Anti-Lockdown protester takes Brett Sutton to court

A woman fined for protesting against Dan Andrews in lockdown says Covid restrictions “went too far” but Brett Sutton’s lawyers say her argument falls flat.

Victorian Chief Health Officer, Professor Brett Sutton has been taken to court by an anti-Dan protester.

A woman fined for carrying an anti-Dan “Toot to Boot” sign during her one-hour exercise in Melbourne’s second wave has taken Prof Brett Sutton to court, arguing protests should have been a permitted reason to leave home.

Kerry Cotterill copped an infringement for protesting while walking within 5km of her Cranbourne West home, on August 13, 2020.

Carrying a political sign of Premier Dan Andrews’ face with the message “Toot to Boot” and “Ban Dan” written on her face mask, she filmed two police officers as they approached her, telling them she was on her daily walk.

“Also protesting the Premier?” one officer replied in footage played to Victoria’s Supreme Court.

“I didn’t want to walk by myself,” she responded.

Court documents reveal Ms Cotterill wanted to express her views that the Premier had failed to balance Victorians’ social and economic wellbeing in the COVID-19 response after her father died alone in hospital and her son, who she was unable to visit for six months, was also hospitalised.

Ms Cotterill was fined for failure to comply with the stay at home directions by conducting a protest.

The woman was fined for carrying an anti-Dan “Toot to Boot” sign during her one-hour exercise.

While police later withdrew that fine, Ms Cotterill says she never received the withdrawal notice and took her case against Deputy Public Health Commander Finn Romanes and chief health officer Brett Sutton to court.

Barrister Kathleen Foley, for Ms Cottrill, said her client accepted she breached the order, but argued that restrictions at that time should have been varied to allow political communication, or allow protest during permitted activities such as daily exercise.

The orders, which were “beyond the power of the public health and wellbeing act” stopped people from physically engaging in political communication.

Even if the stay at home directions were suitable, “we say they went too far”, Ms Foley told the hearing, watched by up to 660 viewers.

Ms Cottrill’s argument centres around the circumstances during Victoria’s second wave — not amid the current, more infectious Delta variant.

Top silk Alistair Pound S.C, for Dr Romanes and Prof Sutton, argued Ms Cotterill had no standing because the fine was withdrawn and a court outcome would have no impact on her anyway.

“The plaintiff says she will have the satification of knowing she was right — and not just because Victoria Police said so but because the Supreme Court said so,” Mr Pound told the court.

“In our submission, that is not a basis for standing.

“The plaintiff also says that it will guide future decision making … if similar restrictions are made in the future.

“The court’s decision cannot provide that guidance,” he said, because the rules reflected the COVID conditions at the time.

Mr Pound said directions during the second wave were part of a calibrated attempt to control a highly infectious virus with potentially fatal outcomes “and they worked”, but there was “no dispute they burdened freedom”.

Deakin University chair of epidemiology Professor Catherine Bennett was quizzed by Mr Pound about transmission, including whether just one infectious person at a public protest in October could have started an outbreak.

“It was a small risk given outdoor transmission wasn’t associated with outbreaks here and hadn’t been associated with outbreaks elsewhere in the world,” she said.

The Department of Health’s COVID data director Dr Charles Alpren will give evidence on Friday.

The hearing before Justice Richard Niall is set to run until Monday.

@ashargoon