Introduction
1. This is a defence on behalf of the Respondent against the Claimants’ appeal of the Schools
Vaccination Act 2022 s.1(1) (SVA) under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.4 (HRA).
The Respondent asks the Court to uphold the SVA because:
a. the compulsion to be vaccinated does not violate the Claimants’ autonomy under Article 8.
b. the exclusion of the Claimants from Felpersham Academy does not amount to a violation of
their right to education under Article 2 of Protocol 1.
Statement of Issues
2. Two issues arise for determination:
a. Whether the compulsion to be vaccinated violates the Claimants’ autonomy under Article 8.
b. Whether the exclusion from Felpersham Academy constitutes a violation of the right to
education under Article 2 of Protocol 1.
Statement of Facts
3. The Respondent is Felpersham Academy, a ‘school’ under s.1(3) of the SVA. They have excluded
the Claimants, two 14 years old pupils, Patricia Jenner and George Quan, from attending school
under s.1(1) of the SVA which prohibits pupils aged 12 and over unvaccinated against the new
1/1
, Omega COVID-19 variant to attend the school unless they are medically exempt or have not been
offered the vaccination. The purpose of the SVA is to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 to avoid
overwhelming the NHS. The Claimants do not want the vaccination and believe it violates their rights
to autonomy and education and subsequently seek a declaration of incompatibility. The Respondent
supports the SVA as it is necessary in a democratic society and in the best interests of the Claimants
and the public regarding the protection of health and safeguarding of the NHS.
First Submission: The compulsion to be vaccinated does not violate Article 8
4. The Claimant’s application falls within the scope of Article 8, the “right to respect for private and
family life, home, and correspondence” because following Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom,
personal autonomy is an important principle underlying its interpretation. 1
5. However, the right conferred by Article 8 is not absolute and as there is no European Consensus
about the matter concerned, contracting States are afforded a wide margin of appreciation to decide
when they are willing to restrict a person’s autonomy in the balance of a pressing social need. 2
6. For the interference with the Claimants’ Article 8 right to be justified, it must be in accordance
with the law, pursue a legitimate aim in response to a pressing social need, be necessary in a
democratic society, and sufficiently proportionate.
I. Was the interference conducted ‘in accordance with the law’?
1
Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom no. 28957/95 [90].
2
Fretté v. France no. 36515/97 [41].
2/1
1. This is a defence on behalf of the Respondent against the Claimants’ appeal of the Schools
Vaccination Act 2022 s.1(1) (SVA) under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.4 (HRA).
The Respondent asks the Court to uphold the SVA because:
a. the compulsion to be vaccinated does not violate the Claimants’ autonomy under Article 8.
b. the exclusion of the Claimants from Felpersham Academy does not amount to a violation of
their right to education under Article 2 of Protocol 1.
Statement of Issues
2. Two issues arise for determination:
a. Whether the compulsion to be vaccinated violates the Claimants’ autonomy under Article 8.
b. Whether the exclusion from Felpersham Academy constitutes a violation of the right to
education under Article 2 of Protocol 1.
Statement of Facts
3. The Respondent is Felpersham Academy, a ‘school’ under s.1(3) of the SVA. They have excluded
the Claimants, two 14 years old pupils, Patricia Jenner and George Quan, from attending school
under s.1(1) of the SVA which prohibits pupils aged 12 and over unvaccinated against the new
1/1
, Omega COVID-19 variant to attend the school unless they are medically exempt or have not been
offered the vaccination. The purpose of the SVA is to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 to avoid
overwhelming the NHS. The Claimants do not want the vaccination and believe it violates their rights
to autonomy and education and subsequently seek a declaration of incompatibility. The Respondent
supports the SVA as it is necessary in a democratic society and in the best interests of the Claimants
and the public regarding the protection of health and safeguarding of the NHS.
First Submission: The compulsion to be vaccinated does not violate Article 8
4. The Claimant’s application falls within the scope of Article 8, the “right to respect for private and
family life, home, and correspondence” because following Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom,
personal autonomy is an important principle underlying its interpretation. 1
5. However, the right conferred by Article 8 is not absolute and as there is no European Consensus
about the matter concerned, contracting States are afforded a wide margin of appreciation to decide
when they are willing to restrict a person’s autonomy in the balance of a pressing social need. 2
6. For the interference with the Claimants’ Article 8 right to be justified, it must be in accordance
with the law, pursue a legitimate aim in response to a pressing social need, be necessary in a
democratic society, and sufficiently proportionate.
I. Was the interference conducted ‘in accordance with the law’?
1
Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom no. 28957/95 [90].
2
Fretté v. France no. 36515/97 [41].
2/1
