PoliceMandateCase:HighCourt

Police Mandate Case: High Court

Re: the Legality of mandating vaccines to the “Frontline Employees” (NZDF & police) of New Zealand

Facts of the Case

Dates: Jan 6, 2022 (filed)
Location: New Zealand
Court: High Court
Case #: CIV-2022-485-000001/ [2022] NZHC 291
Plaintiff: Yardley, Wallace & a Defence Force Worker
Plaintiff’s Lawyer: M I Hague & A P Miller
Expert Testimony: Dr Petrovsky

Defendant: Minister for Workplace Relations & Safety, Commissioner of Police, Chief Of Defence Force, & the Attorney General
Trial Type: High Court
Justice: Francis Cooke
Status: Decided (Feb 25, 2022)
Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated March 10, 2022

Background

The challenge, put forward by a three Defence force and police employees, questioned the legality of making an order under the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act to require vaccination for frontline employees. [1]

and who face termination if they are not vaccinated by 1 March 2022. [2]

The challenge was supported by a group of 37 employees affected by the mandate, who submitted written affidavits to the court. [1]

Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety Michael Wood, Deputy Police Commissioner Tania Kura and NZDF Chief People Officer Brigadier Matthew Weston filed affidavits defending the mandate. [1]

As it stands, 164 of the overall police workforce of nearly 15,700 were affected by the mandate after choosing not to be vaccinated. For NZDF, the mandate affected 115 of its 15,500 staff. [1]

The Police and Defence Force mandate was introduced by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety by the COVID–19 Public Health Response (Specified Work Vaccinations) Order 2021 in December 2021. It required all Defence Force personnel and all Police constables, recruits and authorised officers to receive two doses of the vaccine by 1 March 2022. It was additional to existing vaccination policies Police and Defence had already introduced internally. [3]

The 25-year police veteran Detective Senior Sergeant Ryan Yardley says the family’s decision to not get the Covid vaccine exposed them all to unfair treatment, unable to work, to go to restaurants and cafes, or to associate with friends. [4]

“And then I watched the mandates rolling for the teachers, and then the hospital staff, and I could see the harm and hurt that it was doing across society. Just from talking to friends and other people and hearing everyone’s stories. And that does not align with my values. And then the fact that people started getting separated and discriminated in society in relation to where they can and can’t go.” [4]
He and his family were not just opposed to the vaccine mandate – they were also personally against being vaccinated. “Everyone has to weigh that up for themselves personally and try and figure out the benefit versus risk scenario,” he said. [4]
“Because obviously, there are some known side effects that are coming out, myocarditis and other ones and I think it’s affecting more of the younger guys. I’m just slightly above that that age bracket, but it’s enough to make me concerned.”[4]

Significance

The landmark case means that the police and NZDF cannot be fired for refusing to take the experimental covid vaccine. This case may be used to overthrow all of PM Ardern’s mandates in New Zealand. [1]

Plaintiff’s Argument

The applicants challenge the Order on four main grounds: [2]

(a) that the Order was not properly made for the purposes of the Act and it is inconsistent with those purposes; and

(b) that the Order is inconsistent with other legislative provisions in the Defence Act 1990, the Policing Act 2008 and other legislation, and accordingly unlawfully purports to suspend the operation of other legislation; and

(c) that the Order fails to meet the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi for being inconsistent with Treaty principles, including because of disproportionate impact on Māori; and

(d) that the Order is unlawful as it involves an unjustified limit on rights protected by the NewZealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment (s 11), the right to manifest religion (s 15), the right to be free from discrimination (s 19) and other rights recognised by s 28 of the Bill of Rights (including the right to work, and of minority groups to enjoy their culture and practice of religion).

The group relied on two aspects of the Bill of Rights – the right to decline a medical procedure and the right to religious freedom. [1]

On the religious freedom argument, a number of those who made submissions referred to their fundamental objection to taking the Pfizer vaccine, given that it was tested on the cells that were derived from a human foetus. [1]

expert testimony

expert evidence from Dr Nikolai Petrovsky. DrPetrovsky is presently the Director of the Diabetes and Endocrinology Department of Flinders Medical Centre, Academic Professor at Flinders University, and Director of Vaxine Pty Ltd, a biotechnology company specialising in vaccine development and formulation. In this latter role he has developed a vaccine for COVID–19 which is presently in use in Iran. Finally the applicants rely on expert evidence from Raharuhi Koia, a Minister within the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa NewZealand. [2]

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

Three judicial review proceedings have been heard in the High Court challenging such orders. [2]

1. In September 2021 in GF v Minister of COVID–19 Response and Others Churchman J dismissed a challenge to an order bought by a former employee of the New Zealand Customs Service who had had her employment terminated. Two arguments were addressed — that the order was ultra vires the Act, and that it was irrational. [2]

2. In October in Four Aviation Security Service Employees v Minister of COVID–19 Response I then heard and dismissed a challenge to the order relating to Customs Service employees of broader scope, which included an argument that the order breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by being an unjustified limit on the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment as affirmed by s 11.3 I concluded that the order was a justified limit on that right. In doing so I noted: [2]

There is a last point of significance. This case concerns the measure that was introduced when New Zealand had eradicated the virus after the first outbreak, and was seeking to prevent a further outbreak (or delay a further outbreak until a greater proportion of the population is vaccinated, means of treating and managing the virus are better known, and the health system is better organised to address such an outbreak). Since that time it is a matter of judicial notice that an outbreak has occurred in Auckland, and that COVID–19 is spreading. It does not appear that this outbreak can be eliminated, reflecting the greater transmissibility of the Delta variant. Whether the challenged measure would remain demonstrably justified on the basis that it contributes to addressing the spread of the virus in circumstances when the virus is endemic in at least parts of New Zealand is an open question. This question is not before me. I note that under s 14(5) of the Act the Minister and Director–General are obliged to keep their COVID–19 orders under review. [2]

3. Finally in November in Four Midwives v Minister for COVID–19 Response Palmer J heard and dismissed a claim advanced by certain midwives affected by a vaccine mandate, together with the first part of a challenge to the mandate brought by certain teachers and doctors. Palmer J rejected the argument that the orders were not within the empowering provision of the Act notwithstanding it did not explicitly refer to vaccination. Palmer J endorsed the observation made in Four Aviation Security Services Employees that it was surprising that the legislation had not specifically addressed vaccination and the issues it raised. The second claim in the proceedings brought by teachers and doctors that the relevant order is not a justified limit on the right under s 5 of the Bill of Rights is to be heard shortly. That question was not addressed by Palmer J. [2]

Decision

The Order made in the present case is nevertheless unlawful and is set aside. [2]

Justice Francis Cooke ruled that ordering frontline police officers and Defence staff to be vaccinated or face losing their job was not a “reasonably justified” breach of the Bill of Rights. [1]

Justice Cooke agreed with the claim, saying that “an obligation to receive the 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.” [1]

However, Justice Cooke disagreed with the claimants’ broader claims that requiring vaccination is inconsistent with holding religious beliefs more generally. [1]

“I do not accept that a belief in an individual’s bodily integrity and personal autonomy is a religious belief or practice. Rather it seems to me, in the circumstances of this case, to be a belief in the secular concept referred to in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” [1]

Justice Cooke also agreed with the claim that the mandate impinged on the right to decline a medical procedure. [1]

The judge said that while it’s clear the government isn’t forcing Police and NZDF employees to get vaccinated against their will and they still have the right to refuse vaccination, the mandate presents an element of pressure. [1]

“The associated pressure to surrender employment involves a limit on the right to retain that employment, which the above principles suggest can be thought of as an important right or interest recognised not only in domestic law, but in the international instruments,” Justice Cooke stated. [1]

But in considering the two claims, Justice Cooke also considered whether or not the mandate fell within the definitions laid out in the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act. [1]

The court accepted that vaccination has a significant beneficial effect in limiting serious illness, hospitalisation, and death, including with the Omicron variant. However, it was less effective in reducing infection and transmission of Omicron than had been the case with other variants of Covid-19. [1]

“In essence, the order mandating vaccinations for police and NZDF staff was imposed to ensure the continuity of the public services, and to promote public confidence in those services, rather than to stop the spread of Covid-19. Indeed health advice provided to the government was that further mandates were not required to restrict the spread of Covid-19. I am not satisfied that continuity of these services is materially advanced by the order,” the Judge said. [1]
“Covid-19 clearly involves a threat to the continuity of police and NZDF services. That is because the Omicron variant in particular is so transmissible. But that threat exists for both vaccinated and unvaccinated staff. I am not satisfied that the order makes a material difference, including because of the expert evidence before the court on the effects of vaccination on Covid-19 including the Delta and Omicron variants.” [1]

An additional claim that the mandate would disproportionately affect Māori was dismissed by Justice Cooke. [1]

Aftermath

Nzherald.co.nz reports: The lawyer for the police and Defence staff at the centre of the claim is now calling for the suspended workers to return to their jobs immediately, saying many have given decades of service to their community and are still committed to their jobs. [1]

Response from the Plaintiffs

After overturning Police and Defence vaccine mandates in court, lawyer Matthew Hague, for 200-plus uniformed personnel has written to the Prime Minister today giving her till Friday to remove ‘discriminatory’ vaccine certificates too. [4]

“The Covid vaccination certificates requirement does not prevent or limit the risk of the outbreak or spread of Covid-19,” he wrote. “United We Stand ask that you immediately revoke the order or amend it to remove the Covid vaccination certificates requirement.”
“If the Covid vaccination certificates requirement is not removed by 4 March 2022, United We Stand has instructed us to apply for judicial review of the order.” [4]

He has also written to Police Commissioner Andrew Coster and Chief of Defence Air Marshal Kevin Short, saying it was not enough to just pause the termination processes. Those who have taken leave without pay should now be allowed to return to work, and those who resigned under threat of dismissal should be allowed to get their old jobs back. [4]

“Now that the High Court has determined that the order is unlawful and should be set aside, there is no basis for the ultimatum given to these workers. They must immediately be given the option of being reinstated with backpay.” [4]

Hague and Yardley confirmed there were ongoing discussions about the next steps – which may include the steeper legal challenge of suing the Government for damages. But first, they want an apology for the “enormous amount of harm” done to the officers and their families. [4]

The court heard evidence of 164 police, and 115 defence staff, who were still refusing to be vaccinated at the start of this month. It’s thought the full number of affected personnel (uniformed and civilian) is higher than that, because some simply resigned rather than face dismissal. [4]

Ryan Yardley told Newsroom that for him, a core principle of Christianity was accepting everyone – not discriminating against particular groups like those who refused to be vaccinated. Yardley said the mandates went against everything he believed in – his personal faith, and 25 years as a police officer adhering to the Bill of Rights. [4]

“To have something so fundamental stripped away from you, as that right to refuse any kind of medical treatment, just didn’t sit well. [4]

Response from the Defendant

It’s not immediately clear how many Police and Defence personnel, uniformed or civilian, may seek their jobs back. The police said they had retracted 42 termination letters – but acknowledged there were at least 100 more who had taken leave without pay, and more still who had resigned. [4]

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood said the High Court judgment was clear that it was not questioning the efficacy of vaccines nor the role of mandates per se, but just whether they were justified specifically for Police and Defence business continuity. [4]

“As the decision has only just been released, we will take time to consider it and seek advice on next steps,” he said. “The requests for vaccination mandates originally came from Police and Defence, so before making any decision we will go back to them to assess the implications for their operations. [4]
“No Defence and Police terminations will proceed at this time. Affected staff in Police and Defence are being advised.” [4]