. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October 2021 . 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. Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution prohibits parliament from passing laws in terms of a civil conscription around medical and dental services. PDF Search Engine Executive Summary (1 minute read) [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).. 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. Your thoughts! Supreme Court of New South Wales - Facebook 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. Its hard to see the solutions because we dont have the legal tools to protect and enforce peoples rights, as the Kassam decision shows. And his decisions cant even be disallowed by parliament. 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). NSW challenge to public health orders requiring vaccinations in certain 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. 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. It remains to be seen what will happen to health care workers who do not comply with the requirement to be double vaccinated by 30 November 2021. 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. Information about Sydney Criminal Lawyers is also provided. Both plaintiffs refused to be vaccinated and claimed that various Public Health Orders requiring vaccination were invalid. Home New South Wales Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. kassam - Reddit post and comment search - SocialGrep I'm reading through the whole thing, because I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. The constitutional law expert has set out the reasons for this in the co-authored A Charter of Rights for Australia. The Supreme Court issued its decision of Larter v Hazzard (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1451, concerning an application filed by a NSW paramedic, John Larter, to have two public health orders1 declared invalid. 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. Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. - Constitution Watch The decision made by Justice Beech-Jones in the case of Kassam v Hazzard 18 to dismiss a similar claim was predicated on the common law principle that governs consent to a trespass to the . Posted October 26, 2021 by Sydney Criminal Lawyers & filed under Criminal Law, NSW Courts. Bradley Ronald Hazzard & Ors. This case is important to every state, please tune in at 4pm to watch LIVE. "This is one of the grandest thought experiments of our time, a tremendous feat of imaginative reporting!" Bill McKibben, author of Deep Economy and The End of Nature Tel NSW Supreme Court rejects challenges to Public Health Orders - Mondaq New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. 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. We will call you to confirm your appointment. The plaintiffs in the Kassam proceedings . 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. (a) failed to have regard to various relevant considerations; [4] Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB at [115] - [129]. Can an Employer Force an Employee to Obtain a COVID-19 Vaccination? He makes sense, therefore, that adenine stronger ESG proposition bucket create valueand on this article, ours provide ampere scale with understanding that five key ways it can achieve then. So how does one Prove beyond a doubt, that it is a trial? Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (In Liquidation) . The orders requirements effectively make employers a private sector vaccination police force, conscripted by Ministerial order, the plaintiffs said. NSW Supreme Court strikes down latest challenge to vaccine mandate Hazzard is defending each case and plans to tender statements from a deputy chief health officer in support of his public health orders. View, Charged with drink driving or another traffic offence, get outstanding representation in any NSW court for a fixed fee But give Goverment employees an exemption. 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. Significance of the Kassam decision. Scan this QR code to download the app now. Its a matter of process, a matter of scrutiny and accountability. More than a million people tuned into the live stream of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard via the NSW Supreme Court's YouTube channel over the past couple of weeks, many hoping for a judgment which invalidates public health orders which mandate vaccines for certain industries, such as healthcare, aged care and construction. 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. 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. And this led to health measures being imposed throughout Greater Sydney, which placed extreme restrictions on peoples freedoms, especially on those not vaccinated. 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.. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 at [70]. 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. 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. Even though I am supportive of the need to take proportionate and strong action to protect the community, these actions have not been subject to sufficient scrutiny. challenged by several workers including one in construction, teaching, and healthcare who have all been required to receive a Covid19 vaccination. Your businesses, like every business, exists deeply intersecting with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) concerns. Al-Munir Kassam & Ors. Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Health and Medical Research (2021/00259688). That the Proceedings be Dismissed. BREAKING: from the court filings in the #NSW Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination. Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald Hazzard. Box 30677 . All grounds of contention were dismissed. So, for example, some of the very severe travel restrictions that prevent Australians even exiting the country, let alone citizens returning home from overseas. 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. Visit, Public Health (COVID19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW), View all posts by Sydney Criminal Lawyers, Hi there can bail be put on a person after first mention at court if not on bail conditions from the police. It would provide a legal ruler to run over all responses. It might have been a more successful argument if there were other restrictions that applied. In that decision, the Court concluded that to impugn public health orders on the grounds . But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October . 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. 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. Its hard to imagine a broader power than that. 1:02:40 For my case for my, yeah. The proceedings were brought against Health Minister Brad Hazzard, Chief Medical Officer Dr Kerry Chant, the State of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia. By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim 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. That legal ruler would recognise that governments can take strong action to protect the community, in fact, it would recognise the communitys right to health. Nothing in LEPRA indicates that the powers it confers on police officers to make requests of a persons identity are exhaustive, Justice Beech-Jones found. Before judgement, Order (No 2) was repealed, but the other orders remain in force. Kassam represents the first major legal decision in Australia in relation to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for workers. The Henry and Kassam cases will also attempt to show the laws are for an improper purpose, breach privacy, breach natural justice and that the minister considered irrelevant matters when writing the laws. You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Curtailing the free movement of persons including their movement to and at work are the very type of restrictions that the Public Health Act clearly authorises, Justice Beech-Jones found. There are also a range of articles designed to inform and ease the stress of those who are going to court. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299 (on Caselaw). (c) was obliged to but failed to afford them natural justice; and Read the Kassam v Hazzard judgement and have some questions The findings were handed down by Justice Beech-Jones in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam). The health orders were challenged by several workers including one in construction, teaching, and healthcare who have all been required to receive a Covid19 vaccination. Even if we had a compulsion for people to receive vaccinations, that is still not civil conscription of doctors. Coercive Vaccination! Explaining the Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India In the simplest of terms, the no jab, no job policies left thousands of workers with no option other that to receive approved COVID-19 vaccinations or be unable to attend their workplaces. Using the adverse reactions as another tool. 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. (a) create a form of civil conscription; and Exclusive Interview with Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors explains The overbearing law enforcement approach to the COVID pandemic, w [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim Remember this cannot be viewed afterwards and do not re-record and distribute. It looks like your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. 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. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, October 15, when the court . Copyright 2023 KM Business Information Australia Pty Ltd, Workplace relations and health and safety, MinterEllison, Holding Redlich, Piper Alderman highlighted in Best Lawyers Australia 2024, HSF launches free digital law course for APAC university students, Former Lander & Rogers finance head named CBP CFO, HFW assists on COVID-19 vaccine acquisition bid for Philippine consortium, NSW Supreme Court approves $28.5m Provident class action settlement, Former NRF insolvency star jazzes up Lander & Rogers commercial disputes practice, Piper Alderman assists PharmaLexs merger with specialist consultancy, Disney slams DeSantis with five causes of action. NSW mandating vaccinations not unlawful | Lander & Rogers has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer. Comment: Court rejects challenges to vax laws - The Echo Get the best defence in any NSW Court The full decision is available here: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard - NSW . 'assault occasioning'! Archived post. There is a lack of knowledge about the state of affairs of the trauma treatments in Europe. Vaccine order really a movement law: judge | 7NEWS NSW Supreme Court upholds Hazzard's medical tyranny 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. These have eroded the rights of all Australians, often in ways that are not fully understood. Section 7 of the Act states that, "if the Minister considers on reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health", then the Minister "may by order give such directions as the Minister considers necessary to deal with the risk and its possible consequences". NSW Supreme Court to rule on mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for workers Should Individuals Be Allowed to Sue the Media for Serious Invasions of Privacy? Judgment Text - Kassam; Henry v Hazzard : r/auslaw - Reddit Queensland also recently had a matter in the Industrial Relations Commission, which was unsuccessful on 22 October 2021. NSW COVID vaccine mandate challenge fails in Supreme Court Then, one would hope that the trail would have to cease. Broadly, what we have seen in response to terrorism, and now in response to the pandemic, is how powerful our governments are and how few checks and balances they have. Kassam v Hazzard: NSW Supreme Court - PH Solicitor 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. 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. 4 Communication Theory 00 (2019) 1-23. fM. 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. 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. Secondly, the legal challenge sends a salient message to those in positions of power that Australians will challenge rules they believe are unfair. The NSW Supreme Court has ruled that Health Minister Brad Hazzard's vaccination rules for workers are legal. 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). 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. Latest developments in Australian COVID-19 workplace litigation 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. 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. Greg Dunstan will be summarising the Supreme Court case Kassam; Henry v These proceedings were brought against the Health Minister only. There is a strong petition on this at Change.org. If the j is a trial, then only those who choose to participate agree to do so. 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. The case of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard confirms that the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research has the legal authority to introduce state-specific public health orders that require particular workers from declared industries to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Do the youngest workers demand more from their employers? 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. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Weve had law by decree in NSW, and indeed, at the federal level for some time. 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. 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.. 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. This. Kassam represents the first major legal decision in Australia in relation to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for workers. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard (2021) EOC 93-948; [2021] NSWSC 1320, where 2 groups of people unsuccessfully challenged the validity of several . Validity of mandatory vaccination orders confirmed on appeal Kassam Versus Hazzard: What the Supreme Court Found 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 . The Kassam plaintiffs asserted that vaccine mandates were a form of civil conscription, in that they force citizens to get the jab. 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. the TPB is that intentions may not be strongly related to actual behaviors (Dixon, Deline, McComas, Chambliss, & Homann, 2014; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). 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. 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. said the New South Wales Supreme Court judge during the dismissal.