The Coronavirus Act 2020 was rushed through Parliament/The House of Lords and Received Royal Assent all within a matter of a few days with little or no Parliamentary scrutiny or oversight something which should set alarm bells ringing for every man woman and child within the United Kingdom.
Thankfully on 23rd April 2020 a Judicial Review was served in the High Court by Robin Tillbrook, Chairman of The English Democrats with representation I believe from Francis Hoar a respected Barrister from Field Court Chambers.
Also on 2nd April 2020 an article was published in The Law Society Gazette questioning the need for the Coronavirus Act – links are attached for the “fact checkers” out there.
Francis Hoar Barrister – Field Court Chambers
“The lockdown measures imposed by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations are some of the most extreme restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed in the modern era. They are a disproportionate interference with the rights and freedoms protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore unlawful.
The Regulations gravely impact 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.
Extract from The Law Society Gazette Article – Why Did the Government Not Use the Civil Contingencies Act?
Disdain of past legislation
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (‘CCA’) represents a legal landmark. It updated and consolidated laws which enabled public authorities to prepare for, and respond effectively to, emergencies, replacing the Emergency Powers Act 1920 with a more comprehensive and consensual design. While it was motivated by domestic and global crises, it was not enacted in haste but benefited from a prolonged consultation period led by a special parliamentary joint committee. The final draft systematically furnished the executive with all conceivable powers, yet contained vital legal and parliamentary oversight to avert disproportionate action. The CCA addressed the widest range of possible eventualities: terrorist attacks, protests, environmental events – and human and animal disease pandemics.
Under section 20, a government Minister can issue ‘emergency regulations’ if ‘satisfied’ that an ‘event or situation’ fulfils the requirements in section 19.
Analysis
In other words, there already existed legislation designed to tackle the circumstances of Coronavirus (Covid 19) which has been classified as an emergency by the Government and their “scientific advisers”. Yet, rather than utilise this framework, the government has resorted to fresh legislation in the Coronavirus Act 2020.
The question is why?
More to follow……….
[give_form id=”1772″ show_title=”false” show_goal=”false” show_content=”below” display_style=”modal”]
I wrote my first article for Unity News Network on 30th December 2019, and I have been writing ever since – my library is now well in excess of 200 articles.
Alternative media is essential in these times of unprecedented censorship and mainstream bias, which has ramped up exponentially during the past 2 years. The overton window of “acceptable opinion” is growing every narrower.
Having a citizen’s log, cataloguing the twists and turns of life during these turbulent times is essential.
Thank you Unity News Network for allowing me a voice on your platform.
