Teens take case against vaccination to appeals court

 

The teenagers filed their appeal at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya yesterday after their application for judicial review was denied, on the grounds the vaccination drive was voluntary and did not infringe their rights. (Bernama pic)

GEORGE TOWN: Seven adolescents who want to block the vaccination drive for teens have taken their case to the Court of Appeal.

This follows a High Court decision to deny their leave application for judicial review of the vaccine drive pending the clinical trial results of the drug Ivermectin, among others.

The suit names the government, health minister, health director-general, and the science, technology and innovation minister as respondents.

The appellants’ parents are named in the suit but their identities are being withheld to protect the privacy of their children, who are minors and cannot sue on their own behalf.

Their lawyer, Lee Khai, said they filed their appeal at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya yesterday, and provided FMT with a judgement by judicial commissioner Wong Hok Chong in the High Court.

In his judgement, Wong said leave was not granted as the vaccination drive was a government policy premised on medical and scientific opinion, with the court having no say over such matters.

He said the court was hence ill-suited to judge such matters, which was best left to the executive who benefited from relevant expertise and opinions.

“That is not to say that all such decisions are non-justiciable as a matter of rule. They must still undergo tests on justiciability on a case-to-case basis,” he said.

Wong also said the vaccination drive was voluntary and did not infringe the applicants’ fundamental rights as claimed.

“The applicants’ personal autonomy is not infringed as the immunisation programme for teenagers is voluntary. Hence, there simply is no compulsion, and no ones’ personal autonomy is being infringed,” he said.

Wong added that if the parents of the applicants are concerned about non-vaccinated students being barred from attending school, they should challenge such a decision, if there is one.

He also said the applicants had no legal right to seek a mandamus order for the government to disclose risks of the Pfizer vaccine, implement an Ivermectin programme and others. He said conversely, the government had no legal obligation to do so.

Wong said a stay order on the vaccine programme sought by the applicants was also denied.

“A stay would not have been in the interest of justice. It would adversely affect the government’s overall effort to contain the Covid-19 pandemic and deprive the vast majority of the populace of their wish to be vaccinated,” he said.

Together with Lee, lawyers Eric Cheah, Teh Chien Yin and Nicole Koh represented the applicants.

The government was represented by federal counsel Suzana Atan, Narkunavathy Sundareson, Noor Atiqah Zainal Abidin, Mohammad Sallehuddin Md Ali, and Rahazlan Affandi Abdul Rahim. - FMT