In a blistering repudiation, the Supreme Court Justice said that the conduct of AHPRA and the Medical Board had been "less than profoundly unsatisfactory”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Dr. William Bay has sparked significant conversation about the balance between regulatory oversight, free speech, and procedural fairness within professional contexts. Justice Bradley’s strong criticism of AHPRA and the Medical Board reveals deeper issues within the mechanisms that govern medical professionals.
This case underscores a pivotal tension: the responsibility of regulatory bodies to ensure public trust in the medical profession versus the fundamental rights of professionals to question public policies and participate in societal debates. Justice Bradley’s comments highlight that regulatory bodies cannot prioritize institutional protection or align themselves uncritically with government positions without risking overreach and undermining their legitimacy .
Dr. Bay’s methods and rhetoric may provoke polarized reactions, but his victory sets a precedent that procedural fairness and freedom of speech are non-negotiable, even in emergencies. By asserting that no public health directive allowed the Board to deny a fair and unbiased hearing, the judgment reveals that the pandemic’s urgency does not justify compromising foundational legal principles .
The broader implication is a call for introspection within regulatory agencies about the scope and limits of their authority. If this ruling becomes a rallying cry for other suspended professionals, as some suggest, it could lead to a larger reckoning about how dissent and unconventional advocacy are treated within regulated professions. This case challenges us to rethink the frameworks that balance institutional trust with individual freedoms. How do we reconcile protecting public health while respecting the right to dissent, particularly in an era where trust in institutions is increasingly fraught?
It was a very well-articulated decision. I doubt it will provoke introspection from the regulators but it may make them more inclined to at least avoid the appearance of bias, which would be a start.
Still struggling in disbelief that now doctors "can criticise the vaccines freely, and as a registered medical practitioner of this country", as a result of this case.
That was a really interesting read [the whole court judgment].
The AMA board & AHPRA sat on the critical documentary evendence until after they had dismissed Dr Bay's review. But when it emerged that Dr Bay had violated no law, nor acted inappropriately with reference to the GP's code of conduct, because 100% of the complaints made to AMA/AHPRA were baseless accusations with no substance in fact, neither the suspension decision nor the investgation decision could stand.
I found the costs decision fascinating as well. AMA & AHPRA have to pay the costs of both Dr Bay & the State, because their ineptitude at realising the complaints against Dr Bay were pur BS meant he had to make constitutional arguments invoking the State to defend them, costs which could have been avoided if they'd just been HONEST and said, "These allegations against Dr Bay are biased bullshit; he keeps his lisence and there's no need for an investigation."
Fuck you AMA and AHPRA.
Your reputations will always be as shit as the TGAs.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Dr. William Bay has sparked significant conversation about the balance between regulatory oversight, free speech, and procedural fairness within professional contexts. Justice Bradley’s strong criticism of AHPRA and the Medical Board reveals deeper issues within the mechanisms that govern medical professionals.
This case underscores a pivotal tension: the responsibility of regulatory bodies to ensure public trust in the medical profession versus the fundamental rights of professionals to question public policies and participate in societal debates. Justice Bradley’s comments highlight that regulatory bodies cannot prioritize institutional protection or align themselves uncritically with government positions without risking overreach and undermining their legitimacy .
Dr. Bay’s methods and rhetoric may provoke polarized reactions, but his victory sets a precedent that procedural fairness and freedom of speech are non-negotiable, even in emergencies. By asserting that no public health directive allowed the Board to deny a fair and unbiased hearing, the judgment reveals that the pandemic’s urgency does not justify compromising foundational legal principles .
The broader implication is a call for introspection within regulatory agencies about the scope and limits of their authority. If this ruling becomes a rallying cry for other suspended professionals, as some suggest, it could lead to a larger reckoning about how dissent and unconventional advocacy are treated within regulated professions. This case challenges us to rethink the frameworks that balance institutional trust with individual freedoms. How do we reconcile protecting public health while respecting the right to dissent, particularly in an era where trust in institutions is increasingly fraught?
It was a very well-articulated decision. I doubt it will provoke introspection from the regulators but it may make them more inclined to at least avoid the appearance of bias, which would be a start.
"None extended the Board’s regulatory role to include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism."
WOW! AMAZING! Can it be true?? Will they stop calling people antivaxers?
This, and Moira Deeming's win on defamation! Will they stop calling people Nazis?
Probs not tbh.
Still struggling in disbelief that now doctors "can criticise the vaccines freely, and as a registered medical practitioner of this country", as a result of this case.
Quote of Dr Bray via https://x.com/DrBillyBay/status/1867407964480377330
That was a really interesting read [the whole court judgment].
The AMA board & AHPRA sat on the critical documentary evendence until after they had dismissed Dr Bay's review. But when it emerged that Dr Bay had violated no law, nor acted inappropriately with reference to the GP's code of conduct, because 100% of the complaints made to AMA/AHPRA were baseless accusations with no substance in fact, neither the suspension decision nor the investgation decision could stand.
I found the costs decision fascinating as well. AMA & AHPRA have to pay the costs of both Dr Bay & the State, because their ineptitude at realising the complaints against Dr Bay were pur BS meant he had to make constitutional arguments invoking the State to defend them, costs which could have been avoided if they'd just been HONEST and said, "These allegations against Dr Bay are biased bullshit; he keeps his lisence and there's no need for an investigation."
Fuck you AMA and AHPRA.
Your reputations will always be as shit as the TGAs.
I believe that Dr Bays unwavering faith has been rewarded. His example of courage and the success of this judgement are there to inspire us all.
Brilliant ...headway at last! But it only a start, I say, we need many of the "mandate freaks" & "criminal covid crooks & liars" prosecuted!
Bravo for this court ruling!
It seems likely, the wreckless AMA and AHPRA, considered themselves ABOVE the law.
A significant win.
Finally we are starting to see hairline cracks in the dam wall.
How is it that anyone involved in the adverse administration of Dr Bay's license can possibly, unashamedly, keep their positions on these boards?
Maybe there are cracks starting in starting in the 'official' facade...
Here's hoping...
Given the win hung on a technicality I'm not sure, but I'm encouraged that the regulators didn't get away with the obviously improper conduct.
A good news story.
Procedural fairness is a thing apparently.
but I note at the time of his "crimes" no one, no entitiy, no judge, would have backed him up.
It's good . . it's a godsend. /\