The courts have been reluctant to intervene with Covid restrictions but I do think there will come a time - perhaps it has even come - that there are decent prospects for a legal challenge to a refusal to allow a business such as a nightclub to open to double vaccinated customers
I appreciate there are possible arguments against such as strains getting through vaccines but the risk is significantly reduced that it is arguably below the risk of any other reason for shutting venues and closing businesses.
Article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights requires that any interference with the ‘peaceful enjoyment of property’ must be proportionate. Big socioeconomic decisions such as this are hard to challenge as the state is given a wide margin. But…
… at some point soon the continued closure of a small number of businesses when the balancing factors have radically changed due to vaccination will become potentially disproportionate. Even a challenge which failed would set the boundaries for decisions in the coming months
For those responding about the idea of vaccine passports (which I’m not necessarily against) my thoughts are here
This reminds me of the 'Jack Bauer fallacy' I sometimes talk about in the context of terrorism. It is correct that the public, in the throes of a crisis, sometimes signal that they want officials to 'throw off the red tape' and 'dispense with niceties to get things DONE'...
... and the most recent example pre COVID was the ticking bomb - you think a suspect has the location... do you torture? The argument for: we will save lives if the torture works. Argument against: we will fall below an essential standard that democratic societies don't torture..
... and you see this argument over public procurement. "Yes of course we broke the rules, wouldn't you have? I had a mate who could provide 200m masks tomorrow, no time for niceties... we saved many lives!" The approach is superficially attractive as how can you argue against...
The claim succeeded on Ground 3, about real possibility of bias. Probably the most important ground as it isn't an attack on the specific contract but about the principle of fair administration
What I find so impressive about @GoodLawProject is they are taking an attritional approach - claim after claim all focussed on establishing principles of good administration. Very few public lawyers have the resources and strategic approach to achieve this
It's difficult to explain how difficult it is to bring a single public law case against the government - to find the right case, the enormous funds required to protect your clients... taking this kind strategic approach is almost impossible, but it's getting results.
"26.—(1) The following Regulations are revoked—
...
(b)the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the International Travel Regulations”)"
"(4) Nothing in these Regulations applies in relation to a person who arrived in England before 4.00 a.m. on 17th May 2021 (and accordingly, the regulations mentioned in paragraph (1) continue to have effect in relation to such a person)."
2/3
How can regulations both be revoked and continue to have effect?
Or is what is really happening that they have been revoked *except* for people who arrived before 4am on 17 May 2021?
3/3
There are many important findings but from a Covid regulations perspective an important one is residents of the barracks were falsely imprisoned because they were told they couldn’t leave the site due to Covid regulations which was a misrepresentation of the law
Could have important consequences for other instances where people have been kept in, for example, student accommodation by misrepresentations of the legal position
This is the first time, I think, that local guidance has significantly changed without any change to the law. The Steps regulations allow for local areas to be placed into different steps but to date this hasn’t happened.
I am dealing with lots of cases involving hotel detention at the moment. My sense is the system is a complete mess and the security company which is running the hotels is not able to deal with medical or other difficulties