kassam v hazzard judgement

His Honour outlined that the imposition of Order No 2 was genuine. 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). 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. So, I can understand why that has left people very concerned about whether the decisions are correct, and whether they have been properly justified. NSW Supreme Court upholds Hazzard's medical tyranny. 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. We have been lacking those things. Sydney construction worker Al-Munir Kassam, Byron Bay aged care worker Natasha Henry and eight others mounted a multi-pronged attack on the public health orders, arguing their rights to bodily integrity and freedom of movement were being impinged. The NSW Courts site is proudly brought to you by Sydney Criminal Lawyers and is in no way affiliated with the states courts, judicial system or judiciary. So, are a number of the things that have been put in place really reasonable and proportionate responses to the health crisis? The lead vaccine researchers driving all government policy in Australia received $65,330,038 in government grants covering 2020-2021. the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary, . 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 . 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. 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 . In the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is presumed that statutes are not intended to modify or aggregate fundamental rights. Key takeaways. Is the hybrid work model the best of both worlds? 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. Queensland also recently had a matter in the Industrial Relations Commission, which was unsuccessful on 22 October 2021. 16 votes, 15 comments. However, this country does not have a bill of rights and thus as important as the principle of legality is, it is only a rule of construction. So how does one Prove beyond a doubt, that it is a trial? We will call you to confirm your appointment. The plaintiffs also sought to rely upon the dissenting judgment in Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB. We are crowdfunding lawyers for Australians who want to fight their outrageous pandemic tickets. 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. of "necessarily" was to a judgment of Higgins J in 1910, in a case . However, this country does not have a bill of rights, and thus, important as the principle of legality is, it is only a rule of construction. Get the best defence in any NSW Court 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., ublic Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Delta Order). The broad finding was that rather than impinging upon a right to bodily integrity in requiring the COVID-19 vaccine in relation to certain jobs, the measure instead violated the right to freedom of movement if the jab was refused in these circumstances. The Minister for Health and Medical Research, Bradley Hazzard (, The health orders are either outside of the power conferred by the. 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. All grounds of contention were dismissed. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October . Kassam v Hazzard 6 January 2022; S3/2022 [2021] NSWCA 299; Eliezer v 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. Its hard to see the solutions because we dont have the legal tools to protect and enforce peoples rights, as the Kassam decision shows. The court disagreed with every argument presented by the plaintiffs, rejecting all challenges on all grounds. 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. 1 The public health orders challenged were the Public Health (COVID-19 Vaccination of Health Care Workers) Order 2021 (NSW) and Public Health (COVID-19 Vaccination of Health Care Workers) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW). 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. 1:02:25 I want to get a summary judgment which outline in the document called order judgment so I'm claiming those reliefs. 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. That the Proceedings be Dismissed. We will call you to confirm your appointment. The NSW Supreme Court has today delivered a strong judgment upholding the validity of public health orders requiring vaccinations in certain workplaces. The hearing in the matters of Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard has now concluded. Please turn on JavaScript and try again. On that basis, Justice Adamson dismissed Mr Larter's application. It was further argued that Brad Hazzard had exceeded the scope of his powers granted under the Public Health Act and that these health orders interfered with fundamental rights and freedoms. Yes. What this particular clause in the Constitution says is the Commonwealth cannot force doctors to provide services. 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. 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. In accordance with the Court's policy, the following is a summary of its publishedreasons . 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. Bradley Ronald Hazzard & Ors. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. terms invalidating consent and effectively compelling individuals to submit to vaccination under coercive, directions. There's another decode opportunity below. 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. 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. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. Using the adverse reactions as another tool. . 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 . Defendants . 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. Th. BREAKING: from the court filings in the #NSW Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination. Subscriptions Now Open. 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 findings were handed down by Justice Beech-Jones in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam). Then, one would hope that the trail would have to cease. 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. In response to the reliance by the plaintiffs on the dissenting judgement of Deputy President Dean in Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB 6015, his Honour also noted that the function of determining the validity of the health order is for the court to discharge and the function of determining whether it should have been made is for the political process.7, One of the main grounds of challenge concerned the effect of the health orders on the rights and freedoms, especially in respect of the bodily integrity of persons choosing not to be vaccinated. 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.. Visit, Charged with drug possession or supply? More than a million people tuned in to the live stream of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard via the New South Wales Supreme Courts 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. 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. []. Subscription Information Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. 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. The findings were handed down by Justice Beech-Jones in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam). Big Tech is censoring us. 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. 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. Indeed, of late, rights issues have been front and centre in Middle Australia, whereas quite often freedoms and liberties have been taken for granted. In the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is presumed that statutes are not intended to modify or aggregate fundamental rights. 1:02:40 For my case for my, yeah. 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. October 15, 2021. It would provide a legal ruler to run over all responses. These people were from the health, aged care, construction and education industries and Kassam v Hazzard: NSW Supreme Court - Challenging the . The NSW parliament didnt meet for three months. Get updates on Rebel News coverage in Australia delivered straight to your inbox so you never miss a story! Please enable scripts and reload this page. 'assault occasioning'! This case is important to every state, please tune in at 4pm to watch LIVE. We dont have a general freedom of speech. 2021/252587 . No one told me I can do BIG bits with the unicorn in CA on MM!!!! 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. Scan this QR code to download the app now. Proposed Law Would Make Employers Liable for Injuries Arising from Vaccine Mandates. has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer. 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 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.. 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. 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. Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors told Monica Smit of Reignite Democracy he disagreed with the dismissal of the cases, but he was also an advocate for a bill of rights. 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) . Even if we had a compulsion for people to receive vaccinations, that is still not civil conscription of doctors. All Rights Reserved. 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. 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. Health care workers must be fully vaccinated by 30 November, and must have received their dose by 30 September. . But theres nothing that can be done in our legal system to challenge them, and thats where this sort of instrument would assist. All NSW Courts Vaccine Mandates: Recent Case Law. 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. 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. In some cases, arguably not. Those matters are for the decision-maker (that is, the Minister). . Mandatory vaccination health orders issued by the NSW Chief Health Officer have been upheld. . Both plaintiffs refused to be vaccinated and claimed that various Public Health Orders requiring vaccination were invalid. B. Deline & L. A. Kahlor Planned Risk Information Avoidance: A Proposed Theoretical Model. Has an ultra vires argument ever worked in Australian law? 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. [4] Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB at [115] - [129]. 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. #covid19. We will call you to confirm your appointment. Secondly, the legal challenge sends a salient message to those in positions of power that Australians will challenge rules they believe are unfair. NSW Supreme Court Judgment - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard (4:00pm) That is Auss. 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. If the j is a trial, then only those who choose to participate agree to do so. But, in terms of vaccines, this was in line with the aims of the PHA. 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. (d) acted unreasonably; The health orders are inconsistent with the Constitution, in that they: Cases on appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal or Court of Criminal Appeal heard by the High Court and awaiting judgment. UNSW Law Professor George Williams has long argued the need for rights protections to be enacted at the federal level. NSW Supreme Court Judgement Kassam, Henry v Hazzard. 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 . And thats the power that has enabled the wide variety of health orders around lockdowns and the like. 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.. But there are a number of measures that may well be problematic. Why do the plaintiffs keep adding that they weren't consulted about the public health order? Good, people must be severely punished when accusations are false and used as a weapon against another, more so against the other parent to prevent their children from seeing their other parent or people meaningful to the child. We note that prior to the judgement, on 3 October 2021 the Minister made an order which repealed Order (No 2) from effect on 11 October 2021. ** **Post all study and career questions in the dedicated stickied megathread** 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. 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 [] So, if you had a Commonwealth law that said doctors must provide vaccinations, for example, that would be in breach of that conscription guarantee. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. Posted on October 15, 2021 January 4, 2023 Author Editor . 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. 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. Mr Larter argued that the orders were legally unreasonable as they were not "logically targeted" and were "not proportionate to the risks they purport to mitigate". p 28128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Proceedings 2021/249601 Al-Munir Kassam (First Plaintiff) George Nohra (Second Plaintiff) . Privacy Policy. 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. YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. However, as Williams underscores, in Australia, the reach and volume of these laws is much broader than in comparable liberal democracies. 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.

Oracal 4 Mil Adhesive Vinyl, Subaru Vip Program Participants, List Of Dead Snooker Players, Puerto Vallarta Accident, Articles K