Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Google search engine
HomeEditors PickQueensland CHO – a law unto himself

Queensland CHO – a law unto himself


We are 100% independently owned, free from corporate ownership and control. Help support a free press by donating to us.

The Queensland Chief Health Officer (CHO) John Gerrard has once again proven he is above the law. After getting away with his remarks on 5 April 2022 that incited hatred towards community members who disagreed with mandatory vaccines and vaccine discrimination, he has now been given the green light to continue making decisions that have “significant impact on the employment, recreation, rights to freedom of movement and bodily integrity of many people” (Judge Dalton, 5 April 2022).

On 5 April 2022 the Supreme Court of Queensland held proceedings to challenge directions of the Chief Health Officer (CHO) under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The interlocutory hearing (a hearing that determines whether a court can make an order to help with case preparation and to stop parties acting unfairly or unethically) brought about my health professionals and police was dismissed by Judge Dalton. The dismissal was on the grounds that the CHO could refuse to provide justification for decisions as they were legislative rather than administrative based. This reasoning goes against the Queensland Health Department’s own guidelines that clearly state informed consent is integral to providing quality, patient-centred healthcare.

For non-legal members of the public, the legislation relevant to whether the CHO can make life changing decisions without the need for justification is complicated and inaccessible. Members of the public rely on the health department to provide honest, complete, transparent, and accessible advice to support individual (informed) decision making. The ruling of Judge Dalton flies in the face of transparency – although it does align with escalating patterns of unscrupulous behaviours evident across the Queensland Government – as evidenced in mainstream media reporting over the last few months.

“Tyranny has well and truly replaced democracy in the name of Covid (Senator Gerard Rennick).”

Regardless of the decisions by the Supreme Court, the court of public opinion is slowly recognising that draconian rules that infringe on individuals’ rights to choose are flawed and unnecessary. Vaccination does not stop transmission, illness, hospitalisation, or death. So regardless of whether the CHO’s decisions are legislative or administrative in nature, the most pressing question to ask is why mandatory vaccination policies remain in place when they clearly have no impact on COVID-19 rates of transmission.



  1. He is an absolute dickhead who thinks he is the smartest person in the room. My dealings with doctors in the last 2 yrs tells me that a lot of them do not know how to do research.

  2. It has nothing to do with controlling the infection/disease/pandemic, but ways and means to control and coerce the people into obeying their tyrannical laws, which makes no rhyme or reason at all. The attitude of the authorities are similar to ….

    ‘Theirs Not to Reason Why, Theirs But to Do and Die’
    Lord Alfred Tennyson


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -
Google search engine

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Ivan M. Paton on Approval Of Remdesivir
Beth on Free and Fair?
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Victorian Change to Mandates
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Health care in crisis
Novus Ordo Seclorum on Health care in crisis
Burnthehousedown on Postal vote outrage
Shanthini Balasuriyar on Queensland CHO – a law unto himself
Billie Hutton on Convoy to Canberra Two
Lynn a freedom warrior on Convoy to Canberra Two
Elizabeth on Ruble on the rise
Yvonne Ford on Pfizer drug recall
Gene Trevor Wyngaard on NZ Scrap vaccine mandates
Frances Mahy on Russia Sanctions The U.S.A
Peter Coxhead on My Story, So Far
Theodora Zajaz on Novak Out Of U.S. Open.
Leonie Young on Probuild Buy-Out
Shelley Madden on Pfizer, Stranger than Fiction
Debra Mullins on AVN vs Brendan Murphy
Malcolm on The End Game
Sabina on What’s Next?
Drew Duncan on Belarus Under Threat
Robyn on What’s Next?
Sofia Rutteman on Here We Go Again, Part 2
Robert Burns on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Kim Henry on Pfizer Whistleblower
Lee Y on Give Me Five
Linda Nemeth on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Warwick Hibble on Ricardo Bosi Public Address
Lesley on The Data Is Ours
Patricia Poppeliers on Here We Go Again, Part 2
Dani Stevens on Trouble in Paradise
Dianedraytonbuckland on Facebook: Judge, Jury and Executioner
Michael Chere on Before You Inject Your Child
Kerry Taylor on Which one of us is blind?
Kathy Hirsch on First Nations Locked Down
Gloria Feather on Undermining The Indigenous.
Marie Millikin on Let us talk about intuition.
Lucienne Helm on Let us talk about intuition.
Susan Wilson on The real revolution
Jennifer Leonard on 2020 a year to forget
F J on Strange Times
Tracey Parsons on IBAC DAY 9
stacie rose on Which one of us is blind?
Uncertainty on My Story, So Far
Tracey on A Veteran’s Plea
Zaidee Lens Van Rijn on My Story, So Far
Alissandra Moon on The Rise of Medical Apartheid
Peggy Gothe on Mum, I don’t feel well
Keith Cashman on Mum, I don’t feel well
Melinda c Taylor on Mum, I don’t feel well
Vaughan Oke on Which one of us is blind?
Jane Ramsay on Choice vs Ultimatum
Brian K Wilson on Which one of us is blind?
Scott Dawson on Which one of us is blind?