A Kiwi doctor being investigated after releasing controversial Covid-19 related videos has taken the Medical Council to the High Court.
Christchurch doctor Samantha Bailey, who previously presented a TV1 show, is seeking interim relief to halt a Medical Council investigation.
The Council's investigative body, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), began investigating Bailey last year after the Council received a series of complaints about the content she had shared online.
Simon Mount, the Council's lawyer, claimed that some of her comments included describing the Pfizer vaccine as an "experimental shot" and that lockdowns and face masks were futile.
The Pfizer vaccine, which is currently in use in New Zealand, has been used by millions worldwide and is safe and effective.
Mount said Bailey had not responded to correspondence from the PCC and that it would be hard for her to say her natural justice rights had been breached as the investigation had not concluded.
The lawyer said Bailey was advised of the particulars of the investigation, which included her identifying herself as a doctor, information she "promulgated" to the public about Covid-19 and her adherence to good medical practice.
"The fundamental decisions under review are the very earliest possible stage in the investigative process, they're the Medical Council's decision to establish a PCC."
Mount also noted that Bailey doesn't have a current practising certificate and had ceased at least some of her online video posting.
He said no interim report or findings have been made.
"To date all of the Committee's attempts to engage with Ms Bailey have been met with no response at all."
Instead of communicating with the PCC, Mount argued that Bailey had "jumped the gun".
Bailey's lawyer, Rodney Harrison, disagreed and said his client had been communicative but stopped when she was given 700 pages to respond to.
Harrison said that his client's videos commented on a wide range of issues, including political Covid-19 management globally.
As well as this, he argued that she was not practising medicine online and she is presenting herself as a doctor in a personal capacity.
The lawyer said there is no evidence of a risk to public health as the last complaint was made in February this year and that the Council backed down on its proposal to suspend her from practice.
He claimed that the Council did not have the power to regulate free speech.
Mount argued that bringing the profession into disrepute encompassed matters outside of practice.
The judge reserved his decision.