kassam v hazzard judgement
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. 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. 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. Why do the plaintiffs keep adding that they weren't consulted about the public health order? Then, one would hope that the trail would have to cease. Al-Munir Kassam & Ors. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 at [70]. I'm reading through the whole thing, because These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker, and not the court. (c) was obliged to but failed to afford them natural justice; and 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. 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. Vaccine mandate upheld in NSW | enableHR View, Charged with drink driving or another traffic offence, get outstanding representation in any NSW court for a fixed fee Vaccine Mandates: Recent Case Law | Moray & Agnew There is a lack of knowledge about the state of affairs of the trauma treatments in Europe. Even if we had a compulsion for people to receive vaccinations, that is still not civil conscription of doctors. Its hard to see the solutions because we dont have the legal tools to protect and enforce peoples rights, as the Kassam decision shows. The overbearing law enforcement approach to the COVID pandemic, w [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim And secondly, there is no compulsion upon doctors to provide vaccinations. NSW Supreme Court will hand down its Judgment in the case of Kassam; Henry v Hazzard TODAY 15 October 4:00pm Case raises very serious legal issues surrounding mandates for essential workers & we'll soon see where the NSW Courts stand https:// youtu.be/wqq2AEAz91o Despite this, both sets of . 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. Applying for a grant of letters of administration, 4. Corruption - Professor Kristine Macartney NSW Expert Witness received 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. 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.
kassam v hazzard judgement