Reserved decision — appeal — suspension of practising certificate — voluntary undertaking — COVID-19 — global pandemic — informed consent — mootness — "appropriateness" — freedom of expression — Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, ss 3, 35, 69 & 100 — New Zealand Bill or Rights Act 1990, s 5 — Canaday v Medical Council of New Zealand [2022] NZDC 4436 — Lim v Medical Council [2016] NZHC 485 — Finnigan v New Zealand Rugby Football Union Inc (No 3) [1985] 2 NZLR 190 — R v Gordon [2008] NZSC 56, [2009] 1 NZLR 721 — Williams v Professional Conduct Committee of the Medical Council [2018] NZHC 2472 — IRG v A Professional Conduct Committee of the Psychologists Board [2009] NZCA 274; [2009] NZAR 563 — Yardley v Minister for Workplace Relations and Strategy [2022] NZHC 291 — Hansen v R [2007] 3 NZSC 7 — Morse v Police [2011] NZSC 45. The appellant was a doctor who had made numerous public statements about COVID-19 that were contrary to mainstream medical views. The respondent requested that she sign a voluntary undertaking to stop making these statements. The appellant agreed to do so, subject to a number of caveats. The respondent found these caveats unacceptable and subsequently suspended her practising certificate on an interim basis. The appellant appealed this decision. She said that her statements were intended to properly inform the public and that she wanted a discussion and debate about the country's COVID-19 response. Further she submitted that the suspension violated her right to freedom of expression. A preliminary issue was whether the appeal was moot, given that the appellant did not want a fresh decision from the respondent and she was no longer suspended anyway. The Court decided that the suspension had the potential to damage the appellant's professional reputation and therefore the appeal was not moot. Turning to the issues, the Court found that the appellant had presented herself as a doctor in her statements, that her statements had posed a risk to public safety and that the appellant had been aware that they posed a risk to public safety. However the respondent had been obligated to respond to the appellant's statements in the way that was least restrictive of her rights, including her right to freedom of expression. The Court found that the suspension was a disproportionate response by the respondent. For instance, the respondent could have imposed conditions on the appellant's practising certificate. The appeal was allowed. Judgment Date: 7 August 2023