Closing arguments in Jereth’s case: a defining moment for Australian free speech

More than five years ago, Dr Jereth Kok was suspended as a medical practitioner by the Medical Board of Australia.

He was accused of professional misconduct, but not because of anything he did in his capacity as a doctor. Instead, he was stripped of his profession for sharing his personal beliefs online, in posts made outside of work and in his private capacity.

On Monday, his fight for the right to express those views without losing his career in medicine came to a head, as his barrister, Stephen Moloney, presented closing arguments before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Monday’s hearing follows the week-long trial in August this year, at which time Mr Moloney said:

This is probably one of the most important cases that has ever been put to the Tribunal in the last 30 years. It goes to the democratic right of any practitioner in the State of Victoria to speak about matters of conscience, religion and medical practice in the public square.

Jereth’s case is about much more than one man’s suspension by a professional body—it’s about the right of every Australian to speak freely without fear of professional consequences.

His posts—on topics such as abortion, gender identity, and Victoria’s Covid lockdown policies—were made on his personal accounts, expressing views informed by his Christian faith. While some may disagree with his opinions, the fundamental issue is whether a doctor, or any professional, should be punished for expressing personal beliefs that have nothing to do with their ability to practise their profession.

Instructed by HRLA, Mr Moloney’s closing submissions addressed an important legal issue: whether a government body, in this case the Medical Board of Australia, has the legal power to regulate the personal beliefs of private citizens.

It was submitted that the Medical Board crossed a line by attempting to regulate speech that is protected under common law, as well as Australia’s implied constitutional rights.

Jereth also has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief under section 14 of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Mr Moloney quoted French CJ in Attorney-General (SA) v Adelaide City Corporation (2013) 249 CLR 1, 31 [43]:

Freedom of speech is a long-established common law freedom. It has been linked to the proper functioning of representative democracies and on that basis has informed the application of public interest considerations to claimed restraints upon publication of information. It is never more powerful than when it involves the discussion and criticism of public authorities and institutions, be they legislative, executive or judicial.

Freedom of expression has always been a cornerstone of our democracy, and the arguments presented on behalf of Jereth drives home just how critical this principle is for the health of our society.

Jereth has argued that he should have the freedom to speak publicly on issues that are important to him.

He rejected the assertion that his posts might undermine confidence in the health profession.

This case is not just about the career of one doctor. It’s about the right of all professionals to have a private life, to hold beliefs, and to share those beliefs without fear of losing their livelihoods.

A decision in his favour would send a powerful message: that free speech matters, and that professionals—like everyone else—are entitled to share their beliefs, even if they are unpopular or controversial.

The outcome of this case is important for all Australians who value their freedom to speak the truth.

VCAT’s decision is expected in early 2025.