A Mornington Peninsula cafe owner and aspiring Liberal MP says she feels dread and anxiety when she sees Premier Daniel Andrews, fearful he will reimpose the scrapped coronavirus curfew.
Michelle Loielo is challenging the legality of the 9pm to 5am curfew in Victoria's Supreme Court, claiming it was a breach of her human rights.
The curfew was scrapped over the weekend and hasn't applied since 5am Monday, but in fresh court documents Ms Loielo says she's continuing her legal action because she fears it could make a comeback.
"Every time I see the premier, Daniel Andrews on the television and every time I hear the Premier speak, I feel a sense of dread and anxiety," she said.
"I feel this way because I am insecure about whether he is going to reimpose the curfew, simply because he has the power to do so."
Ms Loielo, a widowed mother of three, said she felt as if a part of her life had been given back to her when the curfew was scrapped.
It had applied across metropolitan Melbourne since September 13 as part of a raft of stage four restrictions, which continue to include a directive people not leave a 5km radius around their homes unless for a permitted purpose.
Her lawyers told Justice Tim Ginnane this week that she supported other curfew measures, but that the curfew was "one step too far".
She believed it infringed on her right to liberty and movement, and claimed earnings from her cafe had reduced from $20,000 a week to $400.
Ms Loielo has asked the court for a declaration that the curfew was unlawful and invalid, and said she wants to determine whether there is a medical basis for the curfew.
"I am filled with anxiety at the prospect of my freedom being removed tomorrow, in the same way as it was when the curfew was first imposed," she said.
The case is brought against Associate Professor Michelle Giles, the deputy public health commander responsible for signing off on emergency powers issued by Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton.
She has rejected suggestions she had not brought an independent mind to the decision to adopt the curfew.
"The defendant ... absolutely did not act at the direction or the behest of the premier," solicitor-general Kristen Walker said.
Prof Giles said data showed a link between the restrictions and a reduction in case numbers.
In a September 13 email to Prof Sutton and his deputy Allan Cheng, Prof Giles warned removing one component of the restrictions "may expose the community to an unmeasured risk and the potential for an increase in cases".
