Barrister, Castan Chambers, Melbourne; Judge, Supreme Court of the Republic of Nauru; Professorial Fellow of Law and Psychiatry, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Professor of Forensic Medicine, Monash University; Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
J Law Med. 2020 Dec;28(1):117-131.
Historically and etymologically, curfews are public health measures imposed to guard against risks to health and safety. On occasion they have been deployed oppressively, disproportionately and without proper regard to their ramifications. It is important that they not be used during a pandemic unless there is sufficient medico-scientific reason to conclude that they will serve a constructive purpose and that they are the least restrictive available governmental response. Inevitably, they impact adversely on a variety of human rights, particularly freedom of movement. They isolate and inhibit human connection. However, in the context of a worldwide pandemic causing terrible loss of life, there are occasions where they may be a necessary adjunct to these restrictions. This article identifies a variety of scenarios in which curfews have been imposed on different populations and identifies legal challenges that have been made to them. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic it reviews the Kenyan judgment of Law Society of Kenya v Mutyambai [2020] eKLR and the Victorian Supreme Court judgment of Loielo v Giles [2020] VSC 722. It contends that the carefully reasoned decisions in each instance constitute an important reassurance that decision-making about a lengthy curfew in order to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus was reasoned, rights-aware and suitably responsive to the risks posed.
从历史和词源学的角度来看，宵禁是为了防范健康和安全风险而采取的公共卫生措施。有时，宵禁会被过度、不成比例地实施，而没有适当考虑其后果。只有在有充分的医学和科学理由认为宵禁将起到建设性作用，并且是现有最具限制性的政府反应时，才应在大流行期间使用宵禁。不可避免的是，宵禁会对各种人权产生不利影响，特别是行动自由。它们会隔离和抑制人类的联系。然而，在全球大流行导致可怕生命损失的情况下，有时宵禁可能是对这些限制的必要补充。本文确定了宵禁在不同人群中实施的各种情况，并确定了对这些宵禁提出的法律挑战。在 COVID-19 大流行的背景下，它审查了肯尼亚律师协会诉 Mutyambai [2020] eKLR 案和维多利亚州最高法院的 Loielo 诉 Giles [2020] VSC 722 案。它认为，每一个案例中经过深思熟虑的决定构成了一个重要的保证，即关于长时间宵禁以减少 COVID-19 病毒传播的决策是合理的、有权利意识的，并对所构成的风险做出了适当的反应。
