What the Judge found in the Police/Defence vaccine mandate case

The full judgment is here. Some key aspects are:

• The Cabinet paper in October 2021 said that “there was public health advice that additional vaccine or testing mandates were not required” in relation to addressing the risk of the outbreak of spread of COVID-19.
• The enabling legislation passed in November said vaccine mandates would be in the public interest, if they ensured continuity of services essential for public safety
• The judge found the evidence by Michael Wood was a mismatch with the stated purpose of the order – in other words he said they did it for a reason different to what the order said
• The Order limits the right of affected workers to refuse to undergo a medical treatment
• An obligation to receive a vaccine which a person objects to because it has been tested on cells derived from a human foetus, potentially an aborted foetus, does involve a limitation on the manifestation of a religious belief
• The Court must exercise its constitutional responsibility to ensure that decisions are made lawfully. And the Crown has the burden to demonstrate that a limitation of a fundamental right is demonstrably justified
• Justification for the Order seems to be close to one based on administrative convenience, which is not a compelling justification for limiting rights.
• Was not satisfied that the Crown has put forward sufficient evidence to justify the measures, even giving it some benefit of the doubt.
• The apparently low numbers of personnel the Order actually addresses, the lack of any evidence that they are materially lower than would have been the case had the internal policies been allowed to operate, and the evidence suggesting that the Omicron variant in particular breaks through any vaccination barrier means that he is not satisfied that there is a real threat to the continuity of these essential services that the Order materially addresses