New Covid-19 restrictions.

Apparently new regulations made under the newly enacted Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 are with the AG to be checked for any legal anomaly and will be signed by the Minister today.

cobhguy28 wrote: »

I was searching earlier and couldn't find them, so until they are signed they technically don't come into effect.

I think the fact that your already looking for a loop hole means your an idiot .

Just suck it up and stop being a millennial

Mod
Take it easy, doughef. Stay off this forum for 24 hours

Where is this in the statute book?

What are the penalties? I cannot find anything that is actual law.

Stopped by the Gardai I am under no legal obligation to tell them where I am coming from or going to?

anybody have the full combined text of the legislation? The bill is mostly comprised of amendments to existing legislation which makes it very hard to follow.

robman60 wrote: »

I heard on the news that the Garda Commissioner said they have no actual powers to enforce this, but he went on to make some vague statement that those who don't follow it will find the Gardaí have other powers to deal with this?

I assume they will tell you to go home and if you refuse find any reason under the sun to do you.


Nothing new there then.

cobhguy28 wrote: »

I was looking at the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947 and S.3 is interesting,It says

"(b) the prosecutor does not prove that, at the date of the alleged contravention, notice of the making of the said statutory instrument had been published in the Iris Oifigiúil,

the charge shall be dismissed, unless the prosecutor satisfies the Court that at the said date reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the said instrument to the notice of the public or of persons likely to be affected by it or of the defendant."

So the Tv speech last night would be enough to satisfy the reasonable steps to notify the public, without it been officially published in the Iris Oifigiúil,.

Well, interesting question. Per post #2, regulations have been drafted and are currently with the AG's Department for review, after which they will be signed by the Minister. But none of this had happened when the Taoiseach give his speech.

Suppose the regs are signed on Sunday. On Monday I do something contrary to the regs. On Tuesday notice of the regulations is published in Irish Oifigiuil. On Wednesday I'm in court, charged with breaching the regs. (Justice is very quick in this scenario.) A key issue will be whether "reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the said instrument" to my notice. Can the Taoiseac;'s TV speech count?

I would say not. At the time he gave the speech, there was no statutory instrument. It hadn't even been drafted. So he couldn't possibly have explained its effect. I would think "reasonable steps" could only be taken once the instrument had been prepared, and arguably once it had been made. So they could have published a notice in the daily papers on Monday, for instance, summarising the effect of the regulations and, in particular, the acts which it forbids or penalises - that would suffice. But they can't point to statement of policy intention made before there were any regulations whose purport could be explained.

Obviously, until the Minister actually signs them, there aren't any regulations in force, so nothing for the guards to enforce, and any attempt at a prosecution for anything done before the regs are actually made must fail.

But, suppose the regs are signed, and suppose reg 1 says, in effect, "these regulations enter into force immediately on signature". They will be published in Irish Oifigiuil at the first opportunity. IO comes out twice a week, on Tuesday and Friday.

Right. The regs are signed on Sunday. On Monday I do something in breach of the regs. On Tuesday the regs are published in in IO. On Wednesday I'm in court, charged with breaching the regs. (Justice is very quick in this scenario.)

Caranica wrote: »

Looks like idiots are testing this :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1243856491041472512?s=19

How does going for a drive on your own, or with the people you live with, and not getting out of the car other than at your house, impact physical distancing?

Squiggle wrote: »

How does going for a drive on your own, or with the people you live with, and not getting out of the car other than at your house, impact physical distancing?

Use more fuel, have to fill up more, lots of potential infection points at the filling station.

Higher chance of crashing your car while in it than sitting on your couch, meaning you and the emergency services are exposed to risk while also using valuable health worker time.

Car may also be parked a bit away from the house and could potentially mean you get infected between your front door and the car, or if you are infected means you may infect others on the way to your car.

political analyst wrote: »

Obviously, the reception that would follow a wedding or baptismal ceremony cannot take place at the moment. But couldn't the ceremony still take place with a minimum number of witnesses. After all, the banning of the ceremony would be unconstitutional, i.e. right to marry, religious freedom, wouldn't it?

Last night on 'Claire Byrne Live', Fair City actor Jim Bartley said this is a 'war'. But Abraham Lincoln was US President during a civil war in his country and the judiciary still ruled that he had no power to suspend habeus corpus.

what "right to marry" is enshrined in the constitution? if you are going to object to these laws on the basis on constitutionality surely the natural place to start would be the right to peaceful assembly? But even that is not an absolute right

The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.


Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

Even if there is an unenumerated right to marry, that's not a right to marry immediately or a right to marry whenever you please.

There's an enumerated right of access to the courts in the Constitution. That's not inconsistent with the courts being closed for a period, either on account of a lockdown in a pandemic or, more boringly, on account of the periodic vacations for which the rules of court provide. By the same token, while it's arguable that there's a constitutional right to marry, it's harder to argue that there's a constitutional right to marry before 13 April.

By the way for anyone wondering there were no ministerial regulations published in today's Iris Oifigiúil.

You have to give 3 months notice to marry anyway or obtain permission from the courts due to extenuating circumstances such as terminal illness

Indeed, it would be hard to have family rights (previously interpreted very close to marital rights) if you couldn't create a family.

I think there was something in last week's emergency act about weddings.

political analyst wrote: »

Why didn't our government stop all flights from Italy much earlier? It is sheer stupidity that so many Italians were allowed to visit this country - even after the Ireland v Italy rugby match had been called off!

EU membership means you cannot unilaterally block nationals of another EU state from arriving. That and parts of Italy being in very short commuting distance to international airports in other countries.