Jim’s Mowing founder Jim Penman takes lockdown fight to Supreme Court

Jim’s Mowing founder Jim Penman says it’s “outrageous” that advice used to plunge us into a world-record lockdown won’t be released.

Jim’s Mowing founder Jim Penman is taking a fight for access to the advice behind Melbourne’s world record lockdown to the Supreme Court.

Mr Penman is backing a claim for lockdown compensation, brought by one of his franchisees, and has slammed government secrecy in the fight.

Access to documents, including drafts, advice, emails, texts and file notes, he believes were central to lockdown decisions was this week refused by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

But Mr Penman, who believes there was never any reason to ban independent sole operators, such as gardeners, from working, said he would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

“It’s absolutely outrageous. It’s an extraordinary decision,” he told the Herald Sun.

“What they’re basically saying is that we’ve thrown hundreds of thousands of Victorians out of work, we had very good reason for it, but we don’t have to tell you what it was.

“It’s outrageous. It means they can do anything they like and they don’t need a good reason.”

Mr Penman said he wanted to know why independent sole operators like lawnmowers, working alone, were banned from working.

He believes there was never a justification for the move.

“The misery that it caused was appalling. It really was,” he said.

Jim Penman says people deserve to know why we were locked down. Picture: Aaron Francis

“These decisions have terrible consequences, and when there’s no valid reason for them, in health terms,” he said.

“I’m a big supporter of the government when it comes to reasonable things like vaccinations, we’ve run a campaign to support vaccination.

“We’re in favour of that. We’re really, really strongly in favour of controlling the epidemic.

“But for the government to act outrageously, just on the personal whim of the Premier is just extraordinary.”

VCAT has been asked to overturn a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health to refuse compensation of $24,000 a week to a single franchisee who was prevented from operating his business.

The department refused to produce copies of documents created in the process of preparing 31 specified directions between July 31 and October 27, 2020.

A Jim’s Mowing franchisee wants compensation for how the lockdown affected his business. Picture: Ian Currie

The documents sought include all drafts of any of the 31 directions, memorandums, instructions, advice and similar documents received from chief health officer Professor Brett Sutton or the Department of Health.

Emails, texts and file notes relating to the performance and discharge of duties of various authorised officers made directions were also sought.

But VCAT member Jonathan Smithers refused the request, saying “the documents sought are not relevant to the review of the Secretary’s decision of 28 September 2020.”

“There are strong reasons, both in terms of statutory interpretation, and evidence, in support of the conclusion that the authorisations are to be regarded as comprising only the formal instruments, and not as including any postulated informal oral or written variations.”

Mr Smithers said the ultimate key question for determination would be whether the Secretary was correct in determining that there were not “insufficient grounds’ for the giving of the applicable authorisations to (Authorised Officers).”

“In the light of all the above considerations, the chance of the documents sought being relevant to that question is remote – too remote to justify them being required to be produced,” he said.