Jacinda Ardern sued over lockdown

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern sued over lockdown

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 18

1709 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2473178 29-Apr-2020 10:18

Some people just don't know when to quit

Coronavirus: Two launch appeal after losing lockdown lawsuits against Jacinda Ardern

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/121323355/coronavirus-two-launch-appeal-after-losing-lockdown-lawsuits-against-jacinda-ardern

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2473224 29-Apr-2020 11:18

Obviously they believe they have a “right to hold the Prime Minister to account”. Obviously, I don’t.

cyril7

9050 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2473243 29-Apr-2020 11:42

And one of them was already on home detention, I clearly dont know the back ground to that, all I can think is .........what a winner

Cyril

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2478837 7-May-2020 17:53

And now...we find out that the government was not actually operating within the law according to Crown Law advice reported in the Herald....

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2478847 7-May-2020 18:18

Geektastic:

And now...we find out that the government was not actually operating within the law according to Crown Law advice reported in the Herald....

Yes. I'm glad that the "not legal" lockdown laws saved lives, and that we live in a society where criticism of errors is tolerated. The alternative is much worse.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29691 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2478858 7-May-2020 18:34

Geektastic:

And now...we find out that the government was not actually operating within the law according to Crown Law advice reported in the Herald....

I think the article says you can't prosecute for breaches of level 4 rules because the rules are legally unenforcable.

Doesn't mean you can't go to a level 4 lockdown. Which is strange as in Australia police were forcing people off the parks who were not doing active exercise lol as they were only allowed out to exercise not to sit down. Unless you were pregnant ....

Whether the article is correct I wouldn't know IANAL, but the article quotes Crown Law which seems to sound authoritative.

snnet

1410 posts

Uber Geek

#2478871 7-May-2020 19:07

Fred99:

Yes. I'm glad that the "not legal" lockdown laws saved lives, and that we live in a society where criticism of errors is tolerated. The alternative is much worse.

In this case I kind of have the same feeling... "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should"
I don't feel like my rights were violated, I'm actually glad the government made this decision - when it was first announced we were going into lockdown I didn't honestly think it necessary, but that's probably because I didn't follow the developments in intricate detail and if I did read something I got sick of some of our media outlets sensationalising things. Completely changed my mind almost immediately

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79057 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2478906 7-May-2020 20:33

Geektastic:

And now...we find out that the government was not actually operating within the law according to Crown Law advice reported in the Herald....

We didn't find anything yet. From the article:

"That is now being tested by a judicial review in the High Court."

When the High Court issues the findings and rule then we will know. Until then it seems just the Herald trying to sell impressions.

GV27

5874 posts

Uber Geek

#2478930 7-May-2020 21:03

freitasm:

Geektastic:

And now...we find out that the government was not actually operating within the law according to Crown Law advice reported in the Herald....

We didn't find anything yet. From the article:

"That is now being tested by a judicial review in the High Court."

When the High Court issues the findings and rule then we will know. Until then it seems just the Herald trying to sell impressions.

The 'that' that bit of the story refers to is the specific notice issued on April 3:

"The key point being, between March 24 and April 3 much of the "Lockdown rules" actually had no enforceability in law - which is what Crown Law is saying, and which is why the new notice had to be issued," Professor Geddis said.

He said what's now in question is whether that April 3 notice is lawful and whether Bloomfield had the power to issue it.

The comments from the AG suggest that the Crown Law advice the Herald has seen regarding the lockdown itself was a draft, but I'd be really surprised that a draft CLO exists that says one thing only for the final CLO to say the total opposite.

At some point the advice will no doubt be released and we'll know what the actual opinion was. Pointless to speculate until the case above is heard or the final opinion is released to the Response Committee IMO.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79057 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2478933 7-May-2020 21:09

GV27:

freitasm:

We didn't find anything yet. From the article:

"That is now being tested by a judicial review in the High Court."

When the High Court issues the findings and rule then we will know. Until then it seems just the Herald trying to sell impressions.

The 'that' that bit of the story refers to is the specific notice issued on April 3:

"The key point being, between March 24 and April 3 much of the "Lockdown rules" actually had no enforceability in law - which is what Crown Law is saying, and which is why the new notice had to be issued," Professor Geddis said.

He said what's now in question is whether that April 3 notice is lawful and whether Bloomfield had the power to issue it.

And that's an opinion by Professor Andrew Geddis, so not a ruling "Shown the Crown Law documents, University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the restrictions wouldn't allow the police to stop people from moving about and doing virtually anything, like surfing, if they weren't congregating.'"

I agree with your comment that until we see the documents or the final ruling, everything is speculation.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2478970 7-May-2020 22:09

Nevertheless it does prove that perhaps taking the mick out of the people who attempted to use the courts to prove a point might have been less well judged than it at first seemed. Their particular points may or may not have been correct but there is at the very least some cause for concern. The idea that something was amiss with the fouundation of operation is starting to move from fringe nuttery to actual possible legal veracity.

Governments should not really proceed to do things that they do not have the power to do so it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

If the order is found to be wrong in law, presumably we will see any convictions, fines etc that proceeded under it quashed, refunded etc.

Handle9

11167 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2478972 7-May-2020 22:14

Geektastic:
Nevertheless it does prove that perhaps taking the mick out of the people who attempted to use the courts to prove a point might have been less well judged than it at first seemed. Their particular points may or may not have been correct but there is at the very least some cause for concern. The idea that something was amiss with the fouundation of operation is starting to move from fringe nuttery to actual possible legal veracity.

Governments should not really proceed to do things that they do not have the power to do so it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

If the order is found to be wrong in law, presumably we will see any convictions, fines etc that proceeded under it quashed, refunded etc.

Not necessarily. Parliament can of course pass retrospective legislation to make almost anything at all legal(or illegal).

The Westminster systems are good like that and NZ doesn't have an upper house at all to restrain the lower house.

Zeon

3913 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2478983 7-May-2020 23:10

Handle9:
Geektastic:

Nevertheless it does prove that perhaps taking the mick out of the people who attempted to use the courts to prove a point might have been less well judged than it at first seemed. Their particular points may or may not have been correct but there is at the very least some cause for concern. The idea that something was amiss with the fouundation of operation is starting to move from fringe nuttery to actual possible legal veracity.

Governments should not really proceed to do things that they do not have the power to do so it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

If the order is found to be wrong in law, presumably we will see any convictions, fines etc that proceeded under it quashed, refunded etc.

Not necessarily. Parliament can of course pass retrospective legislation to make almost anything at all legal(or illegal).

The Westminster systems are good like that and NZ doesn't have an upper house at all to restrain the lower house.

Making a law that retrospectively makes something illegal that was legal is extremely dangerous and not something parliament should consider. It literally could make a criminal out of anyone.

Speedtest 2019-10-14

Oblivian

7277 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2478988 7-May-2020 23:59

I think where we have been let down (or not really, but the holes have been tested) is that it appears there is/was no offences outlined in the crimes act to refer to the health act that could be acted on in a specific way?. 71A is where they are handed the reigns

Where australia seem to have already had a set in stone fine schedule for breaches of the Public Health Act (basically putting others at risk against the wishes of the healt = fine. Specified people must comply with health orders), we have very little specifics like that other than enforcement being able to be called upon by the health dept to uphold any requirement outlined.

Section 3. Infectious and Notifiable diseases

70 - ability to call a CDEM emergency - it's had things like ability to close down by notification or public broadcast/media require places to be closed - no fine mentions

71 - commandeer your stuff and fine you no more than $1000 for not complying

71A - Power of constables to assist 'anything necessary' in enforcing the requirements in 70/71- no fines

80 - We have it outlining what you can't do when you are infected. No specific penalty

Then there is section 72

A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, a fine not exceeding $4,000, or both who in any way (directly or indirectly, by act or default)—

does anything forbidden by a medical officer of health or any person authorised by a medical officer of health under section 70 or 71; or

fails or refuses to comply with, or delays complying with, a direction or requirement of a medical officer of health or any person authorised by a medical officer of health given in the exercise of powers or functions under section 70 or 71; or

But of course, that doesn't seem to break down. Mass gatherings etc. Only, if we close something and you open it, or call it 'insanitary'. You poked

So to me, as a layman. It tells me they're handed the power. But someone forgot to include something in the crimes act for them to fall back on at the time (you must comply or be arrested) to allow the specifics they asked us to adhere to?...

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1956/0065/latest/whole.html#DLM307213

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479049 8-May-2020 09:12

It's certainly starting to fail the Sniff Test. This from The Herald today:

"Legal scholars, including from the political left, now fear the whole lockdown may have been illegal. The Court of Appeal hints it might agree.

The Prime Minister pays no heed. Despite the Haumaha and Bill of Rights Act precedents, Ardern refuses to release the legal advice on which she based her lockdown decisions, creating all the appearance that she knew the Government was acting illegally when it confined us to our homes."

"Government cheerleaders say none of this matters; that Ardern being subject to the rule of law and public scrutiny is less important than saving lives. Shame on them.

First, there is no reason Ardern couldn't have done everything she has, but maintained the rule of law.

Second, a major reason the lockdown has succeeded is because New Zealanders respect the rule of law and have assumed she does too.

And, third, the principle that prime ministers are subject to the rule of law is in fact a norm so important that many more people have sacrificed their lives in its defence than could ever be at risk of dying from Covid-19."

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 18