Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
What do you mean we’ve got freedoms back? We live in a dictatorship. Why not view it that the judge who ruled was either a puppet, or had his life and that of his family threatened if he didn’t rule the right way?
On a more serious note reading the below about the rules in place it’s clear that the judge considers them within the powers of the government
On a more serious note reading the below about the rules in place it’s clear that the judge considers them within the powers of the government
Mr Justice Lewis said:
did involve a restriction on the freedom of assembly and association.
The context in which the restrictions were imposed, however, was of a global pandemic where a novel, highly infectious disease capable of causing death was spreading and was transmissible between humans. There was no known cure and no vaccine.
There was a legal duty to review the restrictions periodically and to end the restrictions if they were no longer necessary to achieve the aim of reducing the spread and the incidence of coronavirus. The regulations would end after six months in any event.
In those, possible unique, circumstances, there is no realistic prospect that a court would find that regulations adopted to reduce the opportunity for transmission by limiting contact between individuals was disproportionate.
The context in which the restrictions were imposed, however, was of a global pandemic where a novel, highly infectious disease capable of causing death was spreading and was transmissible between humans. There was no known cure and no vaccine.
There was a legal duty to review the restrictions periodically and to end the restrictions if they were no longer necessary to achieve the aim of reducing the spread and the incidence of coronavirus. The regulations would end after six months in any event.
In those, possible unique, circumstances, there is no realistic prospect that a court would find that regulations adopted to reduce the opportunity for transmission by limiting contact between individuals was disproportionate.
Graveworm said:
Elysium said:
For those who are interested, Simon Dolan has been refused permission to proceed with a JR challenge:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/dolan-v-secreta...
I think this is a political 'solution', which is not unexpected. The regulations had been relaxed considerably prior to the hearing to remove the original very significant limitations on free movement. Leaving only the restriction on staying away overnight.
By the time the challenge arrived the regulations were not disproportionate. That might not have been the case at the beginning, but there is no point in fussing ourselves over the proportionality of regs that no longer exist
The fact that entirely new regulations were introduced over the weekend is entirely coincidental.
'Yes Minister' maneuvering in action.
The Judge did take time to rule that what has been done was Vires. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/dolan-v-secreta...
I think this is a political 'solution', which is not unexpected. The regulations had been relaxed considerably prior to the hearing to remove the original very significant limitations on free movement. Leaving only the restriction on staying away overnight.
By the time the challenge arrived the regulations were not disproportionate. That might not have been the case at the beginning, but there is no point in fussing ourselves over the proportionality of regs that no longer exist
The fact that entirely new regulations were introduced over the weekend is entirely coincidental.
'Yes Minister' maneuvering in action.
I felt that the section on the use of the Public Health Act was a little superficial. It needed to be addressed but it was not the material issue, so in my opinion the judgement was a bit of a 'light touch'.
I do suspect this would have gone differently if the original lockdown regulations had still been in force. However, I predicted this would be the outcome and I don't think Dolan wasted his time. He has exerted pressure on Govt, encouraging them to publish the SAGE papers and keeping them focused on releasing the lockdown in good time, which I believe benefits us all.
unident said:
What do you mean we’ve got freedoms back? We live in a dictatorship. Why not view it that the judge who ruled was either a puppet, or had his life and that of his family threatened if he didn’t rule the right way?
On a more serious note reading the below about the rules in place it’s clear that the judge considers them within the powers of the government
The key point here is that this comment relates specifically to the more relaxed version of the regulations that were in force on the 2nd July. I have added the beginning of the sentence back in bold so that the meaning becomes more clear. On a more serious note reading the below about the rules in place it’s clear that the judge considers them within the powers of the government
Mr Justice Lewis said:
The Regulations in force on 2 July 2020 did involve a restriction on the freedom of assembly and association.
The context in which the restrictions were imposed, however, was of a global pandemic where a novel, highly infectious disease capable of causing death was spreading and was transmissible between humans. There was no known cure and no vaccine.
There was a legal duty to review the restrictions periodically and to end the restrictions if they were no longer necessary to achieve the aim of reducing the spread and the incidence of coronavirus. The regulations would end after six months in any event.
In those, possible unique, circumstances, there is no realistic prospect that a court would find that regulations adopted to reduce the opportunity for transmission by limiting contact between individuals was disproportionate.
The context in which the restrictions were imposed, however, was of a global pandemic where a novel, highly infectious disease capable of causing death was spreading and was transmissible between humans. There was no known cure and no vaccine.
There was a legal duty to review the restrictions periodically and to end the restrictions if they were no longer necessary to achieve the aim of reducing the spread and the incidence of coronavirus. The regulations would end after six months in any event.
In those, possible unique, circumstances, there is no realistic prospect that a court would find that regulations adopted to reduce the opportunity for transmission by limiting contact between individuals was disproportionate.
Interesting that you chose to snip that.
unident said:
What do you mean we’ve got freedoms back? We live in a dictatorship
You keep saying this, which I can only assume is a dig at my comment, but I didn't actually say "we are living in a dictatorship", did I? But you being you, had to make my comment more extreme than it actually was, because quite simply that's your MO isn't it unident?It's basically a straw man ... you sensationalise a user's comments and then attack your sensationalised version of it.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 6th July 20:01
markyb_lcy said:
unident said:
What do you mean we’ve got freedoms back? We live in a dictatorship
You keep saying this, which I can only assume is a dig at my comment, but I didn't actually say "we are living in a dictatorship", did I? But you being you, had to make my comment more extreme than it actually was, because quite simply that's your MO isn't it unident?It's basically a straw man ... you sensationalise a user's comments and then attack your sensationalised version of it.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 6th July 20:01
markyb_lcy said:
Yea me too mate. How can it ever be stopped if they don't stop it themselves? These are signs of a dictatorship.
unident said:
markyb_lcy said:
unident said:
What do you mean we’ve got freedoms back? We live in a dictatorship
You keep saying this, which I can only assume is a dig at my comment, but I didn't actually say "we are living in a dictatorship", did I? But you being you, had to make my comment more extreme than it actually was, because quite simply that's your MO isn't it unident?It's basically a straw man ... you sensationalise a user's comments and then attack your sensationalised version of it.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 6th July 20:01
markyb_lcy said:
Yea me too mate. How can it ever be stopped if they don't stop it themselves? These are signs of a dictatorship.
Thanks for accepting that. Much appreciated.
markyb_lcy said:
unident said:
markyb_lcy said:
unident said:
What do you mean we’ve got freedoms back? We live in a dictatorship
You keep saying this, which I can only assume is a dig at my comment, but I didn't actually say "we are living in a dictatorship", did I? But you being you, had to make my comment more extreme than it actually was, because quite simply that's your MO isn't it unident?It's basically a straw man ... you sensationalise a user's comments and then attack your sensationalised version of it.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 6th July 20:01
markyb_lcy said:
Yea me too mate. How can it ever be stopped if they don't stop it themselves? These are signs of a dictatorship.
Thanks for accepting that. Much appreciated.
unident said:
markyb_lcy said:
unident said:
markyb_lcy said:
unident said:
What do you mean we’ve got freedoms back? We live in a dictatorship
You keep saying this, which I can only assume is a dig at my comment, but I didn't actually say "we are living in a dictatorship", did I? But you being you, had to make my comment more extreme than it actually was, because quite simply that's your MO isn't it unident?It's basically a straw man ... you sensationalise a user's comments and then attack your sensationalised version of it.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 6th July 20:01
markyb_lcy said:
Yea me too mate. How can it ever be stopped if they don't stop it themselves? These are signs of a dictatorship.
Thanks for accepting that. Much appreciated.
I am not asserting that we are living in a dictatorship.
If you want to say I’m saying something else, then have a f
king ball.This is the last rise you’ll get out of me. Enjoy it while you can.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 6th July 22:53
markyb_lcy said:
Read my lips....
I am not asserting that we are living in a dictatorship.
If you want to say I’m saying something else, then have a fking ball.
This is the last rise you’ll get out of me. Enjoy it while you can.
I’ll wait for the next time you say something daft. I guess the thread is dead anyway after today’s ruling. I am not asserting that we are living in a dictatorship.
If you want to say I’m saying something else, then have a f
king ball.This is the last rise you’ll get out of me. Enjoy it while you can.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 6th July 22:53
unident said:
I guess the thread is dead anyway after today’s ruling.
I think that's a leap.Besides, IIRC(?) *all* the legislation introduced so far, including the latest round that conveniently sidesteps the JR process and sneaks in a re-start of the 6-months-limit clock, has been 'emergency' and introduced before parliament has had any debate on whether or not to introduce them, so there is still current 'emergency' legislation to discuss.
Jasandjules said:
Elysium said:
For those who are interested, Simon Dolan has been refused permission to proceed with a JR challenge:
Both astonishing and worrying at the same time. I hope they take it further. 1. A small number of businesses closed down, with most of the economy working again
2. A restriction on gatherings of more than 30 people, with exemptions for work
3. A power to close access to areas, which has not been used
I don't believe the original regulations were justified or proportional and hope this will make the Govt more circumspect about introducing restrictions in the future.
I've been out in the car most of the morning so hearing Mark whatshisface latest radio advert aimed at residents of Leicester. It states that people can only leave home for work or food shopping, i.e. back to the original March 2020 lockdown measures.
Does the legislation support this? I thought someone here posted it was only back to the pre opening of non essential shops stage.
Does the legislation support this? I thought someone here posted it was only back to the pre opening of non essential shops stage.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
I've been out in the car most of the morning so hearing Mark whatshisface latest radio advert aimed at residents of Leicester. It states that people can only leave home for work or food shopping, i.e. back to the original March 2020 lockdown measures.
Does the legislation support this? I thought someone here posted it was only back to the pre opening of non essential shops stage.
It doesn't appear to, no.Does the legislation support this? I thought someone here posted it was only back to the pre opening of non essential shops stage.
There is a new Statutory Instrument for the local lockdown area...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/685/conte...
The Restrictions on Movement section is as follows...
SI685 said:
5.—(1) No person who lives in the protected area may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place other than the place where they are living or where their linked household is living.
(2) No person who lives outside the protected area may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place within the protected area other than the place where their linked household is living.
This section is broadly equivalent to the (SI 350) wider regulations as amended in England 1st June.(2) No person who lives outside the protected area may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place within the protected area other than the place where their linked household is living.
Edited by markyb_lcy on Tuesday 7th July 14:03
Elysium said:
Jasandjules said:
Elysium said:
For those who are interested, Simon Dolan has been refused permission to proceed with a JR challenge:
Both astonishing and worrying at the same time. I hope they take it further. 1. A small number of businesses closed down, with most of the economy working again
2. A restriction on gatherings of more than 30 people, with exemptions for work
3. A power to close access to areas, which has not been used
I don't believe the original regulations were justified or proportional and hope this will make the Govt more circumspect about introducing restrictions in the future.
The other article's are tested on whether it is necessary in a democratic society which plays into the rest of Europe doing similar.
So, whilst it could be disproportionate, it would likely be disproportionate in every EU country which locked down. Showing what happened elsewhere would probably help it meet the test. A ruling here would not be binding but could be cited in other jurisdictions. The final appeal would be to the ECJ which would be binding on the EU.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 7th July 14:19
markyb_lcy said:
It doesn't appear to, no.
There is a new Statutory Instrument for the local lockdown area...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/685/conte...
The Restrictions on Movement section is as follows...
Many thanks.There is a new Statutory Instrument for the local lockdown area...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/685/conte...
The Restrictions on Movement section is as follows...
SI685 said:
5.—(1) No person who lives in the protected area may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place other than the place where they are living or where their linked household is living.
(2) No person who lives outside the protected area may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place within the protected area other than the place where their linked household is living.
This section is broadly equivalent to the (SI 350) wider regulations as amended in England 1st June.(2) No person who lives outside the protected area may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place within the protected area other than the place where their linked household is living.
It's really starting to piss me off that the Government is actively promoting lies.
Graveworm said:
...
.... The final appeal would be to the ECJ which would be binding on the EU.
The ECJ does not hear appeals from EU member states, and it is not the Court that deals with complaints under the ECHR, which is not an EU measure. The ECHR is an instrument of the Council of Europe, which is not the EU. The EU subscribes to the ECHR, but the ECJ and the ECtHR are two separate courts. .... The final appeal would be to the ECJ which would be binding on the EU.
Your summary (not quoted) of how ECHR law works (and indeed of how domestic public law works) is also inaccurate, although not quite as inaccurate as the bit quoted.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 7th July 23:21
Breadvan72 said:
Graveworm said:
...
.... The final appeal would be to the ECJ which would be binding on the EU.
The ECJ does not hear appeals from EU member states, and it is not the Court that deals with complaints under the ECHR, which is not an EU measure. The ECHR is an instrument of the Council of Europe, which is not the EU. The EU subscribes to the ECHR, but the ECJ and the ECtHR are two separate courts. Even a first year law student ought to know that. .... The final appeal would be to the ECJ which would be binding on the EU.
Your summary (not quoted) of how ECHR law works is also wrong, although not quite as wrong as the bit quoted, but I will leave you to look up why that is. You appear to be some distance from your area of knowledge and experience, so a bit of study might not go amiss.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff