RFK Jr. makes fluoride sound scary, but is it?
Two anti-fluoridation groups have lost an appeal against paying court costs to the government for their unsuccessful bid to prevent a council from adding fluoride to its water.
The groups, Fluoride Action Network (NZ) Inc. and New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science, were ordered to pay costs last year after their failed application for a judicial review seeking to prevent the re-fluoridation of Hastings’ urban water supply.
Their application was dismissed by Justice Dale La Hood, who awarded costs of $20,470.40 to the council and $20,566.05 to the other respondents, the Director-General of Health and the Attorney-General.
The council agreed to accept a lesser amount in costs from the groups. The groups have paid the full agreed amount of $14,000.
Recommended For You
But the Director-General of Health and the Attorney-General sought the full costs.
The groups, represented by lawyer and anti-fluoride campaigner Sue Grey, didn’t think that was fair and appealed the costs decision to the Court of Appeal.
Grey argued that the High Court had erred by awarding costs because the issue was of considerable public importance and the right to decline medical treatment [fluoride] was a fundamental right provided for in the Bill of Rights.
She said the risks from fluoride and its costs and benefits were far from settled and said New Zealand was an international outlier in permitting and directing fluoridation of public drinking water, which she termed “mass medication”.
The Court of Appeal judges said they had no doubt that the groups had actively sought to raise issues they considered to be of public interest, but there was no public interest in challenging a council that had a mandatory duty to comply with the 2022 direction of the director-general of health to add fluoride to its drinking water.
The judges noted that at the time of the group’s application the issue of fluoridation was the subject of an ongoing legal challenge, which was heard in the Court of Appeal in June. The decision was reserved.
Grey said the proceeding originally named the council only and that the Director-General and the Attorney-General asked to join “presumably to try to collaterally defend their unlawful directive”.
But the judges noted the Director-General and the Attorney-General were added as parties by consent and when the groups first filed the proceeding, they emailed the Director-General and the Solicitor-General asking if they wished to engage on this matter.
The Director-General and the Attorney-General were then served after being added as parties.
The judges said Justice La Hood had been correct to award costs to the Director-General and the Attorney-General as well as the council.
The judges dismissed the groups’ appeal, and awarded costs against the groups.
That means the groups will have to pay the initial costs of $20,566.05, plus the cost of appealing against those costs.
The groups said they did not have the funds to pay, but the judge’s said they had refused to provide no evidence of that.
Original article online at: https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360785045/anti-fluoride-groups-lose-costs-appeal-must-pay-government-20500