On 11 December 2025, Barry Young will appear in Wellington District Court for a voir dire hearing that will determine whether his actions qualify as a protected disclosure under New Zealand law.
This isn’t just about Barry. It’s about whether ordinary workers who see wrongdoing have any meaningful protection when they speak up.
The Facts of the Case
Barry Young worked as a senior database administrator at Health New Zealand. He built and maintained the pay-per-dose vaccination database. The database included date of death for those who died. In late November 2023, he raised concerns about patterns in the mortality data he was observing.
For this, he was arrested by eight armed police, held for two nights, and has now spent over 710 days navigating criminal proceedings. The government has reportedly spent between $2-3 million of taxpayer money prosecuting this case.
The charge? “Accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes.”
The prosecution initially claimed 12,000 New Zealanders had their privacy breached. After months of forensic examination, they were forced to admit they could identify only six individuals, all of whom were identifiable through existing public records.
What’s at Stake on December 11
The voir dire (a formal ‘speak-the-truth’ mini-trial on a make-or-break issue) will examine whether Barry had “reasonable grounds” to make a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022.
The Protected Disclosures Act was designed to protect ordinary workers, not experts, who witness wrongdoing in their workplaces. The test is whether a reasonable person in Barry’s position would have grounds for concern.
If the court rules that only those with specialised expertise can have “reasonable grounds” to raise concerns, it effectively nullifies whistleblower protection for most New Zealand workers. A factory worker who spots safety violations. A care worker who observes neglect. An administrator who notices financial irregularities. None would have legal standing to speak up.
This precedent matters regardless of your views on vaccines.
The Broader Principle
NZDSOS has consistently advocated for transparency in public health data. We believe New Zealanders have a right to understand what the vaccination and mortality data shows, and that those who raise legitimate safety concerns deserve protection, not prosecution.
Barry’s case raises fundamental questions: Who owns public health data? What obligations do government employees have when they observe potential harms? And what protection exists for those who try to do the right thing?
How to Support
If you believe in whistleblower protection and data transparency:
Attend the hearing
Your presence sends a message that New Zealanders are watching how this case is handled.
Wellington District Court Thursday, December 11, 2025 From 9:00 AM
Spread awareness
Share this post. Discuss the case. The principle of protected disclosure affects every workplace in New Zealand.
The Bottom Line
Whatever the outcome on December 11, one thing is clear: Barry Young raised concerns about data that any reasonable person would find alarming. He did so at enormous personal cost and with no financial benefit.
The question before the court is whether that courage deserves protection or punishment.
New Zealand’s answer will say a great deal about what kind of country we live in.
This article was originally published by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science.
