Simon Dolan Court Hearing

RandySavage

Well-known member
#1
Today is the first day in court for Simon Dolan's request of a judicial review into the lockdown measures.

Taken from the latest update,

Our battle against the Government’s lockdown will go before a High Court judge on July 2.

The date – which will mark the 101st day since the UK was placed into lockdown – has been set aside for an application for permission to seek Judicial Review. This hearing is the important first step in the process and is the first official court date in our legal challenge.

It was set just days after the Government found itself under-fire following the claim in its defence papers that it had not ordered schools to close and that it was merely a “request”that they did.

The revelation sparked backlash from schools and parents alarmed over how the trick of words from Prime Minister Boris Johnson has meant more than 11 million children being out of school since March 23. Many private schools declared they would be opening regardless in September “come what may”, using hygiene measures and their own test and trace measures.

While lockdown means the hearing will take place via video link and not physically in the High Court, it will follow normal rules in terms of access to the public and media.

The Government will be represented by one of country’s top QCs, First Treasury Counsel Sir James Eadie. Its legal team also includes 3 barristers.

July 2 will be just over 100 days since lockdown and what has happened every day in this period underlines how important the Judicial Review is.

In that time, £2.5bn has been wiped off the UK economyeach day, millions of children are shut out of school, the NHS faces a waiting list explosion, and the freedoms of liberties everyone in the UK have been trampled over. In all this time, the Government has shown the agility of a beached whale.

It has sought to kick this legal process into the long grasstime and time again. Even its response was issued 3 minutes before the deadline. Its strategy seems to be to label our claims as ‘absurd’ and to shut down any scrutiny of the most draconian set of rules this country has known.

We have already forced the publishing of the SAGE meeting minutes, and unmasked the closure of schools as a trick of words from a government now trying to weasel its way out of a decision around education which is a stain on the history of this country.

There has been no democratic process on lockdown, which is why we must turn to the courts. Few people will realise there was a debate over the lockdown in the Commons recently. It is a disgrace that only a handful of MPs attended – a point made by some of the MPs themselves – this is why I believe the legal work to unpick the Government’s actions as part of the Judicial Review is so vital. Lockdown must end now.

The Judicial Review will seek to challenge the Government on three main points:

• Whether lockdown is unlawful because the Government implemented regulations under the Public Health Act 1984 instead of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or the Coronavirus Act 2020.

• The legality of the continuation of lockdown, and whether the tests for lifting it are too narrow, failing to take account of the economic and social impacts of lockdown.

• Whether the restrictions brought in by the Government contravene the European Convention of Human Rights, which cover the right to liberty, family life, education and property.

We are represented by Michael Gardner of law firm Wedlake Bell LLP and barrister Francis Hoar of Field Court Chambers. Philip Havers QC, a barrister and Deputy High Court Judge who specialises in public law, human rights and public inquiries, is also instructed as part of the legal team.
 

Jonny Ingbar

Well-known member
#2
Sounds like money well spent - if this is the guy I'm thinking about then this is driven by the impact upon his business.

Effectively he's happy to see more people die, as long as he doesn't lose money.
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
#3
Sounds like money well spent - if this is the guy I'm thinking about then this is driven by the impact upon his business.

Effectively he's happy to see more people die, as long as he doesn't lose money.
It's nothing to do with people dying or not. Good work skimming over the ins and outs without actually reading the details.
 

Norman_Conquest

Well-known member
#5
It's nothing to do with people dying or not. Good work skimming over the ins and outs without actually reading the details.
Randy, in a nut shell, what are they arguing about? I have read that and it seems more about closing schools and restricting peoples movements. Surely, no one would argue that lockdown was the wrong thing to do.
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
#6
Randy, in a nut shell, what are they arguing about? I have read that and it seems more about closing schools and restricting peoples movements. Surely, no one would argue that lockdown was the wrong thing to do.
To do with the legality of it all. It's also an important first step into protection of freedoms going forward after this pandemic has run its course. Could also help in finding out what the government plans to do in the case of any future pandemic/epidemic crisis. As stated though it is only a judicial review.
 

Jonny Ingbar

Well-known member
#7

JM14

Well-known member
#8
Did he not realise we are in the middle of a global pandemic which is why is "freedom" was taken away?
 

bear66

Well-known member
#9
To do with the legality of it all. It's also an important first step into protection of freedoms going forward after this pandemic has run its course. Could also help in finding out what the government plans to do in the case of any future pandemic/epidemic crisis. As stated though it is only a judicial review.
Why don't I have a right to life? That is the first human right in the European Convention?
 

Lefty

Well-known member
#10
I think it might be an important case. Sometimes following the right process is more important than the decision. It will be interesting to see exactly what the advice was and why decisions were taken when.

I don’t think many of us would argue that lockdown was the right thing to do, the issues are when and how strict. If it turns out that the decision not to lockdown earlier was a political one and so was the later decision to lockdown then the basis of the lockdown, the public health act, may well be a lie.
 
#11
I think it might be an important case. Sometimes following the right process is more important than the decision. It will be interesting to see exactly what the advice was and why decisions were taken when.

I don’t think many of us would argue that lockdown was the right thing to do, the issues are when and how strict. If it turns out that the decision not to lockdown earlier was a political one and so was the later decision to lockdown then the basis of the lockdown, the public health act, may well be a lie.
If you want to know the advice read the SAGE minutes
 

SE4 Red

Active member
#12
Was the decision to enter lockdown so unreasonable that other public bodies (or in this case other governments) would not have made the same decision? Difficult to argue this test when most other European governments have made the same or similar decisions on lockdown. There may be some legal argument about which legislation should have been used (I'm not up to speed on that) but the outcome i.e. the lockdown would have been the same anyway.
 
Last edited:

1finny

Well-known member
#14
He's worth £200m
And crowdfunded to raise the money :eek:

Many saying they are parting with money they don't really have....
 
#16
Randy I already knew that it was down to the legal action that the minutes were published, I was suggesting to Lefty that if he is interested in the advice he can read it already & doesn't need to wait for the court case.
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
#17
He's worth £200m
And crowdfunded to raise the money :eek:

Many saying they are parting with money they don't really have....
Definitely a strange one. I didn't donate because it's not like he needs the money. But I do wonder why some have and what their motivation is.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
#19
Randy I already knew that it was down to the legal action that the minutes were published, I was suggesting to Lefty that if he is interested in the advice he can read it already & doesn't need to wait for the court case.
The SAGE advice is only part of the picture anyway, a court case may bring out other sources of advice or opinion that the Government took into account.

It could well be that, regardless of the motivation of the man bringing the action, something important is revealed about, for example, the policy on care homes by contrast to schools and hospitals.
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
#20
Randy, in a nut shell, what are they arguing about? I have read that and it seems more about closing schools and restricting peoples movements. Surely, no one would argue that lockdown was the wrong thing to do.
I think you will find many people who actually educate themselves that lockdown is the wrong thing to do.

You'll note the people on this thread attacking the man not the ball is pretty idiotic too.
 
Top