1:02:40 For my case for my, yeah. Yes. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299 (on Caselaw). 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. Your thoughts! Bodily integrity is not violated because health orders impair freedom of movement. No one told me I can do BIG bits with the unicorn in CA on MM!!!! Vaccine Mandates: Recent Case Law. issued by NSW Chief Health Officer Brad Hazzard. 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. . 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 . terms invalidating consent and effectively compelling individuals to submit to vaccination under coercive, directions. Case Note: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 27 October 2021 Prepared by Caitlin Moore (Graduate Lawyer) A full copy of the case can be accessed here. 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. 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 . One of the key arguments of the plaintiffs was their freedom or right to their own bodily integrity. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October 2021 . Please remember this corrupt woman is the expert witness called on to help defend Brad Hazzard yesterday. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October . Please turn on JavaScript and try again. 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. Can Police Enter My Residence to Check Compliance With a Public Health Order? But we dont. In Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard. Get updates on Rebel News coverage in Australia delivered straight to your inbox so you never miss a story! The Kassam plaintiffs asserted that vaccine mandates were a form of civil conscription, in that they force citizens to get the jab. 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). 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. 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. However, his Honour showed that the civil conscription ban actually targets the passing of laws that would require medical professionals to do something against their will. 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. And the Fair Work Commission has made a judgment on Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd. 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". and that these health orders interfered with fundamental rights and freedoms. It is critically important because this is the . In a public letter to Hazzard, he wrote that a competent adult patient has the right to refuse medical treatment for whatever reasons, rational or irrational.. There are problems with how these orders are made. In the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is presumed that statutes are not intended to modify or aggregate fundamental rights. 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. Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution prohibits parliament from passing laws in terms of a civil conscription around medical and dental services. p 28128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Proceedings 2021/249601 Al-Munir Kassam (First Plaintiff) George Nohra (Second Plaintiff) . Do they (and their lawyers) genuinely think that every individual should be consulted on a public health order? Applying to have accounts passed and applying for commission, Protocol for a minors share on intestacy, Representing yourself in civil proceedings, Things to consider before taking formal legal action, Courtroom technology including the Virtual Courtroom, European River Cruise (Flooding) Class Action, European River Cruise (Insufficient water) Class Action, Junior Doctors Underpayments Class Action, Murray Darling Basin Authority Class Action, The War Memorial Project - The Photographs. If Australia had a bill of rights, for example, which guaranteed bodily autonomy or freedom of movement. 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. As such, the assistance to be gained from the presumption will vary with the context in which it is applied. So, are a number of the things that have been put in place really reasonable and proportionate responses to the health crisis? The judgement made in the case poses issues such as, whether or not courts have authority to put a stop to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) . Posted on October 15, 2021 January 4, 2023 Author Editor . These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. We dont have a general freedom of speech. Both proceedings must be dismissed.. 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 Defendants . But these hopes were dashed on Friday, October 15, when the court . He ruled that the right to bodily integrity was not violated as the orders did not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone, while the degree to which the freedom of movement was impaired differed depending on whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated. 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. ** **Post all study and career questions in the dedicated stickied megathread** . In NSW the Supreme Court decision of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard . 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. Subscriptions Now Open. By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim Bradley Ronald Hazzard & Ors. 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 . The highly contagious Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus entered NSW in mid-June. . In July, Ashley, Francina, Leonard and Associates director Tony Nikolic had spoken out against the public health orders. 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). 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. 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. 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. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 . **Do not ask for legal advice in this subreddit. So how does one Prove beyond a doubt, that it is a trial? The second proceedings were raised by aged care worker Natasha Henry and five other plaintiffs, solely against Hazzard in relation to vaccine mandates contained within the impugned orders, which included Order No 2, and two other orders relating to age care and education workers. Al-Munir Kassam & Ors. 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. While many see this test case as a significant defeat over the policy of mandatory vaccinations, there are some important takeaways which shouldnt be dismissed. 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. 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. 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. Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd [2021] FWCFB 6015. . Indeed, of late, rights issues have been front and centre in Middle Australia, whereas quite often freedoms and liberties have been taken for granted. 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. And thats the power that has enabled the wide variety of health orders around lockdowns and the like. UNSW Law Professor George Williams has long argued the need for rights protections to be enacted at the federal level. Mandatory vaccination health orders issued by the NSW Chief Health Officer have been upheld. The Offence of Failing to Comply With a Public Health 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. challenged by several workers including one in construction, teaching, and healthcare who have all been required to receive a Covid19 vaccination. His Honour outlined that the imposition of Order No 2 was genuine. Applying for a grant of administration with the Will annexed, 3. So, its just not a clause that applies to the circumstances they were complaining of. 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. 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. All grounds of contention were dismissed. Th. Hazzard is defending each case and plans to tender statements from a deputy chief health officer in support of his public health orders. 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. Nor did you have the public seeing the debate and scrutiny that would give them confidence that the right actions were being taken. 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. Can an Employer Force an Employee to Obtain a COVID-19 Vaccination? Significance of the Kassam decision. 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..

Espn Wide World Of Sports Athletic Training Internship, Articles K