The curfew was challenged by Michelle Loielo, whose lawyers called the curfew “not too far” and said she had drastically disrupted business at her restaurant in a seaside town near Melbourne. Ms. Loielo initiated proceedings against Associate Professor Michelle Giles, who was Deputy Commander of Public Health at the time of the events, seeking a declaration of illegality and invalidity of the curfew. (November 13, 2020) On November 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, issued a decision in Loielo v Giles, [2020] VSC 722 (Decision) in which the complainant alleged that the then Deputy State Health Commander acted unlawfully when imposing a curfew in the “Greater Melbourne Area” as part of measures to control the spread of COVID-19. The court documents, filed by Marcus Clarke QC, argue that the curfew is invalid for reasons of irrationality and illogicality. Clarke has previously advised the state`s opposition on the legality of changes to Victoria`s state of emergency, which has been extended. The Supreme Court judge considered the evidence of how the decision to maintain the curfew was made in the September 13 orders, as well as the legal authority to make such a decision. He believed Michelle Loielo, an aspiring Liberal MP, had taken legal action against former deputy health commander Michelle Giles on September 14, claiming the curfew was inappropriate, disproportionate and violated the human rights of millions of Victorians. Ms Loielo`s case was the first challenge to the legality of the lockdown in Greater Melbourne, which has been described as one of the longest and harshest in the world.
A second case brought by another Victorian restaurateur challenging the legality of various directions under the Public Health and Welfare Act 2006 (Vic) is currently pending in the High Court of Australia. This challenge is based on an implicit freedom of movement between states under the Constitution. Certain aspects of the Loielo decision relating to the proportionality of the instructions are likely to be relevant in the present proceedings, albeit in the context of different legal arguments. “While the curfew has apparently proved controversial, Ms. Loielo`s case is more difficult to accept because he claims [Dr.] Giles did not make an independent decision regarding any of the many parts of the direction. Logically, it is a difficult submission to accept. The nightly curfew was initially imposed on Aug. 5 from 8 p.m.
to 5 a.m., as part of one of the world`s longest and strictest lockdowns, when the state`s daily infections surpassed 700 cases. The lockdown was eased last week, so shops and restaurants reopened and restrictions on leaving the house were lifted. Learn more about legal issues and the COVID-19 coronavirus. In a motion, he argues that the curfew is not reasonably proportionate and is not based on relevant and reliable evidence consistent with public health laws. Victoria`s deputy commander of public health, associate professor Michelle Giles, reportedly “failed to really think independently about whether it was appropriate to impose the curfew.” The government`s decision to impose the curfew was highlighted after Chief Medical Officer of Health Brett Sutton and Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Shane Patton said it was not their idea. Associate Professor Giles` decision [on extending and changing the curfew] was made at the request of Premier Daniel Andrews and was not an independent decision. Ms. Loielo also argues that the decision was unreasonable, illogical and legally irrational. Finally, the Decision unlawfully restricts their human rights, recognised by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (`the Charter`), in particular their rights to freedom of movement and liberty. (Decision para.
5.) A Supreme Court judge ruled that the controversial curfew, which limited Victorians to their homes from 9pm to 5am during the state lockdown, was legal and dismissed the lawsuit against the Andrews government. On August 2, the Premier of Victoria declared a state of disaster in Victoria. This declaration gave the Minister of Police and Emergency Services broad powers to ensure that people comply with public health guidelines. This coincided with the announcement of new restrictions on the movement of people and the possibility that shops could remain open, the introduction of a curfew between 8pm and 5am and the extension of the mask requirement to the rest of Victoria. MELBOURNE (Reuters) – An Australian court on Monday rejected a challenge to the curfew imposed on the city of Melbourne to contain the spread of COVID-19, ruling that it was neither illegal nor irrational and did not violate the state`s human rights charter. Justice Ginnane emphasized that the person legally authorized to exercise extraordinary statutory powers in an emergency must exercise those powers independently. His Honour finally admitted that Ms. Giles had independently decided to impose the curfew primarily for public health reasons. It is irrelevant that Ms. Giles was not involved in the preparation of the proposed instructions. By choosing the term “person or group of persons in the emergency zone” in section 200 of the Public Health Workers Act, Parliament sought to allow the exercise of emergency powers for a large group of people, including a group as large as the population of Greater Melbourne. It included the power to impose a curfew if the authorized official considered it reasonably necessary to protect public health.
A curfew can only be imposed during the state of emergency. (para. 125.) The restrictions imposed on Melbourne during the lockdown included various instructions from state health officials under section 200 of the Public Health and Welfare Act 2008 (Vic) (PHW Act), which sets out the emergency powers that may be exercised by an authorised officer when a state of emergency has been declared under section 198. This state of emergency was declared on 16 March 2020. The instructions included “Stay Home Instructions” as well as “Instructions for Restricted Activities”, “Instructions for Safe Activities” and “Instructions for the Workplace”. The original curfew was set out in subsection 5(1AG) of the Stay-at-Home (Restricted Area) Directives (No. 7) issued by the Commander of Public Health on August 2, 2020. The amended curfew was included in subsection 5(1AF) of the Stay-at-Home (Restricted Area) Directives (No. 16), which were imposed on July 13. It was published in September 2020 by Associate Professor Michelle Guiles, Deputy Commander of Public Health. On August 2, Andrews announced that Melbourne would move to level 4 restrictions in the evening, “with stricter rules to restrict the movement of people”.
This included a curfew from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m., during which “the only reasons to leave the house. will be work, medical care and care. On that day, the Prime Minister also declared a state of disaster under section 23 of the Emergency Management Act 1986 (Vic). (Decision Nos. 35-36) On September 5, Andrews announced that some restrictions would be eased from September 13, including postponing the curfew so that it starts at 9 p.m. 16 million He announced that the curfew would no longer apply after that night, on the advice of the chief health officer. The instructions included restrictions other than curfew, including the four reasons for leaving home and the “steel circle” between Greater Melbourne and the rest of Victoria, but Ms Loielo only questioned the direction of the curfew.