Interlocutory Hearing - My Thoughts

Covid Vaccine Injury Class Action

On Monday 2nd December, along with a group of injured and bereaved and supporters (many of whom had travelled some distance despite their physical symptoms and difficulties), I sat anxiously through what ended up being a one day hearing for the application to dismiss the covid vaccine class action.

This action was filed in March 2023 on behalf of those Australians injured and bereaved after covid 19 vaccination.

Photo courtesy Alison Bevege, Letters from Australia.

In the opening statements by the KC for the respondents it was acknowledged that the interlocutory application was not to decide if the injuries were real or had been suffered by the group members, but was to argue that the case could never succeed on a number of legal grounds and therefore should be dismissed before the evidence is even heard.

What are these legal grounds? These are summarised in the submissions by the respondents which can be found here.

During the day we sat through and heard many times over how unarguable it is to expect that the respondents could owe a duty of care to act for the public good in the performance of their duties. Interesting in contrast the Department of Health stated responsibility regarding medicines regulation ‘We make sure that the medical products and services you use are safe, high quality and effective, and that health professionals comply with regulations and processes” so I am confused as to how one would reconcile this allegation of absent duty of care to act for the protection of the health and good of the public.

There was also an argument that no case could succeed against these lead decision makers as other people were also involved in various capacities to guide the decision making.

There was strenuous criticism of the length of our claim, and quite a show of repeatedly heaving a large folder containing the claim in printed form from one side to the other to demonstrate how embarrassing and unwieldy the claim is. Perhaps no-one within the AGS is familiar with Ctrl-F and the option of navigating and reading a claim in electronic form rather than paper.

Her Honour suggested it would take more than a year to understand the claim if one's time was devoted entirely to that, and nothing else. Our KC suggested it could be read and understood in a week. All I know is that many injured and bereaved have been living with the daily consequences of what has happened to them for more than 3 years now and I think this claim deserves all the time and attention of the court to fully read and understand it, and I hope and pray her Honour does exactly that.

The claim is not long unnecessarily, but precisely because such serious allegations are being made against government decision makers and officials. How could an action such as this allege such serious claims without including sufficient detail to demonstrate the facts relating to the allegations of what was said by each of the respondents, what was unequivocally known by them at each point in time, and details to support the allegations that they acted despite knowledge the vaccines would and did cause harm?

There have been many requests for further and better particulars since the first filing and each time this required a new iteration of the claim and increase in length. Instead of accepting this was much of the reason for the length, there seemed to be some mockery of just how many times the claim had been revised, how long it is and commentary to suggest how incompetent and ridiculous the long claim document is.

The Concise Statement, prepared as a summary on her Honour’s instructions in April 2024 was criticised for not including several points. Our KC argued that if all key points were included it would run to 60 pages or more and no longer be concise.

There was also a seemingly irrelevant oral submission made to defend the respondents by asserting that none of them had involvement in mandating the vaccines. The AGS team has perhaps forgotten that Minister Hunt, one of the respondents, was involved in the mandates for the Aged Care workforce which opened the door for the states to bring in mandatory vaccination policies with this federal precedent being set.

There was also the accusation the claim is scandalous and therefore should be struck out. When asked by her Honour for an example of a scandalous statement in the claim, none was produced. I gather it is more a general characterisation that it is scandalous to attempt to hold those in positions of trust and authority accountable for the real consequences of their decisions and actions.

What I think is scandalous is that the government approved, purchased, sponsor indemnified, distributed, advertised and gave prolific medical advice regarding the vaccines and that this government would then choose to attempt to dismiss this matter rather than defending it or allowing it to move to a fair trial, especially considering the nature and scale of harm that has befallen the many group members- that is what is scandalous.

If the claim has no basis and our allegations ludicrous, why not file a defence and say so? If the respondents acted in the best interests of the public and defensibly so, then why not simply argue this so we can all understand? Perhaps there was some unknown justification for rapidly approving these novel products despite knowledge of safety issues, and to restrict doctors from providing unbiased information, and to remove patients right to their own health care decisions and to utterly ignore the reports of those who were injured and bereaved after taking the products. I cannot imagine any such justification, and none has been provided, apart from vague references to the seriousness of the virus and the existance of a worldwide pandemic. Neither of which justified neglecting the statutory requirements of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. For example, section 25 of the Act which requires the Secretary grant provisional approval only after evaluating a product and establishing that the safety, efficiency and quality of the good for use for the intended purpose has been satisfactorily established. No clause follows allowing these requirements to be disregarded in the event of some public health event, no matter the potential severity. It was and is a lawful requirement for provisional registration.

To seek to use all legal avenues to extinguish our resources and time is further cruelty to those who continue to suffer.

I believe it is being done because if this matter progresses it will eventually come down to the expert evidence. And whilst in 2021 perhaps experts were reluctant to publicly state their opinions, now in 2024 they are itching to scream from the rooftops that these products should never have been approved- see for example this recent interview with the renowned oncologist Professor Dalglish.

And perhaps the only experts who will argue otherwise will be these types of unimpressive conflicted 'experts' bought to you by Pfizer.

And if the case is allowed to see the light of day the evidence is overwhelming and these injured and bereaved will finally have their stories heard and some justice and recognition.

In the meantime the anxious wait continues and it may be some months before her Honour hands down her decision.

Please support us, we need your prayers and onging support, and my great thanks to all the supporters of this effort