Senior health official contradicts Premier Daniel Andrews' curfew claims

A senior health official who ticked off on Melbourne's curfew has contradicted Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews' claims it was implemented to help police.

Government lawyers attempted to get the Supreme Court case thrown out this morning, but failed.

Plaintiff Michelle Loielo, who is an aspiring Liberal Party MP, filed the lawsuit on September 14 claiming the curfew was unreasonable, disproportionate and violated the human rights of millions of Victorians.

Melbourne's curfew was scrapped in the latest round of the city's easing of restrictions announced on September 28.

But Ms Loielo said she was still living a nightmare, crippled by "dread and anxiety".

"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 am insecure about whether he is going to reimpose the curfew, simply because he has the power to do so."

Lawyers for Ms Loielo grilled senior medical advisor Associate Professor Michelle Giles, who approved the curfew's extension.

"You allowed yourself to be dictated to by the Premier?"

READ MORE: Victoria records grim new milestone of 800 COVID-19 deaths

Professor Giles fired back: "I disagree. I was not dictated to by anybody".

The top health official revealed she disagreed with Mr Andrews' comments that the curfew was to help law enforcement.

Mr Andrews had previously told reporters it made the "job of police much, much easier".

Ms Giles said it was a public health measure in a package deal with the other stage four restrictions, all aimed at reducing movement in the community.

"I don't agree with some of [the premier's] comments," Associate Professor Giles said.

"Particularly the law enforcement one".

If the judge declares the curfew was unlawful, it could lead to millions of dollars in curfew fines being withdrawn.