A decree was made two days ago, to take effect from tomorrow night. Broadly, it sets up a set of sanctions to affect those who resist vaccination in particular workplaces. There is a context, to which I wish to draw attention. Regardless of the history of this extraordinary dictate, its announcement took place after a phone conference with Ellis J. on 22 May, six days prior. In her minute of the same day, Ellis J. records that “Ms Grey helpfully agreed that only the first two orders (orders A and B) in the amended application would be pursued on an interim basis.”
The Court has, helpfully, been treating our claim as urgent, but, with this agreement, antecedent to the decree since promulgated, regarded that part of our claim which had to do with infringement by the Crown of the Bill of Rights Act as of lesser urgency. By issuing this decree, the Crown has put a match to the issue of the lawfulness of the decree, and others like it of which we complain in respect of the Bill of Rights. Simply put, this matter has become, by virtue of the Crown’s intervention, supremely urgent, and ought now, in my view, be given priority for consideration by the Court.
Sue manages not to run out of superlatives when it comes to the grossness of the Crown’s actions. Peter Williams gets the point. This is an exceedingly dangerous time for our democracy. The issue is not one of public health. It is one of resistance to tyranny.