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.
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.
Law is not my thing, at all. What does this case mean? That he went to the constitutional court that ruled he had a right to speak, regardless of gag orders by AHPRA? Is that what happened?
Dr. Bay had his GP lisence suspended by AMA/AHPRA Qld. He appealed their decision and asked for a review. They dismissed his review, upholding their original decision to suspend his lisence. AMA/AHPRA then commenced an investigation re. 5 complaints (the same day they decided to suspend his lisence). AMA/AHPRA referred their investigation to QCAT. At that point, Dr. Bay went a constitutional route for his defense.
Since QCAT cannot deal with constitutional matters, the case was referred to QLD supreme ct and the State of QLD called to defend the constitutional issues raised (in addion to reviewing the administrative matters).
At the 11th hour, AMA/AHPRA tendered the fatal documentary evidence (the 5 complaints) which killed their case against Dr. Bay: not a single complaint was a breach of either legislation or Code of Conduct; they were ALL mere objections to Dr. Bay's political behaviour. On that basis, there was no validity to either Dr. Bay's suspension or investigation (the QCAT referral); nor was his constitutional argument ever required in his defense; the judge did address the constitutional arguments and dismissed them all in favour of the State's legal arguments.
CONCLUSION:
Suspension decision set aside.
Investigation decision set aside.
Costs awarded to Dr. Bay and the State, to be paid by AMA/AHPRA.
Thanks for all that. Dr Bay says that all doctors can now criticise vaccines. Do you think this ruling truly allows them to say to an actual patient that they are concerned about the safety of the vaccine in question, or are they breaching professional codes/rules/gag orders if they did?
Yup, because the maggots at the AMA & AHPRA now know they have to conduct suspensions and investigations with proper, due process and impartiality. Will they do that? Unlikely, because they will just keep resorting to intimidation and threats, or unjustly strip Drs of their lisences and drag the matter out for 2+ years to ruin incomes. Note that Dr Bay wasn't entitled to compensation for the way AMA/AHPRA (mis)handled his suspension for 2+ years.
AMA/AHPRA did not allow/follow due process when suspending Dr. Bay; and after they did suspend him they acted with malicious bias. An independent investigation (i.e. the Supreme Court judge) found that his suspension and investigation for conduct was unfounded, unwarranted and pure abuse of AMA/AHPRA's legislatively defined powers.
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.
The rats sneak off the ship & onward & upward to be a plague on another....perhaps as a rule they get promoted! Is it honour among thieves/swindlers? ...or "Mass Murderers"?!
Congratulations to William Bay on his win against Ahpra and the Medical Board of Australia.
This now makes for very interesting times indeed on the voluntary informed consent for vaccination front, and practitioners' legal, ethical and moral obligation to uphold this vital principle.
This development opens up a whole can of worms - for Ahpra and the Medical Board, for the practitioners, and for other institutions which have collaborated with the destruction of voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
A glimmer of hope!! Is the tide turning? A solid, logical and reliable decision. The justice system has been otherwise been so badly discredited ans politicized eg. Helen Rofe, Anna Katzman. Please be the start of a return to justice.
Yes it was encouraging to see the regulators held to proper standards as they have been getting away with these bully tactics for so long. I just read that the ombudsman has launched a review of AHPRA’s emergency powers, so this will be interesting to follow…
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.
What they will learn is what they have to do differently next time to make it stick
They are criminally minded that is clear
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.
Law is not my thing, at all. What does this case mean? That he went to the constitutional court that ruled he had a right to speak, regardless of gag orders by AHPRA? Is that what happened?
Dr. Bay had his GP lisence suspended by AMA/AHPRA Qld. He appealed their decision and asked for a review. They dismissed his review, upholding their original decision to suspend his lisence. AMA/AHPRA then commenced an investigation re. 5 complaints (the same day they decided to suspend his lisence). AMA/AHPRA referred their investigation to QCAT. At that point, Dr. Bay went a constitutional route for his defense.
Since QCAT cannot deal with constitutional matters, the case was referred to QLD supreme ct and the State of QLD called to defend the constitutional issues raised (in addion to reviewing the administrative matters).
At the 11th hour, AMA/AHPRA tendered the fatal documentary evidence (the 5 complaints) which killed their case against Dr. Bay: not a single complaint was a breach of either legislation or Code of Conduct; they were ALL mere objections to Dr. Bay's political behaviour. On that basis, there was no validity to either Dr. Bay's suspension or investigation (the QCAT referral); nor was his constitutional argument ever required in his defense; the judge did address the constitutional arguments and dismissed them all in favour of the State's legal arguments.
CONCLUSION:
Suspension decision set aside.
Investigation decision set aside.
Costs awarded to Dr. Bay and the State, to be paid by AMA/AHPRA.
Thanks for all that. Dr Bay says that all doctors can now criticise vaccines. Do you think this ruling truly allows them to say to an actual patient that they are concerned about the safety of the vaccine in question, or are they breaching professional codes/rules/gag orders if they did?
Yup, because the maggots at the AMA & AHPRA now know they have to conduct suspensions and investigations with proper, due process and impartiality. Will they do that? Unlikely, because they will just keep resorting to intimidation and threats, or unjustly strip Drs of their lisences and drag the matter out for 2+ years to ruin incomes. Note that Dr Bay wasn't entitled to compensation for the way AMA/AHPRA (mis)handled his suspension for 2+ years.
AMA/AHPRA did not allow/follow due process when suspending Dr. Bay; and after they did suspend him they acted with malicious bias. An independent investigation (i.e. the Supreme Court judge) found that his suspension and investigation for conduct was unfounded, unwarranted and pure abuse of AMA/AHPRA's legislatively defined powers.
"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
Yes, it's going to be very interesting how they're going to handle the subject of vaccination in their consultations in future.
Yeah, probs not. Courier mail.
"Anti-vaxer's ban "illegal"" https://x.com/FreedomHAV/status/1867707160513458638
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.
One in 26 million. Elon Musk-level individual brilliance, with a productive outcome.
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?
Anne Tonkin, chair of the Medical Board of Australia, has also stepped down...
https://www.ausdoc.com.au/news/dr-anne-tonkin-ends-her-final-term-as-medical-board-of-australia-chair/
I've written to now former Medical Board Chair Anne Tonkin many times, pleading for voluntary informed consent for vaccination to be upheld.
See for example my email sent in June 2021: Coercive covid-19 injections in Australia - email to the Medical Board of Australia, AHPRA, RACGP, RACP, AMA: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/coercive-covid-19-injections-in-australia-medical-board-of-australia-ahpra-racgp-racp-ama.pdf
It's notable that Ahpra CEO Martin Fletcher announced he was stepping down in August 2024, term ending in December 2024: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/News/2024-08-15-Ahpra-CEO-steps-down-after-15-years.aspx
It will be most ineresting to follow where he - and the rest of the rat pack, go
The rats sneak off the ship & onward & upward to be a plague on another....perhaps as a rule they get promoted! Is it honour among thieves/swindlers? ...or "Mass Murderers"?!
Onward and upward?
I do so hope not...
Way past time for the spotlight to be shone on these people.
A few of them are mentioned in my detailed paper: Misfeasance in Public Office? The Destruction of Voluntary Informed Consent for Vaccination, 6 June 2024: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/misfeasance-in-public-office-the-destruction-of-voluntary-informed-consent-for-vaccination.pdf
These are the sections in my paper:
I. Introduction
II. The precedent for COVID-19 vaccination mandates in Australia and the destruction of voluntary informed consent
III. Were health practitioners in effect conscripted to support the COVID-19 vaccination rollout?
IV. Mass population vaccination and Rogers v Whitaker
V. ‘Exemptions’ for COVID-19 vaccination - an oxymoron?
VI. Liability protection for manufacturers but not for practitioners
VII. Why did ATAGI recommend COVID-19 vaccination for all children aged 5 to 11 years?
VIII. From ‘No Jab, No Pay’ to ‘No Jab, No Life’ - the creation of a coercive vaccination society
IX. Conclusion
You never know, someone might actually read it one day!
Not Happy at all about this. It can't just be the board CEOs.
They ALL have to go!
Brilliant ...headway at last! But it only a start, I say, we need many of the "mandate freaks" & "criminal covid crooks & liars" prosecuted!
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.
Congratulations to William Bay on his win against Ahpra and the Medical Board of Australia.
This now makes for very interesting times indeed on the voluntary informed consent for vaccination front, and practitioners' legal, ethical and moral obligation to uphold this vital principle.
This development opens up a whole can of worms - for Ahpra and the Medical Board, for the practitioners, and for other institutions which have collaborated with the destruction of voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
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.
Was that because they were all paid off, running scared, orpromised better positions to come?
How is it that they ALL sang "Safe and Effective" in clear unison across several continents?
When NONE of them possessed a skerrick of proof!
Why now, do they insist on ignoring the ongoing damage and deaths?
Faith in allopathic medicine, from all I hear, is surely at an all time low.
Is that written into the finding of the judge, or is that your supposition?
Took long enough !
It's good . . it's a godsend. /\
A glimmer of hope!! Is the tide turning? A solid, logical and reliable decision. The justice system has been otherwise been so badly discredited ans politicized eg. Helen Rofe, Anna Katzman. Please be the start of a return to justice.
Yes it was encouraging to see the regulators held to proper standards as they have been getting away with these bully tactics for so long. I just read that the ombudsman has launched a review of AHPRA’s emergency powers, so this will be interesting to follow…
Wow (review of AHPRA)! That's very interesting.
Human Rights is another very big problem - they still support mandates (last I heard) - coz vaxs stop transmission?
AHPRA needs to be dissolved and the tyrants running it need to be never allowed in medicine ever again
The TGA and ATAGI should have a similar fate