In the wake a recent spate of breakouts of a new respiratory disease called R-23 across Australia, the Federal Government decided to introduce new legislation. The R-23 Prevention Bill was introduced by the Health Minister. In the Second Reading Speech to the Bill, the Minister stated;

We are concerned with the spread of R-23 throughout the Australian community. This disease is very serious and it looks like it is not going to go away any time soon. It is our responsibility to save lives and we are determined to do whatever it takes to protect the community at all costs. This legislation is designed to compel citizens to take public health precautions any time they are out in public. This legislation is to apply across Australia, and is aimed at saving Australian lives.

The Bill was passed by both houses. On 8^th July 2023 it received Royal Assent and was gazetted the next day. It reads as follows;

R-23 Prevention Act 2023

1.Objects

1. The objects of this Act are, as far as practicable -

(a) to ensure citizens take measures to mitigate the spread of infectious respiratory diseases and,

(b) to allow for the government to regulate public health misinformation.

2. Defintions

In this act;

Misinformation means information contrary to the official announcements of the Chief Health Information Officer listed in Schedule 1, and includes the spread of misinformation where the information is not intended to be misleading.

Disinformation means misinformation that is spread with the intention of misleading others.

Medical exemption means a written exemption from a medical practitioner on medical grounds.

3. Offence of failure to wear a face mask

It is an offence for a person to fail to wear a facial covering in the following areas, unless they have a medical exemption;

a medical centre or hospital; or

a shopping centre; or

other place frequented by crowds of people.

Penalty: Maximum 1 year imprisonment

4. Offence to spread harmful misinformation about public health matters

It is an offence to communicate in a manner that spreads;

1. public health misinformation, or
2. public health disinformation, or
3. statements or claims that are offensive to public health.

Penalty: Compulsory attendance at health education clinic and maximum 1 year imprisonment

6. Offence to not report

Any person who gains knowledge of a person not complying with s3 or s4 must report that knowledge to the police.

Penalty: $2000 fine

Schedule 1

1. Chief Health Information Officer announcements;

Announcement 1: declared on August 15^th to come into effect from that day;

Face masks have been found to prevent the spread of R-23 and other respiratory diseases. Citizens are advised to wear a face mask whenever they are out in public.

Fact Scenario:

Danny owns a cattle station 3 hours' drive from Darwin. He doesn't pay too much attention to the news so he was unaware that the new laws had been passed. On 20^th July 2023 he took a trip into Darwin city and was surprised to see people wearing face masks. On 21^st July the police questioned him in a shopping centre for not wearing a face covering in a busy supermarket. He told them he didn't know he had to wear one. They charged him under s3 of the Act.

This made him really angry. He went to his doctor, to ask for an exemption because he suffers from asthma and the masks were uncomfortable for him to wear. His doctor told him it was fine, just the fact that he carries a ventilator should be enough evidence for him to get an automatic exemption, that he didn't need anything in writing. Danny also went to see his lawyer, Craig. He told Craig he would never wear a mask because he hated them and that he was going shopping all the time without wearing one.

He started looking around for political actions against the new laws and found a protest in Darwin the next Saturday on 26^th August. He went to the protest, this time with a stocking over his face. He took a sign with the words 'Chief Health Mis-Information Officer" printed over a picture of a clown.

At the protest James was addressing the crowd, with is face uncovered. He said in his speech:

We know the government are using R-23 to take more power for themselves and to take away our human rights. Face masks don't work against R-23! We will not comply! Do not wear your masks!

Some of the protesters who were wearing masks then took them off and threw them on the ground.

The police, who were watching the protest questioned James. He told them he had an exemption from wearing a mask under the Act, because it was against his political beliefs. He was charged under s3 for not wearing a face covering and also under s4(a) of the act, for making statements that masks didn't work and s4(c) for encouraging other people to not wear their masks.

Danny was also questioned at the protest by police as to why he wasn't wearing a mask. He told them that he thought the stocking was good enough. The police told him he was required under the law to wear a face mask, and charged him under s3, and they also charged him under s4(c) for his sign about the Chief Medical Information Officer. After a bit of a longer conversation with Danny, they also investigated and charged Craig under s6.

Your task;

You are a barrister who has been engaged by the government to provide an expert legal opinion on the above charges. This opinion is not to be concerned with the factual issue as to whether face masks work against R-23 or not.

Please provide an advice, using IRAC and statutory interpretation law only, outlining whether in your opinion Danny, James or Craig have committed any offences and which statutory interpretation principles apply. Please weigh up the arguments for the prosecution and defence in your reasoning.

Please do not include issues of criminal liability (eg mens rea, double jeopardy, etc), tort law, constitutional law or any other kind of law.

Please do not make up facts in addition to those provided.