A Miscarriage of Justice in the NZDSOS and NZTSOS Court Case in March 2022?

https://nzdsos.com/2024/07/02/miscarriage-of-justice-nzdsos-nztsos-court-case/?s=09

Three years on since the ‘no jab, no job’ mandates were forced on New Zealanders, new damning evidence has come to light detailing an inconvenient truth – information that contradicted the need for mandates – this now begs the question, was there a miscarriage of justice in the NZDSOS and NZTSOS court case of March 2022?

NZTSOS is currently seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court after Justice Cooke found that vaccine mandates for teachers and healthcare workers were justified, on the evidence presented to him.  However, as well as various legal grounds as the basis of the appeal, a Miscarriage of Justice is being claimed based upon the Crown’s failure to inform the High Court of the following highly relevant document and facts in their possession.  

‘Science and Insights’ Report showing transmission in education and healthcare settings as minimal.

Embedded below is a Ministry of Health ‘Science and Insights’ report from 19 October 2021 that has recently been obtained via an Official Information Act (OIA) request.  The significance of this document is that it totally contradicted the purported need for the Education and Healthcare mandates, yet the Crown kept this information from the High Court in the NZDSOS/NZTSOS High Court hearing in March 2022.

Its existence was only uncovered as Dr Town – Chief Science Advisor to the Ministry of Health – used it in the subsequent Orewa Community Church case to support his contention that churches had a much greater risk of transmission than schools!* 

This report, dated 19 October 2021, contains the analysis of the transmission of covid-19 in New Zealand between August and October 2021, using data the Ministry had obtained from their contact tracing. 

There are 5 significant points:

1. This was the best and most relevant study that the Crown had in its possession concerning transmission of covid-19 in New Zealand schools and healthcare settings when they decided to implement the Education and Healthcare Workers mandates.

a.     It was the Government’s own data.

b.     The sample sizes were large (>11,000, >5000) making it very reliable. 

c.     It relates to the Delta variant, which the courts have stressed as pertinent.

d.     It specifically analysed transmission within NZ school and healthcare settings.

2. It showed that educational and healthcare settings had incredibly low rates of transmission (only 1-2 in 1,000 contacts became infected), completely negating the need for the mandates.

3. It was produced** by the MoH before Hipkins signed the Education and Healthcare Workers vaccination orders.

4. The Crown’s expert witnesses (Drs Bloomfield and Town) as well as Hipkins omitted to share this information with the High Court in their sworn affidavits.

5. By withholding this highly relevant information from the High Court, Bloomfield and Town contravened the High Court rules for expert witnesses. (Dr Town did refer to a similar but much smaller study from NSW that had a higher transmission rate!)

---

Science_And_Insights_19_Oct_2021 (1)Download

Serious Service Disruption (SSD) exemptions.

---

As well as the above, it also appears that the Crown misrepresented the situation with Serious Service Disruption (SSD) exemptions when Rachel Mackay (Group Manager, Operations, National Immunisation Programme) informed the High Court that only 11 ‘applications’ had been approved, while failing to inform the court that each ‘application’ could cover many hundreds of workers. 

We believe the High Court had a right to know that by the time of the NZTSOS/NZDSOS hearing, many thousands of people had been granted these exemptions, while other dedicated teachers, doctors, nurses and midwives were being terminated or suffering adverse effects from coerced vaccination. 

From Rachel Mackay’s affidavit:

“32. As at 26 January 2021(sic), we had received 450 applications for significant service disruption exemptions.  Eleven applications had been granted, 1 was returned from the Minister with a request for further information, 235 applications were declined, and 1 application that was before the Minister was not proceeded with.  Thirty-one applications have been assessed by the Panel and are awaiting a final decision; nine applications were withdrawn after Panel assessment; and 4 were returned as incomplete after Panel assessment.  158 applications were returned as incomplete from the triage process.”

It is hoped that the Courts have not been unduly influenced by the Labour Government’s unprecedented propaganda campaign, but unfortunately various aspects of previous judgments do not inspire confidence. For example, it stretches belief that Bloomfield could be accepted by the Court as an unbiased, impartial expert witness, when he was the second respondent in the case!

According to the legislation there is a ‘Code of conduct for expert witnesses’.  By appearing in court, among other things;

1. An expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the court impartially on relevant matters within the expert’s area of expertise.

2. An expert witness is not an advocate for the party who engages the witness.

It is difficult to see how Bloomfield fitted these criteria. 

For more information on this aspect of the case we recommend this substack article by Ursula Edgington.

Summary:

Why was this significant and possibly game-changing evidence withheld from the High Court? The judge may well have found that unvaccinated teachers and healthcare workers were not a sufficient risk to have their rights trampled and careers ended.

It is yet to be determined whether the Supreme Court will approve an appeal of the NZTSOS case.  We certainly hope so as there is still a lot to unpack about the NZ government’s c-19 response, and the vaccine mandates in particular.

It is our view that the mandates were unethical, unnecessary, discriminatory and have caused immeasurable harm to New Zealand and its citizens and we hope the legal system will step up and demonstrate that it actually serves the people of this country.

* At para 193 of the judgement by Gwyn J, Dr Town’s comments are noted: “In the first Delta Outbreak SAR [Secondary Attack Rate] Analysis, the SAR of education was 0.1%, compared to a SAR of 10.4% for private gatherings.”  Thus the government knew that the risk of transmission in private gatherings was 100 times higher than in education settings and 50 times higher than in healthcare settings! 

** Point 3. Amended July 6, 2024 from previously ‘published’ to ‘produced’.