Anti-lockdown protester to pay health bosses’ costs for failed court battle
A Melbourne woman who took on Daniel Andrews in the courts and in the streets has suffered another blow.
A woman slapped with a fine for carrying an anti-Daniel Andrews sign during Victoria’s second lockdown has been ordered to compensate the government for her legal challenge.
Kerry Cotterill was initially fined for failing to comply with stay-at-home orders after protesting in September 2020.
The Cranbourne West woman was walking within 5km of her home and carrying a sign with a hand-drawn image of Premier Daniel Andrews with “Toot to boot” written on it.
She was also wearing a mask that said “Ban Dan”.
The woman claimed she was exercising and demonstrating against the lockdown at the same time.
Exercising was a permitted reason to leave home under the health orders but protesting was not, and the woman was fined.
The infringement was later withdrawn.
But she took Deputy Public Health Commander Finn Romanes to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Ms Cotterill argued the stay-at-home directions in place were invalid because they went against the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.
Her court challenge failed last month.
On Thursday, a judge ordered her to pay costs to the defendants. But out of fairness, Ms Cotterill will only need to cover the costs from March 5 this year.
Justice Richard Niall said this marked the date the defendants sent a letter of offer and was a reasonable period for Ms Cotterill to “digest” the findings from the High Court judges in the battle between mining billionaire Clive Palmer and Western Australia.
“Costs are not awarded to punish the unsuccessful party but to indemnify the successful party,” Justice Niall said.
Ms Cotterill argued she should not pay costs and said the court case raised important questions for the community.
She noted the Covid-19 restrictions were a “matter of great significance”.
“They have a very real practical impact on the day-to-day lives of Victorians, and Australians more broadly,” the anti-lockdown protester submitted.
It’s the reason the case went to court and had the “intention of clarifying the scope and validity of the directions”.
Two other anti-lockdown activists – Tony Pecora and David Weisinger – were initially part of the court action but were removed by the court because they wanted to directly challenge the validity of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act.
They were not ordered to pay costs in relation to the case.