Oh look the NSW govt side is trying to argue it's more damaging to public interest to release cabinet docs & break normal legal protocol & that that's more important to protect than the interests of the litigant seeking private rights.
The battle of this will essentially come down to if the judge rules this is 'exceptional circumstances' or not.
"The noodle.. I mean needle". 😂
Dr Harkness has some good arguments. Bringing up that any 'mandatory'/ required vx in place in society has been through the process of parl review & been legislated by majority, it's never happened that a Minister has just used their own discretion with no transparency or review.
Ohh the Magna Carta is coming up. Spicy 👀
Wow. Govt side arguing that because the word mandatory isn't used in the mandate, it's not actually mandatory but is worded as 'incentives to be vaccinated' but there is no compulsion. They're openly claiming 'no jab no job' is not compulsion, it's an 'incentive'.
This judge 😩 summary is great, we're all just waiting for the final decision 🙃 can't say he's not thorough though.
Plantiff/public lost. Judge said main argument for docs was essentially general public interest, they haven't argued them as being crucial to the final decision that will be made in the case which is 'not the correct test' to override Cabinet protections, so they remain protected
Fuck.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
