kassam v hazzard judgement

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. appropriate and adapted) to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences by making the orders. 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. Those matters are for the decision-maker (that is, the Minister). #covid19. 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. 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. These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. Separate proceedings were brought by Natasha Henry and five other people, and like the plaintiffs in the Kassam proceedings, they also chose not to be vaccinated. Facts Between 20 August and 23 November 2021, the Hon Bradley Hazzard MLA, Minister Is the hybrid work model the best of both worlds? 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 . Beech-Jones J's judgement is a very strong judicial endorsement that compliance with Public Health Orders is non . These have eroded the rights of all Australians, often in ways that are not fully understood. 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. 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. And secondly, there is no compulsion upon doctors to provide vaccinations. In other words, it was a matter for the Minister to determine whether reasonable grounds existed for the making of the order. 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. Do they (and their lawyers) genuinely think that every individual should be consulted on a public health order? Now Kassam and Henry et al and the Hazzard team have to confer about. 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. Weve had law by decree in NSW, and indeed, at the federal level for some time. 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. said the New South Wales Supreme Court judge during the dismissal. All grounds of contention were dismissed. Curtailing the free movement of persons including their movement to and at work are the very type of restrictions that the PHA clearly authorises, explained the justice, who then knocked down the argument that this then violates the right to work, as common law doesnt protect this right. 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). 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. And this led to health measures being imposed throughout Greater Sydney, which placed extreme restrictions on peoples freedoms, especially on those not vaccinated. BREAKING: from the court filings in the #NSW Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination. !and I don't even feel bad because I didn't even ask Noah to pick me at the recoupling . 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. 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. Information about Sydney Criminal Lawyers is also provided. 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 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.. 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. In July, Ashley, Francina, Leonard and Associates director Tony Nikolic had spoken out against the public health orders. The NSW parliament didnt meet for three months. We will call you to confirm your appointment. 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. UNSW Law Professor George Williams has long argued the need for rights protections to be enacted at the federal level. All Rights Reserved. Although it was contended that the impugned orders interfere with a persons right to bodily integrity and a host of other freedoms, his Honour explained, the proper analysis is that the impugned orders curtail freedom of movement which in turn affects a persons ability to work. It is critically important because this is the . So, if you had a Commonwealth law that said doctors must provide vaccinations, for example, that would be in breach of that conscription guarantee. However, his Honour noted that Australia does not have a bill of rights and found that the health orders did not interfere with such freedoms. In fact, a UN resolution called for it to happen. . In accordance with the Court's policy, the following is a summary of its publishedreasons . So, that itself is highly problematic: that you would have such extraordinary powers exercised without the protections needed to ensure that they are proportionate. ICR AF lO th Anniversary 1977-1987 Agroforestry a decade of development Edited by H.A. What this particular clause in the Constitution says is the Commonwealth cannot force doctors to provide services. 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. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. 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. Please enable scripts and reload this page. 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. Aren't they just taking the piss at this point? 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. Discrimination against vaccination status now LEGAL. Do the youngest workers demand more from their employers? When a gossip columnist for a prominent Australian mastheadwas [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim The specific public health directions have not yet been issued by the Victorian Government, however, the relevant press release is available here. October 15, 2021. However, as Williams underscores, in Australia, the reach and volume of these laws is much broader than in comparable liberal democracies. It was not successful firstly, because the NSW Health Act provides a very broad and open-ended power for the government to make public health orders. The Court affirmed that the orders do not violate the right to bodily integrity as the orders do not . 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. 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. 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. Copyright 2023 KM Business Information Australia Pty Ltd, Workplace relations and health and safety, MinterEllison, Holding Redlich, Piper Alderman highlighted in Best Lawyers Australia 2024, HSF launches free digital law course for APAC university students, Former Lander & Rogers finance head named CBP CFO, HFW assists on COVID-19 vaccine acquisition bid for Philippine consortium, NSW Supreme Court approves $28.5m Provident class action settlement, Former NRF insolvency star jazzes up Lander & Rogers commercial disputes practice, Piper Alderman assists PharmaLexs merger with specialist consultancy, Disney slams DeSantis with five causes of action. 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. 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. Then, one would hope that the trail would have to cease. 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, 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. So, for example, some of the very severe travel restrictions that prevent Australians even exiting the country, let alone citizens returning home from overseas. The Minister did not give evidence directly, despite being the relevant decision-maker. The plaintiffs also sought to rely upon the dissenting judgment in Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB. 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. PEOPLE were hoping and praying for an outcome in the Kassam and Henry v Hazzard cases that reflected Australia's . And his decisions cant even be disallowed by parliament. His Honour outlined that the imposition of Order No 2 was genuine. Please remember this corrupt woman is the expert witness called on to help defend Brad Hazzard yesterday. I'm reading through the whole thing, because Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. His Honour confirmed that there was no duty to afford procedural fairness, and that any production of vaccination information to an employer does not vitiate consent. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. 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. But we dont. Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Health and Medical Research (2021/00259688). MonicaMSmit ; October 15, 2021 . Get the best defence in any NSW Court We will continue to provide updates on this issue as new information comes to light. And while recent lockdown measures and vaccine mandates issued without any parliamentary oversight might have shaken many citizens into rights awareness, commentators on the lack of rights protections in this country have been warning of increasingly waning freedoms for some time. 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. 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. NSW Supreme Court upholds Hazzard's medical tyranny. 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 To deal with the larger problem you need the political solution, hence the call for a bill of rights a charter of rights that actually puts something within our legal system that provides respect and protection of these rights. 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 NSW Supreme Court has today delivered a strong judgment upholding the validity of public health orders requiring vaccinations in certain workplaces. 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. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. The Court found that: 2021/252587 . Bodily integrity is not violated because health orders impair freedom of movement. 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. Privacy Policy. The constitutional law expert has set out the reasons for this in the co-authored A Charter of Rights for Australia. 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. 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. So, its very difficult to argue the orders that were made are beyond power in the circumstances. So how does one Prove beyond a doubt, that it is a trial? The Offence of Failing to Comply With a Public Health Order. There is a strong petition on this at Change.org. 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. We are crowdfunding lawyers for Australians who want to fight their outrageous pandemic tickets. 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. 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. Justice Adamson clarified that the Court's jurisdiction was confined to determining whether it was open to the Minister, in the exercise of the power granted by the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) (Act), to make the public health orders, and that it was not a matter for the Court to stand in the shoes of the Minister and decide what public health order could or should have been made. They have the ability to make decisions that have an extraordinary impact upon our lives especially in terms of the counterterrorism cases that see people being gaoled and yet, we lack even the most basic rights to check and balance them. The Minister for Health and Medical Research, Bradley Hazzard (, The health orders are either outside of the power conferred by the. 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. 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. . YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. Al-Munir KASSAM v Bradley Ronald Hazzard . His Honour accepted that a significant amount of any evidence the Minister might be expected to give would likely reveal information for which a public interest immunity claim has been upheld and cannot be waived and drew no negative inferences from the Minister's absence. the TPB is that intentions may not be strongly related to actual behaviors (Dixon, Deline, McComas, Chambliss, & Homann, 2014; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). All of the plaintiffs had refused to be vaccinated despite it being a requirement for them to do so in relation to continuing their employment at least during the lockdown under the terms of various public health orders, with a range of reasons being raised around coming to an informed choice. 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. In response, questions were raised around whether the government could legitimately restrict people from continuing to turn up to their places of employment to work unless they sought to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and whether this requirement infringed upon their basic rights. One of the main grounds of challenges in both cases concerns the effect of the impugned orders on the rights and freedoms of those persons who choose to not be vaccinated especially their freedom or right to their own bodily integrity, said the New South Wales Supreme Court judge during the dismissal. The verdict went on to explain that,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. Mandatory vaccination health orders issued by the NSW Chief Health Officer have been upheld. 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). Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard (NSWSC) - public health - administrative law - . But for those who were focused on rights issues prior to the COVID era, the fact that there is no broad protection for a range of citizens freedoms and liberties at the federal level is a well understood issue, which is usually neatly swept under the carpet. The Delta Order also prescribes that the workers concerned carry with them proof of their vaccination status. and that these health orders interfered with fundamental rights and freedoms. Both plaintiffs refused to be vaccinated and claimed that various Public Health Orders requiring vaccination were invalid. No. 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 . 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. Some are talking about the announcement that Queen Lizzie has left this realm. 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. Nair Agroforestry decade of development Edited by Howard A. Steppler and P.K. The livestream is therefore no longer available. However, the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary. Get updates on Rebel News coverage in Australia delivered straight to your inbox so you never miss a story! Ashurst advises Eku Energy on Big Canberra Battery storage system deal with ACT government, Carter Newell managing partner on the big themes of 2022 when it comes to legal excellence. Judgment has been reserved and the Court will provide an update once judgment is handed down. 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. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. 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. Exclusive Interview with Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors explains today's judgment in Kassam & Henry v Hazzard. The courts reading of the restrictions found that those affected by the imposed requirements around vaccinations didnt force them to undergo the treatment and thereby encroach upon bodily autonomy, but rather, if they chose not to get the jab, their freedom of movement was restricted. The Court has provided a detailed headnote which is reproduced below. 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 . These proceedings were brought against the Health Minister only. Hazzard is defending each case and plans to tender statements from a deputy chief health officer in support of his public health orders. It looks like your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. All of the asserted grounds of invalidity raised by both sets of plaintiffs have been rejected, Justice Beech-Jones ruled in mid-October. 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. Queensland also recently had a matter in the Industrial Relations Commission, which was unsuccessful on 22 October 2021. 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. The problem for the case is that firstly, it only applies to Commonwealth laws and not state laws. Cookie Notice Subscription Information Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. 'assault occasioning'! All NSW Courts The orders requirements effectively make employers a private sector vaccination police force, conscripted by Ministerial order, the plaintiffs said. Its hard to see the solutions because we dont have the legal tools to protect and enforce peoples rights, as the Kassam decision shows. Please turn on JavaScript and try again. 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 [] 2QNurses First Inc & Anor v Nurses Professional Association of Queensland v Monash Health (VID610/2021). Supreme Court of New South Wales, Beech- Jones CJ, 15 October 2021 . 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. 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. Mr Larter has not yet confirmed whether he will appeal Justice Adamson's decision. It is possible that it will not be tenable to maintain the employment of health care workers who do not comply with the order and the Health Services Union has certainly raised such concerns in the media. 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. 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. The lead vaccine researchers driving all government policy in Australia received $65,330,038 in government grants covering 2020-2021. We dont have strong rights to bodily autonomy. Chief Judge at Common Law Beech-Jones explained in his findings that as there is no bill of rights at the federal level and nor at the state level in NSW the rights that may have been infringed upon would have to be those that the common law already recognises. But there are a number of measures that may well be problematic. That legal ruler would recognise that governments can take strong action to protect the community, in fact, it would recognise the communitys right to health. View, Charged with drink driving or another traffic offence, get outstanding representation in any NSW court for a fixed fee However, as the Henry plaintiffs sought to rely on the reasoning it is necessary to record why that judgment is of no assistance. Relied on by both sets of plaintiffs, one of the main grounds involved in the case was whether the limitations and restrictions placed on certain workers due to their decision not to get the vaccine led to their right to bodily integrity being infringed upon. Credit: Dominic Lorrimer The lawsuits were brought by multiple plaintiffs, including . Postscript - 15 October 2021: today, Justice Robert Beech-Jones of the Supreme Court of NSW, somewhat predictably, dismissed legal challenges to the vaccine mandates in NSW in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320, concluding that '[a]ll of the asserted grounds of invalidity raised by both sets of plaintiffs have been rejected . (a) create a form of civil conscription; and 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 .

What Causes Nitrogen Bubbles In Joints, Nera Economic Consulting Analyst Salary, Can Queen Take Away Prince Title, Articles K