NSW Police Officer Belinda Hocroft Wins Court Case Claiming Mandated Vaxxine Is Unlawful and Incorrect
By Sydney National Review
For anyone following the Court proceedings against Hazzard, the Hocroft vs Hazzard case was settled out of court in favour of the Plaintiff (Hocroft) Thank you Anestis Mantzouranis. This was the case of NSW Police officer Belinda Hocroft who was told that she needed at least the first shot by September 19th or she would be fired and not be able to return to her work.
Belinda was represented by Charly Tannous of Sage Solicitors who argued that Belinda, a mother of four, was very concerned about the long term effects of the vaccine and felt it was a breach of her right to choose. This case now becomes a reference case for anyone else in the same position, and sets a precedent that proves that the Government claim of mandate is UNLAWFUL and INCORRECT.
This should encourage everyone in the same position to hold on to your values, to fight back where you are being coerced and to know that you are on the right side of history! It sets a precedent for everywhere in Australia. We now have a reference. LETS GO FOR IT AUSTRALIA
Here’s what others had to say:
Leanne Dunn
We need more cases to win and get rid of this crap
Figster
Does anybody know what the settlement was? Obviously not getting your profession back? I am a teacher in nsw, obviously can’t work any more. I would love to be compensated for loss of livelyhood and begin my own educational business.
Bruce Langford
Doesn’t a settlement out of court mean that there is now NO precedent in the courts?
Bazzard
Why wasn’t this settled in court? If this is true, then wouldn’t it be more socially responsible to take it all the way through the court system, versus hidden like this?
27,405 total views
6 Responses
I dont think thats correct. The NSW Supreme Court website says “dismissed by consent”…
Can someone please confirm the details?
Dismissed by consent just means the court proceeding no longer needs to go ahead because the parties came to an agreement outside of court. Settlements are confidential and “without prejudice”. They do not set precedents.
Settle doutside of court:
It’s called money talks, justice walks.
Anyone without strong morals or ethics will succumb to a golden handshake, where one will concede if paid a large sum.
Except this is not business, so it is called a dirty handshake.
Settlement outside of court is confidential. It does not set a precedent and cannot be used in future court cases. A settlement is without prejudice and without admission of liability. It does absolutely nothing for no one except the plaintiff. Please check facts as it is gives people false hope.
Exactly right. The supposed ‘facts’ reported here are indeed FALSE. What a way to lose credibility….. 🥵☹
Did she sue Brad Hazzard as an individual or as a minister of the NSW Government? If it’s the latter, a simple FOI request should be all one would need to find out the details of the settlement. I’m joking of course – no government today would willing let the taxpayers know what they’re doing with taxpayers’ money! Hahahaha!