Covid Testing Appeal Heads To Privy Council
An appeal concerning Covid-19 testing requirements for students returning to Bermuda’s public schools back in 2021 is scheduled to be heard by the Privy Council in England on November 11, 2026, according to its published schedule.
The listing says the case was bought by a minor by their father and states, “Following the COVID Pandemic, public schools in Bermuda were due to reopen in October 2021. On 22 October 2021, the Minister of Education announced that school students would be required to obtain a PCR test and submit negative results prior to being re-admitted. Additionally, 80% of students were required to have had a negative pre-return PCR test result for a school to re-open. Any student without a negative PCR test result would be required to remain at home and receive “work packets” until a negative PCR test was provided. The Appellant wishes to challenge that requirement.
“The Supreme Court of Bermuda rejected the claim on all grounds. Although a mandatory requirement to take a saliva COVID test could constitute a search, there was no breach of the Appellant’s requirement to consent to such a search, as the “search” was consensual and without duress. There was a clear rationale for requiring a COVID test, and it was reasonable in the circumstances. Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1982 (“OSHA”) provided lawful authority for the testing requirements in relation to public schools and students.
“There was no issue of legality, as the parents were emailed of such requirements well in advance of their implementation, and the consequences of failing to abide by them. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Appellant did consent to the COVID test, and did not suffer duress, as there was a reasonable alternative to taking the test: being homeschooled. Section 4 of OSHA imposed a duty to ensure that persons who are not employees of an employer, but who may be affected by the conduct of his undertaking, to protect them from health and safety risks, which was satisfied in this instance. There was similarly no issue of legality.”
