Total Visits

Friday, 8 May 2020

Lockdown challengers reply to the Government

Lockdown challengers reply to the Government 


I didn't think much of the government's official response to our Judicial Review pre action protocol letter sent out to them on St George's day. 
Here is my reply:-
Ms T H

Litigation Group

Government Legal Department

102 Petty France

Westminster

London SW1H 9GL



Dear Madam


Re:  English Democrats (Reg No. 6132268) and Robin Tilbrook – v – The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State Health and Social Care


Thank you for your letter of the 30th April.  We respond to your points numeratim as follows:-

2.       We refer to the old and ignoble advocate’s adage of:- “If your case is strong on the law then bang on about the law; if you case is strong on the facts then bang on about the facts; but if your case is neither strong on the law nor on the facts then bang on the table”.  Respectfully, much of your letter is evidently banging on the table and either ad hominem and/or merely prejudicial, instead of addressing the issues.  



          We contend that a certification of “Totally Without Merit” (particularly in cases such as our client’s previous one where many lawyers, including eminent ones had already opined that the case was of strong merit) is a naked breach of basic rights to a fair hearing, going back to Magna Carta in England, and also under Article 6 in the European Convention of Human Rights. 


3.       There is little point in referring to the “entirety of the United Kingdom” when the British Government and, in particular, the Secretary of State for Health, only has jurisdiction over Health in England. 


As the example of Sweden shows, the British Government has by no means been “obliged” to act in the way that it has.  The way in which the Government has acted has probably not limited the spread of the virus, nor probably saved lives, albeit it is accepted that it has acted to “reduce the burden of the National Health Service”, but that is not a legal justification for its actions which are politically motivated and also in response to Mainstream Media hysteria. It has certainly crashed the English economy.


7.       We would ask for sight of the “Review”, which you say was concluded on the 16th April.


More generally on the issue of ultra vires we would respond as follows:-


Statutory Instrument: 2020 No. 350


Public Health, England

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England)

     Regulations 2020


Statutory Instruments are not primary legislation and therefore according to trite Law they cannot legally exceed the scope of the powers granted to Ministers under the primary legislation.  In this case this is the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.  This is an Act primarily focussed on controlling international trade and travel, particularly with reference to shipping and docks and, by extension, also airports and aerodromes.  There is no authority in this Act for a general Lockdown of the People of England, or for many of the businesses conducted by the People of England.


The Prime Minister is reported to have expressly refused to authorise regulations to control international travel as is reported here:- 

>>> Priti Patel in row with Boris Johnson over closing Britain's borders to keep coronavirus at bay >>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/26/priti-patel-row-boris-johnson-closing-britains-borders-keep/



The result, as has been reported in the Guardian (on 5.5.20) is that, in the period from 1st January 2020 to 23rd March 2020, the Government had permitted over 18 million international travellers to come into the United Kingdom unchecked and untested for Coronavirus, even from points of origin where there was known to be infection. 


The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 would have permitted restrictions to such travellers, but as stated above, the Prime Minister expressly declined to take steps which were within the powers of the Act and thus of the Secretary of State. 


The Government also did not take action under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, nor under the Coronavirus Act 2020 which the Government rushed through Parliament duplicitously, claiming that it needed the powers urgently. 


Within 12 hours of Royal Assent for this Act, the Secretary of State had promulgated his pre-prepared “Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020”, purportedly pursuant to the 1984 Act. 


The Claimants will rely upon the natural meaning of The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, considered both literally and also purpositively


It is submitted that the 1984 Act only provides powers to create  

Regulations against individual persons or singular gatherings, not a

general Lockdown of the People of England.


The effect of permitting on-going mass international travel has undoubtedly been to vastly facilitate the spread of Coronavirus infection into the population of England.


If that was not enough, the Government, for the sake of the NHS, promulgated the regulation:- “Covid-19 Hospital Discharge Service Requirements” (here is the link to that regulation >>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880288/COVID-19_hospital_discharge_service_requirements.pdf ).

Under this large numbers of elderly “bed-blockers”, whom NHS management had long wanted to get out of the hospitals, were transferred into Care Homes, paid for by Government funds.  This had the effect, which seems to have been in the contemplation of the drafters of this regulation, of spreading the Coronavirus infection widely within the Care Homes to which these hospital patients were sent.  Thus, no doubt, very considerably increasing the death toll in such homes. 


The Government’s actions in “Locking Down” the general population of England whilst continuing to permit mass international travel and placing at risk the inmates of care homes and crashing the English economy, is in stark contrast to the careful and responsible response which the Swedish Government has adopted for Sweden. 


It was also irresponsible, reckless and ultra vires for regulations to be issued for the purposes, not of controlling the disease itself, but instead of “saving the NHS”. 


NHS England, is the only national health service which is under the control of the British Government.  NHS Wales, NHS Scotland and NHS Northern Ireland are under the control of their respective National and Provincial Governments and not of the British Government.  That is why the British Prime Minster and British Secretary of State from the British Cabinet are the proper Defendants in these England focussed proceedings.


It is also noted that the status of the Coronavirus (AKA Covid-19) was reduced from  the status of a “High Consequence Infectious Disease” under the NHS guideline “High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)” published on the 19th March 2020. Further it is noted that the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that Covid-19 should no longer be classified as a HCID.


11.     Your point about the unpaid Costs Order is, with the greatest of respect, preposterous as an obstacle to bringing Judicial Review against different parties, on a different matter. We refer to 2 above.  The case quoted is also irrelevant.  The First Claimant is however prepared to pay the £2,755.99 which you refer to.  Please provide details of where and how to pay that and what reference to apply etc. 


12.     With the greatest of respect it is obvious that political parties and corporations and individuals all have enough standing to challenge whether or not the Government has behaved with constitutional propriety within the powers given to them and, in accordance with the European Convention of Human Rights, by way of Judicial Review.  This is as opposed to bringing a claim for damages, which does of course require proof of loss. This is cogently expressed in Supperstone and Goudie - Judicial Review, published by Butterworths


13.     If the Regulations had been, as initially notified, restricted to a duration of three weeks (despite our case that they would still have been illegal), it would arguably not have been proportionate to bring Judicial Review proceedings to have them quashed. 


In the light of the Government’s expressed intention to continue with these Regulations, it has become more and more important to bring this case.  In addition, it is noted that others are now feeling likewise and are also proposing to bring Judicial Review proceedings.  The primary requirement is, of course, as you well know, that the Judicial Review is brought within three months.


Further it is noted that the Regulations were amended on the 22nd April 2020 by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (Statutory Instrument 2020/447) (“The Amended Regulations”).  The Amended Regulations introduced stricter conditions on the English public, in particular by preventing them from remaining outside their residence, rather than restricting them from leaving them, save for a “reasonable excuse” (sic!). These Amended Regulations were made without any publicity or democratic debate.  Both the Regulations and the Amended Regulations are challenged herein. 


14.     With respect we cannot see how you can make such a claim as it is self-evident that the Restrictions in the Regulations include many interferences with the European Convention of Human Rights. E.g. Those Restrictions that would prevent gatherings of more than 2 people are disproportionate breaches of the fundamental rights and freedoms protected by Articles 5, 6, 9, 11 and 14 and by Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


15.     It is, with respect, obvious that the “Covid-19 Pandemic” is not unprecedented since there have been previous pandemics, including some much worse than the current situation.   To take one example, the Spanish Flu killed over 250,000 within the United Kingdom and over 50 million worldwide.  Yet there was no Lockdown and no Restrictions but, on the contrary, a General Election was held in December 1918, in the middle of that genuine pandemic.


16.     The Restrictions imposed by the Regulations had as their primary objective what is primarily a management measure regarding the running of NHS England.  As already explained, the Government’s actions have clearly not focussed just on the protection of public health. 


18.     We have set out above much more of our case on ultra vires. We submit that, given the obvious discrepancy between the focus of the Act on travel and the Regulations and Amended Regulations on Lockdown, that the Defendants’ Regulations and Amended Regulations are ultra vires.  The operation of the Regulations and Amended Regulations are “contrary to the fundamental constitution of England as set out in Magna Carta and the English Parliamentary Constitution and Convention Declaration of Right of 1689 and it subsequent and its subsequent enactment in the Bill of Rights 1689”.  This is wholly coherent.  The Declaration of Right 1689 is the fundamental constitutional lynchpin of England’s constitution. It prescribes the proper bounds of Parliament and it is Ultra Vires and Unconstitutional for Parliament to purport to legislate against the bounds set for it and the Executive by the Declaration of Right. (See [1953] ScotCS CSIH_2, 1953 SC 396, 1953 SLT 255)


20.     Whilst what we suggested in our previous letter is that it might be possible to agree regulations that would be lawful, our primary contention is, of course, that so far as the existing Regulations and Amended Regulations, Guidance and the Coronavirus Act 2020 are concerned, that they should all be quashed as being legally and constitutionally invalid. 


22.     It is obvious that in fact any legal person or individual within England is also an interested party


More generally, we support and endorse the arguments put forward by Messrs Wedlake Bell in their letter to the Second Defendant dated the 30th April on behalf of their client Simon Dolan.


Yours faithfully


Tilbrook’s

Please help us. Our appeal for support is here >>> https://www.englishdemocrats.party/lockdown?utm_campaign=lockdown0805&utm_medium=email&utm_source=englishdemocrats

13 comments:

  1. Very Good, Finally A Lawyer using the Declaration of Rights 1689. I will add, not only was the Declaration extended to the Scots, who proclaimed and protested that wanted the same rights and protections as the English via the Claim of Right 1689. It was further sort by emigrants from England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and wider European nations to the Americas. Now know as the United States of America. The emigrants, now calling themselves Americans, wanted the same rights as an Englishman. This led to the American War of independence, a War against the same enemy the English face now. The British Establishment. Many of the codified rights in the American Constitution (a declaration by Convention) are codified in and from The Declaration of Rights 1689. The English Constitution! DD

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent response Robin! If people look at the figures, they don't tally up which makes things on how they record the stats a bit suspicious. Worldwide, less than 1% have died which does not warrant any lockdown either. I very much our figures will correspond to the world-wide ones as well, if they were recorded properly. This on top of the constitutional issues makes a stronger case to end lockdown and go back to our normal lives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent, powerful arguments by our fearless leader!
    It came as a shock to learn that "NHS England, is the only national health service which is under the control of the British Government." This really hammers home the truth that England and the English People are the only members of the "United Kingdom" without their own parliament to represent them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is a shame that you completely misstate the purposes of the Acr as 'primarily focused on controlling international trade and travel....' which completely ignores Part 2A and the sections which gave the SoS the powers which he used. Do you really think the T.Sol was born yesterday? Also, your unparticularied references to 13th & 17th century legislation is just embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously you have not read Robin's reply properly nor understand any of of 13th & 17th century legislation. Your immaturity (no matter your age)and lack of experience is just embarrassing. It seems you are just satisfied to be an unthinking minion whose responses have been put in your head. Absolutely no individual thought of your own. No doubt you pretended to enjoy the VE Day Anniversary, but in fact have little or no idea why that victory is so important. It was fought to stop the very things being done by the 'government' to the nation now, lockdown/home imprisonment and lot more. We lost many lives in the war but saved our independence, our inalienable freedoms and rights, our constitution. All which Hitler tried so very hard to destroy yet failed. Yet something,which this government wants to destroy, WHY? You can always ask yourself that question when you or a member of your family are unlawfully imprisoned because they asked the wrong question or didn't do as ordered by the government. Heaven help your grandchildren if you get your way your grandchildren will be in chains and it will be part of your doing. They will have nothing thank you for. Quite the opposite.

      Delete
  5. Regarding HCID status
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19

    when I last looked three weeks ago that announcement had apparently still not made it to the BBC website. Does it remain suppressed?

    Would another ground for challenging the Statutory Instruments be that they were made for a purpose wholly or partly other than that contemplated by the enabling legislation, namely, to facilitate a societal transformation and financial system reset, including massively increased surveillance powers via 5G, retrenchment of individual liberties, withdrawal of cash money etc etc? The usual cases of "predictive programming" have been cited on the web since at least mid March, taking at random just four:

    Dean Koontz's 1981 "The Eyes of Darkness" originally published under the pseudonym Leigh Nichols;

    Strauss and Howe's "The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America's Next Rendezvous with Destiny (1997);

    Peter May's 2005 book "Lockdown";

    The Dead Zone: "Plague" (2003)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY6-HvE5YdU

    among numerous others and the latest:

    https://rairfoundation.com/italian-leader-slams-false-coronavirus-numbers-25000-did-not-die-its-a-way-to-impose-a-dictatorship-watch/


    Having said that I do question (in my uninformed state) whether this litigation is the best way forward given the existence also of the separate case brought on behalf of Simon Dolan which you mention. Government has limitless resources of public money to waste and depersonalising the issues in my view is not the way to get resolution. What we need is personal responsibility for any actors in this charade who may be proven to have promoted a lie and thereby caused deaths among the general public - to be liable for misfeasance/malfeasance in public office. See UK Column News - 6th May 2020

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XON2XeGDE6A
    at 14:10 onwards (esp. 16:50) in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well written response Robin. I suspect that the government's legal department are getting a bit hot under the collar about legal challenges regarding the Covid lockdown after reading this article on UNN: https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/former-top-lawyer-humna-rights-lockdown/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unfortunately I fear that a case under the European Convention on Human Rights will fail. This is because s.29(3) of the Universal Convention on Human Rights states that none of the rights in the declaration may be exercised contrary to the aims and objectives of the United Nations.

    Article 29(3) is clearly triggered by UN pandemic treaties that our government are signatory to, which alllow upon the declaration of a Level 4 or 5 Pandemic the suspension of certain human rights for the purpose of forced vaccination, quarantine, medical procedures and emergency financial measures. I have been concerned for some time that there is as a result of these treaties a major incentive to declare pandemics and nothing stopping the permanent suspension of human rights worldwide thorugh the declaration of a permanent global pandemic. This is something they can do if their grip on the global pandemic is at risk.

    However, I think it would be excellent to have the European Convention admit that this is the case so I support escalating to them to force them to reveal their true powers. Only this and a informed population may result in England withdrawing from all those treaties that allow for the triggering of Article 29(3).

    Nonetheless, despite this the actions remain contrary to the English Constitution and Common law but I fear that since Blair shifted judicial appointments to the Judicial Appointments Committee that the Supreme Court is a beast now of the executive with no real seperation of power, so it is likely that to over-ride this we must abolish the Supreme Court, returning judicial appointments to a reformed House of Lords where open appointment hearings should be run by accountable Lords, possibly with Proportional Representation plus a cohort of hereditary Lords to maintain the link between the House of Lords and the Magna Carta.

    The other major reform that is required is to abolish s.73 of the Coronors and Justice Act (2009), another Blairite (Fabian) change. Isn't it interesting that the Coronary system is presently committing sedition by purposefully inflating COVID-19 cases to justify the lockdown, aided and abeited by the CV Regulations that have reduced historic checks and measures. Was Blair aware that the Coronary system would be the tool that the British would eventually use to take down our ancient liberties via a staged pandemic?

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/73

    ReplyDelete
  8. Personally I think pigs will fly sooner than any of the actions mentioned in Anonymous 9 May 2020 at 12:58 will ever occur. How can you possible effect legislative reform with political representatives whose actions against the indigenous population for the last 100+ years show they act only for another constituency?

    An important addition to mine of 9 May 2020 at 03:35 outlining one possible future scenario in response to a [created] stressor:

    "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development" (May 2010).
    The Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130910124938/http://www.gbn.com/articles/pdfs/GBN&Rockefeller%20scenarios.technology&development.pdf

    (pdf metadata confirms created 18/05/2010)

    page 18

    "LOCK STEP
    Scenario

    A world of tighter top-down government control and more
    authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing
    citizen pushback


    In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers....."


    briefly commented at 29:22 of
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhgQ27FwJUw

    This is yet more Revelation of the Method as per Michael A. Hoffman II's book "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare" written 20-30 years ago. For an interview with him from last year:

    https://ln2.sync.com/dl/c8198f180/7jwb8pmh-dbsuj999-zcwh35au-f68s93h3


    These examples are merely representative and way far from a complete jigsaw of indicators but they plausibly outline actions that are fundamentally subversive of the state, and not just this in country. Either MI5/6 are complicit or they are impotent. The politicians are just puppets, either knowing but severely compromised or stupid beyond anyone's life experience. Are the military in on the game too?

    ReplyDelete
  9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVpCWSx8a6I UKC Monday 11 May. UK State subverted by UK "Gov" cabal.
    esp. @9:20

    ReplyDelete
  10. @RT thanks for your efforts.

    Presumably you and/or the other litigant are assembling and sharing a dossier of medical/other expert opinion to test the grounds on which HMG ordered lockdown/house arrest for non-symptomatic or recovered. Among possibilities for inclusion I would venture to suggest reviewing this:

    GRANDSTREAM YT Channel (mirror)
    Prof DOLORES CAHILL and FIONA MARIE FLANAGAN
    13 May 2020

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmjQ0KzC9yE

    It's 2hrs but the nub so far as lockdown goes would seem to be @46m - Dr Cahill: social distancing important if this were an Ebola outbreak.
    But this is not - see again above:
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19

    ReplyDelete
  11. And now our churches are removing the Christian Flag of the Resurrection, chosen centuries ago as England's Flag, and starting to replace it with the NHS flag: the new National Deity, "in an increasingly bizarre and cultish act of worship for the public institution".

    "UK: Churches and cathedrals fly NHS flag"
    https://voiceofeurope.com/2020/05/uk-churches-and-cathedrals-fly-nhs-flag/

    ReplyDelete