PetitionOnline.ie
Browse Petitions Search Contact the petition author Contact Us Languages Manage your signatures Confirm your signature with a code Log in
Start a Petition

Report a petition

PETITION TO NCAT NSW: LIVESTREAM DR. MY LE TRINH’S HEARING TO UPHOLD OPEN JUSTICE AND PUBLIC INTEREST

Petitions express opinions. Disagreeing with a petition, or thinking it is pointless, is not grounds for a report, and such reports are closed automatically. Report a petition only if it breaks the law or our Community Guidelines, for example hate speech, defamation of a person or organisation, publishing private information, or fraud. We do not check whether the claims in a petition are true; the author is responsible for them.

This report goes to the people who run this website, not to the petition author or to any authority. If you have a question or feedback for the author, send them a message.

Why are you reporting this?
What is wrong with the name?
Please tell us in the text field below what makes you think so.

Petitions express opinions. Disagreeing with a petition, or thinking it is pointless, is not grounds for a report, and we do not remove petitions because people oppose them.

If you send this, your disagreement is recorded and the report is closed automatically with no action; the decision is sent to your email address. If the content breaks the law or our Community Guidelines, choose that option above instead.

You can also start your own petition or contact the author.

Is the false claim about you, your organisation, or another identifiable person or organisation?

Which passage is false? You can click several sentences in the petition text, and tell us for each what is true. This is optional.

Sentences next to each other are joined into one claim. Click a sentence again to remove it.

PETITION TO NCAT NSW: LIVESTREAM DR. MY LE TRINH’S HEARING TO UPHOLD OPEN JUSTICE AND PUBLIC INTEREST

We, the undersigned, demand that NCAT NSW live-stream the upcoming hearing of Dr. My Le Trinh, scheduled for March 25-27, 2025, in accordance with the fundamental principles of open justice, transparency, and public interest.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OPEN JUSTICE

The open justice principle is a cornerstone of the Australian legal system, ensuring transparency, accountability, and public trust in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. As the High Court of Australia has ruled, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

🔹 R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 reaffirmed that the appearance of justice is just as critical as justice itself.

🔹 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4 emphasized that open justice is a safeguard against judicial error and public mistrust.

🔹 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 highlighted that transparency in legal proceedings is essential to procedural fairness.

Under the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, NCAT is required to conduct proceedings in a manner that is accessible, fair, and transparent. Public interest must take precedence over administrative convenience.

Public interest requires that this hearing be live-streamed.

NCAT HAS A LEGAL AND ETHICAL DUTY TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY

Several courts in Australia have adopted live-streaming to enhance public access and maintain trust in the judiciary:

🔹 The Federal Court of Australia has implemented live-streaming for high-profile cases, stating that it is “committed to providing access to justice by live streaming selected proceedings, including matters of high public interest.” (Federal Court)

🔹 The Supreme Court of Victoria regularly live-streams matters of significant public concern to promote open justice. (Supreme Court of Victoria)

🔹 The United States federal judiciary introduced a live audio streaming pilot program for civil cases involving public interest. (US Courts)

If courts with far greater judicial weight than NCAT recognize the necessity of public access, why should NCAT operate behind closed doors?

WHY THIS HEARING MUST BE LIVE-STREAMED

🔹 NO PATIENTS LODGED A COMPLAINT – Not a single patient has come forward. Instead, the HCCC manufactured six complaints to target Dr. Trinh. If this case is about public health, where is the evidence of harm?

🔹 THIS CASE SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT – The HCCC is prosecuting Dr. Trinh for not following a non-binding guideline. This could open the door for regulatory bodies to punish doctors who exercise independent medical judgment.

🔹 SERIOUS PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS CONCERNS – Conflicts of interest, biased expert testimony, and excessive disclosure demands undermine the integrity of this case. If justice is truly being served, why the secrecy?

🔹 NCAT HAS THE FACILITIES TO LIVE-STREAM THIS HEARING – The technology and precedent exist. There is no valid reason to deny public access.

🔹 THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO WITNESS A CASE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE – This case raises critical concerns about medical freedom, regulatory overreach, and due process. The people have a right to see the evidence and the tribunal's reasoning.

OUR DEMAND: UPHOLD OPEN JUSTICE

We, the public, demand that NCAT live-stream Dr. My Le Trinh’s hearing to uphold the fundamental rights of transparency, procedural fairness, and public interest. If NCAT refuses, it must provide a clear and valid justification for denying public access.

📢 TAKE ACTION:

📞 Call NCAT: 1300 006 228

📧 Email NCAT: [email protected]

📬 Write to NCAT:

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)

John Maddison Tower, Level 10

86-90 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000

🐦 Tag

@NCATNSW

on X (Twitter) – Ask them: Why are they trying to hide this case from public view?

🔹 Case Number: 2023/00254671

🔹 Doctor: Dr. My Le Trinh

This case has national significance—NCAT must not conduct it in secrecy.

The public has a right to witness this hearing. NCAT must live-stream it.

📜 SIGN & SHARE WIDELY.

#Ivermectin #OpenJustice #NCAT #Transparency #MedicalFreedom #JusticeForDoctors

We do not check whether the claims in a petition are true; the author is responsible for them. If you send this, it is recorded and the report is closed automatically with no action; the decision is sent to your email address.

You can start your own petition with the information you believe is correct, or contact the author.

A false claim about an identifiable person or organisation is defamation, and we do act on that.

Continue: report defamation

Who is the content about?
Is the person the content is about a politician, a decision-maker or another public figure?
What does the content criticise?

Public criticism of how a politician or decision-maker acts in a public role is allowed, also when the events are old. That a matter is old is not in itself a ground for removal. We can still act on a false claim about the person or on otherwise unlawful content.

If the matter is old or no longer current, it is best to contact the petition author directly. The author can remove the petition for any reason; we cannot.

Is the person the content is about a politician, a decision-maker or another public figure?
What does the content criticise?

Public criticism of how a politician or decision-maker acts in a public role is allowed, also when the events are old. That a matter is old is not in itself a ground for removal. We can still act on a false claim about the person or on otherwise unlawful content.

If the matter is old or no longer current, it is best to contact the petition author directly. The author can remove the petition for any reason; we cannot.

We do not check whether the claims in a petition are true; the author is responsible for them. We act on a false claim when it concerns an identifiable person or organisation. If you simply disagree with the claim, you can start your own petition or contact the author.

Click the false sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly is hate speech? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly calls for violence? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly glorifies or incites terrorism? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly harasses or bullies someone? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly reveals private information? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly accuses someone of a crime? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly calls for the death penalty or torture? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Sentences next to each other are joined into one claim. Click a sentence again to remove it.

PETITION TO NCAT NSW: LIVESTREAM DR. MY LE TRINH’S HEARING TO UPHOLD OPEN JUSTICE AND PUBLIC INTEREST

We, the undersigned, demand that NCAT NSW live-stream the upcoming hearing of Dr. My Le Trinh, scheduled for March 25-27, 2025, in accordance with the fundamental principles of open justice, transparency, and public interest.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OPEN JUSTICE

The open justice principle is a cornerstone of the Australian legal system, ensuring transparency, accountability, and public trust in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. As the High Court of Australia has ruled, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

🔹 R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 reaffirmed that the appearance of justice is just as critical as justice itself.

🔹 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4 emphasized that open justice is a safeguard against judicial error and public mistrust.

🔹 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 highlighted that transparency in legal proceedings is essential to procedural fairness.

Under the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, NCAT is required to conduct proceedings in a manner that is accessible, fair, and transparent. Public interest must take precedence over administrative convenience.

Public interest requires that this hearing be live-streamed.

NCAT HAS A LEGAL AND ETHICAL DUTY TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY

Several courts in Australia have adopted live-streaming to enhance public access and maintain trust in the judiciary:

🔹 The Federal Court of Australia has implemented live-streaming for high-profile cases, stating that it is “committed to providing access to justice by live streaming selected proceedings, including matters of high public interest.” (Federal Court)

🔹 The Supreme Court of Victoria regularly live-streams matters of significant public concern to promote open justice. (Supreme Court of Victoria)

🔹 The United States federal judiciary introduced a live audio streaming pilot program for civil cases involving public interest. (US Courts)

If courts with far greater judicial weight than NCAT recognize the necessity of public access, why should NCAT operate behind closed doors?

WHY THIS HEARING MUST BE LIVE-STREAMED

🔹 NO PATIENTS LODGED A COMPLAINT – Not a single patient has come forward. Instead, the HCCC manufactured six complaints to target Dr. Trinh. If this case is about public health, where is the evidence of harm?

🔹 THIS CASE SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT – The HCCC is prosecuting Dr. Trinh for not following a non-binding guideline. This could open the door for regulatory bodies to punish doctors who exercise independent medical judgment.

🔹 SERIOUS PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS CONCERNS – Conflicts of interest, biased expert testimony, and excessive disclosure demands undermine the integrity of this case. If justice is truly being served, why the secrecy?

🔹 NCAT HAS THE FACILITIES TO LIVE-STREAM THIS HEARING – The technology and precedent exist. There is no valid reason to deny public access.

🔹 THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO WITNESS A CASE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE – This case raises critical concerns about medical freedom, regulatory overreach, and due process. The people have a right to see the evidence and the tribunal's reasoning.

OUR DEMAND: UPHOLD OPEN JUSTICE

We, the public, demand that NCAT live-stream Dr. My Le Trinh’s hearing to uphold the fundamental rights of transparency, procedural fairness, and public interest. If NCAT refuses, it must provide a clear and valid justification for denying public access.

📢 TAKE ACTION:

📞 Call NCAT: 1300 006 228

📧 Email NCAT: [email protected]

📬 Write to NCAT:

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)

John Maddison Tower, Level 10

86-90 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000

🐦 Tag

@NCATNSW

on X (Twitter) – Ask them: Why are they trying to hide this case from public view?

🔹 Case Number: 2023/00254671

🔹 Doctor: Dr. My Le Trinh

This case has national significance—NCAT must not conduct it in secrecy.

The public has a right to witness this hearing. NCAT must live-stream it.

📜 SIGN & SHARE WIDELY.

#Ivermectin #OpenJustice #NCAT #Transparency #MedicalFreedom #JusticeForDoctors

Click the false sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly is hate speech? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly reveals private information? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Which passage exactly is terrorist or extremist content? Click the sentences in the petition text.

Sentences next to each other are joined into one claim. Click a sentence again to remove it.

PETITION TO NCAT NSW: LIVESTREAM DR. MY LE TRINH’S HEARING TO UPHOLD OPEN JUSTICE AND PUBLIC INTEREST

We, the undersigned, demand that NCAT NSW live-stream the upcoming hearing of Dr. My Le Trinh, scheduled for March 25-27, 2025, in accordance with the fundamental principles of open justice, transparency, and public interest.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OPEN JUSTICE

The open justice principle is a cornerstone of the Australian legal system, ensuring transparency, accountability, and public trust in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. As the High Court of Australia has ruled, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

🔹 R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 reaffirmed that the appearance of justice is just as critical as justice itself.

🔹 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4 emphasized that open justice is a safeguard against judicial error and public mistrust.

🔹 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 highlighted that transparency in legal proceedings is essential to procedural fairness.

Under the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, NCAT is required to conduct proceedings in a manner that is accessible, fair, and transparent. Public interest must take precedence over administrative convenience.

Public interest requires that this hearing be live-streamed.

NCAT HAS A LEGAL AND ETHICAL DUTY TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY

Several courts in Australia have adopted live-streaming to enhance public access and maintain trust in the judiciary:

🔹 The Federal Court of Australia has implemented live-streaming for high-profile cases, stating that it is “committed to providing access to justice by live streaming selected proceedings, including matters of high public interest.” (Federal Court)

🔹 The Supreme Court of Victoria regularly live-streams matters of significant public concern to promote open justice. (Supreme Court of Victoria)

🔹 The United States federal judiciary introduced a live audio streaming pilot program for civil cases involving public interest. (US Courts)

If courts with far greater judicial weight than NCAT recognize the necessity of public access, why should NCAT operate behind closed doors?

WHY THIS HEARING MUST BE LIVE-STREAMED

🔹 NO PATIENTS LODGED A COMPLAINT – Not a single patient has come forward. Instead, the HCCC manufactured six complaints to target Dr. Trinh. If this case is about public health, where is the evidence of harm?

🔹 THIS CASE SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT – The HCCC is prosecuting Dr. Trinh for not following a non-binding guideline. This could open the door for regulatory bodies to punish doctors who exercise independent medical judgment.

🔹 SERIOUS PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS CONCERNS – Conflicts of interest, biased expert testimony, and excessive disclosure demands undermine the integrity of this case. If justice is truly being served, why the secrecy?

🔹 NCAT HAS THE FACILITIES TO LIVE-STREAM THIS HEARING – The technology and precedent exist. There is no valid reason to deny public access.

🔹 THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO WITNESS A CASE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE – This case raises critical concerns about medical freedom, regulatory overreach, and due process. The people have a right to see the evidence and the tribunal's reasoning.

OUR DEMAND: UPHOLD OPEN JUSTICE

We, the public, demand that NCAT live-stream Dr. My Le Trinh’s hearing to uphold the fundamental rights of transparency, procedural fairness, and public interest. If NCAT refuses, it must provide a clear and valid justification for denying public access.

📢 TAKE ACTION:

📞 Call NCAT: 1300 006 228

📧 Email NCAT: [email protected]

📬 Write to NCAT:

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)

John Maddison Tower, Level 10

86-90 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000

🐦 Tag

@NCATNSW

on X (Twitter) – Ask them: Why are they trying to hide this case from public view?

🔹 Case Number: 2023/00254671

🔹 Doctor: Dr. My Le Trinh

This case has national significance—NCAT must not conduct it in secrecy.

The public has a right to witness this hearing. NCAT must live-stream it.

📜 SIGN & SHARE WIDELY.

#Ivermectin #OpenJustice #NCAT #Transparency #MedicalFreedom #JusticeForDoctors

We use this to acknowledge your report and to tell you the outcome.
I am reporting
What are you asking for? You can choose more than one.
May we forward your request to the petition author? The author can remove the petition for any reason, and may respond to the request sooner than our moderators.
May we forward your request to the petition author? The author can remove the petition for any reason, and may respond to the request sooner than our moderators.
May we forward your request to the petition author? The author can remove the petition for any reason, and may respond to the request sooner than our moderators.

Reported petitions are reviewed by our team to determine if they violate our Terms of Service or Community Guidelines.




Paid advertising

PetitionOnline.ie will advertise this petition to 3,000 people.

Learn more...

Choose your budget
Payment method
PayPalGoogle PayApple PayCredit Card

Choose a payment method to continue.