"The Orewa applicants argue that both the CVCs and the gathering limits ... unjustifiably limit their rights to manifest their religion. That is, all capacity restrictions imposed on faith-based gatherings under the order were, and continue to be unlawful," the decision from the High Court at Wellington said.
As of April, the CVC-based restrictions are no longer part of the framework.
The ruling, released last week, said the applicants for the trust argued the restrictions in the order made "arbitrary distinctions between faith-based gatherings and comparable situations".
They also said the minister did not move fast enough in removing the limits on faith-based gatherings once the Omicron variant of Covid-19 emerged in the community.
"They say that, at that point, the restrictions became an unjustified limit on their right to
manifest their religion."
The Bill of Rights Act states every person has the right to manifest their religion or belief
in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
Neither of the applicant groups contended its right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion was limited.
Justice Cheryl Gwyn said the existence and genuineness of the applicants' beliefs were not at issue.
"The relevant belief is that the physical gathering together of members of a congregation for worship is a matter of religious obligation."
Theologian Dr Matthew Flannagan gave evidence in the case, asserting the importance to Christians of assembling in community.
"His evidence is that Christians, including the Orewa applicant churches, believe they are commanded to assemble together, as a community, to engage in mutual teaching, exhortation, corporate worship and participation in the sacraments with one another. The Christian Orewa applicants believe this to be a duty commanded by God.
"Dr Flannagan also gives evidence that, in Christian theology, the practice of excluding people from the communal fellowship and worship of the Church is excommunication."
He said the effect of the Government's order was to require excommunication, which was a serious infringement on the separation of Church and State.
For the Muslim Orewa applicants, Imam Youssef gave evidence that devout Muslims were expected to attend five daily prayers at the mosque within a specific window of time.
For many mosques, running segregated prayers and services was logistically impossible given the time windows within each prayer meeting and the size of the leadership teams.
Youssef said a midday Friday congregational prayer could not be undertaken at home.
The applicants for the trust also said there were certain Christian services such as Holy Communion which must be carried out physically with the whole body of the church gathered.
They said the restrictions prevented "a significant number" of members of each
congregation from practising their faith.
Witnesses gave evidence that the ramifications of the restrictions were "spiritually profoundly damaging".
New Testament theology expert Professor Paul Trebilco gave evidence for the respondents, saying "the unvaccinated are not actually being 'removed' or 'excommunicated' from any congregation by CVCs. Rather, the number of other believers who are part of a particular congregation with whom they can interact is being limited to 25 or 50. They are still part of the congregation, albeit not able to interact with all other members for a time."
Justice Gwyn noted expert evidence at the hearing stated church gatherings were at high risk of being superspreader events for a number of reasons, including that loud vocalising such as singing was more likely to spread infectious droplets than quiet breathing.
"In addition, faith-based gatherings are very likely to have vulnerable people in attendance, including older people and Māori and Pasifika communities, who are at risk of severe outcomes from Covid-19."
The judge said while it was true the applicants' right to manifest their religion had been limited, the benefits achieved by the limitations outweighed the significance of the limitation.
"There was a rational connection between the restrictions and their object of decreasing the spread of Covid-19."
The applicants also did not provide any alternative measure that would be equally effective in protecting vulnerable people and slowing the spread of the disease.
Justice Gwyn found the limitations on people's rights were justified.
The minister and director general for health did not seek costs due to the fundamental rights at issue and the public interest involved in the proceedings.
