Papers by Ian Freckelton AO KC
Public Health Emergencies in Australia

Compassion, Law and COVID-19
Journal of law and medicine, Aug 1, 2020
Levels of personal anxiety are inevitably escalating in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, includ... more Levels of personal anxiety are inevitably escalating in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including individual fear of infection, grief at the loss of loved ones and reactive depression related to loss of employment and livelihood. This article considers the importance of compassion in a range of contemporary and emerging contexts during a time of pandemic. These include: exposure of medical and care professionals to the acute demands of overstretched institutions resulting in adverse mental health outcomes and compassion fatigue; attitudes towards the burgeoning cohort of welfare recipients; and particularly vulnerable groups such as the elderly, and those who are homeless. The article considers how we ought to conceive of compassion in these contexts and makes some suggestions for building future compassion interventions and training.

Regulating professional practice
Professional regulation of medical practitioners has undergone substantial change in recent decad... more Professional regulation of medical practitioners has undergone substantial change in recent decades. While medicine has traditionally been a self-regulating profession, calls for greater oversight of professional practice have encouraged new regulatory models. Using examples from the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, this chapter analyses recent trends in the regulation of medical practice, charting the move from professional self-regulation through to contemporary models of oversight and accountability. The introduction of more rigorous requirements for assessing professional competency – including new requirements for recertification, revalidation, performance, health and the character of practitioners in addition to traditional conduct-based assessments – has been a key feature of the move to contemporary regulatory frameworks. Further developments have also introduced measures to regulate unregistered health practitioners, and to avoid the potential adverse impacts of a ‘brain drain’ that recruiting international health personnel might have on health systems in poorer countries.

COVID-19, Negligence and Occupational Health and Safety: Ethical and Legal Issues for Hospitals and Health Centres
Journal of law and medicine, Apr 1, 2020
The international incidence of health workers being infected with COVID-19 is deeply troubling. U... more The international incidence of health workers being infected with COVID-19 is deeply troubling. Until a vaccine is developed, they are the community's bulwark against the pandemic. It is vital that they be protected to the maximum extent possible. This entails the need for implementation of effective and compassionate protocols to keep their workplace as safe as possible for them, their colleagues and their patients in a context of much as yet not being known about the virus and awareness that some persons infected by it are for a time at least asymptomatic and that others test negative for it when they are prodromal or even already displaying some symptomatology. This has repercussions both for the liability of hospitals and multi-practitioner centres for negligence and also under occupational health and safety legislation. With the commencement of the roll out of biosecurity and disaster/emergency measures by government and escalating levels of anxiety in the general population, it is important to reflect upon the measures that most effectively can be adopted practically and ethically to protect the health and safety of those whose task it is to care for us if we become infected by COVID-19.
Indictable offences in Victoria

Interstate and Overseas Deaths: Jurisdictional and Decision-Making Challenges for Coroners
PubMed, Apr 1, 2019
This editorial addresses the jurisdictional challenges for decision-making about which coroners s... more This editorial addresses the jurisdictional challenges for decision-making about which coroners should exercise jurisdiction over a dead body, when more than one has the potential to do so, including when a tragedy has occurred involving deceased persons ordinarily residing in diverse jurisdictions. It considers the criteria that are applied and should be applied by coroners to assumption of jurisdiction in relation to overseas deaths and reflects on considerations relevant to the exercise of such decision-making. It reviews significant cases, including appellate case law, in relation to coroners' investigations of overseas deaths and concludes by reflecting upon the need for consistent legislation throughout Australia and New Zealand on exercise of jurisdiction by coroners. It considers the expedient of a federal coroner for Australia.
Development of COVID-19 Treatments and Vaccines
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023
COVID-19 and Workplace and Occupational Health and Safety
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023
Restrictions on Movement
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023
Civil Liability, Regulation, and Accountability
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023
A Global Emergency
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023
Law, Regulation, and Rights: Reflections on the COVID-19 Pandemic
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023
Domestic Laws and Emergency Measures
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023
Past Legal and Regulatory Responses to Infectious Diseases
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023
COVID-19, Law, and Regulation
Oxford University Press eBooks, Jan 19, 2023

Pandemics, Public Health Emergencies and Government Powers:Perspectives on Australian Law
Pandemics, Public Health Emergencies and Government Powers: Perspectives on Australian Law explor... more Pandemics, Public Health Emergencies and Government Powers: Perspectives on Australian Law explores the multi-layered and multi-faceted ways in which Australia’s laws, regulations and law-makers have engaged with the COVID-19 pandemic. What emerges from the 21 chapters from leading scholars in this edited collection is that there have been both successes and failures. The virus keeps evolving and we as a nation need to continue to learn from international developments and what has, and has not, worked in Australia. Law is an integral part of the public health framework that protects the community during a pandemic. A significant component of Australia’s legal response to COVID-19 has been to give extensive powers to State and Territory governments to manage the crisis. This has involved imposition of limits on individuals’ rights and liberties in relation to quarantine arrangements, border control, lockdowns, curfews and face masks, as well as requirements to use QR codes. At times these measures have been controversial, both legally and within the general community. Our workplaces, our clinical services, our research processes and our legal system will emerge changed after COVID-19 . This requires ongoing evaluation and reflection. Pandemics, Public Health Emergencies and Government Powers: Perspectives on Australian Law is a constructive early contribution to this end

Pandemics, Public Health Emergencies and Government Powers:Perspectives on Australian Law
Pandemics, Public Health Emergencies and Government Powers: Perspectives on Australian Law explor... more Pandemics, Public Health Emergencies and Government Powers: Perspectives on Australian Law explores the multi-layered and multi-faceted ways in which Australia’s laws, regulations and law-makers have engaged with the COVID-19 pandemic. What emerges from the 21 chapters from leading scholars in this edited collection is that there have been both successes and failures. The virus keeps evolving and we as a nation need to continue to learn from international developments and what has, and has not, worked in Australia. Law is an integral part of the public health framework that protects the community during a pandemic. A significant component of Australia’s legal response to COVID-19 has been to give extensive powers to State and Territory governments to manage the crisis. This has involved imposition of limits on individuals’ rights and liberties in relation to quarantine arrangements, border control, lockdowns, curfews and face masks, as well as requirements to use QR codes. At times these measures have been controversial, both legally and within the general community. Our workplaces, our clinical services, our research processes and our legal system will emerge changed after COVID-19 . This requires ongoing evaluation and reflection. Pandemics, Public Health Emergencies and Government Powers: Perspectives on Australian Law is a constructive early contribution to this end

Prohibition Orders and the Regulation of Unregistered Health Practitioners
PubMed, Apr 1, 2020
Regulation of unregistered and deregistered health practitioners has been a policy objective of A... more Regulation of unregistered and deregistered health practitioners has been a policy objective of Australian governments for a number of years. A regulation scheme based upon New South Wales (NSW) and New Zealand models, and using broad-based, mandated codes of conduct, has gained momentum over the past decade. Prohibition orders are an integral part of the scheme. The removal from practice of the alternative health care practitioner, Barbara O'Neill, by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) represents a high-profile assertion of the authority of evidence-based health care. It shows that Australia's "negative licensing scheme" has teeth and that it is working successfully to exclude dangerous provision of health services by unregistered practitioners. This column makes reference to the evolution of the regulation of unregistered practitioners in Australia and scrutinises the conduct of Barbara O'Neill that led to the HCCC's imposition of a prohibition order to protect vulnerable members of the public.

The Right to Sue for Non-Communication or Delay in the Diagnosis of Neurodegenerative Diseases
PubMed, 2016
Delay in diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases can be caused by clinical factors such as the la... more Delay in diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases can be caused by clinical factors such as the lack of recognition of symptomatology as attributable to the disease or confusion of symptoms with those from other conditions. A number of studies have shown that psychiatric symptoms may precede motor symptoms and the ultimate diagnosis, in substantial part because they may mirror symptoms arising from other aetiologies. Any delay in diagnosis of relatives with neurodegenerative diseases and failure to communicate such a diagnosis can have very significant adverse effects for provision of treatment and for decisions made which can result in the passing on of the disease. In turn such decisions made in the absence of information can cause significant distress which in its own right can be counter-therapeutic. This article reviews two important decisions made by the High Court of England and Wales in 2015 and 2016, ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 1394 and Smith v University of Leicester NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 817, in which rights to sue were denied in the scenarios of failure to disclose neurodegenerative heritable symptomatology to relatives. In both decisions it was decided that no negligence was engaged in by a failure on the part of health professionals to disclose their knowledge of a person’s neurodegenerative condition to relatives of the person, in spite of the fact that failure to do so would foreseeably cause harm. This editorial argues that so doctrinaire an approach to the ethical obligation of confidentiality is counter-therapeutic and needs to be reconsidered.

Procedural Fairness and the Coroner
PubMed, Oct 1, 2018
The hearing rule of procedural fairness applies to coroners' investigations and the findings made... more The hearing rule of procedural fairness applies to coroners' investigations and the findings made by coroners. Decisions by Australian and New Zealand appellate courts starting from the 1980s and early 1990s suggest that this will require interested parties to be accorded the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings, and probably comments, which a coroner is minded to make by being alerted in advance to what is proposed by the coroner. This editorial scrutinises decisions by the Victorian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the issue between 2016 and 2018 against the backdrop of appellate decisions in South Australia and New Zealand, as well as in the context of the development of modern administrative law in both Australia and New Zealand. It identifies conceptual challenges that exist as a result of the recent case law for coroners' courts, pointing to the uncertainty of what are "adverse" findings and comments for these purposes, a lack of clarity as to who is entitled to procedural fairness in the inquisitorial context of a coronial investigation, the uncertain parameters of reputation for such purposes, vagueness as to what is required for coroners to discharge their obligations, and the logistical difficulties that compliance with such obligations will pose for timeliness of coronial findings.
Uploads
Papers by Ian Freckelton AO KC