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) . Supreme Court Ruling live today Australian time 15 October 2021 local time 16:00. His Honour outlined that the imposition of Order No 2 was genuine. No one told me I can do BIG bits with the unicorn in CA on MM!!!! He also dismissed claims that Health Minister Brad Hazzard acted outside his powers, by not asking the right questions or failing to take into account relevant considerations. 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. 3Ibrahim Can v State of New South Wales (2021/00265124) and John Edward Larter v The Hon. In some cases, arguably not. However, as the Henry plaintiffs sought to rely on the reasoning it is necessary to record why that judgment is of no assistance. 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. 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. 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. 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 . 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. Should Individuals Be Allowed to Sue the Media for Serious Invasions of Privacy? 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. 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. 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 . Please turn on JavaScript and try again. The livestream is therefore no longer available. We will continue to provide updates on this issue as new information comes to light. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. 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.. 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. 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. Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution prohibits parliament from passing laws in terms of a civil conscription around medical and dental services. 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. has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer. The hearing in the matters of Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard has now concluded. Those working in areas and industries issued with mandatory vaccination orders will now have to comply with vaccine directions or lose their employment. Now Kassam and Henry et al and the Hazzard team have to confer about. So, are a number of the things that have been put in place really reasonable and proportionate responses to the health crisis? But, in terms of vaccines, this was in line with the aims of the PHA. 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. 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 TPB is that intentions may not be strongly related to actual behaviors (Dixon, Deline, McComas, Chambliss, & Homann, 2014; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). 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 . 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. 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.. Its hard to imagine a broader power than that. 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. The full decision is available here: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard - NSW . 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. 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. Please enable scripts and reload this page. 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. 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 B. Deline & L. A. Kahlor Planned Risk Information Avoidance: A Proposed Theoretical Model. Or perhaps the fall of London Bridge . Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Health and Medical Research (2021/00259688). By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. The highly contagious Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus entered NSW in mid-June. Visit, Charged with drug possession or supply? BREAKING: from the court filings in the #NSW Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination. 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 Minister for Health and Medical Research, Bradley Hazzard (, The health orders are either outside of the power conferred by the. Thats the bedrock problem. The plaintiffs are all persons who have refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 but are required to be vaccinated under the health orders in order to perform their work, either because of the sector they worked in or because they resided in one of the identified local government areas of concern. The Minister did not give evidence directly, despite being the relevant decision-maker. **Do not ask for legal advice in this subreddit. #covid19. Subscriptions Now Open. Authors: Sally Moten, Partner and Jessica Miral, Lawyer. 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. 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 . [LINK to full judgment] I have to say I am both impressed and dismayed by this critically important case heard before the full board of the Fair Work Commission, especially given the significant legal losses in Kassam v Hazzard, Larter v Hazzard, Can v NSW and Davis vs Sapphire Aged Care (leave a comment if you want links to any of those cases).. The NSW parliament didnt meet for three months. 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. 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. 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. The professor has explained that the pursuit of rights-encroaching antiterror laws following 9/11 was in no way confined to our country. 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 Delta Order also prescribes that the workers concerned carry with them proof of their vaccination status. 'assault occasioning'! 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. View, Charged with drink driving or another traffic offence, get outstanding representation in any NSW court for a fixed fee That the Proceedings be Dismissed. 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. As such, the assistance to be gained from the presumption will vary with the context in which it is applied. Al-Munir Kassam & Ors. And thats problematic because it really emphases what extraordinary powers our politicians have. 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. 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. Then, one would hope that the trail would have to cease. 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. 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. (b) asked the wrong question or took into account irrelevant considerations; Home New South Wales Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. 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". The Court's role is to adjudicate on the legality of the administrative action and not the merits of the decision. 175th Anniversary of the Supreme Court of NSW, 50th Anniversary of the NSW Court of Appeal, Supreme Court Corporate and Commercial Law Conference, Criminal appeal (Court of Criminal Appeal) forms, Document access, copying and search report forms, Delegation under the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017, Delegations to the Court of Appeal Registrar, Delegation under the Civil Procedure Regulation 2017, Remuneration applications by office holders, FAQs about reviewing costs determinations, Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition applications, Agreement with the Supreme Court of Singapore, 2. 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. 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. 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. The NSW Court of Appeal, having granted partial leave to appeal in these two related matters, dismissed the appeals. Subscribe to access subscriber only items and receive notification of new items. 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. 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. [4] Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB at [115] - [129]. 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. So, if you had a Commonwealth law that said doctors must provide vaccinations, for example, that would be in breach of that conscription guarantee. 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). Vaccine Mandates: Recent Case Law. Another key issue surrounding the case is that neither the Commonwealth nor NSW has a bill protecting citizens rights in law. p 28128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Proceedings 2021/249601 Al-Munir Kassam (First Plaintiff) George Nohra (Second Plaintiff) . The Offence of Failing to Comply With a Public Health Order. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. 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. 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. In his judgment, Justice Robert Beech-Jones noted that the function . 4Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of Police & Anor; Witthahn & Ors v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services and Director General of Queensland Health & Ors [2021] QSC 275. Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (In Liquidation) . The plaintiffs alleged that the health orders are invalid on the following grounds: His Honour stated that the court is not required to determine the merits of the exercise of power by the Minister or the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. appropriate and adapted) to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences by making the orders. They are the sorts of powers that you expect to find in a dictatorship, not a country that values its democratic freedoms and ensures theyre respected. Posted October 26, 2021 by Sydney Criminal Lawyers & filed under Criminal Law, NSW Courts. Posted on October 15, 2021 January 4, 2023 Author Editor . There's another decode opportunity below. . 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. Education and care workers must be fully vaccinated by 8 November, while workers at residential aged care facilities must have already received their first dose by 17 September. 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.. 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. 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. - the government is in full social-destruction mode; this is the attitude that gets us 'Alice Springs' today. 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. What this particular clause in the Constitution says is the Commonwealth cannot force doctors to provide services. The constitutional law expert has set out the reasons for this in the co-authored A Charter of Rights for Australia. He also dismissed claims Health Minister Brad Hazzard acted outside his powers, by not asking . In fact, a UN resolution called for it to happen. Scan this QR code to download the app now. PO Box 61056, Eglinton/Dufferin RO, Toronto, ON M6E 5B2, Canada. Beech-Jones J's judgement is a very strong judicial endorsement that compliance with Public Health Orders is non . But there are a number of measures that may well be problematic. View Kassam v. Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320.pdf from ART 6 at Cavendish University Uganda. The NSW Supreme Court is set to make a decision regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for essential workers. 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. (a) create a form of civil conscription; and One of the key arguments of the plaintiffs was their freedom or right to their own bodily integrity. Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard Medium Neutral Citation: [2021] . 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. The following matters will be live streamed TOGETHER on 30 SEPTEMBER and 1 OCTOBER from 10 AM: Hearing: Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald . And this led to health measures being imposed throughout Greater Sydney, which placed extreme restrictions on peoples freedoms, especially on those not vaccinated. Kassam; Henry v Hazzard has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer.. Judgment: Kassam Henry v Hazzard DISMISSED#mandatoryvaccination health orders issued by #Hazzard for authorised workers ruled LEGAL. Th. In making the health orders, the Minister: judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court's judgment. The court heard the final submissions for two suits against the health minister on Wednesday. Kassam; Henry v Hazzard has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer. The NSW Supreme Court has ruled that Health Minister Brad Hazzard's vaccination rules for workers are legal. Indeed, of late, rights issues have been front and centre in Middle Australia, whereas quite often freedoms and liberties have been taken for granted. 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 . But we dont. 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.. The Kassam plaintiffs asserted that vaccine mandates were a form of civil conscription, in that they force citizens to get the jab. Even if we had a compulsion for people to receive vaccinations, that is still not civil conscription of doctors. All grounds of contention were dismissed. Queensland also recently had a matter in the Industrial Relations Commission, which was unsuccessful on 22 October 2021. 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. Before judgement, Order (No 2) was repealed, but the other orders remain in force. Using the adverse reactions as another tool. 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. 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. The overarching story is well known. It provides addresses and contact details of courts throughout NSW, as well as short videos about the general location and how to get to each court. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Do the youngest workers demand more from their employers? The Court affirmed that the orders do not violate the right to bodily integrity as the orders do not . So, they cant be conscripted, essentially. In that decision, the Court concluded that to impugn public health orders on the grounds . Do they (and their lawyers) genuinely think that every individual should be consulted on a public health order? But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October . Al-Munir KASSAM v Bradley Ronald Hazzard . However, the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary. 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.