ISSUE
Friday, August 15, 2025
Volume 16 . Issue 72
The High Court has settled the question around the legality of Alert Level 4 complete lockdown by saying that the first nine days did not have a legal basis under Bill of Rights, though the move was completely justified then as the government dealt with a rapidly growing public health pandemic.
The Court was delving into the Borrowdale v Director-General of Health and the Attorney-General case that sought to challenge the government's decision to ask people stay at home on the basis of no legal basis in the Bill of Rights.
"The court did find that there was a breach of the Bill of Rights Act in the first 9 days of the Alert Level 4 lockdown because the original oral request for people to stay home and in their bubbles was not put in a formal order until 3 April," Attorney General David Parker said.
Notably, the government had first issued a directive on March 25 whereby closing premises providing non-essential services and prohibiting outdoor congregating in preparation for going into Alert Level 4 complete lockdown at 11.59 pm, Wednesday, March 26.
Despite being the most commonsensical approach, the government decision was contested by a Wellingtonian lawyer Borrowdale for not having any legal basis for ordering people to remain at home.
"While there is no question that the requirement was a necessary, reasonable and proportionate response to the Covid-19 crisis at the time, the requirement was not prescribed by law and was therefore contrary to s 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act," the three-judge judgement said.
The High Court has settled the question around the legality of Alert Level 4 complete lockdown by saying that the first nine days did not have a legal basis under Bill of Rights, though the move was completely justified then as the government dealt with a rapidly growing public health pandemic.
...
The High Court has settled the question around the legality of Alert Level 4 complete lockdown by saying that the first nine days did not have a legal basis under Bill of Rights, though the move was completely justified then as the government dealt with a rapidly growing public health pandemic.
The Court was delving into the Borrowdale v Director-General of Health and the Attorney-General case that sought to challenge the government's decision to ask people stay at home on the basis of no legal basis in the Bill of Rights.
"The court did find that there was a breach of the Bill of Rights Act in the first 9 days of the Alert Level 4 lockdown because the original oral request for people to stay home and in their bubbles was not put in a formal order until 3 April," Attorney General David Parker said.
Notably, the government had first issued a directive on March 25 whereby closing premises providing non-essential services and prohibiting outdoor congregating in preparation for going into Alert Level 4 complete lockdown at 11.59 pm, Wednesday, March 26.
Despite being the most commonsensical approach, the government decision was contested by a Wellingtonian lawyer Borrowdale for not having any legal basis for ordering people to remain at home.
"While there is no question that the requirement was a necessary, reasonable and proportionate response to the Covid-19 crisis at the time, the requirement was not prescribed by law and was therefore contrary to s 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act," the three-judge judgement said.
Leave a Comment