Prime Minister is being sued over the lockdown, compared to Hitler

Two people with interim name suppression claiming death threats and safety risks (not sure how that works with a new case with unknown identities) are suing Jacinda Ardern for illegal detention via the COvid-19 lockdown, although one of them is already serving a home detention sentence.

NZ Herald:  ‘All for her political gain’ – Jacinda Ardern sued over lockdown

The Prime Minister is being sued over the lockdown, with two applicants making multiple claims at the High Court in Auckland today – including it being “all for her political gain”.

They also asked for a writ of habeas corpus, which seeks to rule an imprisonment unlawful and release the applicants.

The two men, who are known to each other, argued the alert level 4 lockdown has left them unlawfully detained and is not worth the economic cost compared with the low number of Covid-19 related deaths.

The first applicant, who is currently serving a home detention sentence, told Justice Mary Peters “the whole thing’s a joke” and it has become a “panic-demic, not a pandemic” – noting his sentence allows him to leave the house between 8am and 5pm each day.

He said Ardern had no grounds to enact the lockdown.

He also alleged she had conspired with Sir Stephen Tindall to ruin the economy and the United Nations Secretary-General should have been consulted instead.

The man ultimately compared Ardern to Hitler and the lockdown to the holocaust.

He alleged his views were shared by “a large portion” of the population and said the Crown must have been aware the lockdown would be legally challenged “or thought New Zealand were sheep”.

The man objected to Justice Peters’ question to substitute Ardern for Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield, who enacted the lockdown order.

The other applicant alleged more people would now die from other illnesses, like cancer, because they will not be able to get diagnosed due to hospital resources being focused on the fight against Covid-19.

“The Prime Minister made the wrong decision … all for her political gain”, he said.

Justice Peters reserved her decision, but said it would be given urgency.

In my opinion the courts have much more important things to be doing than dealing with this.

As there is interim name suppression (at this stage I think automatic pending arguments rather than based on merit) do not try identify these people.

Leave a comment

41 Comments

  1. I can think of a dictator whom she resembles, but it isn’t Hitler and although I disagree with the need for a total lockdown/house arrest, it’s nothing like the Holocaust.

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  17th April 2020

      If anyone says to me they think Ardern is a dictator, given a normal and historical way of defining a ‘dictator,’ I will tell them the ‘dic’ part applies to them.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  17th April 2020

        The Government has taken dictatorial powers for sure, and in my view exceeded the authority given under the legislation. A shame the courts don’t have a more robust appellant. We might then find whether the dictatorship has limits.

        Reply
        • duperez

           /  17th April 2020

          The dictatorship clearly has limits.

          A real dictator would already have sorted Kitty out. And this site. A decent dictatorship of course wouldn’t have had to take action because Kitty would have been too terrified to comment on here but then Pete would have been most unlikely to have been allowed to have such a site or had the freedom to present what he does.

          For all the terrible erosion of rights and usurping of power I’d be surprised to come back on a hundred years and see Ardern featuring in the list of dictators of the century.

          Reply
          • No one has suggested that, and the word I used was ‘resembles’ but the powers that the government has given itself are above and beyond what’s necessary. Forcing victims of domestic violence to stay with their abusers should be unacceptable to anyone, but that has happened. It should be no surprise that the rates of domestic violence have risen. Forcing old people in their 80s and 90s to stay alone with no one to help them because they paid for their own home help is hardly being ‘kind’. Not allowing a mother to see her dying son or the young wife of the dying son to see him or have a funeral is cruelty. Making old people die without their family is heartless.

            The old people who have died were not saved by the lockdown, so what is the point of it ? We have fewer than 600 people, I believe, who have the virus, and for this we are all in lockdown, and the suffering will be immeasurable.

            A man who was walking too far from his house was had up by the police. How far can anyone walk ? Not that far, surely, not enough for it to be a crime.

            A woman in her 70s who went to the supermarket (still legal) was threatened by her neighbour with having her tyres slashed if she did it again. The PM railed against the older woman ‘ You MUST stay at home !’ but said nothing about the threats from the neighbour.

            Reply
        • Duker

           /  18th April 2020

          We have been over the legislation in detail, both the Heatlh act which declares the total country in complete isolation(with only essential exceptions) for epidemic control purposes and the parralel State of Emergency . The powers are all there.
          There isn’t a shred of evidence to support your claim of ‘exceeding”, which is a waffle word in any case, but suits your woolly thinking as that way you don’t have to justify mad claims
          These 2 are complete nutters…..you see them all the time on those Police programs where those stopped or arrested have personality disorders which means anyone questioning them can’t be legal in spite of their offending being obvious.

          Where I live , we have a private road and one of the houses is for sale but no open homes. Twice I’ve noticed and stopped vehicles with people who dont like here and I could see they were just driving looking at houses. I’m not the police but the lies about getting lost on the way to the supper market, doing essential travel.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  18th April 2020

            There isn’t a shred of evidence to support your claim of ‘exceeding”,/i>

            Usual drivel. The legislation restricts powers to what is necessary. That is a test that would be applied by the courts to what are clearly political decisions being taken and modified as they go along.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  18th April 2020

              No No No .
              Many others misunderstood this at the time including PG.
              The quarantine notice is absolute , all persons all locations are in isolation.
              There is no requirement about safety …or necessary . The powers are invoked to control an epidemic , which it is.
              As the quarantine is absolute they are are then only allow what is ‘essential’ to not be quranatined.

              You cant even find the classic ‘one armed lesbian paper hanger’ as the obscure but minor and maybe frivolous example to prove your point.

              if your great legal mind has worked this out , surely other can too and these two cases are the leading citizens with iron clad legal advice and reasoning to make your or similar case.

              Instead we have a ship of fools and a cargo of bananas piloted by
              2 monkeys as the ‘test case’. More fool you as well.

              I can predict that when its thrown out, you will still claim ‘whataboutism’ …nay not even that specific, to carry on the crusade . These two fools have a personality disorder… but my good nature means thats enough in that vein…. but you get my drift.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th April 2020

              Clause 70(1)h:
              require people to remain in the health district or the place in which they are isolated or quarantined until they have been medically examined and found to be free from infectious disease, and until they have undergone such preventive treatment as he may in any such case prescribe:

              Clearly no such examination or treatment is prescribed or available and the proclamation is unlawful.

            • Duker

               /  18th April 2020

              Well at least you are trying…but didnt you forget these other things that havent been done..
              (j)prohibit the keeping of animals or of any species of animal in any specified part of the health district:
              (k)forbid the discharge of sewage, drainage, or insanitary matter of any description into any watercourse, stream, lake, or source of water supply:

              The reasons are that these actions are optional not mandatory as it makes clear in 70 (1)
              “For the purpose of preventing the outbreak or spread of any infectious disease, the medical officer of health may from time to time, if authorised to do so by the Minister or if a state of emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 or while an epidemic notice is in force,—

              ‘May’ is not must and from ‘time to time’ is on or off

              You have to read the official notices to read the exact wording and powers the DG and PM and Minister of Civil Defence have invoked.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th April 2020

              Specification in the same clause are not optional.

  2. oldlaker

     /  17th April 2020

    David Parker won’t release the Crown Law legal advice on the lockdown to the select committee, even in confidence — let alone to the public. This is both astonishing and appalling.
    I guess with everyone (including the media) getting in behind Jacinda many will think it is treasonous to question the legality of our incarceration but I’m fully behind anyone who wants to challenge these authoritarian edicts.
    I’m heartened the judge at least sees it as a serious question (no matter how dopey the plaintiffs).
    I absolutely disagree that “the courts have much more important things to be doing than dealing with this”.

    Reply
  3. Duker

     /  18th April 2020

    Look up the 3 acts yourself. It’s just political posturing to have ‘concerns’ without being specific…..Bridges seems to have forgotten all his legal training and experience or even the ability to call a QC on the matter..but no hand wringing with a skin disease of ‘non specificitis’ will sound good on TV

    “The Prime Minister issued an epidemic notice under section 5 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 on March 24, allowing the use of special powers by medical officers in accordance with section 70 of the Health Act 1956.

    The Government then triggered a state of national emergency under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act (CDEMA) on March 25, giving authorities more powers to manage the virus outbreak.”

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  18th April 2020

      Stop rabbiting, Duker. No powers in a constitutional democracy are ever unlimited. End of story.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  18th April 2020

        Duker has made the legitimate authority crystal clear.
        Your argument is a spurious one Al and you must know it.

        Reply
      • Duker

         /  18th April 2020

        “No powers in a constitutional democracy are ever unlimited. ”
        NZ has no constitution and parliament is supreme.
        The Supreme Court ruled the ban on Prisoners voting was ‘outside’ the Bill of Rights…meant sweet nothing.

        I cant be more specific under blog rules but we can make valid assumptions about your ‘real reasoning’ for the perfect constitution we live under

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  18th April 2020

          The Bill of Rights was typical half-baked Palmer idiocy – rights with no teeth. However until the Lefties took over at least, the unwritten constitution of judge law dating back to the Magna Carta did have teeth. The Habeas Corpus Act does have teeth and is a legacy of that.

          Reply
          • The Kiwi Party failed in an attempt to bring the Magna Carta into their ‘right to bear arms’ argument in the courts.

            THE KIWI PARTY INC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZCA 80 [24 March 2020]

            Reply
          • Duker

             /  18th April 2020

            Magna Carta is very specific for medieval times not now and mostly useless for you as it makes parliament supreme over the Sovereign.
            Judge Law …… have you abandoned your ‘constitution’ that quick ? Thats right you make a bush lawyer sound like a QC

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th April 2020

              The judge is hearing the case under the Habeas Corpus Act and has jurisdiction. Any citizen in detention has right to bring a case under urgency. End of another story.

            • Duker

               /  18th April 2020

              Yes they do have power to hear it…. wanted Jacindas name as the defendant even when the Judge tried to act logically and suggest the Director general who made the quarantine orders.

              But there is no telling these people as they can only be perfectly right always

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th April 2020

              I don’t think there is any doubt that Jacinda is giving the orders and the DG is merely giving advice. I think the appellant has called it correctly.

            • Duker

               /  18th April 2020

              “On Monday 23 March, the Prime Minister issued an Epidemic Notice under section 5 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006. This was based on advice received from the Director-General of Health in response to the increasingly complex and far-reaching response to COVID-19.”

              The powers that are being challenged in court were legally issued by the DG of Health not the PM
              https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2020-go1368
              https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2020-go1369

              The person isnt being detained by any order formally issued by the PM
              Im sure the judge will make the same comment when its kicked for touch.
              Interesting part made under Section 5 of the Epidemic Prepardmness Act

              “the making of epidemic management notices under section 8 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006, which can—
              activate dormant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the Immigration Act 2009, the Parole Act 2002, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Social Security Act 2018 that are intended to deal with an out- break of disease;

              maybe he really wants the PM to use her extraordinary powers and have him released toute suite, but because [medical reasons ] he raves on about Tindal and ‘sheeple’ and Hitler
              A classic case of cant see the wood for the trees

  4. NOEL

     /  18th April 2020

    “The first applicant, who is currently serving a home detention sentence, ”

    And he finds the lockdown objectionable. Cracker.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  18th April 2020

      Has that well known jail house lawyer put him up to it and provided the legal paperwork ?
      Not that I know who the miscreant is

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  18th April 2020

        It is funny, NOEL. I only wish he is as good a jail lawyer as Arthur Taylor.

        Reply
        • He looks to be nothing like the calibre of Arthur Taylor going by the report.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  18th April 2020

            I fear so too, PG. However the Act allows anyone detained to appeal. It will be interesting to see how the courts deal with it and whether others follow. It also allows appellants to discover documents the defendants may wish to conceal.

            Reply
  5. Duker

     /  18th April 2020

    Just some background about possible motivation for the two clowns going to court

    “Personality Disorder is important to all health care practitioners because it is a prevalent condition that applies to approximately 12% of the general community [1], 25% of primary care patients [2], and at least 50% of psychiatric outpatients [3]
    https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-018-1908-3

    There is a specific type of disorder called anankastia… expect rigid perfectionism both in themselves and others
    Can be useful in a research background…… or Treasury career.. but becomes a joke once that is over and they have nothing worthwhile to do.

    Reply
  6. Duker

     /  18th April 2020

    “Covid 19 coronavirus: Man sentenced to month in prison for[six] lockdown breaches
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12325747

    A 38-year-old Whanganui man has been jailed for a month for repeated lockdown breaches.

    Central District Commander Superintendent Chris de Wattignar said the man had been verbally warned five times regarding alert level 4 restrictions.
    On the sixth breach the man had driven some distance away from his home address.

    So the Judge has put him jail for a month.

    Reply
    • A conviction in Dunedin – another repeat offender.

      Shaun Te Rangi Whitau (52) pleaded guilty just a couple of days after police laid the charge on Tuesday when he was found more than 100km from his Oamaru home without reasonable excuse.

      It was the fourth time the defendant had been caught flouting the rules of the Level 4 lockdown, court documents revealed.

      Judge Michael Crosbie granted the defendant bail to Oamaru yesterday where he was ordered to remain on a 24-hour curfew and abstain from alcohol.

      Whitau will be sentenced next month.

      https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/first-conviction-lockdown-breach

      Reply
  7. I wish someone clever would take authority to court on this matter. the Director general of health does have the power to do what he has done under the health act and he also has the power to bring us out of lockdown level 4 on his own authority. The lie about cabinet making that decision is evidence of the PM using his powers as her puppet.This is democratic power being usurped by the PM on the false evidence that “thousands will die”.
    Proper parliamentary procedures would have limited deaths to an acceptable level. but hell, she had fun as temporary dictator! [Deleted – don’t use blame game memes or derogatory nicknames here (use correct names for politicians). PG]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s