It was further argued that Brad Hazzard had exceeded the scope of his powers granted under the. After reviewing the powers conferred by the PH Act and making findings in respect of the Minister's decision-making processes, his Honour rejected all of the asserted grounds of invalidity and dismissed the proceedings. The intense public interest led Supreme Court Justice Robert Beech-Jones to take the extraordinary step of warning the public not to contact him with the court reporting that over 1800 emails had been received from concerned members of the public. Visit, Charged with drug possession or supply? Before judgement, Order (No 2) was repealed, but the other orders remain in force. 3Ibrahim Can v State of New South Wales (2021/00265124) and John Edward Larter v The Hon. Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald Hazzard (2021) and Natasha Henry v Brad Hazzard (2021) challenged the provisions of the Delta Order, one of which required a relevant care worker whose place of residence or place of work is in an area of concern "to have at least one (1) dose of a COVID-19 vaccine" or in its absence, to have "been issued with a medical contraindication certificate . ; The case of Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care lends further support to the ability of . Supreme Court of New South Wales, Beech- Jones CJ, 15 October 2021 . The Court found that: View Kassam v. Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320.pdf from ART 6 at Cavendish University Uganda. Big Tech is censoring us. You can find our COVID-19 collection here. 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. We will call you to confirm your appointment. . So, its very difficult to argue the orders that were made are beyond power in the circumstances. Kassam v Hazzard 6 January 2022; S3/2022 [2021] NSWCA 299; Eliezer v The . There are multiple defendants, including the Minister for Health and Medical Research (who issued the health orders), the Chief Health Officer, the state of New South Wales and the Commonwealth (Defendants). NSW Supreme Court Judgment - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard (4:00pm) Reignite Democracy Australia. 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. 2; February 2022 Case Name; Date leave granted HCA File Number; . 1:02:25 I want to get a summary judgment which outline in the document called order judgment so I'm claiming those reliefs. It might have been a more successful argument if there were other restrictions that applied. 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 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. 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 . For example, in Kassam, His Honour accepted that the health orders had an encouraging effect or even a coercive effect but ultimately, found they did not authorise vaccination without the persons consent.6 This will likely be of particular interest in Victoria, where it is alleged that the public health directions are incompatible with human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), which provides that a person must not be subjected to medical treatment without their full consent. p 28128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Proceedings 2021/249601 Al-Munir Kassam (First Plaintiff) George Nohra (Second Plaintiff) . Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. Subscriptions Now Open. . Keep up-to-date with our regular news and insights, Level 11 Waterfront Place 1 Eagle Street, Brisbane QLD 4000, Level 15 Olderfleet 477 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Level 19 Angel Place 123 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Victorian Supreme Court: where more than one hundred plaintiffs are using the same barristers involved in, Federal Court: brought on behalf of unvaccinated nurses in Victoria, which is listed for hearing on 1 November 2021, New South Wales Supreme Court: in response to different plaintiffs, which is due to commence trial on 4 November 2021, Supreme Court of Queensland: which is listed for hearing on 22 December 2021. PEOPLE were hoping and praying for an outcome in the Kassam and Henry v Hazzard cases that reflected Australia's . appropriate and adapted) to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences by making the orders. 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. To start to fill in this gap, key persons from seven European countries-Georgia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, and Turkey-accepted the invitation to give their expert opinion on the state of affairs in their country at an invited panel discussion at the XIV 2015 ESTSS . Even if we had a compulsion for people to receive vaccinations, that is still not civil conscription of doctors. So, for example, some of the very severe travel restrictions that prevent Australians even exiting the country, let alone citizens returning home from overseas. Leaving aside the constitutional challenge raised by the plaintiffs in the Kassam proceedings, in considering the grounds of challenge raised in both proceedings, it is important to note that it is not the courts function to determine the merits of the exercise of the powers by the minister to make the impugned orders much less for the court to choose between plausible responses to the risk to public health posed by the Delta variant. 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. Please enter your email address below and click on Sign Up for daily newsletters from Australasian Lawyer. The following matters will be live streamed TOGETHER on 30 SEPTEMBER and 1 OCTOBER from 10 AM: Hearing: Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald . Defendants . Some are talking about the announcement that Queen Lizzie has left this realm. The court heard the final submissions for two suits against the health minister on Wednesday. us, in Commonwealth v Progress Advertising & Press Agency Co Pty 5Ltd, Higgins J explained: Now, the word necessary" may be construed liberally, not as me" aning . So, in essence, the case was challenging a very broadly worded power that was sufficient to make the orders, and not surprisingly the case was unsuccessful. And secondly, there is no compulsion upon doctors to provide vaccinations. the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary, . 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,. 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. To the contrary, Part 15 of LEPRA suggests that it applies to regulate the exercise of powers conferred by various laws including the making of requests.. Mandatory vaccination health orders issued by the NSW Chief Health Officer have been upheld. But there are a number of measures that may well be problematic. Bodily integrity is not violated because health orders impair freedom of movement. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 at [70]. So, are a number of the things that have been put in place really reasonable and proportionate responses to the health crisis? judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court's judgment. 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. 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. So, that itself is highly problematic: that you would have such extraordinary powers exercised without the protections needed to ensure that they are proportionate. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299 (on Caselaw). Get updates on Rebel News coverage in Australia delivered straight to your inbox so you never miss a story! The damage is unspeakably painful and maddening to anyone involved, including, grandparents and the children. The suits were filed against NSW Health and Medical Research Minister Bradley Ronald Hazzard, who issued the order. However, as Williams underscores, in Australia, the reach and volume of these laws is much broader than in comparable liberal democracies. 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.. said the New South Wales Supreme Court judge during the dismissal. Al-Munir Kassam & Ors. The plaintiffs also sought to rely upon the dissenting judgment in Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB. ICR AF lO th Anniversary 1977-1987 Agroforestry a decade of development Edited by H.A. Do the youngest workers demand more from their employers? Remember this cannot be viewed afterwards and do not re-record and distribute. 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. Directions: Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald Hazzard Directions: Natasha Henry v Brad Hazzard Directions: John Edward Larter v The Hon Brad Hazzard Directions: Ibrahim Can v State of NSW. 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. 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 other words, it was a matter for the Minister to determine whether reasonable grounds existed for the making of the order. There are also a range of articles designed to inform and ease the stress of those who are going to court. - the government is in full social-destruction mode; this is the attitude that gets us 'Alice Springs' today. has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer. You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. 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. Applying for a grant of administration with the Will annexed, 3. 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. Privacy Policy. 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 [] 'assault occasioning'! 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. The full decision is available here: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard - NSW . 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. 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. The NSW Supreme Court has today delivered a strong judgment upholding the validity of public health orders requiring vaccinations in certain workplaces. If you look at the federal regime, with the pandemic laws, it even goes to the extent that the federal health minister can make orders that override any other law. 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 . 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. So, I can understand why that has left people very concerned about whether the decisions are correct, and whether they have been properly justified. . The constitutional law expert has set out the reasons for this in the co-authored A Charter of Rights for Australia. There are problems with how these orders are made. 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. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. NSW Supreme Court Judgement Kassam, Henry v Hazzard. 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. In that decision, the Court concluded that to impugn public health orders on the grounds . The plaintiffs failed on all grounds of their challenge. Despite this, both sets of . Our team is actively monitoring and considering the implications of legal and regulatory developments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Minister for Health and Medical Research, Bradley Hazzard (, The health orders are either outside of the power conferred by the. And his decisions cant even be disallowed by parliament. Both proceedings must be dismissed.. (a) create a form of civil conscription; and These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. 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. 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 . Its a matter of process, a matter of scrutiny and accountability. [4] Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB at [115] - [129]. 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.
Is Holly Dunn Related To Ronnie Dunn,
Brandon Nakashima Tennis Recruiting,
How Many Marvel Comics Are Sold Each Year?,
Articles K
