The title of this post is misleading and not communicating what happened at all.
The judge ruled in this hearing that in his opinion, "“So far as the right to bodily integrity is concerned, it is not violated as the impugned orders do not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone"
Which is true. They aren't forcing it. That's the loophole. The case was improperly prepared.
Furthermore, he opined ;
“So far as the impairment of freedom of movement is concerned, the degree of impairment differs depending on whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated.
“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.”
Which is true. Again, the loophole.
This is the problem with cases like this. They argue in "good faith" with bad faith actors. You don't argue in good faith. It was hastily put together, tbh. Design to fail.
You never petition a court to give a judgement based on emotion, you should always petition it based on the letter of the law. These people and their legal team did not do this for whatever reason.
It's not "Mandatory Vax". You're going to have idiot Americans gleeful that their "Australia is the WORST" narrative is getting bias confirmed.
The vaccination mandate for certain fields stood. In this case. They can also appeal. The outcome of this case hinged directly upon the notion that they aren't forcing anyone.
Some effort posting context would be helpful in this case.
The title of this post is misleading and not communicating what happened at all.
The judge ruled in this hearing that in his opinion, "“So far as the right to bodily integrity is concerned, it is not violated as the impugned orders do not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone"
Which is true. They aren't forcing it. That's the loophole. The case was improperly prepared.
Furthermore, he opined ; “So far as the impairment of freedom of movement is concerned, the degree of impairment differs depending on whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated.
“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.”
Which is true. Again, the loophole.
This is the problem with cases like this. They argue in "good faith" with bad faith actors. You don't argue in good faith. It was hastily put together, tbh. Design to fail.
You never petition a court to give a judgement based on emotion, you should always petition it based on the letter of the law. These people and their legal team did not do this for whatever reason.
It's not "Mandatory Vax". You're going to have idiot Americans gleeful that their "Australia is the WORST" narrative is getting bias confirmed.
The vaccination mandate for certain fields stood. In this case. They can also appeal. The outcome of this case hinged directly upon the notion that they aren't forcing anyone.
Some effort posting context would be helpful in this case.
My apologies. I didn’t even think of it that way when posting. Re- mandatory vax would have been more suitable. Note taken.