015 - QLD Supreme Court finds vaccine mandates Unlawful
Peter's analysis of the decision and its significance
I have been inundated with questions about the QLD Supreme Court decision.
Watch my detailed analysis of the significance and likely impact of the decision here:
In my opinion, the best two aspects of the decision are that:
the Court acknowledged that the Commissioner of Police and the Minister did not appropriately consider human rights when implementing their vaccine directions, which will force future employers and Government officials to properly consider human rights implications in future, at least in Queensland where there is a human rights act which obligates them to do so. Victoria and ACT have similar legislation, whereas other States/Territories don’t; and
the Court acknowledged that the right to full, free and informed consent is a fundamental right which was limited by the direction, and in general treated that fundamental right with more respect than it was treated in Kassam in the NSW Supreme Court, which is helpful.
The worst thing about the decision is that the Court suggested that if the Commissioner of police (for example) had actually considered the human rights related advice she received, the Court would have decided that the direction was reasonable in that restrictions on the ability of employees to give informed consent was reasonable in the circumstances. This represents another implicit endorsement by a Court of the ability of an employer to force employees to undergo medical procedures absent informed consent, which is in my opinion should not be justifiable in any circumstances, ever.
A huge congratulations is owed to the plaintiffs as well as Alexander Law and Sibley Lawyers who ran the case. Special shout out to Counsel for the Applicants who exposed the (former) Qld Police Commissioner on several occasions as either lying or negligent, or both. An amazing job by all.
Need legal advice or assistance on a human rights issue? visit https://www.maatsmethod.com.au/
Thanks for the video, will watch with interest.
In the meantime, sharing my recent article for consideration, about my email to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus: Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
Fundamentally, the medical profession should have challenged the mandates, as they violate voluntary informed consent.
Thanks for your explanation Peter. It's amazing that a country with as small a population as Australia can have different laws in different states. Australia's population is less than many states in the US and same as some cities in China! And in particular that there is no harmonisation of human rights laws is dumbfounding.