Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Google search engine
HomeHealthThe South Australian Judicial Review into Vaccine Mandates is Dead - Long Live the New...

The South Australian Judicial Review into Vaccine Mandates is Dead – Long Live the New Challenge to the Public Health Act 2011

WE NEED FUNDS TO FIGHT MAINSTREAM MEDIA MISINFORMATION

We are 100% independently owned, free from corporate ownership and control. Help support a free press by donating to us.

What should have been over before the South Australian Election on the 19 March, 2022 has stopped and started it way in May and has now found a potential inadequate conclusion at the hands of the evaporation of the declaration of the State of Emergency, that has lasted 793 long and some say unnecessary days.

Our previous article on the progress of the judicial review will bring youup to speed if needed.

This change means SARS-CoV-2 and its associated disease COVID-19 are to be managed by newly passed Public Health Act legislation. Thenew legislation allows a South Australian COVID cabinet sub-committee to impose COVID-19 restrictions and directions that are then officially imposed by the South Australian governor.

The amendment to the Public Health Act 2011 was passed on 24 May 2022 despite graves concerns from the Law Society of South Australia who outlined the lack of safeguards that would normally protect individual freedoms, with no accountability mechanisms to ensure that the advice given to enforce public health directions is independent and publicly available.

For many long drawn out weeks, Justice Hughes, who had been hearing the current judicial review, had been angling at a ‘what if’ scenario should the mandates or Emergency declaration end. 

This is now a reality with the Crown requesting the judicial review be dropped.

The good news for the current judicial review applicants is they believe they have grounds and legal avenues to now pursue the amended Public health Act directly, in part, due to the act having ‘picked up’ the 7tEmergency Management Directive for Health Care Workers that was originally under challenge during the judicial review.

The advantages of continuing this challenge via the Appellate Court is that much of the ground work and expert evidence could be reused saving time and money but it does come with a potential costly snag. The old review had a payout cap on damages of $50000, the problem with any new case is that agreement no longer stands and places each of the 2 remaining applicants at personal financial risk. There has been much chatter on the social webs asking for financial support to see this new challenge get off its feet with protection of the applicants.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -
Google search engine

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Ivan M. Paton on Approval Of Remdesivir
Beth on Free and Fair?
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Victorian Change to Mandates
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Health care in crisis
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Health care in crisis
Burnthehousedown on Postal vote outrage
Shanthini Balasuriyar on Queensland CHO – a law unto himself
Billie Hutton on Convoy to Canberra Two
Lynn a freedom warrior on Convoy to Canberra Two
Elizabeth on Ruble on the rise
Yvonne Ford on Pfizer drug recall
Gene Trevor Wyngaard on NZ Scrap vaccine mandates
Frances Mahy on Russia Sanctions The U.S.A
Peter Coxhead on My Story, So Far
Theodora Zajaz on Novak Out Of U.S. Open.
Leonie Young on Probuild Buy-Out
Shelley Madden on Pfizer, Stranger than Fiction
Debra Mullins on AVN vs Brendan Murphy
Malcolm on The End Game
Sabina on What’s Next?
Drew Duncan on Belarus Under Threat
Robyn on What’s Next?
Sofia Rutteman on Here We Go Again, Part 2
Robert Burns on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Kim Henry on Pfizer Whistleblower
Lee Y on Give Me Five
Linda Nemeth on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Warwick Hibble on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Lesley on The Data Is Ours
Patricia Poppeliers on Here We Go Again, Part 2
Dani Stevens on Trouble in Paradise
Colin Stevens on VICTORY FOR THE PEOPLE
Leanne Robyn on VICTORY FOR THE PEOPLE
Dianedraytonbuckland on Facebook: Judge, Jury and Executioner
Michael Chere on Before You Inject Your Child
Kerry Taylor on Which one of us is blind?
Kathy Hirsch on First Nations Locked Down
Gloria Feather on Undermining The Indigenous.
Marie Millikin on Let us talk about intuition.
Lucienne Helm on Let us talk about intuition.
Susan Wilson on The real revolution
Jennifer Leonard on 2020 a year to forget
F J on Strange Times
Tracey Parsons on IBAC DAY 9
stacie rose on Which one of us is blind?
Uncertainty on My Story, So Far
Tracey on A Veteran’s Plea
Zaidee Lens Van Rijn on My Story, So Far
Alissandra Moon on The Rise of Medical Apartheid
Peggy Gothe on Mum, I don’t feel well
Keith Cashman on Mum, I don’t feel well
Melinda c Taylor on Mum, I don’t feel well
Vaughan Oke on Which one of us is blind?
Jane Ramsay on Choice vs Ultimatum
Brian K Wilson on Which one of us is blind?
Scott Dawson on Which one of us is blind?
Sandra Dee on ST KILDA STREET PICNIC