Author Topic: Waters and Docherty V The State  (Read 10076 times)

john m

  • Guest
Waters and Docherty V The State
« on: May 05, 2020, 04:40:49 pm »
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-application-by-john-waters-and-gemma-odoherty-over-covid-19-laws-adjourned-997700.html



     

 

John Waters and Gemma O'Doherty's High Court challenge against laws introduced due to the Covid-19 pandemic has been adjourned to later this afternoon.

In judicial review proceedings against the State and the Minister for Health, they seek to have various pieces of recently enacted legislation quashed by a judge of the High Court.


  Learn more
As was the case when the matter was before the court last week there was tight security and a large Garda presence around the Four Courts Complex.

Supporters of the two journalists remained outside barriers erected by the Gardai close to to the courtroom where the case is being heard, when only a limited number of persons were allowed in due to the pandemic.

Their application for permission to bring the challenge came before Mr Justice Charles Meenan at the High Court on Tuesday morning.

However, at the outset of the hearing counsel for the state Patrick McCann SC, appearing with Gerard Meehan Bl asked the court to adjourn the matter to 2pm today.

This was to allow the state consider a sworn statement from the applicants in support of their claim which counsel said he had not seen and had only received shortly before the hearing was due to commence.

READ MORE
Nearly 600k people to receive Covid-19 unemployment payment today
Mr Waters and Ms O'Doherty said that they were anxious that the application be heard as soon as possible, and opposed the adjournment.

Mr Waters told the court it was not possible to have the statement done any earlier.

He said they had received a mountain of a paper in response to their action from the Department of Health on Sunday night, which they needed to consider.

Mr Justice Meenan said he was agreeing to the State's request and adjourned the matter to 2pm.

In their action, Ms O'Doherty and Mr Waters have challenged legislation including the 2020 Health Preservation and Protection and Other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, the 2020 Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act Covid-19 Act, The 1947 Health Act (Affected Areas) Order.

Their proceedings are also aimed at striking down temporary restriction regulations brought due to Covid-19 under the 1947 Health Act.

The High Court had previously directed that the application for permission to bring the challenge be heard in the presence of the respondents.


The State is opposing the application for leave, and says that the claims are not arguable.

The Dáil, the Seanad and the Ceann Comhairle, which have been added as notice parties to the action because part of the challenge concerns how the laws the enacted is also opposed to leave being granted.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2020, 04:44:11 pm by john m »

john m

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2020, 04:45:20 pm »
If Waters wins this case will the Covit cash stop ?

Offline Dr. Martin Gooter Bling

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4593
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2020, 04:46:20 pm »
is that the whiney voiced cunt from the video who said to the garda do you know who I am.
stupid cunt.

john m

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2020, 04:47:59 pm »
is that the whiney voiced cunt from the video who said to the garda do you know who I am.
stupid cunt.


Yes but she can whine all she likes .If the Judge says they have a case then the shit hits the fan .

Offline Theoneandonly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2020, 05:31:43 pm »
If Waters wins this case will the Covit cash stop ?
Payment will be long gone before there's a judgement

dalymount

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2020, 05:31:58 pm »
I don't think they have a hope of winning

john m

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2020, 06:11:27 pm »
Case being heard again tomorrow .

Offline silverbullet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26702
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • You don't want to do it like that
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2020, 06:46:32 pm »
Judgement to be reserved for...the greater good.

dalymount

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2020, 06:55:43 pm »
I wonder if these two wee to win their case, and total lifting of restrictions were in place, would they be prepared to take moral responsibility for the vunerable people who would loose their lives as a result of this new found freedom ?

john m

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2020, 06:56:04 pm »
When you look at Irelands past and our willingness to allow the State remove children from unmarried parents and sell them or get nuns to dispose of them .When the State jailed Gays Or Shot the Opposition in the Civil War and Now Ignores Shinn Fein Voters (Im not a Shinner )I FULLY SUPPORT this effort to get clarity unlike the USA where Judges are appointed for their judicial dependency to protect the Government I like to think Irish judges are more independent .The fact that this is back before the Judge tomorrow must mean there are grounds for at least a full hearing .

 What I found questionable was that the Minister for Health brought forward this Legislation not the Minister for Justice makes me wonder if Justice did not agree with the law changes and would not sponsor the Bill .

dalymount

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2020, 07:08:33 pm »
They seem to have a fair bit of support for the action, same in America mass protest everywhere to get the place opened up again

john m

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2020, 07:08:54 pm »
I wonder if these two wee to win their case, and total lifting of restrictions were in place, would they be prepared to take moral responsibility for the vunerable people who would loose their lives as a result of this new found freedom ?

Dalymount its about the Constitution and if it means anything .If the Constitution does not count then what does .The law of the Jungle ?GET A GUN .Dont know if you understand how it is supposed to work .The constitution is the main laws bit like the ten commandments .So the government decide to Kill all Junkies,Unmarried Mothers men over 70 .They bring in a Law its passed by the Dail .Then Big Dommo says FUCK THAT they cant do that .The Constitution says Thou Shalt Not Kill .So Dommo goes into the Four Goldmines and says to the Judge .Your Honour how do the Government intend to Kill all Junkies ,Unmarried Mothers Men over 70 when the Constitution says Though shall not kill ...........Judge says the Government passed a Law but Dommo says "Justice it is an unconstitutional law as it would require a Referendum to remove the right to life from the Constitution .Chances are Judge would agree and strike down the law as Unconstitutional .Then it would be up to the Government to put a referendum before the people to remove one article from the constitution and replace it with another .

dalymount

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2020, 07:14:03 pm »
So what your saying is big Dommo could conceivably get a temporary suspension , untill new legislation is passed ?

john m

  • Guest
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2020, 07:46:40 pm »
So what your saying is big Dommo could conceivably get a temporary suspension , untill new legislation is passed ?

YES .

Offline Rat Catcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26808
  • Karma: +34/-65535
  • Part Time Amateur Scum
Re: Waters and Docherty V The State
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2020, 09:36:37 pm »
I wonder if these two wee to win their case, and total lifting of restrictions were in place, would they be prepared to take moral responsibility for the vunerable people who would loose their lives as a result of this new found freedom ?

No. The restrictions will continue on an advisory basis... like cocooning. Leo cleverly slipped in that it isn't/wasn't illegal for a 70+ year old to go out or go into a supermarket when he was on the Late Late last week.
If it doesn't have a roof sign and door stickers it's not a taxi.

 


Show Unread Posts