The Jackal: December 2022

10 Dec 2022

Sue Grey - Arsehole of the Week

There really isn’t any nice way to say this, but Sue Grey is a despicable and loathsome person. Not only has she been promoting disinformation about vaccines in order to promote her own lawyers practice, the discredited anti-vaxxer is now at the centre of a controversy whereby she encouraged the parents of a sick baby to delay his life saving operation.

Of course someone who is permanently down the rabbit hole isn’t going to believe what the doctors or science says, which is that blood from vaccinated donors isn’t harmful and won’t vaccinate recipients. Instead, Grey is going to use misinformation to convince a couple of vulnerable parents to put the life of their sick baby in danger to further her own goals.

On Thursday, the BBC reported:

New Zealand places child in anti-vax blood case in custody

A New Zealand court has ordered a child at the centre of a case over blood transfusions from donors vaccinated against Covid-19 be taken into temporary custody by health officials.

The four-month-old boy is in a hospital in Auckland awaiting urgent treatment to correct a heart disorder.

His parents had blocked the operation and sought a court ruling that he receive blood from unvaccinated donors.

But the High Court ruled the operation was in the child's "best interest".


Grey and her accomplices went to extraordinary lengths to try and prevent this life saving surgery…an operation that has thankfully now gone ahead and been successful because of Court and Police intervention.

Justice Gault also rejected a request from the parents' lawyer, Sue Grey, that a tailored donor service with blood from exclusively unvaccinated donors be established.

Ms Grey said the long-term effects of the vaccine were "untested" and accused doctors of refusing to provide an alternate donor service for ideological reasons.

So Sue Grey wanted the state to establish an alternative blood donation system for the unvaccinated, which would have taken considerable time and resources to get off the ground.

Meanwhile the babies life was being put in danger because of her entirely unfounded and ideologically driven fears. It's no wonder Grey's political “career” with the failed New Zealand Outdoors Party has been such a disaster!

But lawyers for the state blood service said the establishment of any direct donor service would have been a "slippery slope" and would "damage an excellent blood service".

Citing evidence from New Zealand's chief medical officer, Justice Gault ruled that there was "no scientific evidence there is any Covid-19 vaccine-related risk from blood donated" by vaccinated donors.

The case has become a vector for anti-vaccine activists in New Zealand with demonstrators - many of whom carried placards - gathering outside the court before the ruling was delivered on Wednesday.

The idiot anti-vaccine activists might be annoying, but what really pisses me off about all this is that Grey will likely retain her lawyers status, even though a complaint about similar misconduct was lodged over a year ago.

On Friday, RNZ reported:

Complaint lodged against lawyer and anti-vaccination campaigner Sue Grey 18 months ago unresolved

In May last year Jacinta, whose surname RNZ agreed not to use, lodged a complaint about disinformation being spread or hosted on Grey’s social media site.

Jacinta told Checkpoint it was irresponsible of Grey to promote her controversial views while acting as a lawyer.

Law professor at the University of Auckland, Mark Henaghan, told Checkpoint he believed proving Grey had acted unethically was not straightforward.

Henaghan said there was a difference between misconduct and misinformation.

He said a misconduct complaint would require the person to be aware that what they were saying was untrue.

“Misconduct is defined as... conduct that reasonable lawyers would think is either disgraceful or dishonourable, or it’s a wilful and reckless contravention of the rules,” he said.

If this more recent unethical behaviour isn’t considered misconduct, I don’t know what would be?

Clearly Grey has stepped over the bounds of common sense and decency here by convincing two vulnerable parents that blood from vaccinated donors is unsafe, which is entirely untrue. Grey would know that her argument is untrue, but is continuing to promote falsehoods because of the attention she receives. And Grey is receiving a lot of attention, with all the mainstream right wing media working hard to promote her argument as somehow being valid.

Despite the MSM trying to resurrect Grey’s profile, she has clearly breached the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act by actively encouraging these vulnerable parents to stop a surgery that was required to save their babies life. She failed to declare her glaringly obvious conflict of interest for starters; a conflict of interest that should preclude her from taking on any cases whereby vaccination is a part of proceedings.

Unless lawyers and their associates want their profession to have a bad name, they really need to ensure that arseholes like Sue Grey are permanently disbarred. But unfortunately the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal hardly ever strikes off wayward lawyers for their misconduct, mainly because it’s an organisation set up to protect lawyers. Let’s hope they make an exception in this case.