled the wide variety of health orders around lockdowns and the like. When a gossip columnist for a prominent Australian mastheadwas [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim 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. [67] Second, the passages relied on and passages to similar . Nair Agroforestry decade of development Edited by Howard A. Steppler and P.K. 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. ESG framework | McKinsey | Kebab shop business plan template It was further argued that Brad Hazzard had exceeded the scope of his powers granted under the. So, its very difficult to argue the orders that were made are beyond power in the circumstances. 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. ia-petabox.archive.org One set of proceedings was . Judgment has been reserved and the Court will provide an update once judgment is handed down. 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. NSW Supreme Court Judgement Australia Kassam, Henry v Hazzard. 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. Theres a range of pretty basic rights that are missing in our system. Mr Larter has not yet confirmed whether he will appeal Justice Adamson's decision. Weve had law by decree in NSW, and indeed, at the federal level for some time. However, the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary. ** **Post all study and career questions in the dedicated stickied megathread** The overbearing law enforcement approach to the COVID pandemic, w [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim When all is said and done, the proper analysis is that the impugned orders curtailed freedom of movement, which in turn affects a persons ability to work and socialise. 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. The case was initiated by members of a number of industries and sectors affected by the mandate. On Wednesday, the court heard the final submissions for two suits that sought to invalidate Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Delta Order). Validity of mandatory vaccination orders confirmed on appeal . judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court's judgment. Broadly, what we have seen in response to terrorism, and now in response to the pandemic, is how powerful our governments are and how few checks and balances they have. 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 And his decisions cant even be disallowed by parliament. Queensland also recently had a matter in the Industrial Relations Commission, which was unsuccessful on 22 October 2021. Should Individuals Be Allowed to Sue the Media for Serious Invasions of Privacy? However, as the Henry plaintiffs sought to rely on the reasoning it is necessary to record why that judgment is of no assistance. Vaccine order really a movement law: judge | 7NEWS Kassam Versus Hazzard: What the Supreme Court Found Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299 (on Caselaw). 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.. 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. 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. For example, this could be forcing them to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to others. Those matters are for the decision-maker (that is, the Minister). The Court found that: Archived post. 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. Subscription Information Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. Indeed, at 4 pm on 15 October, all eyes were cast upon the Supreme Courts livestream of Chief Judge at Common Law Beech-Jones delivering his final judgement on the Kassam/Henry case, in which he dismissed all grounds raised against the validity of public health orders in New South Wales. The highly contagious Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus entered NSW in mid-June. 12th European Conference on Traumatic Stress - Academia.edu