The three questions that could prove lockdown is invalid
Lawyers challenging the validity of Melbourne’s lockdown say the answers to three questions will prove whether or not the harsh restriction is legal.
HS Coronavirus News
Don't miss out on the headlines from HS Coronavirus News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The validity of Victoria’s lockdown can be answered in just three questions, lawyers challenging the ongoing restrictions have argued.
Submissions filed with the High Court today have called on the nation’s top judges to urgently hear the case in the interests of 6.6 million Victorians.
Hotelier Julian Gerner is challenging the validity of the lockdown arguing it illegally restricts basic freedoms.
“The determination of the lawfulness of the restrictions on movement imposed upon the 6.6 million Australians currently residing in Victoria is urgent,” his lawyers said in submissions filed today.
They argue the court need only answer three questions to determine the lawfulness of the lockdowns:
1. Does the Commonwealth Constitution imply freedom for the people in and of Australia to move within the State where they reside from time to time (Implied Freedom of Movement)?
2. Are s 200(1)(b) and (d) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) invalid because they impermissibly burden the Implied Freedom of Movement contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution?
3. Alternatively, are the Lockdown Directions invalid (in whole or in part and, if in part, to what extent) because they impermissibly burden the Implied Freedom of Movement contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution?
The court has been told the questions can be determined with reference only to the legislation and the Lockdown Directions and have urged the case to be brought on swiftly.
“Victorian residents have been restricted in their movements since at least 30 March 2020 under the Stay at Home Directions (Vic),” the submissions argue.
“Greater Melbourne residents are subjected to restrictions on their movement that require them to remain in their place of residence for 22 hours per day or to their work premises and home if they are employed at permitted work premises.”
The submissions highlight the ongoing nature of the lockdown restrictions that were first expected to be eased on September 28.
“The State of Victoria subsequently changed that date to mid-October 2020,” the submissions said.
“On 11 October 2020, the State of Victoria, through its Premier, announced that the restrictions on movement would continue beyond mid-October 2020, and through its employee, the Chief Health Officer, declared that Lockdown Directions would continue until pm 8 November 2020.
“Those Australians resident in Victoria cannot know until the State of Victoria informs them, when those restrictions on their movement, which have now continued for 197 days, including 72 days under “Stage 4” restrictions, will end.”
The submissions highlight recent comments from Dr David Nabarro of the World Health Organisation who ongoing lockdown measures were no longer advocated.
“We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus … The only time we believe lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it,” Dr Nabarro said.
Mr Gerner has engaged leading barristers, Bret Walker SC and Michael Wyles QC, to prosecute his case.
Gerner, who owns Morgan’s restaurant and bar in Sorrento, is a former director of the Melbourne Pub Group.
He said he was taking a stand against living in a “police state”, not only for himself but for all Victorians, most of whom are fed up and dismayed by the lockdown situation.
MORE NEWS
WHICH RESTRICTIONS COULD BE EASED ON SUNDAY?
HOW CHADDY CLUSTER SPREAD, STOPPED US REACHING TARGET