NSW Supreme Court dismisses new challenge to COVID-19 public health orders

The suit had argued that the orders infringed on the privilege against self-incrimination

NSW Supreme Court dismisses new challenge to COVID-19 public health orders

The NSW Supreme Court has dismissed the amended summons in a suit which challenged the state’s public health orders based on the plaintiff’s right to leave his home.

In a decision released on Wednesday, the court ruled that plaintiff Ibrahim Can’s privilege against self-incrimination was not infringed; or if infringed, it had been “abrogated by the terms of the valid public health orders.”

In Can v State of New South Wales, Can sought declaratory relief against two public health orders made under NSW’s Public Health Act 2010 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He said that the orders allegedly “authorise police officers to request and require proof of a person’s name, place of residence and vaccination status, irrespective of whether an offence is suspected.”

Most Read

Can submitted that the orders exceeded the powers guaranteed by the Act and that they unlawfully infringed on his privilege against self-incrimination.

Court records indicated that the police “stopped and interrogated” Can “on no fewer than 5 separate occasions.” Can said that during each of his interactions, he had found the police “to be confronting and intimidating.”

“I felt as though I was being interrogated in a manner where I had to prove my innocence even though I had done nothing wrong,” Can said in his affidavit. “The police did not caution me prior to questioning me, they also did not inform me that I have a right to object to answering their questions. The police asked me these questions in a manner that made me feel as though I had no choice but to answer them.”

The NSW government countered that Can lacked standing to apply for the relief, and submitted that the public health orders validly authorised the police powers being challenged.

The court upheld the validity of the public health orders. It ruled that the police officers were entitled to require Can to produce necessary evidence under the public health orders, and said that Can’s grievance with the police “for what he experienced as harassment” did not entitle him to any of the relief sought.

Related stories

Free newsletter

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter service and we’ll keep you up-to-date with the latest breaking news, cutting edge opinion, and expert analysis affecting both your business and the industry as whole.

Please enter your email address below and click on Sign Up for daily newsletters from Australasian Lawyer.

Recent articles & video

Australian Unity Trustees' legal services head on making a difference as an elder law specialist

JWS lures Clifford Chance white-collar crime head in Australia

Federal Court: Commonwealth AG's refusal to grant parole is improper

CFI star at Skadden jumps to King & Spalding Singapore

Six make partner as Moray & Agnew looks ahead to 2022

Attorneys-general consider raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility

Most Read Articles

ACT Supreme Court welcomes new chief justice

Six make partner as Moray & Agnew looks ahead to 2022

'Law is about relationships,' Dentons partner says

Baker McKenzie guides $729m renewables assets sale to Shell and ICG consortium