PDF Case Note: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 - Integroe His Honour confirmed that there was no duty to afford procedural fairness, and that any production of vaccination information to an employer does not vitiate consent. The Court has provided a detailed headnote which is reproduced below. Thats the bedrock problem. 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 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 . Proposed Law Would Make Employers Liable for Injuries Arising from Vaccine Mandates. For more information, please see our The hearing in the matters of Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard has now concluded. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. Your businesses, like every business, exists deeply intersecting with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) concerns. 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 orders requirements effectively make employers a private sector vaccination police force, conscripted by Ministerial order, the plaintiffs said. 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). Kassam represents the first major legal decision in Australia in relation to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for workers. Yes. The overarching story is well known. 5 Comments. The overbearing law enforcement approach to the COVID pandemic, w [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim Natasha Henry v Brad Hazzard: Cabinet documents won't be revealed in And the Fair Work Commission has made a judgment on Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd. Kassam represents the first major legal decision in Australia in relation to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for workers. It looks like your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. (a) failed to have regard to various relevant considerations; Its a matter of process, a matter of scrutiny and accountability. The Kassam plaintiffs also questioned whether the police powers created by Order No 2 were inconsistent with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), as well as whether the order is rendered invalid by section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution. The NSW Supreme Court is set to make a decision regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for essential workers. The findings were handed down by Justice Beech-Jones in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam). Privacy Policy. 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 . And thats problematic because it really emphases what extraordinary powers our politicians have. YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. 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. View, Charged with drink driving or another traffic offence, get outstanding representation in any NSW court for a fixed fee Nair Agroforestry decade of development Edited by Howard A. Steppler and P.K. 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. No. 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. 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. Recap of recent mandatory vaccination cases - Allens Visit, Charged with drug possession or supply? Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (on Caselaw) saw the Court dismiss two proceedings which in substance sought orders that certain Covid 19 public health orders were invalid.Justice Beech-Jones, the Chief Judge at Common Law, stated at [9] - [11]: 9 Although it was contended that the impugned orders interfere with a person's right to bodily integrity and a host of other . Natasha Henry v Brad Hazzard: Cabinet documents won't be revealed in In terms of the reasonableness of orders, especially those having a greater impact upon the unvaccinated, his Honour set out that if the laws differentiated on an arbitrary measures, like race or class, there would be an issue. The highly contagious Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus entered NSW in mid-June. The specific public health directions have not yet been issued by the Victorian Government, however, the relevant press release is available here. Get updates on Rebel News coverage in Australia delivered straight to your inbox so you never miss a story! 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. I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. 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. Scan this QR code to download the app now. 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. But a relevant point relating to the so called mandatory jab the judge made in Kasam V Hazzard was that Hazzard didn't inject anyone but he encouraged people by making them believe it was . 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. 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. PEOPLE were hoping and praying for an outcome in the Kassam and Henry v Hazzard cases that reflected Australia's . When a gossip columnist for a prominent Australian mastheadwas [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim And an obligation of procedural fairness to certain individuals had not been breached, as when decisions are made that affect such large numbers of people no such obligation needs to be met. Discrimination against vaccination status now LEGAL. - the government is in full social-destruction mode; this is the attitude that gets us 'Alice Springs' today. 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. Bradley Ronald Hazzard & Ors. Deline & Kahlor, 2019 Planned Risk Information Avoidance | PDF - Scribd It might have been a more successful argument if there were other restrictions that applied. 1Simon Harding & Ors v Brett Sutton & Ors (S ECI 2021 03931) and Belinda Cetnar and Jack Cetnar v State of Victoria & Ors (S ECI 2021 03569). 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. 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. Is the hybrid work model the best of both worlds? 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 . Then, one would hope that the trail would have to cease. 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. 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 that invalidates public health orders which mandate vaccines for certain industries, such as healthcare, aged care and construction.. Last Friday, the court delivered its judgement, and . The findings were handed down by Justice Beech-Jones in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (Kassam). PO Box 61056, Eglinton/Dufferin RO, Toronto, ON M6E 5B2, Canada. The broad finding was that rather than impinging upon a right to bodily . In NSW the Supreme Court decision of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard . On that basis, Justice Adamson dismissed Mr Larter's application. The plaintiffs in Kassam submitted that the order is legally unreasonable, indicating in their suit that the extreme threat of prohibiting an individual from undertaking work, unless they become vaccinated, has the effect of requiring an individual in circumstances where they may not have otherwise given their consent to be vaccinated to receive a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd [2021] FWCFB 6015. ia-petabox.archive.org The court disagreed with every argument presented by the plaintiffs, rejecting all challenges on all grounds. 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. 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. 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) . 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. 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. terms invalidating consent and effectively compelling individuals to submit to vaccination under coercive, directions. 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. 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". In Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320, the Court ruled in favour of the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research, upholding various public health orders that require vaccination against COVID-19 in declared industries. 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. Mr Larter contended that the public health orders are not reasonable, meaning that it was not legally permissible for Brad Hazzard, the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research (Minister) to make the orders, having regard to the risk to public health posed by the COVID-19 virus. So, they cant be conscripted, essentially. The intense public interest led Supreme Court Justice Robert Beech-Jones to take the extraordinary step of warning the public not to contact him with the court reporting that over 1800 emails had been received from concerned members of the public. Subscription Information Kassam Henry v Hazzard Ruling. Keep it simple. 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. Australian Police & Local Govt Workers Legally Challenging Vax Mandates But we dont. 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. 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. These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. This case is important to every state, please tune in at 4pm to watch LIVE. Its hard to imagine a broader power than that. B. Deline & L. A. Kahlor Planned Risk Information Avoidance: A Proposed Theoretical Model. Coercive Vaccination! Explaining the Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India But, in terms of vaccines, this was in line with the aims of the PHA. The hearing in the - Supreme Court of New South Wales - Facebook The Kassam plaintiffs asserted that vaccine mandates were a form of civil conscription, in that they force citizens to get the jab. To start to fill in this gap, key persons from seven European countries-Georgia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, and Turkey-accepted the invitation to give their expert opinion on the state of affairs in their country at an invited panel discussion at the XIV 2015 ESTSS . (a) create a form of civil conscription; and It would provide a legal ruler to run over all responses. Exclusive Interview with Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors explains today's judgment in Kassam & Henry v Hazzard. appropriate and adapted) to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences by making the orders. Steppler and P.K.R. 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. Subscribe to access subscriber only items and receive notification of new items. Brad Hazzard MP, Minister for Health and Medical Research (2021/00259688). One set of proceedings was . But these hopes were dashed on Friday, 15 October . 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.. The plaintiffs also sought to rely upon the dissenting judgment in Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care [2021] FWCFB. YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. If Australia had a bill of rights, for example, which guaranteed bodily autonomy or freedom of movement. Beech-Jones J's judgement is a very strong judicial endorsement that compliance with Public Health Orders is non . ia-petabox.archive.org KASSAM v HAZZARD. Chainsaw and Harpsicord Duet for KASSAM v - YouTube October 15, 2021. The Judge rejected the constitutional argument regarding civil conscription and an asserted inconsistency with the immunisation register act, finding no constitutional basis for these submissions. The plaintiffs in the Kassam proceedings . Why do the plaintiffs keep adding that they weren't consulted about the public health order? Kassam v Hazzard: NSW Supreme Court - PH Solicitor In his judgement, Justice Beech remarked that while the plaintiffs sought to deploy the principle of legality which is a rule of statutory construction to the effect that, in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is presumed that statutes are not intended to modify or abrogate fundamental rights. The Court's role is to adjudicate on the legality of the administrative action and not the merits of the decision. 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. Hi All, I'm pleased to announce our next live stream on the 8th of October at 6pm (AEST) with Greg Dunstan, Mona Vale lawyer, discussing the court cases in t. 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. . Corruption - Professor Kristine Macartney NSW Expert Witness received It is also not the courts function to conclusively determine the effectiveness of some of the alleged treatments for those infected, or the effectiveness of Covid19 vaccines especially their capacity to inhibit the spread of the disease. The case sought to overturn and invalidate Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Delta Order) issued by NSW Chief Health Officer Brad Hazzard. 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. We dont have a general freedom of speech. 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. 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. However, the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary. BREAKING: from the court filings in the #NSW Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination. 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. Archived post. 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. MonicaMSmit ; October 15, 2021 . 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 damage is unspeakably painful and maddening to anyone involved, including, grandparents and the children. Do they (and their lawyers) genuinely think that every individual should be consulted on a public health order? 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. As such, the assistance to be gained from the presumption will vary with the context in which it is applied. Ramachandran Nair ICRAF International Council for Research in Agroforestry Nairobi Published in 1987 by the International Council for Research in Agroforestry ICRAF House, off Limuru Road, Gigiri P.O. Can I Be Refused Entry to a Premises if I am Unvaccinated? Australia: A Police Officer and Two Others Are Challenging the No one told me I can do BIG bits with the unicorn in CA on MM!!!! Subscriptions Now Open. Credit: Dominic Lorrimer The lawsuits were brought by multiple plaintiffs, including . You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. The NSW Courts site is proudly brought to you by Sydney Criminal Lawyers and is in no way affiliated with the states courts, judicial system or judiciary. In Kassam v Hazzard and Henry v Hazzard. 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. He also dismissed claims Health Minister Brad Hazzard acted outside his powers, by not asking . 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. The NSW parliament didnt meet for three months. NSW Courts is a website for those who are looking for general information about courts and the court process. 12th European Conference on Traumatic Stress - Academia.edu The Offence of Failing to Comply With a Public Health Order. 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. So, thats my concern. In July, Ashley, Francina, Leonard and Associates director Tony Nikolic had spoken out against the public health orders. Th. His Honour outlined that the imposition of Order No 2 was genuine. In the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is presumed that statutes are not intended to modify or aggregate fundamental rights. Please enter your email address below and click on Sign Up for daily newsletters from Australasian Lawyer. It was further argued that Brad Hazzard had exceeded the scope of his powers granted under the. Facts Between 20 August and 23 November 2021, the Hon Bradley Hazzard MLA, Minister First hearing in mandatory COVID-19 vaccination legal - Lawyerly Those working in areas and industries issued with mandatory vaccination orders will now have to comply with vaccine directions or lose their employment. . 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.. By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim 4 Communication Theory 00 (2019) 1-23. fM. Vaccine mandate upheld in NSW | enableHR Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution prohibits parliament from passing laws in terms of a civil conscription around medical and dental services. The full decision is available here: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard - NSW . 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. So how does one Prove beyond a doubt, that it is a trial? 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. Supreme Court of New South Wales, Beech- Jones CJ, 15 October 2021 . NSW Supreme Court will hand down its Judgment in the case of Kassam 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.
