By Tony O’Riley-
The High Court in Belfast has refused permission to allow John Waters and Gemma O’Doherty to challenge the emergency laws that has brought about the lcokdown in Scotland due to the pandemic.
The legal challenge was directed at Scotland but would have had huge ramifications for the whole of UK, had it been successful. Mr Waters in his opening case earlier in the month had said that Irish citizens were under house arrest, and the restrictions were repugnant to people’s constitutional rights.
Mr. Waters is an Irish columnist and author whose career began in 1981 with the Irish political-music magazine Hot Press. He went on to write for the Sunday Tribune and later edited In Dublin magazine and
Ms O’Doherty was formerly a writer for the Irish Independent in 1995 who went into journalism after becoming a teacher. A frequent writer about the criminal justice system and on allegations of corruption in the Irish police force, she was once hailed as one of Ireland’s leading investigative journalists.
However, her several years of professional expertise was not good enough to impress High Court judges as she hoped to pull off a major upset and overrule the establishment that instituted a lockdown in Ireland, like in other parts of the Uk and most other parts of the world
In judicial review proceedings against the State and Health Minister Simon Harris, Mr Waters and Ms O’Doherty sought to have various pieces of recently enacted legislation quashed. They failed woefully.
The legislation they sought to challenge includes the 2020 Health Preservation and Protection and Other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, the 2020 Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act Covid-19 Act, and the 1947 Health Act (Affected Areas) Order.
She also said the lockdown was harming people by denying them their right to sunlight and Vitamin D, and accused Gardaí of harassing people on the streets.
She was repeatedly interrupted by Mr Justice Charles Meenan who asked her to stop making speeches, and to focus on points of law.
Justice Meenan ruled against the pair. The judge said that the their claims were not unarguable and the court could not grant them permission to have their challenge determined at a full hearing of the High Court. The judge added that the case should not have been brought by way of judicial review and should have been taken by way of plenary hearing which would have involved the hearing of oral evidence.
Their case was described as proceduraly flawed. Patrick McCann
There was a failure to put expert evidence supporting their challenge before the court, and they lacked the legal standing to bring the case to a full hearing, as they had not set out how the regulations challenged personally affects them, the state also claimed. Waters argued that the laws were so draconian that they amounted to an exceptional circumstance which would allow the court interfere with a decision of the legislature
Accuracy
During the proceedings, Mr Waters and Ms O’Doherty questioned the accuracy of the amount of people infected by Covid-19 and the number of deaths as reported by the Department of Health. They also questioned the accuracy of Covid-19 deaths and infections,as reported by the Department Of Health
Mr Waters and Ms O’Doherty accused the Government of acting on “fraudulent science”, adding that the lockdown laws are “unconstitutional” as Government did not have the power to legislate.
They additionally claimed that the lockdown breached Human Rights Laws.
Senior counsel for the State, Patick McCann told the court that there was “complete absence of any facts” by the applicants to show that the Covid-19 measures were disproportionate.
In his judgement, Justice Meenan said that while there is “no doubt” that the restrictions interfere with normal family life, they are not a breach of Article 41.
He added that the pair’s claims are not arguable and the court cannot grant them permission to have their legal challenge heard in full at the High Court.
O’Doherty, who has many supporters said he would appeal the decision
The judge said:
“Unfortunately, in making their case for leave, the applicants, who have no medical or scientific expertise, relied upon their own unsubstantiated views, gave speeches, engaged in empty rhetoric and sought to draw an historic parallel with Nazi Germany – a parallel which is both absurd and offensive.
“Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, empty rhetoric and a bogus historical parallel are not substitute for facts.
“In my view, the applicants do not have standing to challenge the amendments to the Mental Health Act.”
Several supporters of the pair gathered outside the court building holding placards and the tricolour, while many called for an end to the lockdown laws.
An interested observer to the proceedings from afar in other parts of the Uk, would be entrepreneur, Simon Dolan, who may himself be seeking Judicial Review in relation to the UK Lockdown, just been eased today.
Mr. Dolan’s legal team has sent a ”letter before action” to Health Secretary Matt Hancock, highlighting detailed objections to the lockdown. Mr. Hancock has said he would respond by tomorrow, Thursday.
Image:breakingnews.ie