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

Capt'n Midnight

Polar101 wrote: »

Are they also saying people shouldn't be sheep and do their own research?

When the mantra is "do the research" can there be any excuse for those saying that not doing their own research ?

Especially when it's a legal requirement for the High Court case you have started ?

And then not even challenge the affidavit of the other side when they presented their research ?


It's on record that a High Court Judicial Review said they didn't do their research.

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2020/05/approved-odoherty-and-waters-v.-minister-for-health-ireland-and-the-attorney-general.pdf

55. ... Other than their views, the applicants identified no supportive expert opinion either in the Statement of Grounds or grounding affidavit.

56. ... Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, empty rhetoric and a bogus historical parallel are not a substitute for facts.

Capt'n Midnight

plodder wrote: »

Fair question. I don't believe in punishment by legal costs and 75K seems to be an excessive over estimate in this case.

I'm actually surprised that a trip to the High Court didn't cost £300K.

It's a privilege denied to many homeowners because you could literally loose your home. For me the High Court is only for people with very deep pockets or with nothing left to lose. Anyone inbetween needs to be certain they can win and have done everything possible to present their case properly.

It could have been done by plenary proceedings.
They could have presented medical or scientific evidence.

They never had a case, they didn't even try to have a case.
Why should taxpayers subsidise their egos or publicity stunts ?

Speakerboxx

I just hope they get riddled by the court system on euros to pay out. Might soften her cough a bit.

rubadub

plodder wrote: »

Fair question. I don't believe in punishment by legal costs and 75K seems to be an excessive over estimate in this case.

I don't know if its excessive but I reckon 75k is a bargain price for this utterly obnoxious marketing campaign, how much would that media coverage have costed in real paid adverts?

If they don't have to pay some other similar scumbag out to get free advertising will pull a similar stunt.

extra gravy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They never had a case, they didn't even try to have a case.
Why should taxpayers subsidise their egos or publicity stunts ?

What on earth were they doing for 7 weeks that they couldn't even do a bit of googling for a few facts to back up their claims?! Too busy acting the bollix at checkpoints and posting videos and tweets. Proves that's all she really cares about.

plodder

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm actually surprised that a trip to the High Court didn't cost £300K.

It's a privilege denied to many homeowners because you could literally loose your home. For me the High Court is only for people with very deep pockets or with nothing left to lose. Anyone inbetween needs to be certain they can win and have done everything possible to present their case properly.

It could have been done by plenary proceedings.
They could have presented medical or scientific evidence.

They never had a case, they didn't even try to have a case.
Why should taxpayers subsidise their egos or publicity stunts ?

Don't get me wrong. The costs should be awarded against them. Sometimes the state will suck it up if it is seen that the case has been useful in clarifying some aspect of the law, but that doesn't apply here. I'm just wondering how the figure of 75K was arrived at for such a straight forward easily dismissed case.

blueythebear

plodder wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. The costs should be awarded against them. Sometimes the state will suck it up if it is seen that the case has been useful in clarifying some aspect of the law, but that doesn't apply here. I'm just wondering how the figure of 75K was arrived at for such a straight forward easily dismissed case.

blueythebear wrote: »

50 to 75k is all the states costs. The applicsnts costs would be stamp duty on court papers which would be less than €150-200.

The state had senior counsel and two junior counsels in total i think. The senior could be 10k (or more) per day over 2 days in total. Plus two thirds of that for juniors so thats €44 k potentially just on barrister fees alone for the hearing. There would be further fees for the two dates it was for mention plus a brief fee for each barrister for reading the papers. Could very quickly reach 75k.

There you go

extra gravy

extra gravy wrote: »

What on earth were they doing for 7 weeks that they couldn't even do a bit of googling for a few facts to back up their claims?! Too busy acting the bollix at checkpoints and posting videos and tweets. Proves that's all she really cares about.

They probably did but limited the results to conspiracy theory sites, as any established scientific, medical, media ... sites are all fronts or part of the hoax etc, at least going by what was said and their usual ranting online.

In reality your correct and its a really bad attempt at trying to make political gain when people are beginning to feel cabin fever with the restrictions (see the threads on here for example) and a way to boost donations from various gullible people online.

plodder

blueythebear wrote: »

There you go

Thanks for the info. I still think it's excessive though, but that's not a debate for here :pac:

VillageIdiot71

plodder wrote: »

Thanks for the info. I still think it's excessive though, but that's not a debate for here :pac:

Indeed, but should temper the idea that stuffing them with the costs has no implications for anyone else. As if we all agree that an undeniable outcome of the case is three barristers should split €75,000 and the only doubt is over who gives it to them.

Like, whoever loses, they should obviously win. Took three of them to answer a case by two amateurs? Gemtrails and John are that good? Strong risk of the judge being swayed by the comparison to Nazi Germany?

Come to think of it, why not discuss it here? Its the practical outcome of the case. No merits to the complaint, now who's giving these kind people their moolah?

trashcan

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Indeed, but should temper the idea that stuffing them with the costs has no implications for anyone else. As if we all agree that an undeniable outcome of the case is three barristers should split €75,000 and the only doubt is over who gives it to them.

Like, whoever loses, they should obviously win. Took three of them to answer a case by two amateurs? Gemtrails and John are that good? Strong risk of the judge being swayed by the comparison to Nazi Germany?

Come to think of it, why not discuss it here? Its the practical outcome of the case. No merits to the complaint, now who's giving these kind people their moolah?

Well, the States barristers will get paid either way, so if costs are not awarded against GemJohn then that will be the taxpayer footing the bill.

VillageIdiot71

trashcan wrote: »

Well, the States barristers will get paid either way, so if costs are not awarded against GemJohn then that will be the taxpayer footing the bill.

That's sort of my point. Global pandemic, yadda yadda. But the one certainty is the sacrosanct barristers fee.

Fair play to the legals on thus thread not saying "well, its not just the couple of days in Court. They've to prepare documents, research the case and so forth". Because we get that. But, as I'm sure we all appreciate, the point is how did GemJohn make a case that was so good it cost €75,000 to refute it?

Anticipating the " do you think they should work for free" line, there's a lot of scope between zero and €75,000. Say this took the three barristers one to two weeks. How about a fee related to the Covid payment of €350pw? Just given the big picture issue involved.

Say up to €2000, split three ways. Fair?

TaurenDruid

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Say up to €2000, split three ways. Fair?

If you can find a decent barrister willing to take a case for €700, fair play to you!

And can I get their number, please?

VillageIdiot71

TaurenDruid wrote: »

If you can find a decent barrister willing to take a case for €700, fair play to you!

And can I get their number, please?

Yeah, and that's sort of yarn that gets pulled out to make it seem reasonable, isn't it? Of course you need three decent barristers to do this as, like the infinite number of monkeys producing the perfect copy of King Lear, GemJohn stumbled into making such a brilliant case that the best legal minds had to be brought into play.

Like the other yarn that gets airplay at these times is that excessive fees can be reduced by the Taxing Master. But, like yourself, the Taxing Master's mindset is calibrated to see €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court as perfectly reasonable.

So if he'd cut them down from €100,000, he'd head home thinking he'd done a good day's work and maybe even bore his wife, once again, with his he can't understand all the negative comment about legal fees. Do people not understand that he'd never let three guys get more than €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court listening to a pair of loopers antagonising a Judge? Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

whippet

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Yeah, and that's sort of yarn that gets pulled out to make it seem reasonable, isn't it? Of course you need three decent barristers to do this as, like the infinite number of monkeys producing the perfect copy of King Lear, GemJohn stumbled into making such a brilliant case that the best legal minds had to be brought into play.

Like the other yarn that gets airplay at these times is that excessive fees can be reduced by the Taxing Master. But, like yourself, the Taxing Master's mindset is calibrated to see €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court as perfectly reasonable.

So if he'd cut them down from €100,000, he'd head home thinking he'd done a good day's work and maybe even bore his wife, once again, with his he can't understand all the negative comment about legal fees. Do people not understand that he'd never let three guys get more than €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court listening to a pair of loopers antagonising a Judge? Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

And that the sort of bar stool comment you’d expect to hear from someone who hasn’t a clue

VillageIdiot71

whippet wrote: »

And that the sort of bar stool comment you’d expect to hear from someone who hasn’t a clue

But apparently, it would still cost €75,000 to prove me wrong.

Seriously. You can't justify it. €75,000 to refute a pair of amateurs.

Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

CrabRevolution

I'd be shocked if it was declared "In the public interest" and costs weren't awarded against them. How could the courts declare a case to be totally baseless, yet at the same time in the public interest?

brightspark

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

But apparently, it would still cost €75,000 to prove me wrong.

Seriously. You can't justify it. €75,000 to refute a pair of amateurs.

Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

If they had taken competent legal advice beforehand they would have been told either to not to take the case or it would have been presented properly and IF they won they wouldn't have to pay the states cost.

They lost due to their own incompetence, why should the taxpayer pick up the cost?

VinLieger

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

But apparently, it would still cost €75,000 to prove me wrong.

Seriously. You can't justify it. €75,000 to refute a pair of amateurs.

Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

Yes because if they had got through to the next stage because the state hadnt argued their case correctly due to maybe only paying 10k for a barrister instead of 75k, people like you you be the first on here complaining they cheaped out.

They have to take things like this seriously regardless of who they are against.

CrabRevolution

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes because if they had got through to the next stage because the state hadnt argued their case correctly due to maybe only paying 10k for a barrister instead of 75k, people like you you be the first on here complaining they cheaped out.

They have to take things like this seriously regardless of who they are against.

Pretty much. There are numerous posts on this thread saying that even if it fails we should be grateful that this case is before the courts, such cases act as a bulwark against tyrannical state power, it's only right that the government are forced to defend themselves, can't put a cost on freedom etc.

But now that the case failed it was all a waste of time and money and we should've done it cheaper....

Wildlife Actor

The State solicitor is entitled to costs too. Usually the solicitors bill is higher that barristers but the state solicitor would not have a profit component so maybe not here.

VillageIdiot71

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes because if they had got through to the next stage because the state hadnt argued their case correctly due to maybe only paying 10k for a barrister instead of 75k, people like you you be the first on here complaining they cheaped out.

They have to take things like this seriously regardless of who they are against.

Point totally missed. And, no, I wouldn't be complaining if the legal costs were less, that's wishful thinking on your part.

Unless you are saying GemJohn had an incredibly robust case.

brightspark wrote: »

They lost due to their own incompetence, why should the taxpayer pick up the cost?

You do realise I'm not arguing about who pick up the cost, but the amount.

plodder

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

That's sort of my point. Global pandemic, yadda yadda. But the one certainty is the sacrosanct barristers fee.

They are doing a job. So, they deserve to be paid for it surely? Not sure if it's the same here, but in England, the taxi-rank rule means they can't even refuse a job if it's within their area of expertise.

If the costs are 75K then I assume they can appeal it and maybe there is a point to be made about the approach towards preparation when dealing with lay litigants.

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

You do realise I'm not arguing about who pick up the cost, but the amount.

The state does not employ the barristers who a self employed so the state has no control over their fees. They could have sought 3 quotes but barristets rates dont differ a great deal.

VinLieger

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Point totally missed. And, no, I wouldn't be complaining if the legal costs were less, that's wishful thinking on your part.

Unless you are saying GemJohn had an incredibly robust case.


You do realise I'm not arguing about who pick up the cost, but the amount.

Yes i do realise that and its a fvcking moronic argument because your approaching it with the hindsight of knowing their case was garbage, the government had no way of knowing this beforehand and therefore had to field a fully equipped defense.


Also you seem to be the one who missed the point of what i said. If the government hadn't fielded a defense and the nutjobs case had somehow lucked into meeting the requirements thanks to the lack of a good government defense then people like you would have been the first on here complaining about that and that the government should have taken it seriously and spent more money.


Basically your posts read like a serial complainer who will never be happy and no matter the outcome you, in your captain hindsight suit, would have done a better job.

VillageIdiot71

plodder wrote: »

They are doing a job. So, they deserve to be paid for it surely? Not sure if it's the same here, but in England, the taxi-rank rule means they can't even refuse a job if it's within their area of expertise.

If the costs are 75K then I assume they can appeal it and maybe there is a point to be ma Ide about the approach towards preparation when dealing with lay litigants.

blueythebear wrote: »

The state does not employ the barristers who a self employed so the state has no control over their fees. They could have sought 3 quotes but barristets rates dont differ a great deal.

The State has no control over what what it pays as they all charge the same. I tell you what, I won't say what's the obvious problem with that statement, and just point out that the 'appeal' point was already addressed.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Like the other yarn that gets airplay at these times is that excessive fees can be reduced by the Taxing Master. But, like yourself, the Taxing Master's mindset is calibrated to see €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court as perfectly reasonable.

So if he'd cut them down from €100,000, he'd head home thinking he'd done a good day's work and maybe even bore his wife, once again, with his he can't understand all the negative comment about legal fees. Do people not understand that he'd never let three guys get more than €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court listening to a pair of loopers antagonising a Judge? Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

VillageIdiot71

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes i do realise that and its a fvcking moronic argument because your approaching it with the hindsight of knowing their case was garbage, the government had no way of knowing this beforehand and therefore had to field a fully equipped defense.

Which, again, is already addressed.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Yeah, and that's sort of yarn that gets pulled out to make it seem reasonable, isn't it? Of course you need three decent barristers to do this as, like the infinite number of monkeys producing the perfect copy of King Lear, GemJohn stumbled into making such a brilliant case that the best legal minds had to be brought into play.

So you tell us the great case that GemJohn might have pulled out of their pocket.

If you've something to actually say, you might find you can make s post without resorting to the puerile practice of typing a v instead of a u so you can get around the swearometer.

I understand. You get the point, and find you can't address it. Fine. It just means you need to change your perspective, as its just plain wrong if the one certainty in the situation is three guys trouser €75,000 and someone's gotta pay.

VinLieger wrote: »

Basically your posts read like a serial complainer who will never be happy and no matter the outcome you, in your captain hindsight suit, would have done a better job.

This is just harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

Are you a legal professional, and is that why you're getting so worked up?

VillageIdiot71

Because I'm all about helping people develop, here's a post from 15 April on this very thread, commenting on the merits of GemJohn's arguments.

John Hutton wrote: »

The restrictions may be necessary and worthwhile but it doesn't mean they are legal.

There are some very interesting constitutional questions at play here, will be curious to see what happens.

VinLieger wrote: »

There really isn't, do you know how I can tell? Cus of the conspiracy idiots involved.

See how it doesn't say the case has a realistic chance?

Still cost you €75,000 to prove that. That goes without saying.

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Because I'm all about helping people develop, here's a post from 15 April on this very thread, commenting on the merits of GemJohn's arguments.
See how it doesn't say the case has a realistic chance?

Still cost you €75,000 to prove that. That goes without saying.

The applicants prepared a 30 page statement of grounds. Submissions had to be prepared to counter every argument no matter how unmeritorious. Three barristers needed because of a multiplicity of respondents.

Regardless of the merits of the case, the state had to put its best foot forward, to get rid of it at leave stage. Its not very difficult to get leave for a judicial review but if they had gotten leave you are talking about double the fees most likely plus amuch bigger dog and pony show from gemma and her supporters. That is why you pay a little more upfront to avoid much larger fees down the line.

Plus killing this case from the start will avoid a flood of other cases from her followers for damages over unconstitutional laws as well as avoid further "gatherings"at the four courts

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Because I'm all about helping people develop, here's a post from 15 April on this very thread, commenting on the merits of GemJohn's arguments.
See how it doesn't say the case has a realistic chance?

Still cost you €75,000 to prove that. That goes without saying.

The applicants prepared a 30 page statement of grounds. Submissions had to be prepared to counter every argument no matter how unmeritorious. Three barristers needed because of a multiplicity of respondents.

Regardless of the merits of the case, the state had to put its best foot forward, to get rid of it at leave stage. Its not very difficult to get leave for a judicial review but if they had gotten leave you are talking about double the fees most likely plus amuch bigger dog and pony show from gemma and her supporters. That is why you pay a little more upfront to avoid much larger fees down the line.

Plus killing this case from the start will avoid a flood of other cases from her followers for damages over unconstitutional laws as well as avoid further "gatherings"at the four courts