This will be the last update on our case. After exploring all legal options, we decided it was time to end the campaign. As experience has led to a better understanding of the impact of restrictions, businesses, consumers and government have adapted. For example, the government has been able to carry out more targeted interventions. Compared to pre-pandemic levels (February 2020), production was 25% lower during the first lockdown (April 2020) and 7% lower in November 2020, coinciding with much of the second lockdown and 8% lower at the height of the third lockdown (January 2021). [Footnote 40] I`m passionate about the rights that lockdown has taken away from everyone and that`s why I`m appealing. It is not fair that the power to deprive livelihoods, harm businesses and eliminate fundamental freedoms can be exercised by a minister without proper control mechanisms. By not allowing the appeal, he puts a shield around ministers and gives them carte blanche to lock people up in their homes using the law without having to worry more about the illegality of their actions when the law is enforced. This is a frightening development that should not be underestimated. While the blocking means that the hearing will take place via video link rather than physically before the Supreme Court, it follows normal rules regarding access to the public and media. A backbencher who took part in the debate, MP Steve Baker (Wycombe), had previously called on the Prime Minister to “end the absurd, dystopian and tyrannical lockdown”. In a national newspaper, he argued: “These extraordinary measures require not only legal authority, but also democratic consent.
There is a real possibility that they had neither. And we will remove the legal requirement for close contacts who are not fully vaccinated to self-isolate. Local authorities will have their own contingency plans to maintain care services in the event of acute labour supply problems. In the event that a local authority – having taken all its emergency measures – is unable to cope with this, a request for additional support could be made through the Local Resilience Forums (LRFs). In the meantime, we will continue to fight to expose the dangerous and damaging effects the government`s lockdown strategy has had across the country, and I urge you to join our fight by www.keepbritainfree.com Our lawsuit against the government is delayed by a month – because a government lawyer is on vacation. The court challenge calls on the government to take urgent action to allow gatherings of up to 100 people, reopen schools and commit to a biweekly review of lockdown restrictions. In addition, the government encourages certain types of businesses (e.g. nightclubs) to use the NHS Covid Pass as an entry requirement.
This can be used to check if a person has been doubly vaccinated or has recently had a negative coronavirus test. Companies can choose to have their own policies that deny access to those who refuse to use this system. However, again, there is no legal obligation for companies to use this system. Following the Court of Appeal`s decision on December 1 to dismiss our application for judicial review of the initial lockdown measures, we made it clear that we were so convinced in this fight that we would go to the highest court in the land. This is the only way left to hold the government accountable for the total destruction it has inflicted on its people. We are represented by Michael Gardner of Wedlake Bell LLP and lawyer Francis Hoar of Field Court Chambers. Philip Havers QC, a lawyer and associate justice of the Supreme Court specializing in public law, human rights and public inquiries, will also be trained as part of the legal team. Under these circumstances, imposing a lockdown, with all its catastrophic consequences for health, the economy, etc., was disproportionate and irrational. As part of Dolan`s trial, lawyers delivered a “letter before acting” to the government on his behalf. Will be updated once the legal team has formulated its action plan. Rest assured, the struggle continues.
Expect another update in the coming days. As of February 24, workers will no longer be required by law to notify their employer when they need to self-isolate. Employers and employees must follow government instructions for people with COVID-19. Other cases will focus on the protection of nursing homes and visiting bans, and UK MPs have joined one of the Good Law Project`s many judicial review proceedings launched in relation to public contracts and appointments. The project also opened judicial reviews on several other issues. It was clear from the initial instructions ordered as part of the judicial review that our unelected judges totally reject the idea that we should be able to protect rights in the midst of a pandemic, or that the government`s actions might be disproportionate or illegal compared to the actual situation. All on the first day and the morning of the second day, Philip Havers presented our case. Its main argument was that the lockdown legislation was “ultra vires” or outside the scope of the 1984 Public Health Act that introduced them. In other words, the lockdown was illegal. “We ask if the process was legal, who made the decision and what data and information was used.” We had also challenged the lockdown for a variety of other reasons.
We argued that it was incompatible with our human rights. Since the court refused to allow us to appeal on these other grounds, we cannot pursue these parts of the challenge in this case. We will not be able to question the proportionality of previous lockdown measures, such as the right to assemble to protest, nor the impact on private and family life. The goal of the trial is to lift the ruinous lockdown, restore civil liberties taken away from the public, and get schools, health services, and the economy back on track. However, government lawyers have now written to Mr. Dolan`s legal team asking for an additional week to respond. “He seems determined to maintain the lockdown introduced on March 23. There is still no clarity on how he will shake things up again. “Lord Ericht supported the English Court of Appeal`s approach to challenging the English Covid regulations in R (Dolan) v. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and ruled that the Scottish Ministers` decision was rational and proportionate,” Mackenzie said.
Lord Ericht noted that the challenges facing the government are mainly political in nature and that the Court will only intervene if a decision is unlawful. Our legal team will be analyzing the new regulations over the weekend. We will come back on Monday with all the details about the restrictions that still exist. As you know, the appeal was heard by Lord Justice Hickinbottom, who stated that the legal challenge “could raise fundamental questions about what areas are appropriate for democratically accountable ministers and judges”. A prominent human rights lawyer has been appointed to the team that is taking legal action against the lockdown – and demanding that all SAGE publications be published. “When the UK officially announced a lockdown with a huge package of economic support, almost two months of potential preparedness and prevention time was lost,” Scally and colleagues write. Mark Henriques, chief executive of Cripps & Co, said: “The recent series of lockdown restrictions introduced through the backdoor without parliamentary scrutiny is absurd and contradictory.
Comments are closed.