• The Babies Case
• Legal Arguments
• Genetically Modified Organism
• Case Remitted to Federal Court
• Discontinuing The Australian Babies Case
• Dr. William Bay
• Conclusion

In a previous post we looked at the unsuccessful attempt of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network to convince the Federal Court of Australia it had legal standing to challenge the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

They sought a writ of Mandamus to overturn provisional registration of mRNA and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, and a Judicial Review to overturn provisional approval of Pfizer’s vaccine for 5 to 11 year olds.

The evidence was intended to demonstrate lack of safety and efficacy of the vaccines. The plaintiffs contended the vaccines should not have been provisionally approved or registered. Indeed, that they should have been cancelled or suspended because of an imminent risk of death or serious injury. Thus, the Secretary of the Department of Health had erred in his duty to “cause to be maintained” the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.

However the evidence and legal arguments were never heard in court. The AVN had no “special interest”, and thus standing. On 8 August 2022 their appeal against this finding was found to be incompetent. A couple of months later, lengthy correspondence went out to all “donors and potential donors”. Headed AVN Legal Actions and Strategies the document opined on the issue of standing:

The way that the current case law is being applied by the Federal Court is essentially to say that nobody has sufficient standing to challenge these therapeutic ‘goods’, nor indeed the Secretary of Health.

The Babies Case

The AVN had decided to take “an alternative course of action”. One that had been researched and prepared by retired barrister Julian Gillespie and solicitors Peter Fam of Maat’s Method and Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O’Brien and Associates. In view of the AVN’s recent outcome it was deemed wiser to approach the High Court with “The Australian Babies Case” (AuBC), and seek to “halt the provisional approval of the Moderna jab from being injected into our precious 6 month old to 5 year old infants”. The AVN would “change course” and become a co-applicant with five others.

The other applicants were:

• Associate Professor Peter Parry
• Dr. Julian Fidge
• Dr. Shoba Iyer
• Dr. Astria Lefringhausen
• Mark Neugebauer

The first three applicants above are active members of the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS), a Red Union group that formed with the specific aim of challenging the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, fighting COVID-19 mandates and promoting controversial treatments such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Parry is also the lead applicant challenging the State of QLD over health professional’s vaccine requirements and a key member of Doctors Against Mandates. Three months before the AuBC strategy was outlined in this document, the AVN published the full AMPS Medico-Legal Summit on its website.

The breakdown of speakers at the summit includes AVN legal consultant and primary researcher behind the AuBC Julian Gillespie, primary plaintiff Prof. Peter Parry, Senator Malcolm Roberts and Senator Gerard Rennick. We will meet Senator Rennick again, later in this post. In lobbying the SA Minister for Child Protection, plaintiff Mark Neugebauer cites AMPS correspondence from Dr. Christopher Neil, another speaker at the summit. Gillespie and Ashby-Koppens appear on AMPS Discussions From The Frontline updating legal activity |2|.

The document went on to outline the strategy behind this new approach:

In The Australian Babies Case, the legal strategy is to present five applicants before the High Court of Australia, and show the Court how each applicant is affected by the actions and inactions of the Secretary of Health, with respect to the Covid-19 drugs made available to babies and young children, and the rest of the Australian community in circumstances where, prima facie, preventable deaths, illnesses, and injuries in extraordinary numbers are associated with their use; and where most of the population does not need them; however despite the expertise and evidence possessed by the various five applicants, the current law on standing in Australia is deficient, and will not recognise any of the applicants as proper parties for suing the Secretary of Health.

Australian Babies Case legal research team

It further outlined that the Babies Case would be seeking to have the High Court “fix the law on standing” such that the applicants would be accepted as having “special interest”. Namely, “the preservation of human life from preventable death, illness or injury”. It was claimed, albeit without evidence, these preventable outcomes were being seen now, due to “COVID-19 drugs” and that this constituted an “iatrogenic catastrophe”. That is to say, a catastrophe caused by the diagnosis and treatment of a condition.

Mark Robinson SC who represented the AVN in the initial failed case, confirmed this new approach was viable and advised that the High Court “has indicated that it wishes to revisit the law of standing in Australia”. They would be seeking:

1. A new Special Interest regarding the preservation of human life.
2. If successful, a court-granted injunction to halt the provisional approval of COVID-19 vaccines to babies 6 months to 5 years and children 6 to 11 years of age.
3. If the High court recognises this new special interest for standing, that the High or Federal Court immediately hear the Judicial Review cases for both childhood age groups and the original Mandamus case for mRNA and AstraZeneca vaccines.

If successful, the AVN expected to be able to proceed with their initial cases. As “a matter of convenience” the AVN would seek to take over the running of the Judicial Review case that involved children 6 months to 5 years (the AuBC). The AVN note that they feel joining the case “operates as a de facto appeal” from the 8 August 2022 Federal Court appeal decision.

The application was filed with the High Court on 20 December 2022. The day before, a media release was published by AVN president Meryl Dorey. It provided some initial insight into the legal tactics to be employed in this quest for a new category of standing. Resurrected anti-vaccine themes from the initial Federal Court case peppered a quote attributed to Julian Gillespie (bold mine):

The High Court of Australia is now being called upon to protect our youngest from participating in an acknowledged and ongoing Phase III clinical trial, to receive experimental drugs involving unprecedented levels of reported adverse events, including deaths… for a virus also acknowledged to pose no threat to our Babies and Toddlers…

At this point it’s worth noting that, in public discourse, the Australian Babies Case legal team studiously avoid discussing the 3 August 2022 ATAGI recommendations for this age group. Namely:

ATAGI recommends COVID-19 vaccination for children aged 6 months to <5 years with severe immunocompromise, disability, and those who have complex and/or multiple health conditions which increase the risk of severe COVID-19.

More so, the legal team make much of the fact severe cases of COVID-19 are not common in this age group, and thus provisional approval of Spikevax suggests nefarious, and not clinical, motivation. Yet ATAGI clearly state:

ATAGI’s guidance takes into account:

• The very low risk of severe COVID-19 (e.g. hospitalisation due to COVID-19) in healthy children aged 6 months to <5 years. This age group is one of the least likely age groups to require hospitalisation due to COVID-19. Among the small number who are hospitalised or who die due to COVID-19, underlying medical conditions or immunocompromise are frequently present. […]

The plaintiffs alleged Spikevax is a “genetically modified organism”. As such, Brendan Murphy, Secretary of the Department of Health had failed to comply with yet another section of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (TG Act). As expected a writ of certiorari would be sought to quash provisional approval of Moderna’s Spikevax vaccine for children 6 months to 5 years. A writ of mandamus (where the court orders an official) was originally sought to have the application to approve Spikevax, reviewed under law. It was ultimately abandoned. For more specific insight we must turn to the application.

Legal Arguments

The plaintiff’s argument had two grounds, and a section headed Reasons Why Remittal Not Appropriate. Those reasons argued that the case should be heard by the High Court because that court had the power to accept the need for, and then admit for hearing, a new category of standing. Thus the High Court should not remit (send back) the case to the Federal Court. They contended that the principles for standing should be more liberal when a person can establish the subject matter involves life threatening or debilitating medical conditions and they seek to preserve human life. In short:

Where the fabric of human life might be compromised or adversely impacted, interested and involved members of the public should have a right of standing in such circumstances.

Whilst I don’t accept the argument for a new category of standing in this manner, I do agree that the law is frequently lacking. In fact, it’s about here I suspect a number of Australian vaccine proponents, Skeptics and opponents of the anti-vaccination lobby may feel a dash of Deja Vu.

In 2010, following complaints from the public about misleading AVN advice, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission published a “damning report”. The AVN successfully appealed the ruling because whilst the HCCC had jurisdiction, the complaints lacked evidence that anyone had acted on AVN advice. The appeal outcome led to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 in NSW Parliament, allowing the HCCC to act on the likelihood of harm. A follow up inquiry was launched and a second, more in depth Public Warning against the AVN was published in 2014.

Let’s return to the present. The plaintiffs also argue that there are “important questions about the lawfulness of Commonwealth officials to make provisional determinations” that impact wellbeing. They allege there is no real jurisprudence about this in the context of the TG Act. Yet in reality, the standard of evidence required to make these determinations is high and the TG Act is comprehensively designed to minimise risk. Indeed failure to make provisional determinations may risk the wellbeing of the nation.

Ground One of the plaintiff’s argument again takes us to the TG Act. Specifically Section 22D(1), which provides that the Secretary must decide to make or refuse to make a determination, when a valid application has been made. In this case the application was for Spikevax (elasomeran), which the Secretary provisionally approved for children 6 months to 5 years, on 19 July 2022. The plaintiffs argue that s 22D(1) “is subject to an implied restraint”, that the decision will be legally reasonable. They submitted:

Legal reasonableness, or an absence of legal unreasonableness, is an essential element in the lawfulness of decision-making.

Referring to “the decision” to provisionally approve Spikevax for the ages under discussion, the application is dismissive of evidence used. It cites the TGA document Australian Public Assessment Report for Spikevax, 19 July 2022. Yet the Submission overview and risk/benefit assessment, accommodates no less than half of the 31 pages. This was updated on 8 November 2022; 42 days prior to filing of the plaintiff’s application, and contains 8 subsections covering 55 of the document’s 69 pages. Subsections include, but are not limited to, Quality, Risk management plan, Risk-benefit analysis, Additional clinical data and Second risk-benefit analysis.

The plaintiffs further argued that the Secretary’s decision that Regulation 10L(1)(a) of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (TG Regs) was met, is legally unreasonable. That particular regulation states under Provisional Determinations:

(1) For the purposes of subsection 22D(2) of the Act, the criteria are all of the following: 

    (a) an indication of the medicine is the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition;

In other words it was legally unreasonable to accept that the vaccine ever contributed to the prevention of serious illness brought on by COVID-19 in children 6 months to 5 years. This argument is a repeat of the AVN tactic seeking Judicial Review in the initial Federal Court Children Decision case, where they also targeted s 22D of the Act.

At the time I wrote:

This was cited because the AVN also sought an order quashing any determination made by the Secretary pursuant to section 22D, that an indication of the vaccine:

“[W]as the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition for children aged 5 to 11 years of age.”

The plaintiffs continue to argue their case for “legal unreasonable decision-making” by again turning to the TG Act. They argue the Secretary has failed to satisfy requirements in s 25(1)(d)(i). Section 25 deals with evaluation of therapeutic goods, and the cited subsection provides:

(d) for an application for provisional registration of a medicine: 

      (i) whether, based on preliminary clinical data, the safety and efficacy of the medicine for the purposes for which it is to be used have been satisfactorily established.

Put more simply, the plaintiffs contend that when the Secretary was evaluating Spikevax, the data he used did not “satisfactorily establish” its safety and efficacy. This, they allege, amounts to legal unreasonable decision-making.

Genetically Modified Organism

Ground two of the plaintiff’s argument stated that the Secretary failed to comply with s 30C(2) of the TG Act. Section 30C provides for Consultation with the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). The cited subsection reads:

Subject to subsection (5), the Secretary must give written notice to the Gene Technology Regulator: 

      (a) stating that the application has been made; and 

      (b) requesting the Gene Technology Regulator to give advice about the application.

The affidavit continued:

It appears that there has been non-compliance with a statutory condition in the TG Act. […] The plaintiffs contend that non-compliance with the statutory obligation mandated by s 30C(2) leads to the invalidity of the registration decision that followed.

Could it be that the Secretary did not have to notify the OGTR? As fate would have it we are assisted here by questions from Senator Gerard Rennick. On 16 February 2023 during a Community Affairs Legislation Committee Estimates hearing, Rennick questioned our current gene technology regulator, Dr. Raj Bhula, about s 30C of the TG Act, asking if the Secretary had written to the OGTR in regards to mRNA vaccines.

You can read the full exchange on Rennick’s website, or watch the video of it below. However, I’ll cut to the responses that matter with respect to the AuBC. Does the Secretary have to notify the OGTR?

Dr Bhula : No, because the mRNA vaccines are not required to be regulated through the OGTR.

Senator RENNICK: Did they write to you and actually ask you that question?

Dr Bhula : No, because they’re not required to be regulated through the OGTR.

Senator RENNICK: But how would they know, because you’re the expert? And, by the way, gene technology involves both replication and transcription.

Dr Bhula : Yes.

Senator RENNICK: Which is what the mRNA vaccine does.

Dr Bhula : But the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not involve any step of genetic modification—

Senator RENNICK: They produce proteins.

Dr Bhula : or a GMO—

CHAIR: Senator Rennick, would you allow Dr Bhula to finish her answers.

Dr Bhula : which meant that that didn’t require regulatory oversight by the OGTR.

An unambiguous answer. Interestingly, this wasn’t published on Rennick’s website at the time of the exchange. It was published 20 March 2023, which was four days after the High Court decided not to hear the AuBC. A coincidence? Unlikely, dear reader. As mentioned above, Senator Rennick, the AuBC plaintiffs, key legal researcher for the case and the AMPS are linked by their COVID-19 ideology and related lobbyist activity.

Gerard Rennick questions Dr. Raj Bhula, Office of Gene Technology Regulator

For the purposes of the AuBC affidavit, I acknowledge the confusion surrounding mRNA vaccines and GM technology. The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine using a genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus, is a clear example of GM technology. The OGTR Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan for that vaccine is here. Years earlier the OGTR published a similar plan for a GM Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine. The TGA acknowledges both examples as GMO medicines.

Technology applied to extract, multiply and distill the mRNA used in vaccines to instruct our cells to produce the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is different to the genetic modification of an adenovirus or a live influenza virus. Dr. Bhula describes it as not involving “any step of genetic modification or a GMO”.

Nonetheless, the Australian National Gene Technology Scheme lists mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including Spikevax, as GMOs used as medicines. An Open Access Government article states, “mRNA and viral vector vaccines are derived using techniques of genetic modification (GM)”. The Alliance For Science distinguishes between the two. “This one really is genetically engineered”, it says of the adenovirus vaccine, after discussing mRNA vaccines.

We must accept Dr. Bhula’s position that mRNA vaccines are not required to be regulated through the OGTR. For the sake of the AuBC affidavit, s 30C(2) of the TG Act does not then apply, and the provisional registration of the mRNA vaccine Spikevax, is valid.

Case Remitted to Federal Court

The plaintiffs did not appear before the High Court. On 16 March 2023, Justice Stephen Gageler remitted the case to the Federal Court of NSW, as per the following order. A summary page is below.

No weight was given to the legal arguments raised, although it was noted there were “supporting affidavits totalling more than 2,000 pages”. What’s important is Justice Gageler’s observation that the Secretary had submitted that the proceedings should be remitted to the Federal Court which would have jurisdiction, under Section 39B(1) or (1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act. That section follows parliamentary action in 1997, to transform the Federal Court into one with more general jurisdiction (see p.9), including jurisdiction over any matter, “arising under any laws made by the Parliament [excluding criminal implications]”.

Justice Gageler observed:

I am satisfied that this matter is one “arising under” the TG Act for purposes of s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act, and that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over its subject-matter and the parties on that basis.

Justice Gageler reflected on the plaintiff’s claim that the High Court was the only appropriate Court to decide on a new category of standing due to “special interest” arising when “the fabric of human life might be compromised or adversely impacted”. He stressed that the power to remit is discretionary “to be exercised after due consideration of all the circumstances of the case”. Justice Gageler cited another case as instructive, in that the power of the remitter is designed to ensure the High Court is not diverted from its principle functions by matters that “could properly be brought in an Australian trial court”. After offering his assessment of the significant scale of the case, Gageler concludes:

Having regard to these considerations, significant case management and fact finding are likely to be required to conduct a hearing of the kind contemplated by the application. Undertaking that task would unduly divert the Court from its principal functions.

“We are Discontinuing the Australian Babies Case”

The plaintiffs did not return to the Federal Court. On 12 April 2023, instructing solicitor Peter Fam of Maat’s Method published an article, and a longer explanatory video, in which he labels the vaccines “a poison”. In view of their 2022 failures with the Federal Court, further chances were poor. Even if successful, there may be repeated appeals lasting over a year. They did not have the money or time. “People are being injured and dying every day”, from COVID-19 vaccines, Fam said without evidence.

Fam added; “Too much money has been used on facetious exploits and actions… things that haven’t been thought out in terms of strategy… people aren’t working together… doing things that are contradictory to each other… I have to take some responsibility… we lost the AVN case… a lot of money had been donated to that case”.

However:

All is not lost. This is a pivot; not a retreat, and there are other matters we have been working on simultaneously with this one, with better prospects of success than this case would have in the Federal Court. Those efforts will be formally launched within weeks, and you will hear more about them soon.

Dr. William Bay

A final mention must go to suspended GP registrar, William Bay. Bay has become a favourite amongst “cooker” watchers since he chose an AMA conference to film himself yelling anti-vaccine conspiracies, and call Chief Medical Officer, Paul Kelly “a liar”. A client of Peter Fam, Bay was asked to join the AuBC as a plaintiff. Shortly after he wanted to swap his position as plaintiff with the parent of a vaccine-injured child, believing this gave the team a greater chance at success. Fam and Gillespie disagreed. Nor could such a client be found.

Later, he filed for leave to intervene in the case as he objected to the nature of the special interest standing. He argued that if granted, the existence of standing granted via special interest in “the preservation of human life from preventable death, illness or injury”, could be used to justify COVID-19 vaccination for children. You can read Julian Gillespie’s “urgent” letter to supporters on this matter here.

Understandably, Bay further argues that such special interest standing may then be used to interfere in the application of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship in areas unrelated to COVID-19 vaccination (see video 56:45). Gillespie argues, quite rightly, that the request for standing applies to administrative and not private law. What Gillespie omits though, is any appreciation of how administrative changes impact private citizens.

Conclusion

The Australian Babies Case sought to convince the High Court to accept that medically qualified applicants had “special interest” preventing “death, illness or injury”, in babies and small children. Success would lead to a new category of standing, and this would permit the AVN to return to the Federal Court to pursue this case and its original 2022 Federal Court case, AVN v Secretary, Dept. Health.

Case evidence involved a revamping of prior legal tactics. The Therapeutic Goods Act was exploited by the plaintiffs to demonstrate regulatory failures on the part of the Secretary of the Department of Health. These failures, they again argue, justify overturning the registration or approval of COVID-19 vaccines. Driving this action was a suite of fallacious claims and misrepresented statistics.

The plaintiffs are members of and/or closely associated with the AMPS, a well organised union of medical and allied health professionals, working actively to undermine confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. Members of the legal team in this case are strident anti-vaccine activists, closely associated with AMPS, and outspoken anti-vaccine politicians.

Despite the label of “Babies Case”, this was all about giving the AVN a second chance for legal standing to have their case demanding an end to all COVID vaccines, heard in the Federal Court. Had standing been granted via a special interest as described above, it could be used to target all vaccines and help Meryl Dorey advance her life-long claim that “no vaccine is safe”.

According to the instructing solicitor of the AVN, further action should be expected soon.

---

Related material

Safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Among Young Children in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

Julian Gillespie and AVN fact checked

Julian Gillespie: AMPS Discussions from the frontline (Federal Court case)

Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens: AMPS Discussions from the frontline (Babies Case)

Peter Fam at COVID Inquiry 2.0 with Malcolm Roberts and Graig Kelly

Peter Fam on The Australian Babies Case

Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens discuss the AVN cases on Zerotime (32:10 mark)

A short grab on Twitter:

Julian Gillespie and Solicitor Katie Ashby-Koppens discuss skyrocketing baby deaths in Australia. pic.twitter.com/kXBJ5z8uGt

— Janey (@_janey_j) November 24, 2022

---

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Last update: 11 July 2023