But, in terms of vaccines, this was in line with the aims of the PHA. The constitutional law expert has set out the reasons for this in the co-authored A Charter of Rights for Australia. To Vax or Sack? Anti-vaxers and the vax-reluctant at work. - LinkedIn 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. Our team is actively monitoring and considering the implications of legal and regulatory developments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 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. 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 manner in which the health orders were made was unreasonable; The health orders confer powers on police officers that are inconsistent with the, The health orders were made for an improper purpose; and. The NSW Supreme Court has today delivered a strong judgment upholding the validity of public health orders requiring vaccinations in certain workplaces. Vaccine order really a movement law: judge | 7NEWS 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. (c) was obliged to but failed to afford them natural justice; and In the cases of Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSW SC 1320, all grounds of challenge were dismissed. Subscriptions Now Open. So, thats my concern. 5Brasell-Dellow & Ors v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) & Ors [2021] QIRC 356. 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. KASSAM v HAZZARD. Chainsaw and Harpsicord Duet for KASSAM v - YouTube 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 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. The professor has explained that the pursuit of rights-encroaching antiterror laws following 9/11 was in no way confined to our country. NSW Supreme Court Judgment - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard (4:00pm) That is Auss. The damage is unspeakably painful and maddening to anyone involved, including, grandparents and the children. Exclusive Interview with Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors explains today's judgment in Kassam & Henry v Hazzard. Beech-Jones J's judgement is a very strong judicial endorsement that compliance with Public Health Orders is non . 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 Supreme Court has dismissed the proceedings in Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard and has published its reasons. 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) . Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. Is the hybrid work model the best of both worlds? 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. 4 Communication Theory 00 (2019) 1-23. fM. 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 . On that basis, Justice Adamson dismissed Mr Larter's application. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, October 15, when the court . 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. The plaintiffs failed on all grounds of their challenge. Hazzard originally created the public health order on the grounds that it was reasonable to avert risk to public health under. Exclusive Interview with Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors explains Natasha Henry v Brad Hazzard: Cabinet documents won't be revealed in Secondly, the legal challenge sends a salient message to those in positions of power that Australians will challenge rules they believe are unfair. Proposed Law Would Make Employers Liable for Injuries Arising from Vaccine Mandates. It is possible that it will not be tenable to maintain the employment of health care workers who do not comply with the order and the Health Services Union has certainly raised such concerns in the media. One of the key arguments of the plaintiffs was their freedom or right to their own bodily integrity. However, the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary. These proceedings were brought against the Health Minister only. So, we are certainly in that situation here, and in those circumstances, the minister can take such action and give such orders that the minister considers necessary to deal with the situation. And his decisions cant even be disallowed by parliament. Those working in areas and industries issued with mandatory vaccination orders will now have to comply with vaccine directions or lose their employment. There is a strong petition on this at Change.org. 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. In that decision, the Court concluded that to impugn public health orders on the grounds of legal unreasonableness, it was necessary to show that no Minister acting reasonably could have considered it necessary (i.e. 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. So, are a number of the things that have been put in place really reasonable and proportionate responses to the health crisis? The findings were handed down by Justice Beech-Jones in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam). Supreme Court of New South Wales - Facebook NSW Supreme Court Judgement Australia Kassam, Henry v Hazzard. 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. The specific public health directions have not yet been issued by the Victorian Government, however, the relevant press release is available here. 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. This case is important to every state, please tune in at 4pm to watch LIVE. He also dismissed claims Health Minister Brad Hazzard acted outside his powers, by not asking . 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.. 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. First hearing in mandatory COVID-19 vaccination legal - Lawyerly 2; February 2022 Case Name; Date leave granted HCA File Number; . Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution prohibits parliament from passing laws in terms of a civil conscription around medical and dental services. Its hard to imagine a broader power than that. 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. NSW Supreme Court upholds Hazzard's medical tyranny 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.