Background

Nurse and AFLW Adelaide Crows player Deni Varnhagen is among a group of four education and health workers seeking a judicial review of the mandates, which they claim are invalid. In addition, The Supreme Court heard two police officers who also want to be added to the case, challenging the mandatory vaccination policy for SA Police. [1]

Two healthcare workers and two education workers all claim to have lost their jobs due to vaccine mandates introduced under SA’s Emergency Management Act. [3] Dual Adelaide AFLW premiership defender Deni Varnhagen will not be allowed to play in the competition this season after refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. [4]

The applicants are seeking an expedited hearing and have asked for a three-day trial during the week beginning March 14, which falls five days before the state election. [1]

Nurse Deni Varnhagen, the primary Plaintiff said: [2]

“We are all just here for freedom of choice basically, we all deserve the right to decide what we put into our bodies,” Ms Varnhagen said. 

“Coercion is not consent. We shouldn’t be losing our jobs or even be forced. 

“I wish I was at work caring for people, doing the things that I’m good at.” 

The mandatory vaccination direction came into effect yesterday (Nov 1, 2021), but hundreds of staff across the health system have not met the deadline. On Tuesday (Nov 2, 2021), Women’s and Children’s Hospital CEO Lindsay Gough confirmed that at her hospital alone 133 people had not been vaccinated. [1]

Lawyers for the state government said although they agreed the matter needed to be heard urgently, they may apply for an application to vacate that trial date depending on preparations and the ability to get its own expert witness. [1]

A lawyer for the applicants also foreshadowed an application to have an auxiliary judge — either retired or from interstate — hear the trial due to any perceived bias arising out of the Courts Administration Authority imposing its own vaccination mandate. [1]

The court heard the applicants would call Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky to give evidence about “technical matters relating to the vaccine”. [1]

The group’s lawyer, Loretta Polson, said outside court that “compelling, scientific, medical evidence” would be presented “to demonstrate that vaccination does not prevent COVID-19 transmission”. [1]

She also questioned the power of SA Police Commissioner Grant Stevens — the state coordinator during the coronavirus pandemic — to impose mandates. [1]

“We are amending the application to challenge a further mandate directed to police officers,” Ms Polson said. [1]

“Police officers are now being advised that they need to be vaccinated at the risk of losing their livelihood and careers. [1]

How many more insidious mandates are to be imposed upon the workers of South Australia by a public servant?” [1]

At a directions hearing on Thursday (Feb 17 2022), the court set down four days to hear the case starting on March 17. [5]

Significance

This case challenges the right of a government or employer to force unwanted substances into its citizens/employees

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

…More information is needed…

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

Decision

…More information is needed…

Aftermath

…More information is needed…

Further Research

Court Documents:

• Read the Court Ruling

In the news:

• …More information is needed…

Media