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 NSW Government Health had implemented the Delta Order to deal with the public health risk of COVID-19 and its possible consequences. The order was based on section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010, which allows the health minister to implement actions and directives upon consideration of reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health.. Accordingly, Justice Adamson drew a distinction between the requirement for the Minister to consider "on reasonable grounds" that a situation has arisen that could become a risk to public health, and what Mr Larter alleged is a requirement that such order made by the Minister be reasonable. Get the best defence in any NSW Court Its hard to see the solutions because we dont have the legal tools to protect and enforce peoples rights, as the Kassam decision shows. . Can an Employer Force an Employee to Obtain a COVID-19 Vaccination? The plaintiffs also sought to rely upon the dissenting judgment in Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB. 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. 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. The Supreme Court has dismissed the proceedings in Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard and has published its reasons. The professor has explained that the pursuit of rights-encroaching antiterror laws following 9/11 was in no way confined to our country. Although his Honour briefly considered privacy obligations arising under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), AIR Act and Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW), this was not a major focus of the decision and did not go much beyond stating that employers collecting the information would be acting consistently with the function or activity of their organisation to provide a safe premises for their workforces and the public. 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. (b) asked the wrong question or took into account irrelevant considerations; #covid19. Al-Munir Kassam & Ors. 1:02:25 I want to get a summary judgment which outline in the document called order judgment so I'm claiming those reliefs. Case of interest 001/2021 - NSW Supreme Court homepage 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 . 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. The full decision is available here: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard - NSW . 2021/252587 . As such, the assistance to be gained from the presumption will vary with the context in which it is applied. 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. September 8, 2021: The Timing is Hinging On & A Call to Action for Oz and our 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) . 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. Subscription Information Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. 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. Supreme Court Ruling live today Australian time 15 October 2021 local time 16:00. Th. All on Government sites and with person references. issued by NSW Chief Health Officer Brad Hazzard. 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. Orders 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. Vaccine mandate upheld in NSW | enableHR 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. Sign up so we can always stay in touch. [4] Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB at [115] - [129]. 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 . 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 . Govt polarises community over mandatory vax - The Echo ia-petabox.archive.org The highly contagious Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus entered NSW in mid-June. Vaccine order really a movement law: judge | 7NEWS Over the lifetime, 2415 publication(s) have been published within this topic receiving 66806 citation(s). [67] Second, the passages relied on and passages to similar . 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. Posted on October 15, 2021 January 4, 2023 Author Editor . 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. The damage is unspeakably painful and maddening to anyone involved, including, grandparents and the children. 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. These people were from the health, aged care, construction and education industries and Kassam v Hazzard: NSW Supreme Court - Challenging the . CFMEU v Mt Arthur Coal Mine - A Positive Case in a Sea of Negatives Cases on appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal or Court of Criminal Appeal heard by the High Court and awaiting judgment. But these hopes were dashed on Friday, October 15, when the court . 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. October 15, 2021. Secondly, the legal challenge sends a salient message to those in positions of power that Australians will challenge rules they believe are unfair. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 . Even following the staunch decision delivered by His Honour in Kassam there can be no doubt that with hundreds of plaintiffs still currently before Australian courts and tribunals, and millions of others affected by the public health orders in place across the country, the issue of COVID-19 vaccinations will continue to dominate the employment law landscape in the coming weeks and months. Health care workers must be fully vaccinated by 30 November, and must have received their dose by 30 September. NSW Supreme Court to rule on mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for workers The hearing in the - Supreme Court of New South Wales - Facebook . . - the government is in full social-destruction mode; this is the attitude that gets us 'Alice Springs' today. The Commonwealth said that the enactment of the Public Health Act was in line with its legislative powers, and the enactment of the Delta Order was in line with the power given to Hazzard. The court heard the final submissions for two suits against the health minister on Wednesday. Can I Be Refused Entry to a Premises if I am Unvaccinated? 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. It might have been a more successful argument if there were other restrictions that applied. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. This is a subreddit for Australians (or anyone interested in Australian law) to discuss matters relating to Australian law. 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. 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. Indeed, of late, rights issues have been front and centre in Middle Australia, whereas quite often freedoms and liberties have been taken for granted. Steppler and P.K.R. 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. Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald Hazzard. 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. 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. Australia: A Police Officer and Two Others Are Challenging the By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim We dont have a general freedom of speech. There's another decode opportunity below. No matter what the outcome is, we keep looking forward. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. The hearing in the matters of Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard has now concluded. 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. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. 1:02:40 For my case for my, yeah. Natasha Henry, Al-Munir Kassam v Brad Hazzard: Vaccination a 'free When a gossip columnist for a prominent Australian mastheadwas [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim Natasha Henry v Brad Hazzard: Cabinet documents won't be revealed in (b) are inconsistent with the. With No Bill of Rights, Kassam v Hazzard Was Bound to Fail: An The state defended the Delta Orders restrictions, maintaining that they can reasonably be regarded as necessary to protect public health and safety. Section 7 of the Public Health Act and the NSW Delta Order do not impose civil conscription, the Commonwealth said in its submission. 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. One set of proceedings was brought by Al-Munir Kassam and three other plaintiffs against the health minister, the Chief Medical Officer, the state of NSW and the Commonwealth, specifically around whether section 7 of the PHA legitimately or reasonably allowed for the imposition of Order No 2. In making the health orders, the Minister: Defendants . 5 Comments. 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. ; The case of Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care lends further support to the ability of . We will continue to provide updates on this issue as new information comes to light. Can Police Enter My Residence to Check Compliance With a Public Health Order? We will call you to confirm your appointment. 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". 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. judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court's judgment. ESG framework | McKinsey | Wyden-Grassley Sovaldi Investigation Finds 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 . 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. 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. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. 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. We have been lacking those things. Get business, like every business, is deeply intertwined with environmental, social, the administration (ESG) affairs. (a) create a form of civil conscription; and In particular, issue was raised around the stipulations in Public Health (COVID19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Order No 2), which presiding Justice Robert Beech-Jones, stated is likely the mostly widely read legal instrument in the history of NSW. Deline & Kahlor, 2019 Planned Risk Information Avoidance | PDF - Scribd 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. 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. Vaccine Mandates: Recent Case Law | Moray & Agnew YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. Using the adverse reactions as another tool. Rebel News Network Ltd. 2023. 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. Do they (and their lawyers) genuinely think that every individual should be consulted on a public health order? On that basis, Justice Adamson dismissed Mr Larter's application. kassam - Reddit post and comment search - SocialGrep Archived post. Or perhaps the fall of London Bridge . 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. Significance of the Kassam decision. 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. 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. UNSW Law Professor George Williams has long argued the need for rights protections to be enacted at the federal level. So, its just not a clause that applies to the circumstances they were complaining of. 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. Subscribe to our FREE newsletter service and well keep you up-to-date with the latest breaking news, cutting edge opinion, and expert analysis affecting both your business and the industry as whole. []. Justice Adamson clarified that the Court's jurisdiction was confined to determining whether it was open to the Minister, in the exercise of the power granted by the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) (Act), to make the public health orders, and that it was not a matter for the Court to stand in the shoes of the Minister and decide what public health order could or should have been made. 1:02:40 For my case for my, yeah. Its a matter of process, a matter of scrutiny and accountability. 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) . Beech-Jones J's judgement is a very strong judicial endorsement that compliance with Public Health Orders is non . The case was initiated by members of a number of industries and sectors affected by the mandate. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard (NSWSC) - public health - administrative law - . Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299 (on Caselaw). View, Charged with drink driving or another traffic offence, get outstanding representation in any NSW court for a fixed fee Chief Judge at Common Law Beech-Jones explained in his findings that as there is no bill of rights at the federal level and nor at the state level in NSW the rights that may have been infringed upon would have to be those that the common law already recognises. Nor did you have the public seeing the debate and scrutiny that would give them confidence that the right actions were being taken. PDF Search Engine Executive Summary (1 minute read) Now Kassam and Henry et al and the Hazzard team have to confer about. The plaintiffs. MonicaMSmit ; October 15, 2021 .