An Australian paramedic who launched a legal challenge to be exempted from receiving COVID-19 vaccines has had his case dismissed by a Supreme Court justice.
The deputy mayor also argued that the court should invalidate the NSW law for various other reasons, including that it was “unreasonable” for unvaccinated workers to be terminated for a temporary pandemic.
Larter launched an online fundraiser to cover his legal costs, which had raised over AU$243,000 ($180,000) as of Nov. 10.
But Justice Christine Adamson on Nov. 10 dismissed the case by Larter, saying the public health order in its original form was “reasonable” and that it was established to remove the increased risk of transmission posed by unvaccinated health workers across NSW.
“It would be of no comfort to the vulnerable patient who is infected by the unvaccinated health care worker to be told that he or she was unlucky by being in the wrong ward at the wrong time, because most health care workers had been vaccinated,” she said, according to The Canberra Times.
Adamson concluded that the “reasons and thought processes” given in evidence by NSW Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant “provided a comprehensive explanation of the rationale of the orders.”
New South Wales has seen multiple lawsuits challenging the state government’s response to COVID-19, including vaccine mandates and health restrictions.
During the height of the recent Delta variant outbreak in Sydney, the NSW government mandated those living within a “hotspot” needed to receive one dose of the vaccine before they could leave their local government area (LGA) to work. These restrictions have since been removed.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones of the NSW Supreme Court said it had considered the arguments bought forward by the plaintiffs including whether the public health orders impugned on the right to freedom of movement, the right to bodily integrity, and whether they were arbitrary or “unreasonable” because they were discriminating on the basis of vaccine status.
The judge ultimately said that the state health minister had the power to abrogate rights, saying public health orders were doing the “very thing which the legislation sets out to achieve.”
“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,” Beech-Jones added. “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.”
The judge also noted that the public health orders were not construed as “unreasonable,” stating that this would only be the case if individuals were differentiated on the “basis of race, gender, or the mere holding of a political opinion.”