Hunt & Ors v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer & Anor; Ishiyama & Ors v Dr Peter Aitken, Former Chief Health Officer & Ors; Baxter & Ors v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer & Anor 2022 QCA 263
Date: 16 December 2022
Court: Supreme Court of Queensland
Judicial Officers: Morrison and Flanagan JJA and Davis J
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 48, 53, 58, 59
Rights Considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1954 ss 14B(3)(e), 36, sch 1; Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 10; Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss 4, 31, 32, 38; Public Health Act 2005 (Qld) ss 7A, 319, 322, 324; 332(1), 333, 362B, 362C, 362D, 362E, 362FA, 362G, 362H, 362I, 362J
Keywords: Public Law Considerations: Covid-19 Directions
This case concerned an application for judicial review of public health directives. The appellants also sought relief under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), but the court did not substantively discuss the claim.
This case concerned three sets of appeals relating to vaccination entry requirements. The appellants sought judicial review of three categories of healthcare directive; the Social Measures Directions, High Risk Setting Directions, and Workers in Healthcare Directions.
The group seeking review of the Workers in Healthcare Direction also sought relief under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Because part of the declaratory relief sought involved the operation of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Queensland Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General for the State of Queensland intervened in the Trial Division proceedings, but did not make submissions in the appeal.
The central question was whether the relevant declarations were decisions of an administrative or legislative character. The Court affirmed the primary decision-maker’s finding that the decisions were of a legislative, rather than an administrative character, and consequently that they were not judicially reviewable: see [65], [67], [87], 89].
In dissent, Davis J argued that the giving of directions showed the classic features of a grant of administrative power: see [149].
The judgment did not address the question of entitlement to relief under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).