CHALLENGE TO “LOCKDOWN” RESTRICTIONS BEGINS!
Here is
the press release that I have sent out and I set out below that the letter that
I have sent out.
ENGLISH DEMOCRATS – LEGAL CLAIM TO LIFT THE UNLAWFUL CORONAVIRUS RESTRICTIONS
PRESS RELEASE
On 23rd April the English Democrats, the English nationalist
political party, started a Judicial Review
against the Prime Minister and
Health Secretary. We are arguing
that the Government’s “Lockdown” regulations are unlawful.
Attached is our
Judicial Review Protocol letter served in support of the challenge. The Government is expected to reply by 30th
April.
Solicitor Robin
Tilbrook, who is the Chairman of the English Democrats, said that:
“The Lockdown over the
Coronavirus panic is causing huge damage to our country’s economy and also to
the traditional rights and freedoms of England!
This cannot be left un-challenged!"
The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
And the
Secretary of State
Health & Social Care
39 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0EL
Dear Sirs
English Democrats (1) Robin Tilbrook (2) – v – The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State Health and Social Care
Letter Before Claim
This letter is drafted
under the Judicial Review protocol in section C of the White Book, which
normally provides for a response within 14 days, but in view of the importance
and urgency of the issues raised a response within 7 days is sought.
1.
Respondents: The
Prime Minister and the Secretary of State Health and Social Care
2.
Applicants: The English Democrats (Reg. No. 6132268) &
Robin Tilbrook both of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
3.
The details of the Applicant’s legal advisers, if
any, dealing with this claim:-
Tilbrook’s
Solicitors, of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
4. The
details of the matters being challenged:-
The disproportionate inference with English rights
and freedoms and the legality of:-
I Statutory
Instrument: 2020 No. 350
Public Health, England
The Health Protection
(Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England)
Regulations 2020
Made at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Laid before Parliament at 2.30 p.m. on 26th
March 2020
Coming into force at 1.00 pm. on 26th March 2020
The Secretary of State purported to make Regulations
in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (3)(c), (4)(d), 45F(2)
and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984(1).
These Regulations are:-
1. Contrary to the fundamental constitution of England
as set out in Magna Carta and the English Parliamentary Constitutional
Convention Declaration of Right of 1689 and its subsequent enactment in the
English Bill of Rights 1689.
2. Contrary to the Common Law of England in that
(non-exhaustively) they are:- Ultra Vires; disproportionate and irrational.
3. Contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights
(pursuant to the Human Rights Act).
II The
“Guidance Covid-19: Guidance on Social Distances which inter alia states:-
“Stay
at home
·
Only go outside for food,
health reasons or work (but only if you cannot work from home)
·
If you go out, stay 2
metres (6ft) away from other people at all times
·
Wash your hands as soon
as you get home
Do not meet others, even friends or family. You can
spread the virus even if you don’t have symptoms.”
This is neither proper nor an accurate reflection of
the said Regulations.
III The
Coronavirus Act 2020 is:-
1. Contrary to the fundamental constitution of England
as set out in Magna Carta and the English Parliamentary Constitutional
Convention Declaration of Right of 1689 and its subsequent enactment in the
English Bill of Rights 1689.
2. Contrary to the Common Law of England in that
(non-exhaustively) it is:- Ultra Vires; disproportionate and irrational.
3. Contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights
(pursuant to the Human Rights Act).
5. The
details of any Interested Parties:-
None have notified as yet, but every person in
England has an interest in the issues raised herein.
6. The
Issues:-
The above
are a disproportionate and unwarranted interference with English rights and
freedoms and human rights.
The
Coronavirus Regulations and the European Convention on Human Rights
The lockdown measures imposed by the Health
Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations and the
Coronavirus Act 2020 as misrepresented in the “Guidance Covid-19” are the some
of the most extreme restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed in the modern
era; and are a disproportionate interference with the rights and freedoms
protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and
therefore unlawful.
In considering their proportionality, the failure to
derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights (under Article 15) is a
relevant factor, as it might suggest that the public health crisis is not one
that threatened the ‘life of the nation’.
Likewise, the failure to use the Civil Contingencies Act is both
relevant to question of whether the Regulations could lawfully have been passed
under the delegated powers of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984
and to proportionality, given that the CCA requires much more regular
Parliamentary scrutiny and has specific limitations on the extent of any
regulations passed under its delegated powers;
The Regulations have grave impact upon a number of
rights and freedoms, including at least to family and private life (Article 8),
religious practice (Article 9), association and assembly (Article 11), property
(Article 1 of Protocol 1) and education (Article 2 of Protocol 1) and probably
to liberty (Article 5). They represent
an unprecedented intrusion into the freedoms and livelihood of the public at
large and the gravity of this impact is a key consideration in determining
whether they are the least restrictive means of tackling, proportionately, the
spread of the virus.
Article 2 of the Convention (the right to life) does
not impose a positive obligation to impose Draconian restrictions as a public
health measure and is limited (in so far is relevant) to imposing positive
obligations on states to ensure a functioning criminal justice system and to
react proportionately to immediate and individual threats to life.
The means by which proportionality should be judged
are the Siracusa Principles, developed and recognised by international law to
determine the proportionality of quarantines and measures responding to public
health crises. These require such
measures to be:
•
provided for and carried out in accordance with the law;
• directed
toward a legitimate objective of general interest;
•
strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the
objective;
•
the least intrusive and restrictive available to reach the
objective;
•
based on scientific evidence and neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory in application; and
•
of limited duration, respectful of human dignity, and
subject to review.
The five tests for the continuance of the
Regulations declared by the First Secretary of State on 16th April, were as
follows:
·
That the NHS is able to
cope;
·
a "sustained and
consistent" fall in the daily death rate;
·
reliable data showing the
rate of infection was decreasing to ‘manageable levels’;
·
that the supply of tests
and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) could meet future demand; and
·
that the government can
be confident that any adjustments would not risk a second peak.
It is submitted that these tests: (a) impose an over-rigorous
and unreasonable fetter on the government’s discretion to remove or reduce the
restrictions and are wholly incompatible with an application of the Siracusa
Principles; (b) would (if applied) retain the restrictions (if, for example,
there was not a ‘sustained and consistent’ fall in the death rate) even if an
objective evaluation showed that less restrictive measures might have the same
object; and (c) fail to require the Secretary of State to have any regard to
the impact of the Regulations on the important rights and freedoms they
restrict.
An evaluation of the scientific evidence would be
unavoidable for any court reviewing the lawfulness and proportionality of the
Regulations, as it would otherwise be unable to consider whether the measures
were the least restrictive necessary in a democratic society. This scientific evidence is far more
uncertain than is generally accepted and there is, in particular, a great deal
of uncertainty about the effectiveness of lockdowns in containing spread, the
true mortality and infection rates and the accuracy of the modelling from
Imperial College that has been key to government policy.
In conclusion, the application of the Siracusa
Principles in a judicial review, taking account of the gravity of the removal
of so many and such important rights and freedoms with so little democratic
scrutiny, is likely to conclude that the measures are disproportionate to their
object, were imposed following an unreasonable fetter on the government’s
discretion and are thus unlawful.
7. The details of the action that the Respondents are
required to take:-
a)
To admit that the said Regulations, Guidance and
Act should be rescinded and replaced within an agreed timetable.
b)
In accordance with the agreed timetable, to rescind
the same and to replace them with agreed Regulations, Guidance and Act which
does not improperly interfere with English Rights and Freedoms.
8. ADR proposals:-
None.
9. The details of any information sought:-
Not
applicable.
10.The details of any documents that are
considered relevant and necessary:-
Not
applicable.
11. The
address for reply and service of all documents:-
Tilbrook’s Solicitors of Quires
Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
12. Proposed reply date:-
In view of the urgency and importance
of the issues 7 days from the date hereof.
Yours
faithfully
R C W
Tilbrook
Please help us. Our appeal for support is here >>> https://www.englishdemocrats.party/lockdown?utm_campaign=lockdown0805&utm_medium=email&utm_source=englishdemocrats
Please help us. Our appeal for support is here >>> https://www.englishdemocrats.party/lockdown?utm_campaign=lockdown0805&utm_medium=email&utm_source=englishdemocrats
