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. Beech-Jones J's judgement is a very strong judicial endorsement that compliance with Public Health Orders is non . 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. 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. NSW Supreme Court Judgment - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard (4:00pm) That is Auss. ICR AF lO th Anniversary 1977-1987 Agroforestry a decade of development Edited by H.A. 3Ibrahim Can v State of New South Wales (2021/00265124) and John Edward Larter v The Hon. Scan this QR code to download the app now. All on Government sites and with person references. 1:02:40 For my case for my, yeah. The damage is unspeakably painful and maddening to anyone involved, including, grandparents and the children. Aren't they just taking the piss at this point? Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (In Liquidation) . 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. 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 . 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., Ungovernable: Alberta's Quest for Independence. Kassam; Henry v Hazzard has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer. Despite this, both sets of . Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. Home New South Wales Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. 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. 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 . And thats problematic because it really emphases what extraordinary powers our politicians have. So, I can understand why that has left people very concerned about whether the decisions are correct, and whether they have been properly justified. Applying for a grant of letters of administration, 4. 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. Archived post. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that youve provided to them or that theyve collected from your use of their services. Yes. 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. In making the health orders, the Minister: 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). (d) acted unreasonably; The health orders are inconsistent with the Constitution, in that they: challenged by several workers including one in construction, teaching, and healthcare who have all been required to receive a Covid19 vaccination. No one told me I can do BIG bits with the unicorn in CA on MM!!!! 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. 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. Subscriptions Now Open. So, for example, some of the very severe travel restrictions that prevent Australians even exiting the country, let alone citizens returning home from overseas. 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. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 at [70]. NSW Supreme Court Judgement Kassam, Henry v Hazzard. Supreme Court Ruling live today Australian time 15 October 2021 local time 16:00. 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 plaintiffs also sought to rely upon the dissenting judgment in Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB. 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. That the Proceedings be Dismissed. Discrimination against vaccination status now LEGAL. The NSW parliament didnt meet for three 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. Your thoughts! Posted on October 15, 2021 January 4, 2023 Author Editor . 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. Constitutional Law Professor George Williams. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. The Court has provided a detailed headnote which is reproduced below. So, the contention that the vaccine mandates are unconstitutional as they breach this prohibition is unfounded, as the ban relates to those administering a treatment and not people receiving any such medical procedure. BREAKING: from the court filings in the #NSW Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination. In his judgment, Justice Robert Beech-Jones noted that the function . The suits were filed against NSW Health and Medical Research Minister Bradley Ronald Hazzard, who issued the order. 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. 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. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. 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. The Kassam plaintiffs asserted that vaccine mandates were a form of civil conscription, in that they force citizens to get the jab. 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,. The full decision is available here: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard - NSW . The Court found that: (b) are inconsistent with the. Facts Between 20 August and 23 November 2021, the Hon Bradley Hazzard MLA, Minister The findings released by Justice Beech-Jones provide a detailed explanation of the consideration he gave to each of the close to a dozen separate grounds raised against the health measures, as well asthorough reasons as to why each of them didnt stand. So, its very difficult to argue the orders that were made are beyond power in the circumstances. No matter what the outcome is, we keep looking forward. NSW Supreme Court upholds Hazzard's medical tyranny. The Court affirmed that the orders do not violate the right to bodily integrity as the orders do not . Defendants . 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. 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. 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. It would provide a legal ruler to run over all responses. All Rights Reserved. appropriate and adapted) to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences by making the orders. 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. Al-Munir Kassam & Ors. The Judge rejected the constitutional argument regarding civil conscription and an asserted inconsistency with the immunisation register act, finding no constitutional basis for these submissions. 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.. 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 . Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard (NSWSC) - public health - administrative law - . The livestream is therefore no longer available. A lawyer for Brad Hazzard has pointed out none of the people suing the Health Minister over vaccination mandates for certain workers have in fact been forced to get the Covid-19 jab. Mr Larter has not yet confirmed whether he will appeal Justice Adamson's decision. 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. However, as the Henry plaintiffs sought to rely on the reasoning it is necessary to record why that judgment is of no assistance. The two proceedings of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320, heard together, named as Defendants the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research, Brad Hazzard, the NSW Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant, the State of NSW and the Commonwealth of Australia. 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. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 . Across the road from Justice Precinct carpark, Kassam v Hazzard Was Bound to Fail: An Interview With Professor George Williams. 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. The findings were handed down by Justice Beech-Jones in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam). . 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. Bradley Ronald Hazzard & Ors. What this particular clause in the Constitution says is the Commonwealth cannot force doctors to provide services. Those working in areas and industries issued with mandatory vaccination orders will now have to comply with vaccine directions or lose their employment. 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. All grounds of contention were dismissed. For example, this could be forcing them to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to others. Ramachandran Nair ICRAF International Council for Research in Agroforestry Nairobi Published in 1987 by the International Council for Research in Agroforestry ICRAF House, off Limuru Road, Gigiri P.O. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October 2021, when the court delivered its judgement dismissing the cases. 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. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. 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. The NSW Supreme Court has ruled that Health Minister Brad Hazzard's vaccination rules for workers are legal. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. 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. the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary, . So, if you had a Commonwealth law that said doctors must provide vaccinations, for example, that would be in breach of that conscription guarantee. '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]. Big Tech is censoring us. All of the asserted grounds of invalidity raised by both sets of plaintiffs have been rejected, Justice Beech-Jones ruled in mid-October. These proceedings were brought against the Health Minister only. 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.
Lisa Fischer Obituary,
Election Results Santa Fe Texas,
Richard Robinson Obituary,
Articles K