A Setback for Freedom: NZ Supreme Court’s Ruling On NZ Defence Force Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate
On April 11, 2025, the New Zealand Supreme Court delivered a decision that has left advocates for bodily autonomy (and human rights) reeling
Overturning the Court of Appeal’s February 2024 ruling, which had declared the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF) internal Covid-19 mandate unlawful, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld the mandate’s legality.
In a rare and disturbing move, the Supreme Court also ordered the four NZDF applicants to pay over $30,000 in costs to the Crown. This ruling not only dashes hopes for dozens of discharged servicemen and women seeking reinstatement but also raises alarm about the state’s ability to limit rights without robust scrutiny.
Brief history of this NZDF case
This story begins in 2021, when mounting pressure on NZDF personnel to receive the COVID-19 injection led to the formation of United We Stand, a group uniting NZDF, NZ Police and Fire Service members in defence of bodily autonomy. This wasn’t about rejecting vaccines but about rejecting coercion.
In November 15 2021 the NZ Government rolled out mass mandates across many sectors, and in December 2021 the government mandated COVID-19 shots for NZDF and Police personnel.
A glimmer of hope emerged in February 2022 when the High Court, in the Yardley case, struck down that mandate as unlawful - a signal that justice could prevail. Yet, the NZDF pressed forward, implementing an internal vaccine mandate in May 2022, ignoring United We Stand’s efforts to engage in dialogue, and ignoring the Yardley precedent.
In September 2022, four NZDF members challenged this mandate in the High Court, arguing it violated the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). The court, however, upheld the mandate, citing the need for “military readiness”. That December, dozens of personnel were discharged for declining the COVID-19 shots, their service to New Zealand cast aside.
These four servicemen then took their case to the Court of Appeal in April 2023.
In February 2024, the court delivered a landmark ruling: The mandate was an unjustified limit on human rights, as the NZDF failed to show why less restrictive measures - like those used by the British Armed Forces, allowing unvaccinated personnel to serve with accommodations - wouldn’t suffice. The decision was hailed as a victory for freedom, as noted in a prior post here.
Even after this ruling, NZDF kept their mandate in place, as noted here.
But the NZDF wasn’t done. They appealed to the Supreme Court, with hearings held in October 2024. Yesterday’s ruling marks the culmination of that process - and a troubling turn, that the population of NZ should be made aware of (yet mainstream media is, once again, silent).
A questionable legal pivot
The Supreme Court’s decision rests on a procedural argument. Evidence about the British Armed Forces’ approach was introduced “late,” denying the NZDF a fair chance to respond. This reasoning raises eyebrows. The NZDF had the opportunity to seek leave for additional evidence but didn’t. To critics, this feels like a convenient sidestep, avoiding the core issue of whether the mandate was a justified limit on rights.
The Court of Appeal had spotlighted the NZDF’s failure to explore alternatives, a point that resonated with those who see mandates as a slippery slope.
By dismissing this on a technicality, the Supreme Court appears to shield the state rather than protect citizens.
The ruling’s consequences are stark: Dozens of discharged NZDF personnel remain without careers or recourse. Worse, the court’s order for the four applicants to pay $30,000+ in costs - a rarity in Bill of Rights cases - feels like a deliberate sting.
The Crown, with its vast resources, initiated this appeal; demanding reimbursement from individuals who’ve already lost so much suggests a motive beyond justice. Many see it as a warning: challenge the state, and face financial ruin.
Dangerous precedent set
The men and women behind this fight, including United We Stand, remain resolute. “This ruling sets a very dangerous precedent,” they declare, “enabling government authorities to limit our human rights without being properly held to account by the Justice System.” Their words echo a broader concern: If the highest court prioritises technicalities over rights, what protections remain?
“As current and ex-members of the NZDF,” they add, “we have all made a choice to serve New Zealand and the values that it is built upon. Although we are very disappointed in this ruling, we have no regrets in the stand that we have made for what is right.” Their conviction is unshaken, a testament to their service not just in uniform but in principle.
One member, Dan, offers a poignant reflection: “Despite this ruling from the Supreme Court, there is one higher Judge that we will rely upon to give us justice in the end.”
His words carry a moral weight, resonating with those who see this as more than a legal battle.
Their message to others is clear: “We encourage others to not be discouraged by this result, but instead to continue to stand for what is right.”
Justice or politics?
Critics of the ruling argue it’s tainted by politics. “We believe that this ruling makes a number of errors of law due to being overly influenced to support a political agenda, rather than provide justice,” they state. The charge carries weight when you consider the ruling’s elements: overturning a well-reasoned Court of Appeal decision, ignoring the NZDF’s inaction on alternatives, and imposing punitive costs. It’s hard not to see a pattern of deference to state power.
The $30,000 cost order, in particular, stands out. Bill of Rights cases typically waive such costs, recognising their public importance. The Crown’s pursuit of this money - when it faces no financial hardship - suggests a desire to deter future challenges. As the group’s statements imply, it’s less about fairness and more about control.
Why this case should matter to every New Zealander
This case transcends the NZDF or ‘vaccines’. It’s about whether the government can curtail your freedoms without proving it’s necessary. If soldiers can be forced into medical treatment and fired for refusing, what’s to stop similar mandates elsewhere? If individuals can be bankrupted for seeking justice, how can ordinary Kiwis stand up?
The precedent is unsettling: rights can be limited with minimal accountability. The cost order amplifies this, signalling that dissent comes at a price. Yet, the courage of these servicemen offers hope. Their refusal to yield reminds us that freedom lives in action, not just in law.
Never give up
The Supreme Court’s ruling may close one chapter, but it doesn’t end the story. The group’s call to “stand for what is right” resonates deeply with the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who have lost their legal rights, bodily autonomy and so much more, since 2020.
This setback demands a response: Please share this story, support those who’ve fought, and refuse to give in.
Daniel’s reference of a “higher Judge” speaks to a universal truth: Justice isn’t owned by courts. It lives in the choices of those who stand firm. For every Kiwi who values freedom, that’s a challenge worth embracing.
A note about the media
It’s expected that the mainstream media won’t report on such important cases as this… or if they do, it’s severely lop-sided. A case in point was the mainstream media assault on ex-Maori All Black Shane Christie, for respectfully asking a question of Efeso Collins’ widow outside the court hearing into his sudden death, recently. I met Shane and covered this story here.
But when the ‘independent’ or ‘alternative’ media throws their opinion at it too, based on their personal feelings about those who rejected the government mandates, this needs to be called out too.
Sean Plunket, from The Platform NZ, is one of the ‘big names’ in the ‘alternative news’ space. In some areas he appears to be all for truth and justice. He falls noticeably short on at least two important issues.
Fluoride, and
All that was stripped away from ALL New Zealanders since 2020 with the COVID-19 mandates, lockdowns, restrictions and injections. Why?
Why can’t Sean Plunket put his childish name-calling to the side and take a look at this? See his reply, and usual ‘cooker’ derogatory remark on NZDSOS’s X post yesterday, soon after the Supreme Court ruling was announced.
Perhaps he’s not really independent? Perhaps he simply hasn’t worked it out yet…
One day, he might find his right to bodily autonomy overridden. Who then, will he ask for help?
Penny Marie
For more from me, including social media links & recent work. I have been independently researching, writing and sharing peoples stories since 2021, and in September 2023 I formed Let Kids Be Kids.
If you would like to support me, I’d really appreciate you, thank you! One-off support of $10 or more.
A Complaint of Genocide and crimes against humanity has been filed on behalf of New Zealanders, and Ardern, Hipkins, Bloomfield etc, have been formally accused, and it was sent to US HHS and OAG, as US congress need to repeal PREP act, among other laws enabling the legalized murder campaign.
Forcing a person to be injected without their informed consent is immoral and the mark of a totalitarian society. We are becoming little more than livestock, distracted by shiny tech and consumerism as we are corralled ever more tightly toward the abattoir. This will not end well.