On May 02, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed its judgement in a matter titled Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors, wherein it closely examined the details of the vaccination policy, the dissemination of clinical trials data, veracity of emergency approvals of vaccines and the reporting of adverse impacts of vaccination. []. Credit: Dominic Lorrimer The lawsuits were brought by multiple plaintiffs, including . In the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is presumed that statutes are not intended to modify or aggregate fundamental rights. The following matters will be live streamed TOGETHER on 30 SEPTEMBER and 1 OCTOBER from 10 AM: Hearing: Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald . Can Police Enter My Residence to Check Compliance With a Public Health Order? According to media reports, Mr Larter had crowdfunded nearly $250,000 to contribute to his legal expenses so far, which he said did not cover the full costs of the three barristers and two paralegals commissioned to represent him. Nair Agroforestry decade of development Edited by Howard A. Steppler and P.K. So, that itself is highly problematic: that you would have such extraordinary powers exercised without the protections needed to ensure that they are proportionate. After reviewing the powers conferred by the PH Act and making findings in respect of the Minister's decision-making processes, his Honour rejected all of the asserted grounds of invalidity and dismissed the proceedings. Beech-Jones J's judgement is a very strong judicial endorsement that compliance with Public Health Orders is non . By effectually compelling individuals to be vaccinated, their right to bodily integrity is violated. The plaintiffs also argued that Hazzard exceeded the scope of the powers granted to him by the Public Health Act. The broad finding was that rather than impinging upon a right to bodily integrity in requiring the COVID-19 vaccine in relation to certain jobs, the measure instead violated the right to freedom of movement if the jab was refused in these circumstances. One of the main grounds of challenges in both cases concerns the effect of the impugned orders on the rights and freedoms of those persons who choose to not be vaccinated especially their freedom or right to their own bodily integrity, said the New South Wales Supreme Court judge during the dismissal. Case Note: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 27 October 2021 Prepared by Caitlin Moore (Graduate Lawyer) A full copy of the case can be accessed here. Bodily integrity is not violated because health orders impair freedom of movement. And this led to health measures being imposed throughout Greater Sydney, which placed extreme restrictions on peoples freedoms, especially on those not vaccinated. p 28128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Proceedings 2021/249601 Al-Munir Kassam (First Plaintiff) George Nohra (Second Plaintiff) . We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. Weve had law by decree in NSW, and indeed, at the federal level for some time. Mr Larter argued that the orders were legally unreasonable as they were not "logically targeted" and were "not proportionate to the risks they purport to mitigate". It remains to be seen what will happen to health care workers who do not comply with the requirement to be double vaccinated by 30 November 2021. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, and its re-emergence in June this year, sparked powers under section 7 of the PHA that permit the state health minister to issue far-reaching orders without parliamentary oversight aimed at curbing a public health risk. It is also not the courts function to conclusively determine the effectiveness of some of the alleged treatments for those infected, or the effectiveness of Covid19 vaccines especially their capacity to inhibit the spread of the disease. One of the key arguments of the plaintiffs was their freedom or right to their own bodily integrity. Now Kassam and Henry et al and the Hazzard team have to confer about. The overbearing law enforcement approach to the COVID pandemic, w [], By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim Across the road from Justice Precinct carpark, Kassam v Hazzard Was Bound to Fail: An Interview With Professor George Williams. So, the contention that the vaccine mandates are unconstitutional as they breach this prohibition is unfounded, as the ban relates to those administering a treatment and not people receiving any such medical procedure. Do the youngest workers demand more from their employers? The Court has provided a detailed headnote which is reproduced below. However, his Honour showed that the civil conscription ban actually targets the passing of laws that would require medical professionals to do something against their will. the TPB is that intentions may not be strongly related to actual behaviors (Dixon, Deline, McComas, Chambliss, & Homann, 2014; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). What this particular clause in the Constitution says is the Commonwealth cannot force doctors to provide services. Steppler and P.K.R. Instead, it applies a discriminate, namely vaccination status, and on the evidence and the approach taken by the minister, is very much consistent to the objects of the Public Health Act.. And secondly, there is no compulsion upon doctors to provide vaccinations. . . However, this country does not have a bill of rights and thus as important as the principle of legality is, it is only a rule of construction. Instead, the health orders curtailed the freedom of movement including their movement to and from work, which "are the very types of restrictions that the PH Act clearly authorises".8. It was not successful firstly, because the NSW Health Act provides a very broad and open-ended power for the government to make public health orders. Kassam; Henry v Hazzard has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer.. Judgment: Kassam Henry v Hazzard DISMISSED#mandatoryvaccination health orders issued by #Hazzard for authorised workers ruled LEGAL. ; The case of Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care lends further support to the ability of . As his Honour explained, Kassam consisted of two proceedings brought against NSW health minister Brad Hazzard, around restrictions upon "authorised workers" to leave "areas of concern" and the prevention of some from continuing to work in the construction, aged care and education industries. Information about Sydney Criminal Lawyers is also provided. Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd [2021] FWCFB 6015. His Honour accepted that a significant amount of any evidence the Minister might be expected to give would likely reveal information for which a public interest immunity claim has been upheld and cannot be waived and drew no negative inferences from the Minister's absence. Scan this QR code to download the app now. It was further argued that Brad Hazzard had exceeded the scope of his powers granted under the. (a) failed to have regard to various relevant considerations; Some are talking about the announcement that Queen Lizzie has left this realm. Broadly, what we have seen in response to terrorism, and now in response to the pandemic, is how powerful our governments are and how few checks and balances they have. The courts function, he further outlines, was to determine the legal validity of the impugned orders, including whether any of the grounds reveal that no reasonable minister could have considered them necessary to deal with the identified health risk and its possible consequences. October 15, 2021. Al-Munir Kassam v Bradley Ronald Hazzard. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. Keep up-to-date with our regular news and insights, Level 11 Waterfront Place 1 Eagle Street, Brisbane QLD 4000, Level 15 Olderfleet 477 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Level 19 Angel Place 123 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Victorian Supreme Court: where more than one hundred plaintiffs are using the same barristers involved in, Federal Court: brought on behalf of unvaccinated nurses in Victoria, which is listed for hearing on 1 November 2021, New South Wales Supreme Court: in response to different plaintiffs, which is due to commence trial on 4 November 2021, Supreme Court of Queensland: which is listed for hearing on 22 December 2021. Secondly, the legal challenge sends a salient message to those in positions of power that Australians will challenge rules they believe are unfair. Tony Nikolic from AFL solicitors told Monica Smit of Reignite Democracy he disagreed with the dismissal of the cases, but he was also an advocate for a bill of rights. Copyright 2023 KM Business Information Australia Pty Ltd, Workplace relations and health and safety, MinterEllison, Holding Redlich, Piper Alderman highlighted in Best Lawyers Australia 2024, HSF launches free digital law course for APAC university students, Former Lander & Rogers finance head named CBP CFO, HFW assists on COVID-19 vaccine acquisition bid for Philippine consortium, NSW Supreme Court approves $28.5m Provident class action settlement, Former NRF insolvency star jazzes up Lander & Rogers commercial disputes practice, Piper Alderman assists PharmaLexs merger with specialist consultancy, Disney slams DeSantis with five causes of action. In fact, a UN resolution called for it to happen. It is also not the courts function to conclusively determine the effectiveness of some of the alleged treatments for those infected, or the effectiveness of Covid19 vaccines especially their capacity to inhibit the spread of the disease. The NSW Court of Appeal, having granted partial leave to appeal in these two related matters, dismissed the appeals. The Kassam plaintiffs also questioned whether the police powers created by Order No 2 were inconsistent with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), as well as whether the order is rendered invalid by section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution. The decision concerns two legal challenges to the health orders by multiple plaintiffs including, among others, aged care workers, a paramedic, a high school special education teacher and a construction worker (Plaintiffs). So, for example, some of the very severe travel restrictions that prevent Australians even exiting the country, let alone citizens returning home from overseas. It is possible that it will not be tenable to maintain the employment of health care workers who do not comply with the order and the Health Services Union has certainly raised such concerns in the media. All NSW Courts Many believe she already has, some time ago, and in typical fashion they will get around to making a distraction of it when it suits them. More than a million people tuned into the live stream of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard via the NSW Supreme Court's YouTube channel over the past couple of weeks, many hoping for a judgment which invalidates public health orders which mandate vaccines for certain industries, such as healthcare, aged care and construction. Explore 159 research articles published on the topic of "Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events" in 2014. We dont have a general freedom of speech. Under the order, teachers, aged care workers and health care workers must get vaccinated within specific periods; otherwise, they will not be allowed to enter their places of employment. Instead, it applies a discriminate, namely vaccination status, and on the evidence and the approach taken by the minister, is very much consistent to the objects of the Public Health Act., ublic Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Delta Order). So far as the right to bodily integrity is concerned, it is not violated as the impugned orders did not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone. The NSW Supreme Court has ruled that Health Minister Brad Hazzard's vaccination rules for workers are legal. []Curtailing the free movement of persons, including their movement to and at work, are the very type of restrictions that the Public Health Act clearly authorises. It was further argued that Brad Hazzard had exceeded the scope of his powers granted under the Public Health Act and that these health orders interfered with fundamental rights and freedoms. The Minister did not give evidence directly, despite being the relevant decision-maker. This is especially the case when it comes to the broad range of laws passed in the name of counterterrorism and national security since the New York 9/11 attacks two decades ago. So, the freedom infringements raised had to relate to those rights protected in common law, which ruled out discrimination as this body of law doesnt specifically protect against it. Judgment has been reserved and the Court will provide an update once judgment is handed down. He ruled that the right to bodily integrity was not violated as the orders did not authorise the involuntary vaccination of anyone, while the degree to which the freedom of movement was impaired differed depending on whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated. NSW Courts is a website for those who are looking for general information about courts and the court process. Theres a range of pretty basic rights that are missing in our system. The livestream is therefore no longer available. In response, questions were raised around whether the government could legitimately restrict people from continuing to turn up to their places of employment to work unless they sought to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and whether this requirement infringed upon their basic rights. Vaccine Mandates: Recent Case Law. Your thoughts! On 15 October 2021, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down its decision on a challenge against New South Wales' COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Not Guilty of Sexual Assault and Legal Costs Awarded, Doctor Permitted to Continue Practising During Proceedings and Ultimately Found Not Guilty of Sexual Assault, Not Guilty of All Six Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Bail Granted Before All Charges Dropped Over Sexual Assault and Strangulation Allegations, Charges of Sexual Touching Without Consent Dropped, Bail Granted Despite Allegations of Serious Child Sexual Offences, Not Guilty of Sexual Touching Without Consent, District Court Severity Appeal Successful for Middle-Range Drink Driving, No Criminal Record, Licence Disqualification or Fine for Mid-Range Drink Driving, RMS Driver and Rider Licence Suspensions Set Aside on Appeal, RMS Driver Licence Suspension Set Aside for Red P-Plater, No Criminal Record for Mid Range Drink Driving, With No Bill of Rights, Kassam v Hazzard Was Bound to Fail: An Interview With Professor George Williams, NSW Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Public Health Orders, COVID Restrictions Are Legal, Australian Courts Rule, The Need for a Bill of Rights: An Interview with UNSW Professor George Williams, COVID-19 Highlights the Need for an Australian Bill of Rights, Australia Needs a Bill of Rights: An Interview with MP Andrew Wilkie, Workers Push Back Against Covid-19 Vaccination Mandates. One of the proceedings was brought by Mr Al-Munir Kassam and three other people, whose legal team argued that they had made an informed choice not to be vaccinated, that the choice should be respected on grounds of among other things protecting bodily integrity, and that the state has exceeded its power by making order which, in practical terms, amount to a vaccine mandate. One set of proceedings was brought by Al-Munir Kassam and three other plaintiffs against the health minister, the Chief Medical Officer, the state of NSW and the Commonwealth, specifically around whether section 7 of the PHA legitimately or reasonably allowed for the imposition of Order No 2. Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320. Its hard to imagine a broader power than that. On Friday 15 October 2021, two challenges to the NSW public health orders, restricting activities of residents who had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 (including their ability to work in certain industries) were dismissed by Justice Robert Beech-Jones in the NSW Supreme Court. us, in Commonwealth v Progress Advertising & Press Agency Co Pty 5Ltd, Higgins J explained: Now, the word necessary" may be construed liberally, not as me" aning . In Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320, the Court ruled in favour of the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research, upholding various public health orders that require vaccination against COVID-19 in declared industries. We are crowdfunding lawyers for Australians who want to fight their outrageous pandemic tickets. The Offence of Failing to Comply With a Public Health Order. This case is important to every state, please tune in at 4pm to watch LIVE. Arguments were presented regarding the infringement of public health orders on the rights to bodily integrity and privacy, asserting that they amounted to civil conscription, represented a breach of natural justice and were made by Health Minister Brad Hazzard without clear legislative authority. The constitutional law expert has set out the reasons for this in the co-authored A Charter of Rights for Australia. The case sought to overturn and invalidate Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Delta Order) issued by NSW Chief Health Officer Brad Hazzard. Yes. One set of proceedings was . In NSW the Supreme Court decision of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard . And an obligation of procedural fairness to certain individuals had not been breached, as when decisions are made that affect such large numbers of people no such obligation needs to be met. Mr Larter contended that the public health orders are not reasonable, meaning that it was not legally permissible for Brad Hazzard, the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research (Minister) to make the orders, having regard to the risk to public health posed by the COVID-19 virus. In fact, if you look at section 7 of the Act, it says that the section applies if the minister considers on reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is a risk to public health. So, its very difficult to argue the orders that were made are beyond power in the circumstances. For many Australians it was an important test case, given concerns raised over mandated vaccination policies being implemented by both the NSW Government and, in some cases, by private businesses. Instead the courts only function is to determine the legal validity of the impugned orders, which includes considering whether it has been shown that no minister acting reasonably could have considered them necessary to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences., Ungovernable: Alberta's Quest for Independence. Rebel News Network Ltd. 2023. Curtailing the free movement of persons including their movement to and at work are the very type of restrictions that the PHA clearly authorises, explained the justice, who then knocked down the argument that this then violates the right to work, as common law doesnt protect this right. More than a million people tuned in to the live stream of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard via the New South Wales Supreme Courts YouTube channel over the past couple of weeks, many hoping for a judgement which invalidates public health orders which mandate vaccines for certain industries, such as healthcare, aged care and construction. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. And the Fair Work Commission has made a judgment on Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd. The Kassam plaintiffs asserted that vaccine mandates were a form of civil conscription, in that they force citizens to get the jab. Privacy Policy. And thats problematic because it really emphases what extraordinary powers our politicians have. There is a strong petition on this at Change.org. Statement of Claim: 10.09.21 02: Plaintiff Submissions 03 Kassam & Henry - State Submissions 29.09.21 04 Commonwealth Submissions 05 Judgment 15.10.21 . The specific public health directions have not yet been issued by the Victorian Government, however, the relevant press release is available here. Kassam; Henry v Hazzard has been dismissed on all challenges, with the court ruling in favour of the NSW Chief Health Officer. So, they cant be conscripted, essentially. The case of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard confirms that the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research has the legal authority to introduce state-specific public health orders that require particular workers from declared industries to be vaccinated against COVID-19. A lawyer for Brad Hazzard has pointed out none of the people suing the Health Minister over vaccination mandates for certain workers have in fact been forced to get the Covid-19 jab. The plaintiffs in Kassam submitted that the order is legally unreasonable, indicating in their suit that the extreme threat of prohibiting an individual from undertaking work, unless they become vaccinated, has the effect of requiring an individual in circumstances where they may not have otherwise given their consent to be vaccinated to receive a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. However, there are also current challenges in: YOUR GUIDE | Access the CyberSight 360 hub for the latest cyber security news, information and resources. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. The intense public interest led Supreme Court Justice Robert Beech-Jones to take the extraordinary step of warning the public not to contact him with the court reporting that over 1800 emails had been received from concerned members of the public. Applying to have accounts passed and applying for commission, Protocol for a minors share on intestacy, Representing yourself in civil proceedings, Things to consider before taking formal legal action, Courtroom technology including the Virtual Courtroom, European River Cruise (Flooding) Class Action, European River Cruise (Insufficient water) Class Action, Junior Doctors Underpayments Class Action, Murray Darling Basin Authority Class Action, The War Memorial Project - The Photographs. Subscribe to our FREE newsletter service and well keep you up-to-date with the latest breaking news, cutting edge opinion, and expert analysis affecting both your business and the industry as whole. Save pages and articles youre most interested in to read later on. It provides addresses and contact details of courts throughout NSW, as well as short videos about the general location and how to get to each court. The plaintiffs. Even following the staunch decision delivered by His Honour in Kassam there can be no doubt that with hundreds of plaintiffs still currently before Australian courts and tribunals, and millions of others affected by the public health orders in place across the country, the issue of COVID-19 vaccinations will continue to dominate the employment law landscape in the coming weeks and months. Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution prohibits parliament from passing laws in terms of a civil conscription around medical and dental services. The broad finding was that rather than impinging upon a right to bodily . The NSW parliament didnt meet for three months. There are problems with how these orders are made. The Kassam case was the pointy end of what has become known as the freedom movement, which is opposed to many of the pandemic measures. The court heard the final submissions for two suits against the health minister on Wednesday. Yes. All information on this site is of a general nature only and is not intended to be relied upon as, nor to be a substitute for, specific legal professional advice. Please enter your email address below and click on Sign Up for daily newsletters from Australasian Lawyer. Get updates on Rebel News coverage in Australia delivered straight to your inbox so you never miss a story! Justice Adamson cited the recent decision of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320 (learn more about the decision here), which has become a leading case in respect of the validity of public health orders made regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Can an Employer Force an Employee to Obtain a COVID-19 Vaccination? But we dont. The implementation of this health order has resulted in workers in New South Wales being forced to choose between being vaccinated by the state-given deadline, or losing their jobs. In terms of the contention as to whether a power in Order No 2 that required police officers to check a persons documentation if they were exempt from the mask mandate was inconsistent with the powers contained in the LEPRA, this assertion was again dismissed. We have been lacking those things. I'm reading through the whole thing, because I'm curious about the actual legal argument around the public health orders, so I've got some thoughts and questions. Applying for a grant of administration with the Will annexed, 3. NSW Supreme Court will hand down its Judgment in the case of Kassam; Henry v Hazzard TODAY 15 October 4:00pm Case raises very serious legal issues surrounding mandates for essential workers & we'll soon see where the NSW Courts stand https:// youtu.be/wqq2AEAz91o So, if you had a Commonwealth law that said doctors must provide vaccinations, for example, that would be in breach of that conscription guarantee. Over the lifetime, 2415 publication(s) have been published within this topic receiving 66806 citation(s). UNSW Law Professor George Williams has long argued the need for rights protections to be enacted at the federal level. The Supreme Court issued its decision of Larter v Hazzard (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1451, concerning an application filed by a NSW paramedic, John Larter, to have two public health orders1 declared invalid. Indeed, of late, rights issues have been front and centre in Middle Australia, whereas quite often freedoms and liberties have been taken for granted. 1Simon Harding & Ors v Brett Sutton & Ors (S ECI 2021 03931) and Belinda Cetnar and Jack Cetnar v State of Victoria & Ors (S ECI 2021 03569). I'm a law student and I've got some questions about the Kassam v Hazzard case. Although it was contended that the impugned orders interfere with a persons right to bodily integrity and a host of other freedoms, his Honour explained, the proper analysis is that the impugned orders curtail freedom of movement which in turn affects a persons ability to work. In that decision, the Court concluded that to impugn public health orders on the grounds . #covid19. To the contrary, Part 15 of LEPRA suggests that it applies to regulate the exercise of powers conferred by various laws including the making of requests.. It has not taken long - less than 3 weeks, in fact - for Deputy President Dean's widely-publicised minority dissent in the recent Full Bench decision of Jennifer Kimber v . Hazzard originally created the public health order on the grounds that it was reasonable to avert risk to public health under Section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010. If the j is a trial, then only those who choose to participate agree to do so. NSW Supreme Court Judgement Kassam, Henry v Hazzard. Al-Munir Kassam & Ors. Natasha Henry and five other citizens have launched legal action against Health Minister Brad Hazzard in a bid to overturn rules requiring aged care workers to get the Covid-19 jab or face losing . . As his Honour explained, Kassam consisted of two proceedings brought against NSW health minister Brad Hazzard, around restrictions upon authorised workers to leave areas of concern and the prevention of some from continuing to work in the construction, aged care and education industries. challenged by several workers including one in construction, teaching, and healthcare who have all been required to receive a Covid19 vaccination. The plaintiffs failed on all grounds of their challenge. These have eroded the rights of all Australians, often in ways that are not fully understood. The Court's role is to adjudicate on the legality of the administrative action and not the merits of the decision. On Wednesday, the court heard the final submissions for two suits that sought to invalidate Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021 (NSW) (Delta Order). In accordance with the Court's policy, the following is a summary of its publishedreasons . This is a subreddit for Australians (or anyone interested in Australian law) to discuss matters relating to Australian law. ICR AF lO th Anniversary 1977-1987 Agroforestry a decade of development Edited by H.A. He also dismissed claims Health Minister Brad Hazzard acted outside his powers, by not asking . There are also a range of articles designed to inform and ease the stress of those who are going to court. Not Guilty of Sexual Assault and Legal Costs Awarded, Doctor Permitted to Continue Practising During Proceedings and Ultimately Found Not Guilty of Sexual Assault, Not Guilty of All Six Charges of Sexual Assault and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Bail Granted Before All Charges Dropped Over Sexual Assault and Strangulation Allegations, Charges of Sexual Touching Without Consent Dropped, Bail Granted Despite Allegations of Serious Child Sexual Offences, Not Guilty of Sexual Touching Without Consent, District Court Severity Appeal Successful for Middle-Range Drink Driving, No Criminal Record, Licence Disqualification or Fine for Mid-Range Drink Driving, RMS Driver and Rider Licence Suspensions Set Aside on Appeal, RMS Driver Licence Suspension Set Aside for Red P-Plater, No Criminal Record for Mid Range Drink Driving, NSW Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Public Health Orders, In the judgement published on the NSW Supreme Court website, such as the one by NSW paramedic John Larter, which is yet to be heard by the courts, the backlash from the public over these mandates, Australia urgently needs a Bill of Rights.
kassam v hazzard judgement