Crows AFLW footballer Deni Varnhagen’s vaccine mandate trial begins

SA’s vaccination mandate has forced benched AFLW Crows star and nurse Deni Varnhagen to work as a casual labourer “in order to survive”, her legal challenge has heard.

Benched AFLW footballer and nurse Deni Varnhagen is working as a casual labourer “in order to survive” because of the state’s vaccination mandates, a court has heard, as her legal challenge begins.

On Tuesday morning, as she appeared in the Supreme Court for the first time in her repeatedly-delayed trial, she was met at court by about 50 supporters congregating on Victoria Square.

With anti-vaccine placards and T-shirts, some yelled out, “go Deni, get us the truth”.

Ms Varnhagen smiled but did not otherwise acknowledge the calls of support.

As the crowd grows, so too does the police presence. #covid19#auslaw#[e-mail]/DHCvETLfs2

— Sean Fewster (@SeanFewster) April 6, 2022

Deni Vanhagen arrives at the Supreme Court for her legal challenge against SA’s vaccine mandate. Picture: Tom Huntley

Supporters and protesters outside the Supreme Court ahead of the trial. Picture: Tom Huntley

A small group of SA Police arrived at the courthouse shortly after.

Opening the trial, Simon Ower SC, for Varnhagen, said the case “was not about the wisdom” of vaccinations, but that Police Commissioner Grant Stevens had overstepped in his role as Covid state co-ordinator.

“This case is about power … we contend Stevens acted in excess of his powers under the Emergency Management Act,” he said.

He asked the court to find the Governor’s decision to extend the state of emergency for 28 days, from March 2, was invalid.

If the court found that valid, he said, he asked it rule the mandate for healthcare workers was “in excess of power” because it:

LACKS practicality in stopping the spread of the virus, as defined in the Act.

IS UNREASONABLE by mandating “a control beyond” that which any government “would otherwise require”.

IS NOT supported by evidence because “there was no evidence” before Mr Stevens when he issued the mandate.

Police with protesters outside court, before the trial began. Picture: Tom Huntley

A raucous and (mostly) supportive welcome for Varnhagen from the group. Some competing agendas being aired and calls to "ask the real questions". #covid19#auslawpic.twitter.com/13h4yiF9LA

— Sean Fewster (@SeanFewster) April 6, 2022

Mr Ower said Ms Varnhagen was now working as a casual labourer “in order to survive” but continued to receive “a minor sum” from the Adelaide Football Club.

“She believes that because the (mandate) was in force, she’s been left with no choice as to whether she receives the vaccine,” he said.

“She feels she is effectively being coerced into doing something in order to keep her employment.”

He said Ms Varnhagen’s fellow nurse and litigant, Courtney Milligan, had three lifelong blood clotting issues but was denied an exemption from the mandate.

He said that, after having her first dose of the vaccine, Ms Milligan experienced an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis.

“She began self-administering blood-thinning injections and sought an urgent ultrasound,” he said.

“She decided that, because of concerns for her health, she would not proceed with the second vaccination or, indeed, the third.”

Deni Vanhagen arrives at the Supreme Court. Picture: Tom Huntley

Varnhagen, Ms Milligan, teacher Craig Bowyer, childcare worker Kylie Dudson and police officers Adam Zacary Cook and Rosalyn Smith have challenged the mandate.

They asserted authorities failed to exclude all “obvious, alternative, compelling, reasonably practicable” alternatives that do not affect “common law rights or freedoms to bodily integrity”.

Witnesses expected to give evidence include Mr Stevens, chief public health officer Nicola Spurrier and virologist Nikolai Petrovsky

The trial was originally supposed to start before the state election but has been postponed three times.

One delay was caused by government counsel being in Covid quarantine, and another because Justice Judy Hughes and a family member were in isolation.

On Monday, Mr Ower said there appeared to be very few emails between Mr Stevens and Prof Spurrier regarding the scientific basis for mandates and a third vaccine dose.

He said police working for Mr Stevens subsequently asked Prof Spurrier for “detailed health advice, but it was never given”.

He said Prof Spurrier eventually sent another email but it amounted to no more than her having “cut and paste her earlier email” to police, containing “dot point, dot point, dot point,”

Speaking outside court, Ms Varnhagen’s counsel, Loretta Polson, said Mr Stevens wasn’t at court due to “a virus”. She then suggested he “take a Panadol” and answer his subpoena.

“I invite Mr Stevens to take a Panadol and to come to court and to tell the people of South Australia what information he was given and upon what information he relied when imposing mandates which have had the effect of throwing tens of thousands of South Australians out of their jobs.”

Varnhagen's counsel, Loretta Polson, says Commissioner Grant Stevens won't come to court due to "a virus". She invites him "to take a Panadol" and answer his subpoena. @theTiser#auslaw#covid19pic.twitter.com/U8JsRUIPyI

— Sean Fewster (@SeanFewster) April 6, 2022

Mr Bowyer said the group did not want to be treated as “second-class citizens” any more.

He said it made no sense that he had to provide a RAT every day to attend work when “vaccinated people are passing” the virus on.

“What we want is for (chief public health officer) Nicola Spurrier and Grant Stevens (police commissioner) to have to speak to the facts and justify to us why we lost our jobs using facts and data, not loose emails and agendas,” he said.

“We don’t judge anyone who’s been vaccinated, that’s their right – we want to be allowed to make our decisions.”

Originally published as Crows AFLW footballer Deni Varnhagen’s vaccine mandate trial begins