New Zealand Case Against Directives

New Health New Zealand have taken legal action against the Director General of Health claiming the Directives sent to councils to demand they start fluoridation were unlawful.  No date has yet been set but it is likely the substantive case will be heard later in 2024.

In November 2023 the court heard a point of clarification which is separate from the substantive case. The judge found that the directives were unlawful as the Director-General did not give consideration to the Bill of Rights. See press release High Court finds Ashley Bloomfield’s fluoride directive unlawful.

The judge reiterated that “a decision maker must, as a part of its decision-making process, address the restriction and consider whether it is demonstrably justified under s 5 of the Act, quite apart from a substantive assessment by the Court of whether any restriction is so justified.”

In other words, Bloomfield, being Director General of Health who ordered the directives, should have provided an explanation as to why our fundamental right to informed consent to medical treatment (as articulated in section 11 of the NZ Bill of Rights) could be overridden. 

However,  the directives have not been cancelled. In February 2024 the judge provided remedy since the two parties had not come to an agreement as to what the consequence of the unlawful directions should be. Unfortunately, he did not rule that the directives needed to be cancelled or suspended, so at this stage, the directives still stand.

In our view this makes no sense. Since the directives did not follow a lawful process, how can it be a legal requirement to adhere to those directives?

However, the case is not over. The substantive case is still to be heard. 

We believe this will happen later this year (2024) and will more likely take a number of days to be heard. All aspects of fluoridation will then be argued.