Go To Court Lawyers is proud to announce that one of our Legal Practice Directors, Sylvie Maranis, has been named a finalist in the Lawyers Weekly Women in Law Awards 2020 in the category of Wellness Advocate of the Year. Sylvie works in our Melbourne office, where she where she is responsible for overseeing the professional staff of Go To Court Lawyers.
The Women in Law Awards are regarded as one of the Australian legal profession’s most prestigious accolades. The awards pinpoint professional development and innovation, showcasing the individuals and firms which are leading the way in the industry.
Award recipients represent a true cross-section of the legal industry, recognising the contributions of the profession’s most senior ranks through to its rising stars.
The finalist list, which was announced on 4 November 2020, features over 260 high-achieving female legal professionals across 31 submission-based categories.
“The Women in Law Awards is one of the most joyous events we host at Lawyers Weekly, celebrating those who have broken down the barriers to achieve success within their respective careers,” said Lawyers Weekly editor Emma Ryan.
“This year has been one of the most challenging on record for legal professionals, so it’s great to have this opportunity to shine a spotlight on those who are going above and beyond to offer outstanding service and support for the benefit of their clients, firms, organisations and the Australian community at large.
“On behalf of the team, thank you so much for your continued efforts. We wish you all the best and look forward to celebrating your achievements on the night.”
Sylvie Maranis said: “I am elated to be a finalist in the 2020 Women in Law Awards in the category of Wellness Advocate of the Year.  Wellness has been a subject I have long been passionate about given the staggering rates of anxiety and depression within the legal industry.  I look forward to seeing continued developments and initiatives to promote wellness within our industry.”
The post Sylvie Maranis a Finalist in Women in Law Awards appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

In the last few years, the term ‘catfishing’ has become common. It refers to the act of luring a person to engage in an online relationship through the use of a fake identity, often with the intention of extorting money from the other person or obtaining other advantages from the relationship. While there is no specific criminal offence that relates to catfishing in Australia, there are offences that are often committed after a person has been catfished. Opinions differ as to whether the act of catfishing, in the absence of financial motivations, could be prosecuted under existing criminal laws.
United States v Drew
Perhaps the most widely publicised instance of catfishing was a Missouri case from 2007 where a middle-aged woman, Lori Drew, catfished a 13-year-old girl who she believed had spread rumours about her daughter. The woman created a fake MySpace profile, purporting to be a teenage boy and contacted the girl, forming a relationship with her. After a short period of talking, flirting and complimenting the girl, Drew ended the relationship, telling the girl the world would be a better place without her. The girl hung herself the same day.
Prosecutors initially decided not to charge Drew as her actions, which were not motivated by financial gain, did not clearly amount to any particular criminal offence. The following year, Drew was charged with four computer fraud offences. She was convicted of the offences but these convictions were overturned on appeal, with the court finding that Drew’s violations of the terms and conditions of MySpace were civil breaches of contract, rather than criminal offences.
A more recent decision on catfishing was made by the NSW Coroners Court in relation to Renae Marsden early this year.
Renae Marsden
In February 2020, the NSW Coroner’s Court held an inquest into the death of 20-year-old Renae Marsden. Ms Marsden committed suicide in 2013 after being dumped by a person she believed was a boyfriend called Jayden, with whom she had been romantically involved via texts and Facebook messages for a number of months. Unbeknownst to Marsden, Jayden was a fabrication that had been created and maintained by her best friend, Camilla.
Camilla was not charged with any criminal offence, as there was no charge that encompassed her actions. The Coroner did not make any specific recommendations in respect of the introduction of criminal offences to deal with the type of catfishing Marsden had experienced. However, he recommended that NSW’s laws around coercive control and non-physical forms of domestic and family violence be reviewed.
The Coroner’s decision was criticised by Dr Marilyn McMahon and Paul McGorrery of Deakin University, who argued that a person who catfished in such a way could be charged with manslaughter under existing laws.
Offences associated with catfishing
People who lure other people into relationships online often commit other offences against their victim. When this occurs, it can be straightforward to prosecute them for the later offences, while the catfishing itself remains unaddressed.
Some of the offences that commonly flow from catfishing are:
Stalking
Repeatedly contacting someone in a way that is threatening or harassing, either online or offline, may amount to stalking, which is an offence in all Australian jurisdictions.
Fraud
Making requests for money using a false identity and/or for reasons that are false may amount to fraud, also known as obtaining a financial advantage by deception.
Using a carriage service to harass or offend
Where the internet or social media sites are used to convey obscene material, to make threats or otherwise cause offence, a person could be charged with the Commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to menace, harass, or cause offence.
Children
Where the victim of catfishing is under 16, there are numerous offences that may apply, particularly where the internet is used to share sexual images, or to solicit a meeting with a child. These include:

Possessing child abuse material;
Using a carriage service for child abuse material;
Using a carriage service to procure sexual activity with a person who the accused believed to be under 16

Is a specific offence needed?
The parents of Renae Marsden, and others in the community, are calling for a specific offence to be created to deal with catfishing. Others say that existing criminal laws are sufficient to prosecute the majority of catfishers and that it would be difficult or impossible to legislate for situations where no fraud or physical harm is attempted.
As catfishing contravenes the terms and conditions of social media platforms and dating sites, contacting the platform to have the offender’s profile suspended is one way of addressing this behaviour.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Is Catfishing An Offence? appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

On 29 January 2020 the Health Minister declared a public health emergency in respect of the whole of the state of Queensland. Queensland passed a number of public health directions that imposed strict restrictions on the freedoms of individuals, including limiting the size of public gatherings and the reasons people could go out in public. Starting … Continue reading Relaxing of COVID-19 Restrictions (Qld) →

The post Relaxing of COVID-19 Restrictions (Qld) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

The World Health Organisation declared Covid-19 a pandemic on the 11 March 2020. On the 15 March 2020 the Western Australian Minister for Emergency Services and the State Government declared a State of Emergency in WA under the Emergency Management Act 2005 and a Public Health Emergency under the Public Health 2016 Act. Under these declarations, a number of Directions were made imposing COVID-19 restrictions in the interests of public health and safety.
The COVID-19 restrictions included:

The closure of Western Australian borders restricting travellers from entering Western Australia unless exempt;
Restriction of travel within Western Australia unless exempt;
Closure of specific business and community activities;
Self-solation and quarantine to limit the spread of Covid-19; and
Other directions pursuant to Emergency Management Act 2005.

Travel restrictions into Western Australia
The Western Australian State Government imposed strict border controls to limit the spread of Covid-19. The COVID-19 restrictions prevent any person from entering Western Australia without an exemption.
In order to obtain an exemption, a person must meet the criteria outlined in the Quarantine (Closing the Border) Directions. To apply for an exemption to the directions you must be:

A senior government official in the course of their duties;
A member of the Commonwealth Parliament and their staff;
Active military personnel on duty in Western Australia;
A person with specialist skills not available in Western Australia;
An emergency service worker;
A judicial officer or staff member of a court or tribunal or commission;
A person carrying out a function under a Commonwealth law;
A member of a health service, when requested by the Chief Health Officer of the Department of Health;
A fly in fly out worker or their family members;
Travelling for urgent and essential medical treatment;
Attending a relative’s funeral or visiting a relative who is critically ill or whose death is imminent;
Transport, freight and logistics;
Eligible for an exemption on compassionate grounds.

If a person meets the above criteria, they may apply for an exemption. A person is required to submit their application at least three days prior to the date of proposed travel.
If an Australian citizen or permanent resident is arriving back in Australia, they will be subject to the Australian Government’s mandatory quarantine period of 14 days. The Australian government provided the person with suitable accommodation to stay in during this period. The person is not permitted to travel domestically including to their home or continue on any domestic connections until they have completed the 14 day mandatory quarantine period. If a Western Australian resident wishes to return home from domestic travel, the person is also required to apply for an exemption to enter the state. If the exemption is granted, the person is also required to self-isolate for 14 days upon returning to Western Australia.
Penalties for breaching COVID-19 Restrictions
On 2 April 2020 the Emergency Management Amendment (Covid-19 Response) Bill 2020 was passed through both houses of the Western Australian State Parliament. The purpose of the bill was to amend the Emergency Management Act 2005 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The amendments implemented new laws to assist with the enforcement of self-isolation and increased the penalties for failing to comply with directions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The amendments enabled authorised officers to issue directions necessary to impose self-isolation and social distancing requirements. Should a person fail to comply with a direction of an authorised officer, it enabled the authorities to issue on the spot fines of $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for businesses. These penalties were to act as a deterrent against members of the community who did not abide by the COVID-19 restrictions.
Section 70 of the Emergency Management Act 2005 states that during an emergency situation or state of emergency, a hazard management officer or authorised officer may direct any person who has been exposed, or any class of person who may have been exposed:

to remain in an area specified by the officer for such period as is specified by the officer;
to remain quarantined from other persons for such period, and in such reasonable manner, as is specified by the officer;
to submit to decontamination procedures within such reasonable period, and in such reasonable manner, as is specified by the officer.

Section 70 of the Act will be invoked by the authorised officer upon any person returning to Western Australia from domestic or international travel.
Section 86 of the Act provides that a person given a direction under section 70 is liable to a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or a maximum fine of $50,000.
Pursuant to section 70A, a person can be subjected to electronic monitoring while they are in self-isolation pursuant to section 70. Any person who fails to comply with a direction under this section or obstructs or hinders an authorised officer from exercising their powers under the section is liable to a penalty of imprisonment for 12 months or a fine of $12,000.
Amendments to the Act also included powers to compel people to provide information about any recent travel or people they had been in contact with and enabled the closure of any road, access route, areas of water in or leading to an emergency area to be closed.
Regional travel restrictions
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the State Government restricted regional travel within Western Australia. As at 5 June 2020, majority of the regional travel restrictions were lifted within Western Australia. Travel is now permitted throughout Western Australia with the exception of the Kimberley region, parts of the Shire of East Pilbara, the Shire of Ngaanyatarraku and other remote aboriginal communities.
As with international travel and returning to Western Australia, travel exemptions are required to travel to these areas. These exemptions include travelling to work, attending medical appointments, transporting freight, returning to a place of residence, attending school or an educational institution, caring for family members and other compassionate grounds.
Checkpoints and police patrols are in place to monitor travel across boundaries. a person can be issued with fines of up to $50,000 for breaching these regional restrictions.
If you require legal advice or representation in a relation to COVID-19 restrictions or in any other legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Covid-19 Restrictions (WA) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

On 24 April 2020, the Queensland government passed the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation (COVID-19 Emergency Response) Regulation. The Regulation makes temporary changes to the Queensland Residential Tenancies Act to make allowances for tenants suffering excessive hardship because of COVID-19 and will remain in force until 31 December 2020. It was made under the power … Continue reading Excessive Hardship Because of COVID-19 and Residential Leases (Qld) →

The post Excessive Hardship Because of COVID-19 and Residential Leases (Qld) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

From 15 May 2020, the COVID-19 restrictions in New South Wales will be relaxed. The restrictions have been in place since March and were imposed under orders by the Health Minister under the New South Wales Public Health Act 2010. The changes are the first stage in a three-sep plan for reopening Australia announced by the Prime … Continue reading Easing of COVID-19 Restrictions (NSW) →

The post Easing of COVID-19 Restrictions (NSW) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

On 29 January 2020 the Health Minister declared a public health emergency in respect of the whole of the state of Queensland. Queensland passed a number of public health directions that imposed strict restrictions on the freedoms of individuals, including limiting the size of public gatherings and the reasons people could go out in public. Starting … Continue reading Relaxing of COVID-19 Restrictions – Stage One (Qld) →

The post Relaxing of COVID-19 Restrictions – Stage One (Qld) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

On 30th March 2020, the Victorian government put in place strict emergency restrictions in an attempt to limit the spread of the Coronavirus. On 12 May 2020, these restrictions were relaxed in Stage One of a three-step plan to reopen Australia announced by the Prime Minister last week. A lot of emergency restrictions remain in … Continue reading Relaxing of Coronavirus Emergency Restrictions (Vic) →

The post Relaxing of Coronavirus Emergency Restrictions (Vic) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

The ASIO Powers Amendment Bill is currently before the House of Representatives. It is a bill, introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs, to amend the legislation governing the powers of arrest, questioning, search and seizure exercised by ASIO. Among others things, the bill proposes empowering ASIO to issue arrest warrants orally, to detain and … Continue reading What is the ASIO Powers Amendment Bill? →

The post What is the ASIO Powers Amendment Bill? appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

On 24 April 2020 Victoria passed legislation temporarily amending the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 will be in force for six months. Among other things, it seeks to protect tenants and landlords who are unable to perform their obligations due to a COVID-19 reason. The act applies to parties to residential tenancy agreements, boarding houses, caravan parks and rooming houses.
What is a COVID-19 reason?
Under Section 537 of the act, a person is unable to comply with a term or provision of a residential tenancy agreement for a COVID-19 reasons if the person:

is ill (whether or not the illness is COVID-19);
is unable to comply because of their compliance with public health directions in relation to the pandemic;
cannot comply without suffering severe hardship;
cannot comply because of exceptional circumstances relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The definition of COVID-19 reason is quite broad. It differs from the approach taken by other states, which have put in place very specific criteria to assess whether a tenant has been financially impacted by the pandemic to the extent that they require relief.
Rent
A landlord or agent who is dealing with a tenant who is affected by a COVID-19 reason must not increase the tenant’s rent. Landlords and agents must allow payment of rent by Centrepay where they are eligible to use Centrepay. A tenant must not be taken to have breached their tenancy agreement where the breach is the result of a COVID-19 reason.
A tenant may apply to the tribunal for a reduction of rent payable under the lease for a specified period. The Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent payable under the lease and may also order that the tenant enter into a payment plan for payment of the rent or outstanding arrears.
Fixed-term tenancies
Under Section 543, a landlord or tenant who is a party to a fixed term residential tenancy agreement may apply to the Tribunal for an order reducing the length of the tenancy and making any changes to the terms of the tenancy needed because of the reduction in its term.
An order must only be made under this provision if the Tribunal is satisfied that the party would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced.
Vacating premises
A landlord or agent must not give a tenant a Notice to Vacate where the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement for a COVID-19 reason. A landlord or agent may still give a tenant a Notice to Vacate where the tenant has breached the lease agreement in a way that is not for a COVID-19 reason, such as using the property for illegal purposes.
Under the changes, tenants are permitted to vacate premises with shorter notice periods than are usually required under the Residential Tenancies Act in certain circumstances. This includes when a tenant:

is excluded from the property under a family violence intervention order;
is protected by a family violence intervention order and is seeking to protect their safety;
is suffering severe hardship.

Blacklists
Owners and agents are prohibited from ‘blacklisting’ tenants on databases like TICA based on their failure to perform their obligations due to a COVID-19 reason.
Chief Dispute Resolution Officer
The act establishes the office of Chief Dispute Resolution Officer (CDRO). The CDRO administers the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Scheme and may be empowered by regulations to:

change, limit or prevent the exercise of rights by a tenant or a landlord under the Residential Tenancy Act or under Alease agreement;
exempt specified persons from compliance with residential tenancy law;
modify the operation of tenancy agreements;
modify the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act or the VCAT Act in relation to a tenancy agreement.

If you require legal advice or representation in a residential tenancies matter or in any other legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Breaking a Lease for a COVID-19 Reason (Vic) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted the federal government to introduce stringent restrictions on travel into and out of the country. These restrictions are the strictest ever put in place by Australia. Many other countries around the world have also halted international travel despite the World Health Organisation’s advice that such measures are ineffective in slowing the spread of diseases. As the law currently stands, Australians can only leave Australia during COVID-19 if they qualify for an exemption from the ban.
How did the travel ban come about?
On 19 March 2020 Prime Minister Scott Morrison advised Australians not to travel overseas because of the pandemic. Many Australian disregarded the advice in the fortnight that followed, with 16,000 people leaving the country during that time.
On 25 March 2020 an official travel ban was imposed with the passage of the Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Overseas Travel Ban Emergency Requirements) Determination 2020.
What are the restrictions?
Section 5 of the Determination states that Australian citizens and permanent residents must not leave Australia unless a general exemption applies or an exemption is granted. It also states that operators of aircraft and vessels must not leave Australian territory with a passenger who is an Australian citizen or permanent resident unless the person has an exemption.
Who can leave Australia during COVID-19?
The following categories of person have a general exemption from the travel ban and do not need to apply for an exemption in order to leave Australia:

Those ordinarily resident in another country;
Airline and maritime crew;
New Zealanders holding a Subclass 444 visa;
Those engaged in day to day conduct of freight in and out of the country;
Those doing essential work at offshore facilities;
Those travelling on official government business.

Applying for an exemption
An exemption may be granted to a person if they propose to undertake overseas travel that is:

Essential for critical industries and business;
For urgent medical treatment that is not available in Australia;
For urgent and unavoidable personal business;
In the national interest;
Part of the COVID-19 response.

A person may also be able to get an exemption and be permitted to leave Australia on compassionate or humanitarian grounds.
If you need to apply for an exemption from the travel ban on one of the above grounds, you can do so online and this should be done at least 48 hours prior to travelling and not more than three months before the departure date. You should provide evidence of the circumstance on which you are claiming the exemption. This may consist of a letter from your employer explaining why the travel is necessary and the work critical; or a letter from your doctor saying why travel is necessary. Documents in foreign languages must be accompanied by a translation into English.
If granted an exemption, you must take the exemption to the airport with you.
Other countries’ restrictions
Other countries have also implemented travel restrictions. Obtaining an exemption that allows you to leave Australia during COVID-19 does not guarantee that you will be able to enter a foreign country. If you are planning to seek an exemption from the travel ban, be sure to make enquiries as to travel restrictions in the country you are planning to enter.
If you require legal advice or representation in an immigration matter or in any other legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Can I Leave Australia During COVID-19? appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

The family courts have recently announced the introduction of a COVID-19 List to deal with urgent parenting issues that have resulted directly from the Coronavirus crisis. The COVID-19 List has been introduced in response to the large number of urgent parenting applications filed during March and April this year, which amounted to a 39% increase in the Family Court and a 23% increase in the Federal Circuit Court.
The COVID-19 List
On the 28 April 2020 the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court published a joint practice direction establishing procedures for the family courts to deal with urgent parenting applications that have come about as a direct result of the COVID-19 crisis. The practice direction establishes a fast-tracked national court list to allow the family courts to urgently deal with COVID-19 related applications.
Who is eligible?
Applications will be considered for the COVID-19 List if:

They have been filed as a direct result of the pandemic;
The matter is urgent;
Attempts to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful;
The matter can be dealt with electronically;
An affidavit accompanies the application addressing the following criteria:

why the matter is urgent;
how the dispute has arisen as a direct result of COVID-19;
what risks of harm to children or parties are alleged to exist;
what reasonable attempts have been made to resolve the dispute through negotiation, or why it was not safe to attempt this; and
details of how it is proposed the other party can be provided with a copy of the court documents.

Where applicable, the affidavit should attach copies of any current family law orders, p, or family violence orders.
How does the COVID-19 List operate?
The COVID-19 list is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Family Court. It is administered by the National Registrars, who will consider the urgency of each application filed and may order that a matter be dealt with by electronic dispute resolution where appropriate.
Applications that are accepted into the COVID-19 List will be given a first return date (a court date where the application goes before a judge for the first time). The matter will be heard electronically on that date. The judge dealing with the CIVD-19 List will only deal with the issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and will put in place temporary orders. The remaining matters will be managed by the registrar.
Parties filing COVID-19 applications are still expected to comply with any requirements to attend dispute resolution if it is safe to do so.
Making a COVID-19 application
Applications to the COVID-19 List of the Family Court must be filed by email at [email protected]. Application to the COVID-19 List of the Federal Circuit Court must be made to [email protected].
Applications must be accompanied by a cover letter for urgency and an affidavit of no more than six pages. This can be signed electronically and does not need to be signed by a witness. If applying to the Federal Circuit Court, a Notice of Risk should be included. If applying to the Family Court, a Notice of Child Abuse should be included.
A person making an application should copy the other party/ies into the email unless it is unsafe to do so.
Why the COVID-19 List?
The COVID-19 crisis, the closure of organisations and businesses and the implementation of social distancing measures has made of lot of existing parenting orders and parenting plans impossible to comply with. This may be because parents were required to have contact with children in a contact centre that is currently closed. It may be because the other parent lives interstate so sharing care of children is no longer possible due to closed borders. Difficulties with existing orders may also arise because a parent or a child has tested positive for COVID-19 or because a family violence situation has arisen or escalated due to the restrictions.
Responses to the announcement
Women’s Safety and Domestic Violence workers have welcomed the announcement, saying that high risk domestic violence situations have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 lock down measures and that the fast-tracking of applications in such cases would save lives.
The COVID-19 List is initially to operate for three months, but this will be reassessed at a later date.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post The COVID-19 List in the Family Courts appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

On 23 March 2020 it was announced that federal Parliament would not sit again until 11 August 2020 due to the spread of the Coronavirus. The Parliamentary sittings of May and June were cancelled and the budget was postponed until October. The move was opposed by Labor and the Greens, who expressed concerns that legislation hastily passed to deliver economic stimuli and welfare was likely to be flawed and to require amendments. Civil liberties groups also criticised the decision to suspend parliament, saying it would mean there would be very little parliamentary scrutiny of government decisions during a crucial period when extreme emergency powers are being exercised.
How did the suspension come about?
The government suspended parliament after announcing that the budget would be postponed until October. House Leader Christian Porter stated:
“some risk attaches to the operation of parliament, particularly during what is anticipated to be the peak point in the transmission of the coronavirus.”
The Prime Minister has appointed a panel of business people to manage the country’s economic response to the pandemic, chaired by Fortescue Metals chief Nev Power. The National COVID-19 Coordination Commission (NCCC) will co-ordinate advice to the government on mitigating the social and economic effects of the pandemic. Supply bills were passed prior to the adjournment of parliament to ensure that government expenditure would be funded until August.
Criticisms of the decision to suspend parliament
Concerns have been raised that the NCCC will not operate subject to the codes and traditions of parliament and will be accountable only to the Prime Minister. Morrison’s appointment of a mining executive to chair the commission has been described as ‘autocratic’ and as representing a corporate, rather than an administrative, mentality in the Prime Minister.
It has been pointed out that the Australian parliament kept sitting throughout both world wars and throughout the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 – 1920. The loss of parliament for five months has been called ‘devastating’ for the accountability of the federal government to the people of Australia.
Commentators have predicted that parliament will inevitably be recalled before August due to the need to deal with issues arising from the pandemic and because the legislation already passed is unlikely to be sufficient.
Civil liberties concerns
Civil libertarians have warned the decision to suspend parliament for so long is dangerous for democracy, with Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus calling on parliament to continue to sit so as to scrutinise the government’s use of its emergency powers under the Biosecurity Act.
Andrew Edgar, an Associate Professor in the University of Sydney Law School, has outlined how lawmaking is different in times of emergency as the activation of emergency powers gives rise to the ability of public health officers to exercise broad regulation-making powers.
The use of these powers raises a number of concerns, including the following:

Regulations and orders made under the emergency powers tend to be unstable and regulations are often made and then varied or repealed a few days later.
Regulations made under the emergency powers can be hard to find as they are not published on government legislation websites. This can be problematic when breaches of the regulations carry heavy penalties, including imprisonment.

The suspension of parliament during a period when lawmaking is occurring through broad regulation-making powers could lead to very low levels of accountability and scrutiny. This is particularly concerning when orders are being made that seriously infringe on the everyday freedoms of individuals.
Do we need a virtual parliament?
Since the decision to suspend parliament, its committees have continued to operate. This means that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit can still scrutinise government expenditure, for instance. Parliamentary committees can communicate remotely and are still regarded as parliamentary proceedings and covered by parliamentary privilege. It has therefore been suggested that parliament itself could sit remotely with the use of technology to communicate. This would allow new laws to be debated and passed during times of emergency and without the need for face-to-face contact between MPs.
The UK Parliament sat via zoom for the first time on Wednesday.
Most of the Australian state and territory parliaments have altered their sitting patterns in response to COVID-19 after the decision by the federal government to suspend parliament. At this stage, no virtual parliament is being considered for either federal or state and territory parliaments in Australia.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Was it Necessary to Suspend Parliament? appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

On 7 April 2020, the national cabinet announced a Mandatory Code of Conduct that would apply to commercial leases where the tenant is a small or medium-sized business which has been financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Code imposes good faith leasing principles that are set to reshape relations between landlords and commercial tenants during the period of the pandemic and for a recovery period after the crisis is over. The states and territories are expected to pass legislation to implement the Code commencing at a time to be determined by each jurisdiction. This article sets out the changes to commercial leasing arrangements required under the Code.
How long will the Code of Conduct apply?
The principles of the Code of Conduct will be required to be followed for as long as the JobKeeper program is operational.
Who does the Code apply to?
The Code of Conduct applies to retail, office and industrial tenants which are a small or medium enterprise with an annual turnover of less than $50 million and which are suffering financial distress and hardship.
Tenants that are eligible for the JobKeeper program are automatically eligible for the benefits conferred by the Code of Conduct. Businesses with an annual turnover of less than $1 Billion that have experienced a 30% fall in revenue since 1 March 2020 are eligible, provided they are not subject to the major bank levy.
The Code of Conduct is also intended to provide guidance for dealing with all business affected by COVID-19, even those that it does not strictly apply to.
Obligations under commercial leases
Tenants should remain committed to the terms of their tenancies subject to any changes negotiated under the Code. Where a tenant fails to abide by the terms of their lease, they forfeit the protection provided under the Code.
Opportunity to extend commercial leases
Tenants should be allowed to extend the period of their lease for the period of the rent waiver/deferral period so as to allow the tenant the opportunity to continue trading on existing terms during the recovery period.
Rent reductions, waivers and deferrals
Landlords must offer rental reductions in the form of waivers (ie the rent owed is written off) and deferrals (ie the rent is to be paid at a later date) of up to 100% of the amount ordinarily payable. The rental reduction is to be calculated based on the reduction in the tenant’s trade during the COVID period and for a reasonable recovery period afterwards.
Rental waivers must constitute at least half of the total reduction in the amount of rent payable and more in cases where failure to waive rental arrears would compromise the tenant’s ability to fulfil their obligations under the lease. The landlord’s financial capacity to offer a waiver must also be considered.
Tenants must be allowed to pay deferred rent over the balance of the lease term or over a period of 24 months, whichever is greater, unless otherwise agreed. In other words, the tenant may end up continuing to pay back deferred rent after the expiry of the lease.
Rent increases
The government has imposed a freeze on rental increases on commercial leases to which the Code applies for the period of COVID-19 and for a reasonable recovery period afterwards, notwithstanding any prior arrangements between the landlord and the tenant.
Waiving of expenses
The Code requires that where appropriate, landlords should waive recovery of expenses during the period a tenant is unable to trade. Landlords may reduce services during this period.
Landlords must not impose any fees or interest on rental payments deferred or waived.
Lease terminations
The Code of Conduct states that landlords must not terminate commercial leases for non-payment of rent during the COVID-19 period.
Securities
Landlords are not allowed to draw on a tenant’s security (such as a bond) to cover unpaid rent during the COVID-19 period.
Reduced opening hours
Landlords must not penalise tenants which reduce opening hours or stop trading because of COVID-19.
Case by case basis
All leases must be dealt with on a case by case basis, taking into account whether the tenant has suffered COVID-19 related financial hardship, whether the lease is soon to expire and whether the business is in administration or receivership. In arriving at temporary arrangements, parties must also take into account whether leases are already in arrears and what the structures, periods of tenure and mechanisms for determining rent under the lease are.
Mediation
When a landlord and a tenant cannot come to a satisfactory temporary agreement under the Code, the matter should be referred to the applicable state or territory dispute resolution process for binding mediation. Mediation processes must not be used to prolong or frustrate the negotiation process.
An Industry Code Administration Committee will be set up in each state and territory to promote and monitor the operation of the Code. When individual jurisdictions pass legislation incorporating the Code of Conduct into their laws, more information will be available as to exactly how the rights and duties of commercial landlords and tenants will be affected in that state or territory.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Commercial Leases and COVID appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

Many people who are residential tenants in New South Wales have been financially disadvantaged by COVID-19. This may be because of reduced work hours, because of business closures or because of being unable to work due to illness. In recognition of the exceptional circumstances facing renters at the moment, the state government has introduced temporary restrictions on evictions of tenants who have been financially disadvantaged by COVID-19. This article outlines those measures, which are contained in the Residential Tenancies Amendment (COVID-19) Regulation 2020.
Evictions moratorium
Starting on 14   the NSW government has introduced a moratorium on evictions for rental arrears where the tenant is experiencing financial hardship due to COVID-19. For 60 days, landlords will be restrained from evicting tenants who are unable to pay their rent because of COVID-19. For a further six months, restrictions will be in place on rental arrears evictions for tenants financially disadvantaged by COVID-19.
For 60 days, landlords must not issue termination notices or applying to NCAT for eviction orders where tenants are financially disadvantaged by COVID-19. A landlord must enter into good faith negotiations with their tenant for a rental reduction. After 60 days have passed, a landlord may seek a termination notice or an eviction order only if there are circumstances in the specific case that make it fair and reasonable to do so.
Who has been financially disadvantaged by COVID-19?
Under Section 41B of the Regulations, in order to be eligible for the 60-day moratorium and the six months of restrictions, a tenant must demonstrate that:

One or more rent-paying members of the household has had their income reduced by COVID-19 closures or stand-downs;
One or more rent-paying members of the household has had to stop working or work less due to being ill with COVID-19 or caring for someone who is ill with COVID-19;
The above results in a reduction of household income of at least 25 per cent.

Proof of eligibility
A tenant who wants to take advantage of the moratorium must provide the following documents to prove they are eligible as someone who has been financially disadvantaged by COVID-19:

Proof of job termination or reduction of work hours;
Proof of government income support;
Proof of prior income

What if we can’t agree?
If the landlord and the tenant are unable to come to an agreement about a rental reduction between themselves, they can use the Dispute Resolution Service provided by NSW Fair Trading. Fair Trading will seek evidence from the tenant about their financial situation and will try to try to reach a temporary agreement with the landlord for the payment of rent.
Why have the changes been made?
The temporary moratorium and restrictions on evictions have been put in place to allow tenants who are experiencing hardship to access government payments such as the JobKeeper Payment. Applications for such benefits are subject to waiting periods and the moratorium gives people time to have their application processed without the pressure of having to maintain their ordinary level of rental payments during the time they are on a reduced income.
What happens after the six months is up?
Tenants who renegotiate rent during the six-month period may be required to pay back the unpaid rent after the six months period has passed. Rental arrears may be waived if this is agreed between the tenant and the landlord.
What about sub-tenants?
Sub-tenants to whom the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 applies are eligible to claim the stop on evictions. These are sub-tenants who have written tenancy agreements with the main tenant or where the main tenancy agreement has been transferred to the sub-tenant.
What happens after the 60 days?
If a tenant is still unable to pay the usual rental amount after the 60 days have passed, their tenancy may be terminated due to rental arrears only if the landlord has attempted good faith negotiations for a rental reduction and the tenant has refused.
What about the landlord’s expenses?
Landlords who are required to give rental reductions during this period should negotiate with their bank to have their mortgage payments waived or reduced.
If a landlord is suffering undue hardship, they may apply to the Tribunal to take possession of the property. This can be done at any time during the 60-day moratorium or the further six-month restriction are in place.
Residential tenancy databases
Landlords and agents are not allowed to have a tenant listed on a residential tenancy database such as TICA if their breach of the residential tenancy agreement came about purely because they had been financially disadvantaged by COVID-19.
Boarding house residents
Temporary changes have also been made to the Boarding Houses Regulation 2013.
When a boarding house resident’s income is reduced by 25% or more because of COVID-19-related closures or illness, the proprietor must enter into good faith negotiations for a rental reduction. When no agreement is reached because the resident did not negotiate in good faith, the proprietor may terminate the agreement with 60 days’ written notice. If the resident did negotiate in good faith for a rental reduction, the proprietor may terminate the agreement with six months written notice.
If a proprietor wants to terminate an agreement for another reason during the moratorium period, they must give the resident at least 90 days written notice. This does not include evictions for reasons that are not COVID-19 related, such as where the resident has intentionally or recklessly damaged the property or where they are using it for illegal purposes.
The NSW government has also rolled out a renter relief package for commercial tenancies where the lessor has been financially disadvantaged by COVID-19.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Can I Be Evicted if I Have Been Financially Disadvantaged by COVID-19? (NSW) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

The commercial landscape that we once knew has been in turmoil since the outbreak of COVID-19. Federal and State Governments have been forced to take immediate action to curb the spread of this virus. These actions have had negative commercial and economic implications for Australian and Global businesses. Restrictions are being imposed on non-essential businesses and many have been forced to close down or suspend trading. Many suppliers here in Australia and overseas are unable to fulfil orders due to restrictions that have been imposed by their governments. Others are finding themselves unable to deliver manufactured goods due to a broken link in the supply chain and, as a result, cannot fulfil their contractual obligations. This has resulted in extraordinary procedures being rolled out by the Australian government in order to mitigate losses so that once this pandemic has been reined in business can return to normal.
However, in certain circumstances, parties may want to enforce contracts and instigate proceedings on defaulting parties or alternatively parties may be required to defend themselves for not complying with the terms of the contract.
In determining your obligations under a contract, the first step is to thoroughly review the express terms of the contract. The contract may also have implied terms that may require determination based on past performance. This may be because certain conduct by parties might have been consistently accepted throughout the commercial relationship by the other parties. However, this blog post will only examine expressly constructed terms in a contract and the common law doctrine of frustration.
Force majeure and COVID-19
Some contracts contain a clause referred to as “Force Majeure.” Literally translated from French, this means “superior or irresistible force” or simply put “Acts of God.” A force majeure clause excuses parties from performing their contractual obligations when particular circumstances that are listed in the clause make performance of those contractual obligations impossible. Force Majeure is a creature of contract which means that unless this clause is expressly drafted into your contract, specifically listing a pandemic as one of the circumstances that give rise to its operation, you cannot rely on this argument because it is not a recognised common law doctrine.
Common force majeure events that are drafted into contracts, among other things, are strikes, wars, “government action or interference”, accidents, storms, and ‘national emergency’. Pandemics are unlikely to be expressly drafted in existing contracts due to these events not being included in common Force Majeure clauses. However, as the federal and state governments impose restraints, such as quarantining, travel ban and border closures in order to contain the spread of the virus, these measures may invoke the “national emergency” or “acts of government” component of force majeure clauses which normally are included in a general blanket Force Majeure clause.
However, if your contract does have a force majeure clause that lists a pandemic as a supervening event, this may allow for the disposition of the contract permanently, the suspension of the contract, or the renegotiation of the terms of the contract. This again will depend on the construction of the force majeure clause.
Frustration
In the event a contract does not have a force majeure clause perhaps the contract has been frustrated. Frustration is a common law doctrine and applies where performance has become impossible because of some supervening event, without default by either party.
When the doctrine of frustration succeeds, both parties are discharged from further obligation and neither party can demand further performance by the other and losses lie where they fall. Parties cannot claim or recover for any losses or expenses incurred prior to the frustration event and the finding that the contract has been frustrated effectively terminates the contract. However, if a party benefitted at the expense of another party an argument may be made for restitution because it would be unjust for one party to retain the benefit. Restitution is not compensation but rather a restoration of money or property.
Legislation
Different states have also enacted legislation providing a framework for frustrated contracts which are as follows:

In Victoria, Part 3.2 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 deals with frustrated contracts;
In New South Wales there is the Frustrated Contracts Act 1978;
In South Australia there is the Frustrated Contracts Act 1988.

Short-term barriers to performance
When a delay of two weeks due to self-isolation of employees prevents a party temporarily from fulfilling their contractual obligations, this is generally unlikely to be deemed a frustrated contract. However, each situation has to be assessed individually and it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible so as to be aware of all your options for resolving the situation.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Contractual Obligations During COVID-19 appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

Each Australian state and territory has made different changes to its court processes due to the COVID-19 crisis. While some jurisdictions have adjourned all but the most urgent court matters, others are continuing to operate their courts but doing so in a way that incorporates social distancing requirements set out by health departments. This article will summarise how Western Australian courts and tribunals have altered their operations and requirements for court appearances in response to the pandemic.
Court buildings
All persons are directed not to enter court precincts if they have travelled overseas in the last 14 days. This includes court staff, lawyers, witnesses and parties to proceedings as well as members of the general public.
Magistrates Court
Criminal trials listed in the Magistrates Court are proceeding as usual. However, the Chief Magistrate has directed magistrates to be generous in granting adjournments when one is sought by a party on the basis that they are in a risk category.
The accused must physically appear when their matter is in court for a trial, bail variation, for sentence (unless otherwise ordered) and when a surety does not extend. Adjournments may be dealt with in the absence of the accused and their legal representative.
Civil trials in Perth Magistrates Court have been temporarily suspended. Civil trials in other WA Magistrates Courts will be triaged by the court they are listed in and only urgent ones will remain listed.  Physical court appearances will be required in civil trials except where otherwise ordered.
Personal attendance at direction hearings, applications and conferences is suspended, except where otherwise ordered. Parties to matters with current listings must contact the court to provide their email and phone contact details.
State Administrative Tribunal
The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) is continuing to operate. Hearings and mediations will be conducted over phone or video link, except in exceptional circumstances. Mediations and hearings that are not urgent will be vacated and relisted at a later date.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Western Australia has made the following changes to its operations.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal has suspended personal court appearances at hearings, except where otherwise ordered. Both criminal and civil hearings are to be conducted over the phone, or if all parties are legally represented, by video conference. Offenders in criminal appeals are to appear by video link and where this is not possible, by phone.
Where an appeal requires the calling of witnesses, this will be done in person. Only the lawyer and any self-represented party must be present in the courtroom. Social distancing measures will be observed. Witnesses will appear by video link.
The media and the public may attend hearings but must sit upstairs in the gallery of Court 1 or Court 3.
Supreme Court – general division
Wherever possible, direction hearings, case management inquiries and strategic conferences will be conducted by phone. Judgments will be delivered over the phone or on the papers wherever possible.
Mediation conferences
Except in exceptional circumstances, no new mediation conferences will be listed until the end of May 2020. Personal attendance will not be required at mediation conferences.
District Court
All civil trials listed in the District Court of WA up to 3 July 2020 will be vacated and re-listed at a later date. A party may make an application to have a civil trial date retained on the basis that there are exceptional circumstances.
Civil trials listed after 3 July 2020 will be reviewed during June 2020. No new civil trials will be listed before 30 October, unless an application is made for an expedited trial.
All civil appeals already listed will proceed and be heard by phone unless the judge orders that it be heard on the papers. All other hearings and court appearances will be by phone.
Criminal trials listed in the District Court will be vacated and re-listed at a later date. Sentencing hearings where the accused is in custody will proceed with the accused appearing by video link from prison. Sentencing hearings for defendants who are not in prison will be adjourned to a later date.
Documents
All filing and tendering of documents is to be done electronically.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Court Appearances and COVID-19 (WA) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

On 7 April 2020 the High Court granted former Cardinal George Pell leave to appeal against the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal to uphold the jury’s findings of guilt against the Cardinal in December 2018. After hearing his appeal, the High Court found that the jury ought to have entertained reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt of each of the offences based on the evidence that was before the court. It acquitted him of the five charges.
The trial
Pell was found guilty of one count of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four counts of committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16. The offending was supposed to have occurred on two occasions, one in December 1996 and the other in February 1997. Both incidents were alleged to have occurred at St Patrick’s Cathedral after Sunday mass. The alleged victims were two 13-year-old choirboys, one of whom had passed away before the charges were laid.
George Pell was found guilty on all charges by the second jury to hear the evidence (the first jury was unable to agree on a verdict). He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and eight months.
Court of Appeal
On 21 August 2019, the Court of Appeal upheld the jury’s findings of guilt by a majority decision, with Justice Weinberg dissenting.
The majority found that the complainant was a compelling witness and that despite the court hearing evidence of several ‘opportunity witnesses’ whose accounts were inconsistent with the facts alleged by the complainant, there was no compelling evidence that the routines and practices described were never departed from and therefore the jury need not have found there was reasonable doubt.
Justice Weinberg, dissenting, found that the unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses should have been found to give rise to reasonable doubt.
High Court Appeal
George Pell appealed to the High Court on two grounds. The first ground was that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant needed to establish that the offending was impossible in order to raise reasonable doubt. The second ground was that the testimony of the opportunity witnesses raised reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged offending occurred.
The High Court found that despite the jury’s assessment of the complainant’s evidence as credible, it ought to have found that there was reasonable doubt as to George Pell’s guilt based on the opportunity evidence, which is summarised below.
Greeting congregants after mass
The court heard evidence that George Pell’s usual practice was to spend at least ten minutes after mass greeting congregants on the stairs of the cathedral. If he had adhered to this practice, the defence argued, he could not have been in the corridor outside the sacristies when the choir processed back through it.
Archbishop always accompanied while robed
The court heard evidence from the Master of Ceremonies that he always accompanied the Archbishop as he processed along the aisle to the west door after mass. George Pell always left the procession at the west door and stood there greeting congregants as they were leaving the cathedral for a period of between 10 and 20 minutes. The Master of Ceremonies then accompanied the Archbishop to the priests’ sacristy and assisted him to remove his vestments. He and other witnesses gave evidence that long tradition required that an archbishop not be unaccompanied in a church or cathedral during ceremonies.
The court also heard evidence from the cathedral’s sacristan, who said that Pell never returned to the sacristy unaccompanied and that if the master of ceremonies wasn’t there, then he would accompany Pell to the sacristy.
Other witnesses also gave evidence that Pell was never unaccompanied when robed.
The timing of the assaults
The court heard evidence that the sacristy was generally locked during mass, that the corridor outside it was always ‘a hive of activity’ after Mass, with people coming and going, altar servers bringing in implements and other priests vesting and de-vesting.
The prosecution alleged that the assaults occurred after the altar servers had processed into the sacristy and bowed to the crucifix and before the ‘hive of activity’ commenced. This left only a very short period of time – a couple of minutes – in which the assaults could have occurred.
Findings
The High Court found that the Court of Appeal did not err in finding that the complainant gave compelling evidence that was free of inconsistencies that would have required a jury to find reasonable doubt. However, it found that evidence had been heard from witnesses whose honesty was not in question, that George Pell was on the steps of the Cathedral for at least ten minutes after Mass on the day of the alleged offending, that he was accompanied by the Master of Ceremonies when he returned to the sacristy and that there was continuous traffic in and out of the sacristy for 10 to 15 minutes after the altar servers completed their bows to the crucifix.
This evidence led to a level of improbability that the offending occurred that required the jury to have had a reasonable doubt that Pell was guilty of the offences. There was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been found guilty.
In relation to the second incident, when Pell was alleged to have pinned the complainant to a wall and squeezed his genitals during a procession through the sacristy corridor after Mass, the High Court found the evidence suffered from the same deficiencies.
The complainant’s evidence of what happened in the second incident was inconsistent with evidence heard by the court from other witnesses that:

The archbishop was always accompanied when robed in the Cathedral;
The archbishop always spent time greeting congregants after Mass;
The archbishop, as the most senior person in the procession, would be the last to proceed through the corridor, while the complainant, as one of the youngest members, would have been towards the front of the procession.

The court quashed George Pell’s convictions and entered judgments of acquittal in their place.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post George Pell Acquitted by High Court appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

Under the New South Wales Public Health Act 2010, the Health Minister may make orders restricting the movements of people in New South Wales when there is a risk to public health. Since March 2020, a number of COVID-19 restrictions have been imposed under orders by the Health Minister. They have been made on the basis that public health authorities around the world have been monitoring outbreaks of COVID-19, which is a potentially fatal and highly contagious disease.
Stay at home
On 31 March 2020, the minister made the Public Health ( COVID-19 Restrictions on Gathering and Movement) Order 2020. The order will expire on the 29th June 2020 unless it is revoked earlier. The order directs the persons in New South Wales must not leave their homes except for permitted purposes. Permitted purposes are limited to:

Buying food and other essential goods and services;
Travelling to and from work or study where this cannot be done from home;
Exercising;
Obtaining medical treatment or supplies, or for care purposes.

Taking a holiday is not a permitted purpose.
This restriction does not apply to homeless persons.
Gatherings of more than two
The COVID-19 Restrictions on Gathering and Movement Order also directs that person in NSW must not take part in public gatherings of more than two. Exceptions are made for the following:

Gatherings for the purposes of work;
Gatherings of people whoa re all from the same household;
Gatherings for the purpose of a wedding where there are no more than five people, including the celebrant;
Gatherings for the purpose of a funeral where there are no more than 10 people, including the person conducting the funeral;
A gathering to facilitate a move to a new place of residence or business;
A gathering to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person;
A gathering to provide emergency assistance;
A gathering to fulfil a legal obligation.

Closure of premises
Under the COVID-19 Restrictions on Gathering and Movement Order, the following premises are required to remain closed to the public while the order is in force:

Pubs, clubs, food and drink premises, except to provide takeaway food or accommodation;
Entertainment facilities;
Amusement centres;
Casinos, except to provide accommodation and food to be consumed by guests in their rooms;
Micro-breweries and distilleries, except to provide food and drink to be consumed off the premises;
Indoor recreation facilities;
Places of worship, except for conducting weddings and funerals as provided above;
Beauty salons, tattoo parlours, spas, waxing and tanning salons and massage parlours,
Auction houses and betting agencies;
Markets except those that primarily sell food;
Information and education facilities;
Caravan parks and camping grounds, except for the purposes of providing permanent accommodation;
Community facilities;
Sex service premises;

Swimming pools, gyms, skate parks, strip clubs, playgrounds and gaming lounges and properties operated by the national trust must be closed to the public.
Auctions and open for inspections must not be held.
Owner and occupiers of premises
An owner or occupier of premises in New South Wales must not allow the premises to be used for:

An outdoor gathering of more than 500;
An indoor gathering of more than 100;
A gathering where the amount of space is insufficient to ensure four square metres space around each person.

This restriction does not apply to a person’s place of residence or to essential gatherings, such as gatherings at hospitals, airports, prisons, emergency services, parliament, courts and tribunals, aged and disability care facilities, shops, hotels, office, farms, factories, warehouses or schools and universities or other educational or child care facilities.
Quarantine
The Public Health (COVID-19 Quarantine) Order 2020 came into force on the 17 March 2020 and will continue until 15 June 2020. While the order is in force, any person arriving in New South Wales within 14 days of travelling overseas must be quarantined for 14 days.
The person must immediately proceed to a place suitable for quarantine and remain there for the quarantine period except:

To obtain medical care or supplies;
Because of an emergency;
In circumstances where the person can avoid close contact with other persons.

A person in quarantine must not allow another person into the premises unless the other person usually resides at the premises, is also undergoing quarantine there or enters for medical or emergency purposes.
This restriction does not apply to flight crew or to those who arrive in a NSW airport and depart from the airport without leaving the airport.
Self-isolation
The Public Health (COVID-19 Self-Isolation) Order 2020 came into force on 26 March 2020 and will continue to be in force until 23 June 2020. Under the order, any person diagnosed with COVID-19 must travel directly to a place suitable to reside in or if determined necessary, to a hospital and remain there until medically cleared.
The person must not leave the place except:

To obtain medical care or supplies;
In an emergency.

The person must not permit others to enter the place unless:

The other person usually lives at the place or is also complying with a direction under the order;
The entry is for medical or emergency purposes;
The entry is to deliver food or other essential items.

The Minister may grant an exemption from this order if necessary to protect the health and wellbeing of the public.
Penalties
Non-compliance with any of the above orders is a criminal offence and can result in the following penalties.
For an individual:

A fine of up to $11,000; or
Imprisonment for up to six months; or
Both; plus
A further fine of up to $5,500 for each day that the offence continues.

The NSW police can also issue on-the-spot fines of $1000 for an offence.
For a corporation:

A fine of up to $55,000; plus
A further fine of $27,500 for each day the offence continues.

If you require legal advice or representation in relation to COVID-19 restrictions or in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post COVID-19 Restrictions (NSW) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

In light of the continually developing COVID-19 pandemic, both the Federal and the Victorian governments have been implementing ever-changing rules including new laws with respect to how we go about our daily lives. On 2 April 2020 the latest of these Stay at Home directives came into force. They were originally to be in place until midnight on 13 April 2020, however, their operation has now been extended until midnight on the 11th May.
What is an ‘ordinary residence’?
There are currently only five permissible reasons for anyone to leave their ‘ordinary residence’ under the Stay At Home Directive.
The directive notes the following as to ordinary residences:

If a person’s ordinary residence is unavailable or they do not have one, they may find one, which will then be considered their ordinary residence for the purposes of this directive;
If a person ordinarily resides outside of Victoria but has a temporary residence in Victoria, that residence will be considered their ordinary residence for the purposes of this directive;
If a person has more than one ordinary residence (for example, a child under a shared parenting arrangement) both/all of those residences are considered their ordinary residence for the purposes of the stay at home directive;
A person may move during this period, with their new residence becoming their ordinary residence from midnight on the moving day, for the purposes of the stay at home directive.

When can I leave the house?
There are five permissible reasons to leave the house under the stay at home directive.
Reason 1 – Necessary goods or services
A person in Victoria may leave their ordinary residence to:

Get food or drink;
Do anything health or medical-related; and
Access goods and services such as:

financial institutions
government bodies, such as Centrelink for example;
post offices;
pharmacies;
hardware stores;
petrol stations;
pet stores or veterinary clinics; as well as
retail facilities excluding beauty and personal care businesses, auction houses as well as Indoor and outdoor market stalls.

Reason 2 – Care or other compassionate reasons
Under the stay at home directive, persons in Victoria may leave their ordinary residence to:

meet obligations pursuant to any shared parenting arrangement, court-ordered or otherwise;
conduct any visitations of a child in detention or in the care of another person, if you are a parent of that child;
perform any conduct required to meet any obligations in relation to the care and support of your child;
provide childcare, early childhood education or school, including for vulnerable young persons who reside in the care of the state or otherwise formally deemed vulnerable and are assessed as requiring care and education outside family homes;
provide care and support to relatives or other persons who require such due to their health;
attend residential aged care facilities, unless such is prohibited pursuant to a separately applicable direction which can be summarised as follows:

you must not enter or remain at a residential aged care facility unless:

you are an employee or contractor of the facility;
your presence is required for the purpose of providing good and services necessary for the facilities effective operation or for providing health, medical or pharmaceutical goods to the residents;
it is for the purpose of a care and support visit, which is a visit of no longer than 2 hours by one person or two persons together;
is for end of life support;
or is for emergency management or law enforcement.

you must specifically not visit or remain at a Residential Aged Care Facility in Victoria if:

you are diagnosed with COVID-19 and have not yet met the discharge from self-isolation requirements;
you have visited a place outside of Australia and have arrived in Australia in the preceding 14 days;
you have had contact with a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the preceding 14 days;
you have a temperature higher than 37.5 degrees;
you do not have an up to date vaccination against influenza or are under the age of 16.

Attend a hospital, unless such is prohibited pursuant to a separately applicable direction which states as follows:

you must not enter or remain at a hospital in Victoria unless you are a patient, a worker or visitor.
You are a visitor only if you are:

the parent or guardian of a patient under the age of 18,
a carer for a person with disability,
the partner or support person of a pregnant patient, or
a person present for the purpose of care and support to a patient.

A patient may only have one care and support visit each day, lasting no longer than 2 hours.
No more than two visitors may visit a patient at any one time
you must not visit or remain at a hospital in Victoria if:

you are diagnosed with COVID-19 and have not yet met the discharge from self-isolation requirements;
you have visited a place outside of Australia and have arrived in Australia in the preceding 14 days;
you have had contact with a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the preceding 14 days;
you have a temperature higher than 37.5 degrees.

Attend a wedding, as long as this does not involve more than 5 persons, including the persons being married, the authorised celebrant and two required witnesses;
Attend a funeral, as long as it involves no more than 10 persons, excluding those necessary for the conduct of the funeral;
donate blood;
escape harm or the risk of harm, including such related to family violence from persons at the ordinary residence;
visit a person with whom you are in an intimate personal relationship.

Reason 3 – Work and education
This reason allows persons to leave their ordinary residence to:

Attend work, including voluntary work;
Attend an educational institution; and
Do anything necessary to attend work or educational institutions, including but not limited to taking children to childcare and the like.

Notably, however, the above reasons are only acceptable if it is not reasonably practicable for the person to:

Work from within the ordinary residence; or
Obtain educational services from within the ordinary residence – i.e. remotely through an educational institution.

Reason 4 – Exercise
You may leave your ordinary residence to exercise but must:

Not enter a single undivided space with any more than 1 person, unless those persons are part of the same ordinary residence;
Not arrange to meet with more than one person outside of those living at your ordinary residence;
Take reasonable steps to maintain a distance of 1.5 metres from all other persons, at all times.

Reason 5 – Other specified reasons
Some other permissible reasons to leave one’s ordinary residence under the Stay At Home Directive include:

For an emergency;
When required by law, including to attend a police station or court;
If your ordinary residence is no longer available or suitable for you to reside in;
If you are moving to a new ordinary residence;
If you are leaving Victoria, because you ordinarily live outside of Victoria;
If you are leaving Australia, irrespective of where your ordinary residence is;
Moving between your usual multiple ordinary residences, if applicable.

Indoor gatherings
Principally it should also be noted that general blanket rules have been implemented to limit contact between persons. These include:

Any indoor gatherings, should not include more than one person who is not a resident unless they:

Are from the same ordinary residence;
Are part of a wedding (separately governed – described below);
Are part of a funeral (separately governed – described below); or
Comply with any of the below reasons to leave someone’s ordinary residence.

Any meeting of people inside of a single undivided indoor space, other than your ordinary residence, must comply with what is called the density quotient. This quotient can be calculated by dividing the total area of the space by four. Whatever number is the result, is the maximum number of persons that should be within that space at any point in time.
You must not permit another person into your ordinary residence unless:

They usually reside there themselves;
They are the subject of the Isolation (Diagnosis) Directive (separately governed – described below);
Their attendance is for ‘care’, or ‘work and education’ purposes (separately governed – described below);
They are there for a private inspection of the premises (pursuant to Restricted Activity Directions);
They are there for medical or emergency purposes;
Their attendance is otherwise required by law.

Persons generally must not arrange to meet more than one person for an outdoor activity, except:

Where persons ordinarily reside in the same premises;
Are part of a wedding (separately governed – described below);
Are part of a funeral (separately governed – described below); or
Comply with reasons of ‘care’, ‘work and education’ (separately governed – described below).

Isolation (Diagnosis) Directive
There are a number of other public health directives which also apply in Victoria at the moment. For example, there is a separate directive for persons who are diagnosed with COVID-19. Such persons must not leave their ordinary residences, except for:

the purpose of obtaining medical care or medical supplies;
any other emergency situation; or
in limited outdoor circumstances where it is possible to avoid close contact with any other persons.

No other persons are permitted to enter the ordinary residence unless that person:

usually lives at the premises,
is living at the premises for the purpose of self-isolation or
for medical emergency purposes.

A person subject to self-isolation requirements will be discharged from self-isolation if they meet the criteria under existing Departmental requirements (currently 14 days).
Enforcement
Victoria Police have been given powers to enforce all directives, including the stay at home directive and may issue immediate on-the-spot fines.
On the spot fines (infringements) for breaching the above directions are:

$1,652.00 for individuals; and
$9,913.00 for businesses.

However, notably, the maximum penalties for these offences are

$20,000.00 or individuals; and
$100,000.00 for a body corporate (including an association, organisation, company or institution).

Defences
The only defence applicable to these offences is that the accused had a reasonable excuse for their refusal or failure to follow the direction. With respect to prior directives, similarly worded defences have been interpreted as follows:

an excuse judged objectively – so it is not relevant whether the person committing the offence thinks it is reasonable. Rather, the action must be able to be objectively considered to have been for a good reason;
“what is a reasonable excuse depends not only on the circumstances of the individual case but also on the purpose of the provision to which the defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ applies” (Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1);
“The reality is that when legislatures enact defences such as “reasonable excuse” they effectively give, and intend to give, to the courts the power to determine the content of such defences. Defences in this form are categories of indeterminate reference that have no content until a court makes its decision. They effectively require the courts to prescribe the relevant rule of conduct after the fact of its occurrence…” (Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1);
“A reasonable excuse is no more or less than an excuse which would be accepted by a reasonable person” (Taikato v R (1996) 186 CLR 454 Chie).

The applicable standard of proof for a charge of breaching the stay at home directive is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ as is with all criminal matters.
Ultimately there is no comprehensive and clear definition of what a reasonable excuse is for the purpose of breaching the stay at home directive. This determination must be objectively reached and will turn on the individual circumstances of each case.
As this directive remains in place, it is likely that more and more court decisions on what is and isn’t reasonable will be published. However, in the meantime, it is advisable to limit your movements outside of your ordinary residence to the above reasons. If in doubt, you should stay at home or seek legal advice.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Stay at Home – What Does it Really Mean? (Vic) appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.