Why no coherent legal challenge to restrictions?

ShineOn7

Lol @ any business trying to take the "government" to court

Last report I saw said they employed Arthur Cox Solicitors. Their winning record is outstanding

Press Up are going against the law equivalent of legal rottweilers

Lux23

Even if there was a good legal reason for upholding a complaint against the government, it would probably only refer to a small aspect of the lockdown law or guidance Plus wouldn't a judge have to take the extreme circumstances into account? Pressup just look like fools to me for trying as it is so hard for any barrister to argue against measures which are taking place throughout the world!

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer. But I'm sure that any solicitor who is asked about a possible legal challenge to restrictions would find some grounds for such a case.

maybe then the answer is, because they know they will lose

fly_agaric

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-40063538.html

No legal expert, but that does seem like a great way to waste money.
Although what do I know, you could get a 'contrarian' judge who might rule in their favour (e.g. have seen a few articles in IT by Micahel McDowell criticising NPHET / public health restrictions + effect on the economy if that is any indication!). That would be kind of funny + not totally out of character for this country.
You'd expect they would not bother doing it if they believed they had no chance at all?

Olwas2014

political analyst wrote: »

In Britain, the businessman Simon Dolan has challenged Covid restrictions in the courts. In the Australian state of Victoria, there have been several cases taken against restrictions.

So why has there been no coherent legal challenge to restrictions in Ireland? There must be people who have enough money for such a case and who would be able to make better arguments than Waters and O'Doherty did.

Sunetra Gupta might be willing to give evidence via video-link to support such a case here.

After all, either we have constitutional rights or we don't.

What exactly is your issue with the restrictions? Are they really that hard to listen to? Its not entirely the governments fault for having to reintroduce another lockdown. Its people with their parties, the anti maskers, close contact protests etc. If everyone did their part the numbers would be in more control and a level 5 might not have been needed if people haven't let their guard down. Read something today about people worrying about being in lockdown for Christmas. This is everyones chance to prevent that by doing your bit now to bring down the numbers and prevent a lockdown from dragging into Christmas. People on their political high horses like Doherty and frankly the people at antimask/restriction protests, aren't helping the case... They're only causing the cases to rise bringing in those restrictions that they're protesting about or as you said want to bring legal action against! It's not so hard really to follow them, people in history were asked to do worse than what we have to do now to protect us 'millenials'

political analyst

Olwas2014 wrote: »

What exactly is your issue with the restrictions? Are they really that hard to listen to? Its not entirely the governments fault for having to reintroduce another lockdown. Its people with their parties, the anti maskers, close contact protests etc. If everyone did their part the numbers would be in more control and a level 5 might not have been needed if people haven't let their guard down. Read something today about people worrying about being in lockdown for Christmas. This is everyones chance to prevent that by doing your bit now to bring down the numbers and prevent a lockdown from dragging into Christmas. People on their political high horses like Doherty and frankly the people at antimask/restriction protests, aren't helping the case... They're only causing the cases to rise bringing in those restrictions that they're protesting about or as you said want to bring legal action against! It's not so hard really to follow them, people in history were asked to do worse than what we have to do now to protect us 'millenials'

But why punish businesspeople for misconduct that is nothing to do with them? The number of people who would have to go to hospital next week or next month is theoretical until next week or next month comes.

Even at the height of the Northern Ireland Troubles, businesses didn't let the risk of being bombed prevent them from functioning - and they only closed when there was an alert or had been damaged in an attack.

But businesses here in the Republic are being forced to close because of a virus that their owners and customers haven't yet caught (It reminds me of the film "Minority Report" to be honest, i.e. arresting for 'future murder') and which has a global fatality rate that doesn't even reach 1%. It's like being afraid to travel by airliner because of the possibility that the pilot might do what Andreas Lubitz did in the Alps in 2015.

I'm appalled by the disregard some people have for basic health-protection measures but it's not like they've been infecting people with HIV or Hepatitis.

by the seaside

political analyst wrote: »

But why punish businesspeople for misconduct that is nothing to do with them? The number of people who would have to go to hospital next week or next month is theoretical until next week or next month comes.

Even at the height of the Northern Ireland Troubles, businesses didn't let the risk of being bombed prevent them from functioning - and they only closed when there was an alert or had been damaged in an attack.

But businesses here in the Republic are being forced to close because of a virus that their owners and customers haven't yet caught (It reminds me of the film "Minority Report" to be honest, i.e. arresting for 'future murder') and which has a global fatality rate that doesn't even reach 1%. It's like being afraid to travel by airliner because of the possibility that the pilot might do what Andreas Lubitz did in the Alps in 2015.

I'm appalled by the disregard some people have for basic health-protection measures but it's not like they've been infecting people with HIV or Hepatitis.

By that argument, would you also be against mandating that people with a confirmed Covid diagnosis stay at home? After all, they mat infect nobody if they go out, and they may be losing business and money by having to stay at home - especially for self-employed tradespeople. Surely mandating that they stay at home is a bit like the while Minority Report future murder thing?

fly_agaric

political analyst wrote: »

But why punish businesspeople for misconduct that is nothing to do with them? The number of people who would have to go to hospital next week or next month is theoretical until next week or next month comes.

Even at the height of the Northern Ireland Troubles, businesses didn't let the risk of being bombed prevent them from functioning - and they only closed when there was an alert or had been damaged in an attack.

But businesses here in the Republic are being forced to close because of a virus that their owners and customers haven't yet caught (It reminds me of the film "Minority Report" to be honest, i.e. arresting for 'future murder') and which has a global fatality rate that doesn't even reach 1%. It's like being afraid to travel by airliner because of the possibility that the pilot might do what Andreas Lubitz did in the Alps in 2015.

I'm appalled by the disregard some people have for basic health-protection measures but it's not like they've been infecting people with HIV or Hepatitis.

That's some twisted logic that I'm struggling to bend my brain enough to follow. Viruses, bombs & terrorists, Minority report, mad pilots! It's got it all (apart from some firey references to Bill Gates, 5G, "muzzles" and "slaves"/"sheeple" to spice it up!)

by the seaside wrote: »

By that argument, would you also be against mandating that people with a confirmed Covid diagnosis stay at home? After all, they mat infect nobody if they go out, and they may be losing business and money by having to stay at home - especially for self-employed tradespeople. Surely mandating that they stay at home is a bit like the while Minority Report future murder thing?

Edit: or close contacts of a case prior to tests/all clear. I mean they may not have the virus...

by the seaside

fly_agaric wrote: »

That's some twisted logic that I'm struggling to bend my brain enough to follow. Viruses, bombs & terrorists, Minority report, mad pilots! It's got it all (apart from some firey references to Bill Gates, 5G, "muzzles" and "slaves"/"sheeple" to spice it up!)



Edit: or close contacts of a case prior to tests/all clear. I mean they may not have the virus...

Funnily enough, Simon Dolan, from the first post, used to be my accountant in the UK (or at least run the accountancy business I used). He ran a good business and sold it for a huge amount (good luck to him) and always seemed like a decent guy. He's now been banging on about masks and restrictions for months. I can't help feeling that he's safe enough living in his Monaco Palazzo, playing with other people's lives. A real shame.

fly_agaric

by the seaside wrote: »

Funnily enough, Simon Dolan, from the first post, used to be my accountant in the UK (or at least run the accountancy business I used). He ran a good business and sold it for a huge amount (good luck to him) and always seemed like a decent guy. He's now been banging on about masks and restrictions for months. I can't help feeling that he's safe enough living in his Monaco Palazzo, playing with other people's lives. A real shame.

It is some very strange times we are living in; I do have a lot of sympathy for people whose businesses are being damaged or destroyed by all this. I know that's ultimately empty & no good but trying to carry on as normal in this situation + taking cases to tie the govt's hands to react [even more than they are already] is not a solution.

political analyst

by the seaside wrote: »

By that argument, would you also be against mandating that people with a confirmed Covid diagnosis stay at home? After all, they mat infect nobody if they go out, and they may be losing business and money by having to stay at home - especially for self-employed tradespeople. Surely mandating that they stay at home is a bit like the while Minority Report future murder thing?

The difference is that it is known that they have been infected. There are so many businesses where nobody - customers or staff - has been infected.

Donald Trump

What kind of gobshite would think that it would be better for society to have no restrictions at this point in time?

If you have a business that has been decimated by restrictions then you would have a selfish (I mean personal) desire to have them lifted in the short term, but unless you are a good few sandwiches short of a picnic, you can't plausibly think that it would be better for society overall to have no restrictions (given where we are at the minute and the reality of the options of tools we have to deal with the situation).

political analyst

by the seaside wrote: »

Funnily enough, Simon Dolan, from the first post, used to be my accountant in the UK (or at least run the accountancy business I used). He ran a good business and sold it for a huge amount (good luck to him) and always seemed like a decent guy. He's now been banging on about masks and restrictions for months. I can't help feeling that he's safe enough living in his Monaco Palazzo, playing with other people's lives. A real shame.

Maybe he cares about business-owners in Britain. So I don't see how living in Monaco would undermine his argument.

Atlantic Dawn

Donald Trump wrote: »

What kind of gobshite would think that it would be better for society to have no restrictions at this point in time?

If you have a business that has been decimated by restrictions then you would have a selfish (I mean personal) desire to have them lifted in the short term, but unless you are a good few sandwiches short of a picnic, you can't plausibly think that it would be better for society overall to have no restrictions (given where we are at the minute and the reality of the options of tools we have to deal with the situation).

But the question is how long do you wait in this lockdown? If man waited in the caves to go out for food when he saw a few dinosaurs knocking about we wouldn't be here today.

moonage

In the UK Lord Sumption delivered an online lecture called "Government by decree - Covid-19 and the Constitution".

This articles touches on a few points he made:

The actions of the UK government during the coronavirus emergency this year bear the hallmarks of authoritarianism, Lord Sumption has warned.

The former Supreme Court justice noted that authoritarian government promotes “loyalty at the expense of wisdom and flattery at the expense of objective advice”.

“Want of criticism encourages self-confidence and self-confidence banishes moderation and restraint,” he added.

Delivering the Cambridge Private Law: Freshfields Lecture 2020, he discussed the lockdowns imposed on the public this year and the habit that temporary laws have of becoming permanent.

He said that we ourselves, having acquiesced to fear, are in part to blame for the current situation.

“Historically, fear has always been the most potent of instruments of the authoritarian state. That is what we are witnessing today. But the fault is not just in our government, it’s also in ourselves.

“Fear provokes strident calls for abrasive action, much of which may be unhelpful or damaging. It promotes intolerant conformism. It encourages abuse directed against anyone who steps out of line, including many responsible opponents of this government’s measures, and some notable scientists who have questioned their empirical basis.”

These, he suggested, are the “authentic ingredients of a totalitarian society”.

Lord Sumption also accused the government of having “deliberately” stoked fear with the “language of impending doom” and the “alarmist projections of the mathematical models, the manipulative use of selected statistics and the “presentation of exceptional tragedies, as if they were the normal effects of Covid-19”.

Moreover, he said that authoritarian governments appeal to “the emotional and irrational in collective opinion”. The current government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis “exemplifies all of these vices”.

He warned that the “British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening in our country”.

Many people will not care what happens until it is too late, he added.

“They instinctively feel that the end justifies the means – the motto of every totalitarian government which has ever existed.”

Lord Sumption predicted a “radical and lasting transformation in the relationship between the state and its citizens” in Britain in the coming years.

“And with it will come an equally fundamental change in our relations with each other – change characterised by distrust, resentments, and mutual hostility.”

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/lord-sumption-says-government-s-handling-of-pandemic-augurs-authoritarianism

It starts at 9:45

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0

fly_agaric

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

But the question is how long do you wait in this lockdown? If man waited in the caves to go out for food when he saw a few dinosaurs knocking about we wouldn't be here today.

I know you may be joking and I really shouldn't be this pedantic but the only dinos prehistoric man would have seen knocking about would have been piles of fossil bones long past eating anyone! Maybe cave lions, sabre tooth tigers and the like would be more appropriate.

trixi001

Donald Trump wrote: »

What kind of gobshite would think that it would be better for society to have no restrictions at this point in time?

If you have a business that has been decimated by restrictions then you would have a selfish (I mean personal) desire to have them lifted in the short term, but unless you are a good few sandwiches short of a picnic, you can't plausibly think that it would be better for society overall to have no restrictions (given where we are at the minute and the reality of the options of tools we have to deal with the situation).

Have you considered that some people may not believe the restrictions are good for society overall? Yes the lockdown may reduce cases of covid, but at what cost?
Mental health problems are increasing
Domestic abuse is increasing
Healthy living is decreasing - increasing alcohol consumption, junk food eating, exercise decreasing etc
The economy is terrible - no jobs for young people, people unable to feed their families, the long term cost of the massive decline in the economy could be worse than the problem it is trying to solve.
A poor economy and more people living in poverty results in poor diets, increased chronic conditions, increased mental health problems and a decrease in life expectancy.

Personally, i don't know the right answer, I have family that are suffering mentally due to this and i worry about this in the long term. I have family who have lost their jobs. I know people who are relying on foodbanks. I also have close family who are highly vulnerable, and therefore can see the benefits of the lockdown.

I would not want to be in a position to be making a decision on the restrictions as whatever you do people won't be happy - some want more restrictions and some want less.

We have other options than a full lockdown. We have other tools to deal with this pandemic.
Have public information campaigns about healthy living, diet, vitamin D, exercise etc. Don't close gyms, swimming pools etc for individual use. A healthier population means people are better equipped to fight covid if they do get it.

Investment in the HSE: The government have had 7 months to prepare for this 2nd wave, and like every year winter pressures have the hospitals under pressure. The Hospitals and HSE needs urgent investment. Yes, you can't increase the number of beds overnight, but 7 months is not overnight and you can increase recruitment, upskill staff and be more prepared.

Extreme Restrictions are just one tool - and a very harsh one, that even the WHO acknowledge have extreme negative impacts and should be used with caution - 6 weeks is a long time to be living under such harsh restrictions.

Donald Trump

trixi001 wrote: »

Have you considered that some people may not believe the restrictions are good for society overall? Yes the lockdown may reduce cases of covid, but at what cost?
Mental health problems are increasing
Domestic abuse is increasing
Healthy living is decreasing - increasing alcohol consumption, junk food eating, exercise decreasing etc
The economy is terrible - no jobs for young people, people unable to feed their families, the long term cost of the massive decline in the economy could be worse than the problem it is trying to solve.
A poor economy and more people living in poverty results in poor diets, increased chronic conditions, increased mental health problems and a decrease in life expectancy.

Personally, i don't know the right answer, I have family that are suffering mentally due to this and i worry about this in the long term. I have family who have lost their jobs. I know people who are relying on foodbanks. I also have close family who are highly vulnerable, and therefore can see the benefits of the lockdown.

I would not want to be in a position to be making a decision on the restrictions as whatever you do people won't be happy - some want more restrictions and some want less.

We have other options than a full lockdown. We have other tools to deal with this pandemic.
Have public information campaigns about healthy living, diet, vitamin D, exercise etc. Don't close gyms, swimming pools etc for individual use. A healthier population means people are better equipped to fight covid if they do get it.

Investment in the HSE: The government have had 7 months to prepare for this 2nd wave, and like every year winter pressures have the hospitals under pressure. The Hospitals and HSE needs urgent investment. Yes, you can't increase the number of beds overnight, but 7 months is not overnight and you can increase recruitment, upskill staff and be more prepared.

Extreme Restrictions are just one tool - and a very harsh one, that even the WHO acknowledge have extreme negative impacts and should be used with caution - 6 weeks is a long time to be living under such harsh restrictions.

That's all well and good. Nobody is saying that lockdowns should be the strategy - but given where we are now they are the only practical option.


If someone is cycling along a dark road with no lights on their bike and they get knocked down, the appropriate reaction is not to pontificate on how they should have been wearing lights. We can do that later. The immediate concern is that they are lying on the road not moving and we have to deal with that now.

Risteard81

moonage wrote: »

In the UK Lord Sumption delivered an online lecture called "Government by decree - Covid-19 and the Constitution".

This articles touches on a few points he made:



https://www.irishlegal.com/article/lord-sumption-says-government-s-handling-of-pandemic-augurs-authoritarianism

It starts at 9:45

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0

An erudite individual. It is unquestionable that this treasonous totalitarianism is the real disease. That is why I believe those in all governments promoting such restrictions (including that of the 26-County state) must be indicted for Treason.

odyssey06

Risteard81 wrote: »

An erudite individual. It is unquestionable that this treasonous totalitarianism is the real disease. That is why I believe those in all governments promoting such restrictions (including that of the 26-County state) must be indicted for Treason.

Indicted for treason... dont you believe they were already guilty pre covid and our Constitution was already a treasonous document?
Come back to the real world.

Risteard81

odyssey06 wrote: »

Indicted for treason... dont you believe they were already guilty pre covid and our Constitution was already a treasonous document?
Come back to the real world.

Please try to stay on topic.

pjohnson

Risteard81 wrote: »

Please try to stay on topic.

Have you started legal procedings yet Richie?

odyssey06

Risteard81 wrote: »

Please try to stay on topic.

Its 2020.
Calling for indictment for treason is fantasy stuff from 100 years ago.

Whether the restrictions are valid or not as per the laws and Constitution of this Republic, I think we can be sure treason wont come into it.

Insidious

If people want to protest the restrictions.. they don't need to meet up in person in a pandemic. They can use the likes of zoom etc to peacefully gather online instead of creating environments where the virus can thrive. It's also simple enough to create and sign online petitions to express their feelings and email them in to government. The article 40 doesn't say it has to be in person....

Risteard81

Insidious wrote: »

If people want to protest the restrictions.. they don't need to meet up in person in a pandemic. They can use the likes of zoom etc to peacefully gather online instead of creating environments where the virus can thrive.

That is a nonsensical approach which would achieve nothing. Trying to restrict the right to protest is a dangerous and totalitarian move. It is completely illegal and immoral.

They are acting in an identical manner to most military dictatorships.

Manach

That no serious challenge has been brought against the government imposed restrictions is both surprising and does show a lack of conviction in gainsaying the state’s power and employment.

From my constitution law lecture notes, the statement that all constitution rights are non-absolute is present. It must be one of those mandated tick-box items However it is the ease in which the restrictions ( that impact travel, work, right to worship) have been so easily abrogated that should raise some flags. Covid-19 is a serious disease. So were a variety of others illnesses. From typhoid to cholera, they have effected the general public. Except for localised and temporary emergency measures, social and political life went on as normal. There was no choice as people had to earn but also had the inherent (using the British legal term) liberty to do and to take the risk. It is the loss of his institutional memory of how society used to function and the willingness to give up on basic freedoms that might be the longer lasting impact of the Lockdown. If the general public are willing to accept the abrogation based on this, what precedent does it set for the future.

Ironically it was this ease of revoking consitutional guarantees that was noticed by a Fine Gael Politicion who commented about Article 40

“Public opinion must be educated until it coincides with the whim, will and pleasure, the peculiar views and the constitutional pirouetting of the particular President, whether he is the framer of this Constitution, the framer of some other amendment or the exponent of some particular theory. The radio, the Press and the cinema are to be controlled so that they will not undermine public order, public order being equivalent to the ideals of the particular politician who happens to control the State at the moment.
“

- Source Keogh, Dermot; Andrew McCarthy. The Making of the Irish Constitution 1937

It seems this time has come to pass.

fly_agaric

Manach wrote: »

Covid-19 is a serious disease. So were a variety of others illnesses. From typhoid to cholera, they have effected the general public. Except for localised and temporary emergency measures, social and political life went on as normal. There was no choice as people had to earn but also had the inherent (using the British legal term) liberty to do and to take the risk. It is the loss of his institutional memory of how society used to function and the willingness to give up on basic freedoms that might be the longer lasting impact of the Lockdown.

Society has changed so drastically since the times when diseases like cholera, typhoid and smallpox were endemic in (now) rich Western countries it is hard to compare. Scientific & medical knowledge has advanced so far it might as well be magic compared to those times.

Citizens expect & demand so very much more from the state; one expectation is that the state will provide the full suite of wonders of modern medicine to them when they need it. Another is that the state will not allow a virus to infect the population unchecked when we can see (from the examples of other countries provided via information sources unavailable in the times you refer to) that it is possible to stop or at least contain it.

Covid-19 is by no means a lethal virus but it is quite sufficient I think to kill a lot of people before their time & potentially collapse our modern healthcare infrastructure if we try & ignore it & carry on as normal.
That won't be pretty. People are not just going to accept it is the will of God or unavoidable fate or whatever might have served in the past if that happens. They'll be quite angry I think.

political analyst

Manach wrote: »

That no serious challenge has been brought against the government imposed restrictions is both surprising and does show a lack of conviction in gainsaying the state’s power and employment.

I referred to Press Up Ltd versus the Minister for Health in post 61.

Dubl07

political analyst wrote: »

In Britain, the businessman Simon Dolan has challenged Covid restrictions in the courts. In the Australian state of Victoria, there have been several cases taken against restrictions.

So why has there been no coherent legal challenge to restrictions in Ireland? There must be people who have enough money for such a case and who would be able to make better arguments than Waters and O'Doherty did.

Sunetra Gupta might be willing to give evidence via video-link to support such a case here.

After all, either we have constitutional rights or we don't.

Perhaps because the Irish are a bit smarter and better educated?

holdyerhorses

Insidious wrote: »

If people want to protest the restrictions.. they don't need to meet up in person in a pandemic. They can use the likes of zoom etc to peacefully gather online instead of creating environments where the virus can thrive. It's also simple enough to create and sign online petitions to express their feelings and email them in to government. The article 40 doesn't say it has to be in person....

Gandhi, achieving lasting peace through Zoom, use our platform now and you too can let the government know how you really feel from the comfort of a private conference call they wont join.