Chief Health Officer, NSW Department of Health v A (No. 3)

[2001] NSWADT 200

CITATION:	Chief Health Officer, NSW Department of Health -v- A (No. 3) [2001] NSWADT 200
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Chief Health Officer, NSW Department of Health RESPONDENT A
FILE NUMBER:	013251
HEARING DATES:	24/10/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	10/24/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	10/24/2001
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Hennessy A Dr - Member
APPLICATION:	Public Health Act - confirmation of public health order
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Public Health Act 1991
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT C Ronalds, barrister RESPONDENT J Boulos, solicitor
ORDERS:	Application granted, as set out in para [4] and with the clarification set out in para [7].

1 The Chief Health Officer makes application under s 26 of the Public Health Act 1991 (the Act) for the Tribunal to continue the public health order made in relation to A for a further period of six months from 1 November 2001 (being the date of expiry of the current public health order).

2 These proceedings follow the issuance of a notice for inquiry under s 30 of the Act. Section 30 permits action to be taken following the apprehension of an individual subject to a current public health order so as to vary that order. Action under s 30 depends ultimately on a finding of contravention of the previous order.

3 After some discussion between the parties and with the panel, it was thought satisfactory not to proceed to make a final ruling today in relation to the circumstances presented as to whether they amounted to a contravention; but instead to achieve the object of the application by another means, which is simply to deal with the circumstances today by reference to s 23 of the Act, read in conjunction with s 26.

4 There is no objection from A to the order for detention proposed by the Chief Health Officer to be put into effect, i.e. :

that she be detained under appropriate supervision at the premises of 4 Federation Street, Newtown, pending approval for placement in Bobby Goldsmith House; and once approval for the said placement is obtained, thereafter at Bobby Goldsmith House for a total period of three months from the date of the Tribunal’s order.
5 We have had evidence today from the police officer that has laid a charge against A in respect of soliciting, one yet to be dealt with by the Local Court. We have also had evidence from Ms Stewart of the Department (who has given evidence on previous occasions) in relation to A’s circumstances. We accept that evidence.

6 The applicant has asked that there be a clarification made to the terms of the public health order to avoid any debate in future as to the scope of the expression ‘engaging in sex work’. It is in the interests of the particular situation with which we are dealing, and to assist A in understanding what is meant by that term, to include a statement of clarification in the order.

7 I should indicate that it should not be thought as a matter of law that the panel necessarily agrees with the restrictive interpretation of the term “sex work” that was put in submissions for A by Miss Boulos. For the sake of clarity, we propose that the following words be included as an additional clause in the public health order. They would appear immediately after the words “earlier revoked” and the words would be to this effect :

that the term “sex work” includes soliciting and is not confined to sexual intercourse.
8 We will direct that that clause be incorporated into the text of the order and I think I should also note that the circumstances that are listed in the original order do not themselves, form part of the order. They are really in the nature of the grounds, at that time, on which the order issued and they are not to be thought in any way to define the limits of the meaning of “sex work”.

9 The Tribunal also notes that it has proceeded today on the basis that there is no impediment to it exercising the s 26 power on a rolling six monthly basis as submitted by Ms Ronalds for the applicant; but we have not looked at that question closely.


ORDER
10 Application granted, as set out in para [4] and with the clarification set out in para [7].