Apologies to my fellow trainspotters but core uni duties (our first LAWS213 classes on admin law and judicial review) trump spectating today — so I’m dipping in-and-out of the hearing
I’ll try and catch up on events at the tea break. But the NZLS has finished and now the Solictor-General, Jagose QC, is on her feet leading the govt’s case.
SG pushes back against invocation of Simms (ie avoiding inadvertent/casual breach of rights by legislature) by pointing out deliberateness by which previous health legn grappled with limiting rights.
SG: They were isolated from others outside their bubble. But also section mentions "as he thinks fit" -- and allows them to determine what's most approp way of isolation in light of particular disease/threat.
I’ve managed to stride back up the hill to the Court itself - and will be able to observe in person again for the pre-luncheon session, before afternoon teaching duties. 🤓
One of the curious remnants of the pandemic and heightened public health precautions is the set of yellow-and-black stickers in the form of a cross on every second seat in the gallery - counselling folk to sit apart. A sage reminder.
I’m pleased to be able to hear the SG in person briefly. I’m a big fan of her advocacy - which fits the mould of sage counsel for the Crown. Clear, measured and not combative. The govt’s position is put - its strengths and soft spots both acknowledged.
Fascinating to see judges visibly work their way through the text of section 70 and health orders — and grapple with textual quirks. That’s a familiar exercise for many of us! 🤓
Now dealing with exclusion/glosses to ability to prohibit public congregation. A curious example of wandering in the Bot Gardens apart from each other. Or perhaps gathering to view the the Henry Moore statue. #bougie
SG forcefully argues that Borrowdale shouldn’t be able to now all that back. Speaks about way the case was managed to a speedy hearing on basis of that concession and limited case.
It’s not my field but I do wonder if primacy needs to be given to the Bill of Rights as an interpretative code over the common law when the former is engaged?
The suggestion is that the determination of “natural” meaning at step 1 — if imbued with principle of legality — may make the statutory principle of legality in section 6 redundant and unnecessary. But surely that can’t be so?
To dash back, IMV surely both orthodox interp (text in light of purpose/context and presumptions) and BoR interpretation must be in play together — we can’t escape the fact that all these things are in play? #deathtothesteps
SG explains way essential businesses regime was set up by AoG group and Cabinet - at high level of abstraction - before the order was made and how the govt would provide guidance on detail etc.
SG makes it clear she is not arguing the website was incorporated by reference or DG considered/approved specific lists. The power he exercised started and stopped with definition of essential businesses in the order.
SG doing a good job explaining this point — perhaps better than HC! Making the case that list was only explanatory and guidance (even if felt adjudicative and legislative)
SG accepts that, on their face, decisions that Tiwai smelter and golf greens decisions seem incorrect - and wrongly represent a power to adjudicate. But really a problem in exercise of power in those cases -- not a problem of improper delegation by SG.
Remedial point taken by the SG -- suggesting, even if the court thinks these essential business decisions erroneous, Court shouldn't grant declaration bc not ripe re Borrowdale.
Again, Farmer argues the principle of legality should do all the heavy lifting first - in the determination of intended meaning. And no need to go on to Bill of Rights if rights then aren't limited.
This seems like fanciful revisionism, uttered in the comfortable calm after the pandemic passed. Read some of the insider accounts of how the wheels were spinning at that time. No realistic prospect of that (other than a bald - let Dr Ashley do whatever power).
And a colleague points out, be mindful also of the sweat, tears and energy that was being devoted to the wording of section 70 health orders at that time!
If the case is that the govt should have rushed emergency legislation to deal with a rapidly developing and evolving emergency, you're more likely to get something like the Bubonic Plague Prevention Act...
I think Farmer QC also fails to recognise that, on the eve of lockdown, there wasn't necessarily certainty that section 70 powers *would* be used. My inkling is that the initial leaning was towards the Civil Defence powers...
Note, too, who were the faces of the govt response in the first week when we locked down. Dr Ashley wasn't the centrepoint, as he is now. Ombler, Stuart-Black and Bush were much more prominent...
Farmer Jr points to s137A HA as regulating incorp by reference etc (but any deals with in "regulations, standards, or other compliance documents" - and might not address s70 orders?)
Judges have arrived. Farmer QC et al for Borrowdale; Solicitor-General et al for govt (good to see SG appearing herself); NZLS intervening. Gallery full — except the broken seat (my favourite at the back right).
Housekeeping about order, timing and 10min non-interruption rule. Court takes different views on when NZLS should appear. Court suggests argument could be done in 1 day — but Farmer doubts. Wisely, Farmer engages 10min rule.
The legal challenge to New Zealand’s C19 lockdown in Mar/Apr 2020 continues in Court of Appeal today, after Borrowdale challenges two grounds he lost before High Court (scope of health orders; essential businesses list). Snippets below explain background. #BorrowdaleRound2
Snippets are from a note of mine:
“Stamping out Covid-19 in New Zealand: legal pragmatism and democratic legitimacy” [2021] Public Law 241.
Whether the Health Act power to “isolate or quarantine” people allows a medical officer of health to issue a stay-at-home order for the entire country, regardless of suspicion of infection, is key issue IMV.
High Court declines to grant interim orders stopping vaccine roll out in New Zealand, in wide-ranging judicial review challenge to provisional approval of Pfizer vaccine and roll out.
However, Court observes that it is "reasonably arguably" that provisional approval is "problematic" because s 23 of the Medicines Act 1981 contemplates provisional approval only for "treatment of a limited number of patients" (~ all those 16+ prob not limited number).
That question will ultimately be decided, in the usual way, at the substantive hearing of application for judicial review. The judge's comments about whether there is a *reasonably arguable* case are not definitive, ie only for interim purposes after limited argument/evidence.
Our #laws522 postgrad class @VicUniWgtn convenes today to dive into and critique some hot public law scholarship — ideas, anatomy, argument and context. Always an exciting (and heady) day! 🤓
First up @PeterTMcKenzie, grappling with McLean’s sketch of NZ’s political (“insider, elite”) constitution - and the threat from legalism. #laws522
Next, @HannahReynecke dips into Harlow’s piece on the (redundant?) public—private divide — and challenges in bridging the spheres, esp in context of digitisation. (But what of te Tiriti?)
A quick recap on New Zealand’s constitutional brouhaha this week about the election date, as requested by some abroad. /1
Election day was scheduled for 19 Sep 2020. In accordance with a developing convention (?), the PM had announced this date well in advance, in late January. /2
Despite the pandemic, progress towards that date was going full steam ahead — esp as NZ had avoided community cases of Covid for several months. Campaigns were launched. Arrangements were made for campaigning and voting etc. /3
Some are suggestions there might be a constitutional imbroglio today around PM’s call on whether election should or should not be deferred due to the lockdown in Auckland etc. I reckon it will probably turn out to be a bit of a fizzer! 🤷🏻♂️
PM has sole right to advise GG to dissolve Parliament for election. The previous process to do so was paused just prior to formal ceremony due to alert level change. We’ll know at 10am today what the PM’s intends to do — or, if she sticks with dissolution, perhaps has done.
Dissolution for an election is not subject to usual Cabinet decision-making deliberation (I understand) but PM will be mindful of views of others - incl views of coalition partner NZ First which wants it delayed. It’s still her sole call though.