Vaccinated Blood Case

Vaccinated Blood Case

Vaccinated Blood Case

Re: the Legality of Medical Authorities forcing the use of Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Blood


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Nov 30 2022 & Dec 6 2022
  • Location: Auckland, New Zealand
  • Court: High court of Auckland
  • Case #: ?
  • Plaintiff: Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ- the government health service)
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: Sam & Cole Savage-Reeves (Parents)
  • Defendant’s Lawyer: Sue Grey
  • Trial Type: Guardianship of minor — baby Will
  • Justice: Ian Gault
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated Dec 7, 2022



Parents Sam and Cole Savage-Reeves want to ensure their baby, Will, who needs open heart surgery has unvaccinated blood during the operation. But shockingly, the surgeon and NZ Blood Service won’t allow them the human right of the freedom to choose or refuse what goes in their baby’s body.[1]

The New Zealand (“NZ”) Blood Service at present does not separate blood or blood products depending on vaccination status and many people, quite rightly, have concerns about potentially receiving blood from vaccinated donors.  The right to choose what goes into our bodies has come to a head in the case of four-month-old baby Will. [1]

The boy has a congenital heart defect which has become more severe since he was born. He needs surgery “in order to survive” and his heart will “continue to deteriorate” without it. [9]

He is likely to need plasma products, which are formed from pooling blood from various donors. Doctors said it was “simply impractical” to get this from directed donors. [9]

Doctors had also checked whether it was possible to perform the surgery using cardiac bypass, without blood or blood products, but decided “this was not an available option”. [9]

On Tuesday Dec 5 2022, the High Court in Auckland will decide whether to grant the health service, Te Whatu Ora, temporary guardianship of the baby so it can remove the child from the family and perform the surgery. [2]

Justice Gault Conflict of Interest

The Justice does seem to have ties to the Pfizer company . He is on the board of NZAS trust and was a former Bell Gully partner whose board brokered the Pfizer deal. and was especially picked by PM Ardern to be a judge [15]

In the case of the safety of the blood supply, US pathologist Ryan Cole has a message, [5]

“We don’t know.”

“The bottom line is that Baby Will’s parents are correct. They have made a responsible decision and their decision should be respected by the medical community.”

Request for Interim Order

The lawyers acting on behalf of the parents have asked for an interim order compelling the NZ Blood Service to provide a direct donor service. [4]

That would allow the compatible blood to be collected and processed from unvaccinated individuals. [4]

But Adam Ross KC, representing the Blood Service, said straying from clinical judgement could lead down a “slippery slope” that would ultimately “damage” the blood service. [4]

He said should that order be made, there would be nothing stopping people from saying they “don’t like those types of people’s blood or these types of people’s blood”. [4]

The baby’s parents earlier said they were “extremely concerned” that blood donated by people who have had the Covid-19 vaccine would adversely affect their child. [4]

Discussions between the parents and Te Whatu Ora had continued between hearings, with the parties unable to reach a compromise. [4]

The couple said they had “screened” the donors they had lined up, but doctors insisted on using blood from the NZ Blood Service. [4]

The operation could be completed within 48 hours of any order given, White said. [4]

While the matter is subject to automatic suppressions under the Care of Children Act 2004, both lawyers for Te Whatu Ora and the parents have given leave for the proceedings to be reported on. [4]

Justice Gault reserved his decision, but said he understood the “urgency” involved in the case. [4]

Dr. Guy Hatchard defended the parents in an article

For two years now, vaccine advocates have been asking for separation between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Expressing a deep, yet unfounded, fear of the unvaccinated. Even seeking to avoid breathing the same air. This has been encouraged by government publicity. Now they want the unvaccinated to exclusively and compulsorily receive vaccinated blood transfusions. [1]

At a time when the parents deserve understanding and support, all semblance of recognition of the provision of medical choice in the NZ Bill of Rights has been abandoned. Medical choice is off the table and it is open season for vicious attacks on the unvaccinated. [1]

Baby Will has a heart condition. It is admitted by our government that heart inflammation – myopericarditis – is a risk of vaccination. It is admitted that some studies indicate the persistence of spike protein in the blood. So why on earth would the government insist there is no risk? This is further evidence of a bunker mentality and a hint of madness. [1]

Virologist Dr Angelova writes on her Substack [7]

“Blood donations are important and save lives, but the mass use of COVID-19 vaccines all of which are in the early clinical research stage raises questions. 

Blood donations from people who participate in clinical research are unethical and illegal.

All COVID vaccines are still in the clinical research stage then are we used (again) as lab rats by the governments?” [7]

So the state will decide what is best for the child and may even take it away from his parents. The mother who carried him is accepted as incapable for taking care of him for no legitimate reason. Again, the hospitals and courts are simply services paid by the parents. [8]

Concerns listed by the NZDSOS [6] 

If there is no evidence that satisfactorily reassures potential recipients of the safety of the blood, then the precautionary principle should apply and blood from unvaccinated donors should be provided.  History is littered with examples of products and procedures that were initially thought to be safe that later turned out not to be. [6]

Questions and Concerns to NZ Blood: [6]

1. The Pfizer injection uses new technology and there are many unknowns with its use. The original clinical trial is ongoing until 2023 and the injection still only has provisional consent in NZ suggesting that Medsafe is not satisfied it has all the information it needs to grant full consent. This is the original consent. This is the renewal of consent.

2. The vaccine mRNA has been modified in several ways (use of pseudouridine in place of uridine, poly-A tail, is guanine-rich).  These modifications mean that the vaccine-induced spike protein is not the same (in amount, location, structure, duration of production or persistence) as the ‘naturally occurring’ spike protein from infection.  It is not clear how long the mRNA will persist or how long the vaccine-induced spike protein will persist, but both have been shown to remain in the body and blood far longer than the original blanket reassurances. It is possible that both these substances may be present in donated blood.

3. The Medsafe data sheet says “5.2 Pharmacokinetic properties Not applicable.” Does this mean that it is not clear or not important exactly what happens to the vaccine mRNA and lipid nanoparticles (or the resultant spike protein) once they are injected into the human body, with regards to biodistribution, metabolism and excretion?  It is not clear how NZ Blood can state: “Any COVID-19 vaccine in the blood is broken down soon after the injection.” ​​​​​​​  This is a flat-out lie if ‘soon’ is still defined as within 48 hours as originally suggested. 

4. The lipid nanoparticles are also a significant part of the vaccine and it has been demonstrated in animal studies that they are widely distributed in the body.  They can be highly inflammatory and, as their ingredients are still proprietary, it is not clear what short- and long-term effects they could induce. 

5. The spike protein has been shown to be toxic in its own right, with adverse effects on cells lining the blood vessels and cells in the heart muscle among others. A recipient of blood from a vaccinated donor could potentially be exposed to spike protein and it is absolutely possible that this may cause harm to these organs.  This study shows that the spike protein can persist in vaccinated individuals.

6. Spike protein can cause clotting both at a micro and macro level which could potentially be harmful.  Has it been proven that blood from vaccinated donors does not cause or contribute to abnormal clotting? What about the bizarre structures being found by funeral directors in the blood vessels of the suddenly dead following vaccination? 

7. Myocarditis is a recognised adverse effect of Pfizer Comirnaty vaccination, presumably due either to direct damage from the spike protein or possibly due to an autoimmune phenomenon.  Has it been demonstrated that there is ZERO risk of myocarditis from coming into contact with blood of vaccinated donors?  It is emerging that subclinical (i.e hidden) heart inflammation is thousands of times more common than is quoted by “experts”. Recent studies from Thailand and Switzerland (which suggest that every vaccinated person gets a degree of heart damage!) should force an immediate stop of the shots and examination of donated blood. Even CDC data shows a 140x increased risk of clinical myocarditis in teenage boys aged 12-15 in the week following their 2nd dose.  There has been another sudden death just last weekend of a 14-year-old Kings College boy, following myocarditis from the “vaccine”. Another 14-year-old Dunedin boy and a 13-year-old girl from Auckland, both active and sporty, have collapsed and died in the last several months. 

8. It is possible that mRNA is persistent in individuals for some weeks/months after vaccination which means that a person could be exposed to the components and/or products of the vaccine from the donated blood and any potential adverse effects they may cause.

9. What is the risk of autoimmunity?  Medsafe requested that Pfizer address this issue in condition 5 of the original provisional consent. Is it possible that blood from vaccinated donors contains odd or unusual proteins that may set up an autoimmune reaction in recipients?

10. There have been concerns raised about the manufacturing standards of the Pfizer product.  Has it actually been made to satisfactory standards?  This article and associated video detail a litany of problems with the manufacturing processes such that it appears impossible to say exactly what has been injected into people and what adverse effects may occur.  Receiving blood from someone who has been injected may be a lottery.  Many of these conscientious blood donors will be none the wiser as they were not informed of the many unknowns and uncertainties. 

According to the HDC Code of Rights New Zealanders should be respected when dealing with health professionals.  Their questions should be answered and their concerns taken seriously


Associate Prof. of Viral Immunology Dr. Byram Bridle: On Blood Transfusions from Vaccinated People

“there is so much science now that this is true (questions on the safety of donor blood) – stop letting people (vaccinated) donate blood” [14]


Justice Ian Gault released his decision on the baby’s case on Wednesday afternoon, after a hearing on Tuesday. [9]



Believed to be the first case worldwide to decide upon on right or not to receive unvaccinated blood if requested. But the case is more important even than that. It also calls into question the right & power of the state to make decisions for the parents and to remove the children from the parents if it deems it necessary


Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff, the New Zealand government health service, Te Whatu Ora, has denied the family’s request to use blood from unvaccinated volunteers and says that the vaccines pose no risk to donor supplies. [2]

The plaintiff, (the Medical Authority) is asking for the court to take over guardianship of the four-month-old baby to allow him to have the surgery that has been delayed because his parents do not want any blood used to be from a donor vaccinated against Covid-19. [3] [4]

A full hearing was held on Tuesday, Dec 5 2022 at the High Court at Auckland by Justice Ian Gault. [4] Te Whatu Ora’s lawyer Paul White opened its case, saying the baby had loving parents whose beliefs contrasted with the medical science. [3]

Speaking to the court, Paul White, the lawyer representing Te Whatu Ora, said the parents’ strong opposition to the transfusion was “curious” given that the child had already been given blood as part of earlier treatment, which the mother had consented to. [4]

It was clear the child had loving parents who had the best interests of their child at heart, White said, but they also held views that contrasted with medical science. [4]

He said the health authority had no other motives than the best interests of the child. [4]

The boy’s survival depended on the guardianship application being granted as it wasn’t known the damage that was being done to the child’s heart while treatment was delayed,he said. [4]


Defendant’s Argument

As lawyer Sue Grey said on her way into court yesterday:

“This family want the best for their baby … This family actually want better for the baby than what the government is offering … They want safe blood for their baby.  They don’t want their baby to be contaminated with something that could cause more harm than the poor baby is already facing.” [1]

You can watch a detailed brief from Grey after the court case yesterday HERE. [1]

But Sue Grey, acting for the family, said the long-term effects of the vaccine were “untested”. [4]

Although doctors had given an earlier transfusion, “it doesn’t mean we should play blood roulette”, she said. [4]

Grey said if it took a “couple of more days” to get “safe” then that was worth the risk. [4]

Delaying the surgery was “a case of balancing up a risk that we don’t fully know about and another risk we don’t fully know about”. [4]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

US Baby Alex died two weeks after he had a blood transfusion using vaccinated blood. This is how his Mother Cornelia describes her nightmare from the blood transfusion her baby was given : (see the video below)

We begged the hospital to let us get pure blood.
They refused and gave the blood to him without our consent.
He developed a blood clot instantly that stretched from his knee to his heart.
He made it two weeks before he died. “



Justice Ian Gault granted Health NZ’s application, meaning the surgery can go ahead, using blood from people vaccinated for Covid. [9]

Guardianship has been given to the court. Two medical specialists from the hospital have been made agents of the court, meaning they can make medical decisions for the boy until after his surgery. [9]

Justice Gault also denied a cross-application from the parents, seeking another order compelling the NZ Blood Service to provide a direct donor service. That would allow the compatible blood to be collected and processed from unvaccinated individuals. [9]

Justice Gault said it was in the baby’s best interests for him to have surgery “without further delay”. [9]

His order granting the doctors the power to make medical decisions for the baby come into force immediately and will last until after he has recovered from surgery. [9]



Plaintiff’s Reaction

Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ) has acknowledged the decision, saying: “This is a difficult situation for all involved. [9]

“The focus of our entire team at Starship is always on the health and wellbeing of all tamariki within our care, as well as their whānau. With this in mind, it is our priority to work alongside the baby’s whānau as we continue to care for him.” [9] writes

“Doctors can make the medical decisions for a baby at the centre of a case about blood from donors vaccinated for Covid-19, a court has ruled.” [9]

Virologist Dr Angelova writes

“Many people say about baby Will, but this is it. The government made a decision. I’d like to remind you that government is simply a service. The government cannot tell you how to raise your children or what to put in your body” [10]

she continues:

the New Zealand Blood Service and doctors from Starship Children’s Health want to perform surgery on baby Will using blood that contains substances that will kill him. [10]

They are aware of it.

Studies back it up. [10]

Blood from people who received so-called COVID-19 vaccines is unsafe and should not be used in blood donations. [10]

  • Some lipid nanoparticles LNPs formulations degrade quickly within tissues [10]; however, proprietary ionisable lipids in BNT162b2 (ALC-0315) were expected to be completely eliminated in rat livers after as much as 6 weeks [8]. Protein expression was shown to persist 7 to 10 days in previous studies on mice [10,11] and at least 9 days in BNT162b2 studies submitted to EMA [8].
  • A recent ultrasensitive single-molecule assay was however able to detect the S-protein in the plasma of some mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccinees at 15 days following injection [12], while in another study, both mRNA and S-protein could be found in axillary LNs after 60 days [13]. Moreover, extracellular vesicles decorated with S-proteins persist up to 4 months after vaccination with BNT162b2 [14]. This raises the possibility that LNP–mRNA complexes remain in circulation for extended periods of time, retaining their ability to induce S-protein expression in contacted cells. [10]
  • We found that vaccine-associated synthetic mRNA persists in systemic circulation for at least 2 weeks. [10]
  • mRNA vaccination stimulates robust GCs containing vaccine mRNA and spike antigen up to 8 weeks postvaccination in some cases. SARS-CoV-2 antibody specificity [10]

Those seeking clean blood. Nobody has the right to restrict you from using it. Your body, your choice! I proposed the establishment of clean blood hospitals and services. [10]

I see that such have already been created and will contact them so that we can collaborate. Their website can be found at  Also, look for private hospitals as well as hospitals that are more willing to assist. You can avoid contaminated blood by preserving your own blood, seeking blood from trusted relatives, and establishing clean blood hospitals. Check the cell salvage procedure as well. It is the process by which blood from the surgical field or wound drainages is collected, filtered, and washed to produce autologous blood for re-transfusion to the patient. [10]

GillianMcKeith Television Presenter. Nutritionist & Dietetic Technician. No.1 Bestselling Author writes:

“Parents of Baby Will lose right for their baby to receive blood of choice. And now have lost guardianship too! Heartbreaking and frightening precedent for the future.. High Court orders Baby Will placed in temporary guardianship order” [11]

UK MP A Brigden said in Parliament

“There have been more reported deaths & adverse reactions following mRNA vaccinations in 18 mths than there have been for every conventional vaccine administered worldwide in the last 50 yrs”[12]

Laurie Gardiner (author) Writes

Do they also take guardianship of children of Jehovah’s witnesses who refuse blood transfusions? [13]

Police Forcibly take Baby Will away from Mother -Dec 7 2022

source: Rumble / CoronavirusPlushie

Parents’ Lawyer Sue Grey statement after Dec 6 2022 hearing

source: Odyysee / shortXXvids

Liz Gunn of FreeNZ Media statement outside court -Nov 30 2022

source: Odyysee / shortXXvids

Post court statement from mother & lawyer -Nov 30 2022

source: Rumble/ FreeNZ Media

Baby Alex who instantly Died from Vax Tainted Blood

source: Odyysee / shortXXvids

Associate Prof. of Viral Immunology Dr. Byram Bridle: On Blood Transfusions from Vaccinated People -Dec 1 2022

source: Rumble / CoronavirusPlushie

Back to All Cases


Teacher Mandate Case: High Court

Teacher Mandate Case: High Court

Teacher Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of of the government to violate an individual’s Right to Bodily autonomy by mandating of an experimental injection meant to prevent covid


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: March , 2022
  • Location: Wellington, New Zealand
  • Court: High Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: NZTSOS & NZDSOS
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant:
  • Trial Type: High Court
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated March 10, 2022



A legal challenge questioning the lawfulness of the Government’s Covid-19 vaccination mandate for educators and health workers has begun at the High Court in Wellington. [1]

The judicial review, brought to the court by New Zealand Teachers Speaking Out with Science (NZTSOS) and an affiliated group of doctors (NZDSOS), is seeking that High Court Justice Francis Cooke strike down the vaccination order, claiming the mandate breaches the Bill of Rights Act. [1]

The group claims the vaccination mandate is not a “demonstrably justified” breach of the Bill of Rights, namely the right to decline medical treatment. [1]

The High Court challenge also questions the usefulness of vaccination mandates in an Omicron environment, pointing to medical professionals showing that the variant’s extreme transmissibility renders mandates unnecessary. [1]

The challenge to the vaccination order is the second brought to the High Court by the two groups – the first having been dismissed by High Court Justice Matthew Palmer in November. (see NZDSOS Inc and NZTSOS v Minister for Covid-19 Response, case # [2021] NZHC 3071 ) [1]

Supporting the new challenge is a portfolio of 81 affidavits filed by teachers and health workers across the country – a number of whom have lost their jobs after refusing to be vaccinated. [1]

This week’s challenge is similar to that made by a group of Police and Defence Force employees, also in front of Justice Cooke. That group was last week successful in their claim that the mandate affecting that sector was an unjustified incursion on the Bill of Rights. (see Police Mandate Case: High Court). [1]

Both Police and the NZDF have since suspended all terminations of unvaccinated staff as a result of the decision. [1]

Acting for the applicants, lawyer Warren Pyke read the court a number of affidavits from affected education and health staff, including GPs, occupational therapists, and early childhood teachers, detailing the effect of the mandates. [1]

  • They detailed the effect that the mandate had on patients – particularly those who lost their GP in the wake of terminations. [1]

“People will lose their family doctor, people will lose their GP. Continuity of care is likely to be compromised,” an affected employee submitted to the court. [1]

“That is, with respect to the Honourable Prime Minister, an accurate observation. That is what it is.” [1]


In the aftermath of the Police High Court Case

March 9, 2022, the Public Service Commission told public agencies to stop the termination of unvaccinated staff given the recent High Court ruling that vaccine mandates for the police and defence force were unlawful. Despite these directions, The Ministry of Social Development has begun to sack up to 220 unvaccinated staff. [2]

Ministry for Social Development (MSD) worker Lynda, who did not want her last name used, says she received her termination letter today. Lynda has mucormycosis and multiple allergies including allergies towards certain drugs. [2]

She said the reason her contract with MSD was terminated was that she was a “danger to people” because she was unvaccinated. [2]



This case challenges the Right of Government to violate the Right of the individual to their own bodily autonomy.


Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

see the Police Vaccine Case: High Court



…More information is needed…



…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…




source: ….


source: ….


source: ….



  1. Education and health sector staff launch fresh High Court challenge to vaccination mandates
  2. Covid 19 Omicron outbreak: Ministry of Social Development begins to sack unvaccinated staff



New Zealand, Wellington, NZDSOS, NZTSOS, Vaccine, mandate, teachers, doctors, Cooke, High Court, Supreme Court

Back to All Cases




Police Mandate Case: High Court

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


Back to All Cases

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



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 COVID19 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]



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 COVID19 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 COVID19 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 COVID19 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 COVID19 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 DirectorGeneral are obliged to keep their COVID19 orders under review. [2]

3. Finally in November in Four Midwives v Minister for COVID19 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]



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 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]




NZ High Court Stops Police Mandate

source: Truths Uncensored

NZ High Court Stops Police Mandate for Religion

source: Faith Reporters

NZ Military & Police Mandate Stopped

source: AussieFighter.

NZ High Court Rules against Mandate

source: Lawyer Sue Gray



  1. New Zealand High Court ENDS Jacinda Ardern’s Vaccine Mandate: “It’s a Gross Violation of Human Rights”
  2. Court Ruling
  3. High Court Official Media Release
  4. Govt faces legal ultimatum: End mandates and vaccine passes, now



Arden, Bill of Rights, bodily integrity, Cooke, Covid-19 Public Health Response Act, foetus, freedom, High Court, Jacinda, Justice, Mandate, New Zealand, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, NZDF, personal autonomy, PM, Religious, Supreme Court, Vaccine

Back to All Cases