On 19 August, the Wellington High Court ruled that the government`s message to stay at home for nine days between 26 March and 3 April at the start of the Alert Level 4 lockdown was justified but unlawful and violated the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights Charter. A change in the law on April 3 legalized the lockdown. The Supreme Court`s decision was a response to a legal challenge by lawyer Andrew Borrowdale. “The top priority was to put the lockdown in place and that motivated every aspect of what we did during that time: we had to move and we didn`t have time to sort out the exact details. Some things should be clarified later. In August 2021, New Zealand entered national lockdown due to a case of transmission of the Delta variant in Auckland, with subsequent joint cases in Auckland and Wellington. [8] Due to the increase in cases across the country, the government has abandoned its elimination strategy while accelerating the introduction of vaccinations in the country. [9] Auckland remained in lockdown until 3 December 2021, when the new COVID-19 protection framework (“traffic light system”) came into force. [10] Between February and May 2022, the government gradually eased border restrictions, restrictions on public gatherings, and vaccination mandate requirements. [11] [12] [13] In September 2022, the government ended the COVID-19 protection framework and lifted the remaining vaccination mandates and mask requirements.
[14] The first nine days of the lockdown were illegal, according to a Supreme Court ruling. New Zealanders were not required by law to stay at home in their bubble until April 3, more than a week after the lockdown, according to today`s decision. The country quickly slipped back into lockdown and we revived supports such as the wage subsidy. Parker said the government always thought he was “acting legally” all the time. A lawyer questions the legality of the lockdown rules and the decisions of the Director General of Health. It has been a global leader, and it is gratifying to see that low mortality rates, economic resilience and more freedoms (compared to many countries) are recognized in court decisions challenging aspects of the legal framework. In April 2020, New Zealand`s Ministry of Finance predicted that the country could experience an unemployment rate of 13.5% if the country remained in lockdown for four weeks, with a range of between 17.5% and 26% if the lockdown was extended. [255] Prior to the lockdown, the unemployment rate was 4.2%. [256] Chancellor of the Exchequer Grant Robertson promised that the government would keep the unemployment rate below 10%. [257] Borrowdale had asked the court to rule that three government measures taken at the beginning of the lockdown were illegal. The first concerned public statements by the Prime Minister and other officials during the first nine days of lockdown, the second concerned three orders under the Health Act, while the third concerned the definition of essential services. The restrictions imposed under section 70 of the Health Act to ease the initial lockdown were far-reaching and, as you know, were subsequently challenged in the Borrowdale case against the Director General of Health.
Police are screening motorists using the motorway in Auckland during the closure of alert level 4 in April. Photo: RNZ/Cole Eastham-Farrelly James Farmer QC opened the hearing today, arguing on behalf of Borrowdale that Chief Health Officer Dr. Ashley Bloomfield does not have the legal authority to order a national lockdown, even though the requirement is necessary to stop the spread of the virus. Between March 2020 and December 2021, New Zealand implemented a four-tier alert system, with levels 3 and 4 being forms of containment. At level 1, there are no national restrictions; At Level 2, there are restrictions on meetings; At Level 3, only targeted travel is allowed and there are strict restrictions on gatherings; And at level 4, only necessary travel is allowed and gatherings are prohibited. Following the emergence of the Delta community in mid-August 2021, police and Northland`s Maori iwi leaders, including former politician Hone Harawira, were criticised for waiting more than a week before establishing fixed checkpoints between Northland and Auckland after the country went on Level 4 alert. The announcement of Stage 4 on August 17 triggered an influx of people from Auckland to the Northland region. [201] Other Northland residents criticized the inconsistency in the location of police checkpoints near Brynderwyn, Kaiwaka, and Mangawhai Hills, which prevented residents from moving to access basic services such as food. [202] Attorney Andrew Borrowdale had argued that the Chief Health Officer, Ashley Bloomfield, had exceeded her authority and illegally sealed off the country. Was there a law that allowed New Zealand to imprison people in lockdown? On November 2, 2021, Far North County Mayor John Carter supported the government`s decision to impose a Level 3 lockdown in the northern part of the Northland region after two undetected cases. He urged people to get tested and vaccinated.
[104] The decision comes after Wellington`s lawyer, Andrew Borrowdale, questioned the legality of measures taken at the start of the five-week lockdown, including calls from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and other officials between March 26 and April 3 urging New Zealanders to stay home. During the lockdown, weekly deaths in New Zealand decreased compared to previous years. [300] This decrease is thought to be related to a decrease in the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents, air pollution, occupational accidents, respiratory infections and elective surgeries. [300] Measures were later lifted, but a sudden resurgence of COVID-19 last week in Auckland prompted the government to reinstate some lockdown restrictions for the city`s 1.7 million residents. On May 4, 2020, a Supreme Court judge allowed a man from the UK to visit his dying father, lifting strict government stay-at-home orders, including a 14-day quarantine period for all foreign travelers. In response, Prime Minister Ardern asked Health Secretary David Clark to review 24 cases in which health authorities blocked requests from people to see their loved ones dying for health reasons. [213] [214] As a result of the government`s review, a woman was granted an exemption from the mandatory 14-day quarantine to visit her terminally ill 59-year-old mother. [215] New Zealand: Court partially upholds challenge to legality of COVID-19 lockdown. 2020. Website. www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-08-20/new-zealand-court-partially-upholds-challenge-to-legality-of-covid-19-lockdown/.
In mid-October 2022, the government removed several provisions from the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, 2020, including its powers to implement lockdowns, manage isolation and quarantine (MIQ), border closures, vaccination passports and warrants. However, the government has chosen to retain the provisions of the law on seven-day isolation periods, mask wearing and border crossing obligations until Parliament passes new general pandemic laws. The government also revoked the outbreak notice, signaling a shift from emergency management to long-term COVID-19 management. [80] [81] In addition, the Minister of COVID-19 Response, Chris Hipkins, confirmed that the government would hold a royal commission into its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [82] All other challenges to the lockdown were rejected. Farmer argues that section 70 of the Health Act, which covers the “special powers of the health commissioner” in infectious and notifiable diseases, was not appropriate or timely for the scope of a national lockdown, and that instead, new legislation should have been passed immediately by Parliament to issue this order. Many cases have debated the meaning of arbitrariness, but the central idea is that incarceration must be the last step – namely, that other options are inadequate. This depends on knowledge of the state of knowledge about COVID-19 at the time the lockdown was imposed. Attorney General David Parker said there was still no decision on a possible appeal against the Supreme Court`s ruling that part of the country`s alert level 4 was illegal.
The High Court found that while the statements contained many “soft messages”, they were also “full of orders: the frequent use of the word `shall`, supported by the possibility of coercive measures for those who did not abide by the `rules`”. (Decision No.