🧵
1. Three doctors who were suspended for issuing fake COVID vax exemptions have attempted to overturn their suspensions in the High Court of Australia! The High Court refused to let the self-represented doctors file their application, on grounds it was an abuse of process
1. Three doctors who were suspended for issuing fake COVID vax exemptions have attempted to overturn their suspensions in the High Court of Australia! The High Court refused to let the self-represented doctors file their application, on grounds it was an abuse of process
2. Doctors Mark Hobart, Valerie Peers & Denes Boros sought to commence proceedings in the High Court against the CEO of AHPRA and the Chair of the Medical Board
3. Each doctor had been suspended during the height of the pandemic, pursuant to the Board’s “immediate action” powers. Each doctor was suspended for similar reasons: allegedly issuing fake COVID vax certificates & promoting misleading info about COVID vaccines 
4. The doctors argued that AHPRAH & the Board’s decision to suspend them constituted “misfeasance in public office”, & was invalid because it was contrary to the restriction on “civil conscription” in the Constitution
5. The doctors sought damages and various declarations about the restriction on “civil conscription” in the Constitution
6. When the doctors tried to file their case w/ the High Court, it was rejected by the Court pursuant to rule 6.07.02 of the High Court Rules. This rule allows a justice to direct the Registrar to refuse to allow someone to file a document (cont)
7. where the document appears "on its face" to be "an abuse of the process of the Court, to be frivolous or vexatious or to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court". A person who has their document rejected must then apply for permission to file it
8. So that’s what these doctors did.
They filed affidavits arguing why their application should be allowed to be filed.Unfortunately the affidavits did not advance any further argument as to why permission to file should be granted
They filed affidavits arguing why their application should be allowed to be filed.Unfortunately the affidavits did not advance any further argument as to why permission to file should be granted
9. The Court held that it was plain on the face of the doctors’ application that it was "confused or manifestly untenable". The Court held that the claim described would be an abuse of process if the document was filed
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
