New regulations signed by Simon Harris last night

Juicee

ectoraige wrote: »

Just to give an answer on that, vaccinations are rarely 100% effective, so a small percentage of people who have received vaccinations may still not have immunity. They rely on being surrounded by people for whom the vaccination was effective.

It's also the case that some people suffer adverse reactions to vaccines ranging from minor injury, to severe, to death. But this is off topic here. Happy to discuss on another thread if you start one.

BaronVon

Any law passed by the Oireachtas is deemed lawful until proven otherwise. Bunreacht na hEireann is a bit of a mess, contradicts itself, and is largely not specific enough, resulting in judges in the 60's and 70's declaring unennummerated rights to fill the gaps.

The European Convention is a much better structured piece of legislation, and the ECtHR has routinely found in favour of States in their conduct, allowing a large margin of appreciation to those member States in the application of domestic law.

The 2km rule is for exercise only, but it seems to cause a lot of confusion. By international standards, it is quite generous.

With regards a Guards opinion, this occurs in a vast amount of legislation. It is only an offence to fail to obey the direction of a Guard, which is very similar to S8 of the Public Order Act.

Only the Supreme Court can tell us if these powers are unconstitutional, but the Courts regularly find in favour of the State, that laws to support the public good are a matter for the Oireachtas, and not a matter for the Courts.

My own opinion is that these laws would be found to be constitutional, that public policy has been brought in incrementally, and that they are proportionate to the threat faced by society as a whole.

Claw Hammer

Juicee wrote: »

This will be the nub of the inevitable high court / supreme court challenge. The Constitution seems clear to me.

Personal liberty generally means being kept in jail or similar. To construe it as meaning that you have liberty to go anywhere you want, at any time you want is misconceived.
in any event, no constitutional right is absolute and any right may have to yield to other rights from time to time.

Juicee

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Personal liberty generally means being kept in jail or similar.To construe it as meaning that you have liberty to go anywhere you want, at any time you want is misconceived

I disagree completely. Personal Liberty is not the equal of "the right not to be put in jail." No-one is construing that personal liberty means you can go anywhere either, such as trespassing on private property or airports, army bases etc.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

in any event, no constitutional right is absolute and any right may have to yield to other rights from time to time.

Again, I disagree strongly. Some rights are inalienable. Freedom is one of them.

cobhguy28

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Personal liberty generally means being kept in jail or similar. To construe it as meaning that you have liberty to go anywhere you want, at any time you want is misconceived.
in any event, no constitutional right is absolute and any right may have to yield to other rights from time to time.

I don't think the Act would fail, for its interference with certain constitutional rights, as there is justification for them and they seem proportionate.

However parts of the Act could be found to be an unconstitutional delegation of power, to the minister. It could fail the principle and policy test especially this section,

(i) any other measures that the Minister considers necessary in order to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of Covid-19;

Carawaystick

I notice no link to the regs in the Iris Oifigiúil posted here yet...

Páid

Carawaystick wrote: »

I notice no link to the regs in the Iris Oifigiúil posted here yet...

They are at the link below 120 and 121 of 2020

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/statutory.html

GM228

Páid wrote: »

They are at the link below 120 and 121 of 2020

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/statutory.html

That's the ISB, not the Iris Oifigiúil, they are supposed to be "published" in the Iris Oifigiúil.

Carawaystick wrote: »

I notice no link to the regs in the Iris Oifigiúil posted here yet...

They were published in Friday's edition (number 29).

http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir100420.pdf

Discodog

What would be the situation in the following scenario ?

The Act clearly states Horticulture as an Essential Service but doesn't define Horticulture. A gardener gets stopped & told that he can't work as it's not essential. Who defines Horticulture & what is or what isn't allowed ?

The accepted dictionary & academic definition would include every aspect of gardening.

Claw Hammer

Juicee wrote: »

I disagree completely. Personal Liberty is not the equal of "the right not to be put in jail." No-one is construing that personal liberty means you can go anywhere either, such as trespassing on private property or airports, army bases etc.


Again, I disagree strongly. Some rights are inalienable. Freedom is one of them.

The European Court of Human Rights has considered the concept of deprivation of liberty in the context of Article 5 of the Convention in a number of cases including, notably, Storck v Germany [2005] 43 EHRR 6, paras. 74, 89, and Stanev v Bulgaria [2012] 55 EHRR 22, paras. 117, 120. The essential characteristics of a deprivation of liberty within Article 5 appear from the jurisprudence to encompass three components: -

(i) the objective component of confinement in a restricted place for a non-negligible period of time;
(ii) the subjective component of lack of valid consent; and
(iii) the attribution of responsibility to the state.


Inalienable does not mean absolute and doesn't mean the right can't be limited. There is no right of freedom anyway. I notice you have produced no authority for your propositions so I must assume that whoever gave you their notes to cog left you a bit short.

Carawaystick

GM228 wrote: »

That's the ISB, not the Iris Oifigiúil, they are supposed to be "published" in the Iris Oifigiúil.

They were published in Friday's edition (number 29).

http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir100420.pdf

ta, the version of the regs I saw previously posted, said "draft"

GM228

Juicee wrote: »

But I've seen nothing that could override articles 15 and 40 with regard to personal liberty.

This will be challenged in court I think.

People all too often mention the Constitution without giving consideration to this important point:-

4 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.

If there is a law which allows for your detention etc which is in force at the time and used accordingly you can't use Article 40 4 1° to make a claim that the law is unconstitutional, you need to use something else in the Constitution.

Páid

This is at the bottom of S.I. 121 of 2020

The regulations come into effect on 8 April and will remain in operation until 12 April 2020.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/121/made/en/print

Does this mean that the travel exemptions are no longer allowed?

Páid

Páid wrote: »

This is at the bottom of S.I. 121 of 2020


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/121/made/en/print

Does this mean that the travel exemptions are no longer allowed?

Just to answer my own question - the S.I. above was amended to 5th May 2020.

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/e9d120-minister-for-health-simon-harris-signs-regulations-to-give-an-garda-/

GM228

Páid wrote: »

This is at the bottom of S.I. 121 of 2020


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/121/made/en/print

Does this mean that the travel exemptions are no longer allowed?

Páid wrote: »

Just to answer my own question - the S.I. above was amended to 5th May 2020.

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/e9d120-minister-for-health-simon-harris-signs-regulations-to-give-an-garda-/

The Regulations as they stand no longer apply until another Ministerial regulation is signed either amending the first set or otherwise extending their applicability, and like the first ones will need to be published in the Iris Oifigiúil.

No such regulation appears to have been signed as yet.

cobhguy28

GM228 wrote: »

The Regulations as they stand no longer apply until another Ministerial regulation is signed either amending the first set or otherwise extending their applicability, and like the first ones will need to be published in the Iris Oifigiúil.

No such regulation appears to have been signed as yet.

They have been signed, just not published yet.
https://assets.gov.ie/72788/fe7a0c66cb9244a1b86162257d98cac3.pdf

Páid

Got your wish - Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters launch High Court proceedings claiming Covid-19 laws are unconstitutional https://jrnl.ie/5075234

GM228

Páid wrote: »

Got your wish - Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters launch High Court proceedings claiming Covid-19 laws are unconstitutional https://jrnl.ie/5075234

Representing yourself in court can be difficult at the best of times, but representing yourself in a JR is just madness and highly likely doomed to fail.

cobhguy28

GM228 wrote: »

Representing yourself in court can be difficult at the best of times, but representing yourself in a JR is just madness and highly likely doomed to fail.

Ya I agree, in a way, I am glad, they are representing themselves as these laws are morally right, but they are pushing the limits of the constitution, especially delegation of power to the minister and if they had a good legal team, they might of had a chance of winning.

BaronVon

Is there any cost to bringing a JR when representing yourself? i.e. fees to lodge documents etc?

Peregrinus

BaronVon wrote: »

Is there any cost to bringing a JR when representing yourself? i.e. fees to lodge documents etc?

Yes, there are court fees payable. But they are modest compared to the cost of engaging legal representation.

ezra_

BaronVon wrote: »

Is there any cost to bringing a JR when representing yourself? i.e. fees to lodge documents etc?

If they fail in their action, can the State have their legal fees awarded against Gemma and John?

Peregrinus

ezra_ wrote: »

If they fail in their action, can the State have their legal fees awarded against Gemma and John?

Yes.

ezra_

This isn't anyway at all off putting...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1250580858093875201

Caranica

Please don't give them clicks or oxygen, this is precisely what they want!!