John Waters & Gemma O'Doherty to challenge lockdown in the high Court

redarmy · 13-05-2020 10:14PM

Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters to face a bill of between €50,000 and €75,000 in legal costs following their failed judicial review case. Reporting shortly on
@drivetimerte

Creol1 · 13-05-2020 10:45PM

I found the judgment surprising reading. I expected that the main reason for refusing leave to bring the case would be that the wrong procedure (Judicial Review) was adopted, as this certainly was the case. Judicial Review is essentially the procedure for the High Court to quash decisions of lower courts or other quasi-judicial bodies, not Acts of the Oireachtas.

However, the Court held that this wasn't necessarily a barrier because the proceedings could be converted, but refused leave to bring the case on the basis that it wasn't arguable. I think it correct to say that there isn't an arguable case as far as their claims about the legitimacy of the Dáil's quorum, etc, were concerned, because the Constitution is very clear about the separation of powers, but I think the finding that there was no arguable case regarding the proportionality of the restrictions is more vulnerable to being overturned in the Court of Appeal.

This could all have been avoided if Michael D had referred the legislation to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. It would have resulted in a slight delay but I have no doubt it would have been upheld and it would have been immune from any possible legal challenge.

swampy353 · 13-05-2020 11:26PM

Creol1 wrote: »

I found the judgment surprising reading. I expected that the main reason for refusing leave to bring the case would be that the wrong procedure (Judicial Review) was adopted, as this certainly was the case. Judicial Review is essentially the procedure for the High Court to quash decisions of lower courts or other quasi-judicial bodies, not Acts of the Oireachtas.

However, the Court held that this wasn't necessarily a barrier because the proceedings could be converted, but refused leave to bring the case on the basis that it wasn't arguable. I think it correct to say that there isn't an arguable case as far as their claims about the legitimacy of the Dáil's quorum, etc, were concerned, because the Constitution is very clear about the separation of powers, but I think the finding that there was no arguable case regarding the proportionality of the restrictions is more vulnerable to being overturned in the Court of Appeal.

This could all have been avoided if Michael D had referred the legislation to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. It would have resulted in a slight delay but I have no doubt it would have been upheld and it would have been immune from any possible legal challenge.

My reading of the transcripts (not a legal expert by any stretch);
As you said not refused on procedural grounds but on the lack of substance within their argument.

The transcripts show that GO'D & JW made several arguments which we all unsubstantiated. GO'Ds behaviour in court came across as obnoxious (there were so many times where she was effectively told to shut up).

In terms of proportionality, the state laid out the case i.e. highly contagious etc and GO'D & JW effectively came back with, "its not" without backing up with any evidence apart from their say so. Also a lot of their assertions in relation to proportionality were based on figures from mid March (90 cases, 1 fatality) not current figures, obviously the situation has moved on from there.

From what I can see, GO'D was lucky to not be turfed out on her ear with the lack of respect that she showed the court and judge. She was her usual charming self "Well, first of all I say that is an outrageous waste of public money" & "But I am asking you that you are their servants, they are your masters, and that you allow them access to this court, Judge"

fullstop · 13-05-2020 11:32PM

maestroamado wrote: »

As someone who has studied law for years I can tell you anyone who represents themselves in a judicial review needs a reality check.

The result will determine if they need reality check?

They needed a reality check

Beholders · 13-05-2020 11:53PM

swampy353 wrote: »

My reading of the transcripts (not a legal expert by any stretch);
As you said not refused on procedural grounds but on the lack of substance within their argument.

I would have to agree with your there (Also not a legal expert by any stretch) what came across on the Judicial review is that there was no substance to there argument.

I thought from reading the transcript, that the judge showed a lot of patience with particularly Gemma O' Doherty. (as she seemed to want to make speeches every time she opened her mouth, once she coped on that it was indeed public and that the public will see word for word what was said in the court.)

The Judge also explained and should by his observations, the best possible way for Mr Waters, and Mrs O' Doherty to move the case forward. Which they both refused numerous times.

Also Gemma did contradict herself while she was saying the court case was a shambles to the judge a number of times, which as the judge said is neither here nor there as what they where looking at was the time span. for the agencies to reply to what Mr Waters and Ms O Doherty have accused them of.

Anyway I really enjoyed reading the transcript, I love a good court room drama, probably got everything wrong, but it was hilarious to hear the judge patiently stop Gemma in her tracks when she said that the Judges work for the People so therefore that she was their master. I also liked they way they hadn't a clue what a public court room was. (ie it's made public)

Bridge93 · 14-05-2020 12:05AM

Of little concern for either of them. A publicity stunt. They’re contrarian on every major issue this country ever has. Must be a coincidence...

They’ll move on to their next project soon enough. Might jump on the ‘Irexit’ bandwagon given the eu will become topical again soon. Waters is already captaining that ship

Tenger · 14-05-2020 12:10AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Depends on if they can find something else to complain about in the mean time, it's back to vaccines at the minute for gems, and if costs are awarded against them how much they can con out of the gullible.

Their supporters are campaigning against “mandatory vaccinations and forced micro chipping”.
These same people believe Covid is a hoax to get us indoors while 5G is installed.

Posters at Leinster House on Tuesday were “anti-HR6666”, which is a piece of US legislation. Really highlights the ability to think logically that these people have.
Granted those same people think Donald Trump is great (Irish Freedom party loonies) and that Obama was a paedophile.

frillyleaf · 14-05-2020 12:34AM

Bridge93 wrote: »

Of little concern for either of them. A publicity stunt. They’re contrarian on every major issue this country ever has. Must be a coincidence...

They’ll move on to their next project soon enough. Might jump on the ‘Irexit’ bandwagon given the eu will become topical again soon. Waters is already captaining that ship

Who funds these two ? Where do they get their money from?

14-05-2020 12:51AM

Bridge93 wrote: »

Of little concern for either of them. A publicity stunt. They’re contrarian on every major issue this country ever has. Must be a coincidence...

They’ll move on to their next project soon enough. Might jump on the ‘Irexit’ bandwagon given the eu will become topical again soon. Waters is already captaining that ship

Won't be with the "main" Irexit party anyway unless they kiss and make up, she had a falling out with them a while back.

14-05-2020 01:04AM

Tenger wrote: »

Their supporters are campaigning against “mandatory vaccinations and forced micro chipping”.
These same people believe Covid is a hoax to get us indoors while 5G is installed.

Posters at Leinster House on Tuesday were “anti-HR6666”, which is a piece of US legislation. Really highlights the ability to think logically that these people have.
Granted those same people think Donald Trump is great (Irish Freedom party loonies) and that Obama was a paedophile.

Not the sharpest tools alright, but a few people trying to distance themselves from supporting her previously online, still agree with her on most of the other sh1te she comes out with.

Beholders · 14-05-2020 01:12AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Won't be with the "main" Irexit party anyway unless they kiss and make up, she had a falling out with them a while back.

Irexit sounds like something some one would do on stage to exit out of embarrassment, and Brexit sounds like a politician breakfast. before heading to Europe.

Anyway we know neither will work for Gemma, as she can't get off the stage and doesn't eat breakfast, like the majority of Irish people. So that is a no gooo area, you need a good Brexit before you can go to the European Union. Soorry

SureYWouldntYa · 14-05-2020 01:23AM

Costs being awarded against them will just be another dagger for them to try and use, mind there’s probably nothing they wont use

Either the usual right wing backers from the US or a few pleas on the livestreams will ensure it doesnt actually hit them in the pocket, just the poor deluded fools that follow them

Infini · 14-05-2020 02:03AM

redarmy wrote: »

Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters to face a bill of between €50,000 and €75,000 in legal costs following their failed judicial review case. Reporting shortly on
@drivetimerte

Good. Professional Shìtposters like Gemma and John deserve to have costs levied against them for wasting everyones time for their vainglorious egos.

plodder · 14-05-2020 07:04AM

Creol1 wrote: »

I found the judgment surprising reading. I expected that the main reason for refusing leave to bring the case would be that the wrong procedure (Judicial Review) was adopted, as this certainly was the case. Judicial Review is essentially the procedure for the High Court to quash decisions of lower courts or other quasi-judicial bodies, not Acts of the Oireachtas.

However, the Court held that this wasn't necessarily a barrier because the proceedings could be converted, but refused leave to bring the case on the basis that it wasn't arguable. I think it correct to say that there isn't an arguable case as far as their claims about the legitimacy of the Dáil's quorum, etc, were concerned, because the Constitution is very clear about the separation of powers, but I think the finding that there was no arguable case regarding the proportionality of the restrictions is more vulnerable to being overturned in the Court of Appeal.

But they didn't produce any expert evidence, unlike the state. All they had was irrelevant rhetoric. Maybe they thought requesting "leave" to appeal, was like a child asking its mother for an ice-cream, and they didn't need to present the outline of a case.

This could all have been avoided if Michael D had referred the legislation to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. It would have resulted in a slight delay but I have no doubt it would have been upheld and it would have been immune from any possible legal challenge.

What would have been avoided? This completely unconsequential case? The best they can hope for from the Court of Appeal (in my unqualified opinion) is some advice on how to put together a better case in the High Court.

The worst outcome from this case, would be costs 'not being' awarded against them.

blueythebear · 14-05-2020 07:13AM

plodder wrote: »

But they didn't produce any expert evidence, unlike the state. All they had was irrelevant rhetoric. Maybe they thought requesting "leave" to appeal, was like a child asking its mother for an ice-cream, and they didn't need to present the outline of a case.

They baldly stated that simply because th legislation affected constitutional rights, that they should have leave. So they did nothing to address the test that they had to pass in relation to the arguability of the point they were raising. They did effectively go in and say, judge we have turned up, give us leave, we pay your wages. Pretty arrogant of them and they still cannot understand what they did wrong. The livestream last night gave plenty of ammo for the judge to do them for contempt

swampy353 · 14-05-2020 07:46AM

blueythebear wrote: »

They baldly stated that simply because th legislation affected constitutional rights, that they should have leave. So they did nothing to address the test that they had to pass in relation to the arguability of the point they were raising. They did effectively go in and say, judge we have turned up, give us leave, we pay your wages. Pretty arrogant of them and they still cannot understand what they did wrong. The livestream last night gave plenty of ammo for the judge to do them for contempt

Any chance you could give examples, don't want to provide that psychotic loon anymore clicks.

Why has JW tied his cart to this horse? He has always been a bit fringe, would regularly disagree with this assessment of things but there was always a rationale behind it.
Does he actually believe this anti-vaxxer/obamagate/5g/Qanon\Bill Gates\Scamdemic ...... crap or is he just aligning himself on this one "issue"?

Annasopra · 14-05-2020 08:01AM

swampy353 wrote: »

Any chance you could give examples, don't want to provide that psychotic loon anymore clicks.

Why has JW tied his cart to this horse? He has always been a bit fringe, would regularly disagree with this assessment of things but there was always a rationale behind it.
Does he actually believe this anti-vaxxer/obamagate/5g/Qanon\Bill Gates\Scamdemic ...... crap or is he just aligning himself on this one "issue"?

Yes he genuinely believes a lot of that stuff now.

sliabh 1956 · 14-05-2020 08:35AM

If Tubs has any sense of fair play they should be invited on to the LLS tomorrow night.We could do with a bit of humour during these dark times

Runaways · 14-05-2020 08:38AM

Imagine falling for it though

Who are the people are buying this Nonsense

Creol1 · 14-05-2020 08:50AM

plodder wrote: »

But they didn't produce any expert evidence, unlike the state. All they had was irrelevant rhetoric.

They didn't produce any evidence at all to the satisfaction of the Court. The facts sworn in the affidavit only alluded to the situation as it stood two months ago when the death toll was two. At paragraph 29 of the judgment it was noted that the test at this stage is whether the facts sworn, if proved, would support an arguable case in law, so the threshold is not very high.

plodder wrote: »

What would have been avoided? This completely unconsequential case? The best they can hope for from the Court of Appeal (in my unqualified opinion) is some advice on how to put together a better case in the High Court.

The worst outcome from this case, would be costs 'not being' awarded against them.

I don't think the case is entirely inconsequential. The Court of Appeal could overturn the High Court decision and grant leave, it could remit the case back to the High Court, the Court of Appeal's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court, they could re-issue the proceedings as plenary proceedings (the correct format), but it's futile to speculate on what the ultimate outcome may or may not be.

JDxtra · 14-05-2020 08:54AM

sliabh 1956 wrote: »

If Tubs has any sense of fair play they should be invited on to the LLS tomorrow night.We could do with a bit of humour during these dark times

I'd be disappointed if they were given the air time to be honest. Let then disappear into the Twitter-sphere.

blueythebear · 14-05-2020 08:56AM

Creol1 wrote: »

They didn't produce any evidence at all to the satisfaction of the Court. The facts sworn in the affidavit only alluded to the situation as it stood two months ago when the death toll was two. At paragraph 29 of the judgment it was noted that the test at this stage is whether the facts sworn, if proved, would support an arguable case in law, so the threshold is not very high.

I don't think the case is entirely inconsequential. The Court of Appeal could overturn the High Court decision and grant leave, it could remit the case back to the High Court, the Court of Appeal's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court, they could re-issue the proceedings as plenary proceedings (the correct format), but it's futile to speculate on what the ultimate outcome may or may not be.

Thecase is inconsequential because on appeal, they will have the same issue...a complete lack of evidence as to how the acts are unconstitutional. An appeal will not be heard for a few months so itll all be moot by then.

blueythebear · 14-05-2020 08:58AM

swampy353 wrote: »

Any chance you could give examples, don't want to provide that psychotic loon anymore clicks.

Why has JW tied his cart to this horse? He has always been a bit fringe, would regularly disagree with this assessment of things but there was always a rationale behind it.
Does he actually believe this anti-vaxxer/obamagate/5g/Qanon\Bill Gates\Scamdemic ...... crap or is he just aligning himself on this one "issue"?

Examples of contempt? I think they baldly state that the court is corrupt and is under orders from the government to refuse them

seamus · 14-05-2020 09:00AM

sliabh 1956 wrote: »

If Tubs has any sense of fair play they should be invited on to the LLS tomorrow night.We could do with a bit of humour during these dark times

They crave publicity, all that would really accomplish is rallying more nutjobs to support them.

There should really be an agreed media blackout on both of them in the public interest. Aside from serious matters; like a court judgement, the media should refrain from even mentioning them in a tiny .

Their goal is public recognition and nothing else. Every time they're mentioned, they're given more air to breathe. There is no such thing as bad press for them.

Muscles Schultz · 14-05-2020 09:02AM

Runaways wrote: »

Imagine falling for it though

Who are the people are buying this Nonsense

Geeks and weaks

Truthvader · 14-05-2020 09:47AM

sliabh 1956 wrote: »

If Tubs has any sense of fair play they should be invited on to the LLS tomorrow night.We could do with a bit of humour during these dark times

Top class idea but I would prefer someone more able than "Tubs" or Miriam or any of the RTE spoofers. Fine for the toy show but not the job that needs to be done on Gemma. Jeremy Clarkson could be drafted in but at the risk of providing an "I was in Ireland last week and unbelievably ………." story for him

Tenger · 14-05-2020 10:06AM

Runaways wrote: »

Imagine falling for it though

Who are the people are buying this Nonsense

I am in a telegram group full of their anti lockdown supporters. Not posting anything, just lurking. I'm shocked just reading the unbelievable ****e they post.

Multiple Internet memes, clips of Infowars, IFP and/or QAnon YouTube videos.
"Bill Gates is using 5G to cause Covid"
"Covid is a hoax to install 5G"
"5G is going to control the microchips that will be included inside the hoax Covid vaccine"
"NWO is behind all of this hoax"
"Covid is a global hoax to force us to accept a single global government and a cashless society"

A small number of members ask questions about science or facts and get slammed.

There are people there who believe the Magna Carta will over rule the Irish Constitution. They are all MAGA muppet.

They were thrilled that they got 2 dozen people outside Leinster House on Tuesday. They are hoping for "double or triple our numbers" this weekend.

Infini wrote: »

Good. Professional Shìtposters like Gemma and John deserve to have costs levied against them for wasting everyones time for their vainglorious egos.

Which is wonderfully ironic considering that Gemma opening with “this is a waste of taxpayers money”

CrabRevolution · 14-05-2020 10:08AM

Creol1 wrote: »

I found the judgment surprising reading. I expected that the main reason for refusing leave to bring the case would be that the wrong procedure (Judicial Review) was adopted, as this certainly was the case. Judicial Review is essentially the procedure for the High Court to quash decisions of lower courts or other quasi-judicial bodies, not Acts of the Oireachtas.

However, the Court held that this wasn't necessarily a barrier because the proceedings could be converted, but refused leave to bring the case on the basis that it wasn't arguable. I think it correct to say that there isn't an arguable case as far as their claims about the legitimacy of the Dáil's quorum, etc, were concerned, because the Constitution is very clear about the separation of powers, but I think the finding that there was no arguable case regarding the proportionality of the restrictions is more vulnerable to being overturned in the Court of Appeal.

This could all have been avoided if Michael D had referred the legislation to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. It would have resulted in a slight delay but I have no doubt it would have been upheld and it would have been immune from any possible legal challenge.

The reason for this process is to stop cases that are simply wastes of time going to the courts. It was noted several times in the transcripts that the threshold for actually obtaining leave is very low; yet they still failed to make it. They didn't even need to argue their case, just set out why they feel they have a case, but they still didn't manage that.

Some are picturing this as some sort of Clarence Darrow or (lesser known) Clarence Gideon case, where an underdog takes a meticulously argued and true case against overwhelming state power and wins a victory for the common man. It's really just 2 conspiracy theorists throwing a desperately poorly argued case at the state in the hopes of causing disruption and gaining attention.

The basis of their case wasn't any real evidence or facts (their "narrative" of the facts ended on March 16th, claiming we only had 2 deaths from Covid-19 in Ireland); they simply felt that their opinion was superior to that of the HSE, Department of Health, the WHO etc. The judge saw that this was clearly a non-runner and rightly refused leave.

TheChizler · 14-05-2020 12:48PM

Tenger wrote: »

"5G is going to control the microchips that will be included inside the hoax Covid vaccine"

Madness altogether. Microprocessors small enough to be unnoticeably injected are too small to use antennae. What they instead use to communicate is light. And nobody powerful is looking to bring light inside the body, are they??

Kermit.de.frog · 14-05-2020 03:56PM

redarmy wrote: »

Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters to face a bill of between €50,000 and €75,000 in legal costs following their failed judicial review case. Reporting shortly on
@drivetimerte

John Waters & Gemma O'Doherty to challenge lockdown in the high Court

Comments