Thread by @Francis_Hoar

The Grounds and the witness statement (containing the evidential basis of the claim) by @mikegardner_wb in the new judicial review against the Rule of Six and other recent regulations have now been published (see below).

static.crowdjustice.com/group_claim_do…

static.crowdjustice.com/group_claim_do…

Ground One argues that the use of the emergency procedure (under s 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (as amended) was unlawful in the absence of any rational basis for considering these regulations to be urgent or (further and alternatively) necessary.

Ground Two mirrors the first ground in the Dolan (No. 1), the challenge to the original 'lockdown' regulations that is to be heard in the Court of Appeal on 29th October. It argues that the use of the 1984 Act for regulations as far reaching as these is unlawful.

Lord Sumption has repeatedly agreed with this position, which has also been argued (in relation to the original regulations) by a number of academics and commentators including @RobertCraig3, @TomRHickman and @benetbrandreth

Finally, Ground Three includes composite submissions that the regulations and relevant guidance (see below) are irrational and disproportionate, including due to the fettering of discretion and the disproportionate interference with ECHR rights.

In this JR, @simondolan instructs @WedlakeBell and me together with @CrippsBarn, a wedding business. The JR also challenges the parts of the guidance that restrict the numbers of people who may attend weddings, restrictions that were made into legal requirements in September.

An application will be heard (probably next week) for an interim injunction prohibiting the enforcement of those parts of the regulations and guidance restricting the number of persons who may attend weddings but *not* the requirement for risk assessments or other guidance.

(The legal requirement for a risk assessment is being challenged in the JR, as it is contained in the regulations, but not on an interim basis.)