Ausztrál ügyvédek nyílt levele a kormányhoz 6.11.2020



November 2020


TO: Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton, Prime Minister Scott Morrison,

Federal Chief Health Officer Paul Kelly

AND TO: others named in the schedule attached

AND COPIES TO: others named in the scheduled attached.


FROM: Concerned Lawyers Network                                     All “exhibits” referred to are found on:


 Re: Notice of Liability & Potential Claims


We, the undersigned on behalf of the Concerned Lawyers Network (on behalf of pending clients, victims and those with legal standing and this lawyer network) write this open letter to request a review and wind back of measures taken by Victorian and Australian governments which were based on the premise of a Covid19 pandemic existing and/or continuing, leading to declared states of emergency, states of disaster and other related legal measures.

We respectfully give you notice of potential liabilities, should there be continued reliance on this premise and subsequent overreach of powers, whilst there is overwhelming evidence against such a premise.




  1. Covid19 (if it can be isolated) may simply be another coronavirus such as the flu or common Patents for Covid19 medical testing kits however were manufactured and sold many years ago to many countries including Australia.


  1. The WHO has falsely declared a pandemic in relation to
  2. Covid19 death statistics in Australia as well as in other nations have been
  3. Covid19 tests are unreliable to test any specific
  4. There are global agendas behind the declaration of Covid19 pandemic, to benefit certain foreign individuals and companies financially and to gain control of populations including in


  1. There is no pandemic in Australia according to medical evidence-at most a seasonal flu type epidemic, nothing justifying declaring states of emergency or Covid19 has been found to be a type of flu (coronavirus) with an estimated 99.9% survival rate across all age groups with the highest risk groups of over 65 estimated at 99.6%.
  2. Confined steps can be taken to take care of elderly or immune compromised people more likely to suffer from Covid19 as has been the case in the past with influenza, without restricting the freedoms of masses of healthy
  3. There are serious conflicts of interest between some representatives of government, appointed health officials and taskforces, and pharmaceutical corporations and global interests that prioritise their own profits and control, instead of the health interests of
  4. Australians have been exploited through fear, misinformation and obstruction of freedoms as a result of the continuation of the false statement that there is a Covid19 pandemic and the insistence that they must obey disproportional laws, rules and directions that curtail them physically, mentally and financially causing them much harm including in some cases
  5. Key decision makers in Australian governments and the public service have enormous conflicts of interests relating to vaccine companies and other medical manufacturers and suppliers, influencing their They are also being influenced by global players and global policy instead of the Australian people who elected them. Covid19 has been used as a cover to bring about police states and financially benefit vaccine companies as well as those who with vested interests in vaccine companies and controlling populations.
  6. All ministers and other persons to whom this letter is addressed, are PUT ON NOTICE of Personal Civil And Criminal Liability potentially arising against them for any current or future intentional or reckless continuation of misrepresentation of information and misuse of power of office, causing direct loss and damage to
  7. All other office holders to which this letter is copied to, are also put on notice of the evidence and potential civil and criminal liability arising out of future claims that may also possibly affect them arising out of their decision making or carrying out of decisions of their superiors should such actions violate citizens’ human
  8. On behalf of our clients, victims and other interested Victorians and Australians, and the lawyers network, we request an immediate wind back of lockdowns and other disproportionate measures made, and a full open up of the economy and society to the way it was prior those measures being put in place and enforced (pre January 2020).
  9. In addition to potential claims based on future personal liability, we reserve our clients’ rights to take legal action against you with respect to past damage and losses incurred up to this point in
  10. We also request your response to specific questions in this letter addressed to



As experienced lawyers, we are evidence based.

From expert and other evidence that is publicly available in Australia and worldwide, there appears to be strong evidence that there can no longer be a reliance on the premise that the Covid19 pandemic exists. Further it appears evident that the state and federal governments have:

  1. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of sufficient relevant and independent evidence of a pandemic to justify the declarations of state of emergency and state of disaster; and
  2. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians, (or take into account in their decision making relevant and independent evidence), of Covid19 being confirmed as an isolated virus or how effective the testing for it actually is; and
  3. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, the evidence of effective treatment for Covid19 such as Invermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and any good reasons why such medications were banned all of a This is especially contradictory, since Hydroxychloroquine has been used for decades safely all around the world both as an oral vaccine and treatment to many diseases including Lupus and Malaria and doctors and evidence worldwide reveals reports of up to 100% cure rate for Covid19 when treated early; and
  4. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making relevant and independent evidence of the serious side effects of vaccines in general including death, and the need for years of successful research before releasing medications in general; and
  5. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, financial or vested interests (of ministers, health officials and public services and subordinate bodies appointed by them), in vaccine production, and the legal protection granted to the vaccine companies in the event of injury or death from citizens taking vaccines; and
  6. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians through health policy, on how we are best to increase our health and immune systems to resist infections; and
  7. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians that Covid19 deaths reported are inaccurate in numbers and specific not random, and include comorbidity Focus has been instead shifted to fear of the deadliness of the disease, and away from the facts that most mortality affected the elderly or immune compromised who are already susceptible due to preexisting conditions or comorbidity; and
  8. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, the available relevant and independent medicine and science about viruses, exomes and the body’s natural defence systems and instead relied on a select few researchers many of which themselves have vested financial or other interests in foreign, global and transnational companies which are of or related to foreign pharmaceutical and vaccine corporations; and
  9. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, the true nature of the covid19 tests being used, that they are not reliable, focusing instead on numbers of “positive cases” including false positives and undiagnosed positives when the tests are deemed by the governments own TGA standards not reliable and there has to date not been any credible isolation of Covid19 in any case; and
  10. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, the fact that the covid19 tests being used were manufactured and distributed to countries around the world (with Australian purchasing great quantities) since at least 2017 over 3 years before the surprise outbreak of Covid19 in late 2019,


and that patents specifically for the Covid19 test kits were already applied for in 2015 some 5 years ago which gives rise to suspicions of a planned pandemic; and

  1. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians about, or take into account in their decision making, the ramifications of providing financial incentive to clinicians and hospitals whenever they register a death under Covid19; and
  2. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians about, or take into account in their decision making, the ramifications of financial incentives  and loans  the Federal Government receives from the IMF and WHO and other foreign bodies or corporations, in exchange for following the directions on declaring a pandemic and how to manage it and what restrictions to place on business and freedom of movement from these global bodies.

Further, most of the mainstream media on television and print, appears to have been influenced by state and federal governments in so far as such media has avoided challenging the government narrative about Covid19, and has therefore also failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians who are entitled to see all relevant unbiased evidence without censorship. In addition, much of the main stream media has been disparaging of any person questioning the government narrative and science and legalities relied on, even when they are questioned by experienced doctors and lawyers. Many of us wonder if the government has itself withheld relevant information and facts from the media, or whether the media are in fact complicit with the government in recklessly or intentionally failing to report relevant facts to the public, in an unbiased true journalistic basis.



Regardless of whether one believes the Covid19 virus exists, does not exist, exists organically or exists man made/manufactured or otherwise, the questions to answer in light of available relevant and independent evidence are:

  1. What is a “pandemic” as opposed to an “epidemic”? Was there or is there still a “pandemic” in the true sense of the word?;
  2. Were the measures that were and some still are taken in response to the alleged pandemic by the Australian and state governments restricting its citizens – justified and proportionate and compatible with international law, human rights laws and the Australian Constitution?
  3. If there is no pandemic or the alleged pandemic has abated, or there was instead a seasonal epidemic or something less, can any of the measures taken by governments still be justified and if so up to what point in time?
  4. If there is no such justification and in light of available independent and relevant evidence, what are the legal liabilities and exposures of Australian decision makers in the chain of command? (taking into account, inter alia, the directly related losses and damages including inter alia suicides, increase in crime and domestic violence, mass mental health deterioration, curtailed freedoms to travel, unlawful arrests, unlawful detainment, unlawful testing, unlawful mass financial losses to businesses, employees, not for profit and other organisations and individuals, closed and bankrupted businesses, interference with landlord and tenant rights, interference with doctor and patient relationships, infringement on property use, mortgage foreclosures, failure to account for basis of decision making, misleading the people and a crashed economy).


These are not just scientific and medical questions, but questions of law.






According to the World Health Organisation (WHO):

“A pandemic is defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries  and usually affecting a large number  of people”. The classical definition includes nothing about population immunity, virology or disease severity.


By this definition, pandemics can be said to occur annually in each of the temperate southern and northern hemispheres, given that seasonal epidemics cross international boundaries and affect a large number of people. However, seasonal epidemics are not considered pandemics.” 088815/en/#:~:text=A%20pandemic%20is%20defined%20as,are%20not%20considered%20 pandemics.

The definition was changed by the WHO in 2020 and now appears to describe what is a regular seasonal epidemic of colds and flu. We do not believe this definition can legally or morally or ethically stand to influence health policy and modelling for nations around the world including Australia.


A case study of the 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic reveals a European Parliamentary Inquiry determined that WHO manipulated information to fraudulently declare a pandemic, activating lucrative ‘sleeping contracts’ with pharmaceutical companies. It is also revealed that the Australian Department of Health misrepresented statistical data to alarm the public about swine flu, although this was alarm was unjustified. The government ordered vaccines prepared before there was any evidence that swine flu was more serious than other strains of flu (in the end, it wasn’t.) see page 120 and 154-159 HARRISON REPORT

In the past the WHO has been found to have falsely declared a “pandemic” for example the Swine Flu. see EXHIBIT RESEARCH REPORTS PANDEMIC

Modelling has been based on the WHO’s shifting goal posts of what a “pandemic” really means.

The modelling used for international policy response is based on unpublished, unverified 13 year old code. (Some) Australian modellers have appear to have deep financial ties to pharmaceutical companies and conflicted global power structures such as the Gates Foundation and Gavi (Vaccine Alliance). EXHIBIT- “HARRISON RESEARCH REPORT” page 5




There have been predictive rehearsals of pandemics over the years including as late as 2019 during the 201 Event.  Investigative journalist Whitney Webb has exposed that a number of the entities involved in Covid-19 ‘pandemic simulations’ were also involved in the 2001 biowarfare simulation ‘Dark Winter’. Dark Winter eerily predicted many aspects of the anthrax attacks. People involved in the biowarfare simulation ‘scenario’ later demonstrated


they had clear foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks. There have been other rehearsals for such emergencies as well. ref page 42 EXHIBIT- HARRISON REPORT




The Covid-19 timeline starts at least as far back as the year 2000 if evidence alleging the virus was manufactured and weaponised is credible. Canadian current proceedings are relevant to Australia as they are based on similar potential claims of clients/victims and the claim sets out historical evidence. EXHIBIT- “CANADIAN COURT PROCEEDINGS” paragraphs 64 to 142 of the Canadian Proceedings VCC & Or & Rancourt vs Canadian Ministers & Or & Media, Ontario Superior Court of Justice [CV 20 00643451] (redacted)

Patents on Covid19

In some countries it would be possible to patent a man made “virus”. However, in other jurisdictions, such as the United  States,  products  of  nature  not  modified  by  humans are not eligible for patent protection. That is the case of a wild-type virus strain. Therefore, nowadays, it would not be possible for the United States to grant a patent for Wuhan coronavirus or for its isolated genes.

Prime Minister- if Covid19 is in fact man made, is this crime of creating and unleashing a bioweapon on Australians still being investigated? Are there any reports of Australians or Australian organisations being allegedly complicit? Has CSIRO Geelong been cleared after they denied links with Wuhan after it was alleged they manufactured the virus and later used the Wuhan lab to amplify and test more on the virus? releases/2020/Statement-Wuhan-Institute-for-Virology Have any investigations began or are they continuing in relation to the potential treason and sedition against Australians arising from this bioweapon if it is the case it was man made? If so, what are the findings?




  • Documents show the disease was named earlier than the Chinese discovery date in December 2019: for example this article from American Society for Microbiology which talks about the coronavirus SARS-CoV1, SARS-CoV2, and SARS-CoV3 (Published in 2008) 4 This WHO article talks about naming the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 as the COVID-19 2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the- virus-that-causes-it This indicates Covid19 (or at least the concept of it) has been around before 2008.
  • Belgium Health Experts now demand investigations into the role of WHO in an Open Letter the-role-of-who-in-an-open-letter/
  • Official patent registries in the Netherlands and US show that Rothschilds patented Covid19 Biometric Tests in 2015 proof-rothschilds-patented-covid-19-biometric-tests-in-2015-2017.html



Chinese papers that claim Covid19 (Sars Cov 2) is a new virus – did not pass Koch’s postulates. Dr Andrew Kauffman debunks all papers here:

Freedom of Information Requests around the world seeking documents of the isolation of Covid19 have been met with official responses to the negative.                             See FOI Formal Responses EXHIBITS/ TESTING                        (The Australian FOI request is p27-28 of the pdf “The [Australian Health] department does not hold the documents you are seeking access to.”) covid19-virus-isolation-purification-from-20-institutions-Oct-16-2020.pdf isolation/




Based on the Harrison Research Report which includes a number of medical and scientific reports about Covid19 as well as whistle blower reports  regarding compromised office holdings/conflicts of interest, there were and may still be significant problems with Australian modelling.  EXHIBIT- “HARRISON RESEARCH REPORT”




  • On 25 May 2020 the Harrison Research Report was sent to The Select Committee on Covid-19 and Harrison requested the submission be made refer to “Harrison emails exchanged” in EXHIBIT- RESEARCH REPORTS
  • Upon checking if the report had been uploaded as a formal accepted submission (checked in mid -September 2020), Harrison discovered that her report had NOT been submitted, nor uploaded, instead the Select Committee had uploaded published submissions from weapons manufacturers Northrop Grumman, and drug company Merck, both appearing to seek tax payer government funded refer to Grumman and Merck submissions in EXHIBITs- RESEARCH REPORTS Other submissions which are also published, are dated well after Harrison made her submission to the Committee on 25/05/2020.
  • Harrison has not been notified to date of the status of her submission. Was it perhaps because it contained detailed analysis of the conflicts of interest of the members of the Covid19 Select Commission Board? Was it because it contained criticism based on her research?
  • The Select Committee home page says this: “The committee may not accept or publish material that is not relevant to the inquiry’s terms of reference or which reflects adversely on ” This however refers to slanderous or defamatory material, not evidence based criticism. The APH Senate Committee guidelines say: “…it is for the committee to decide whether to receive it as evidence and whether to publish it. Unless there are strong reasons to withhold publication, [ie defamatory material] committees normally authorise the publication of submissions received. “



  • Of the most disturbing pieces of evidence is the fact that the Covid19 Tests were manufactured and sold around the world (including to Australia), more than 3 years before Covid19 was named as a Do any of you have an explanation for this?
  • Robert Rothschild applied for patents for Covid19 tests in 2015 and 2017 patented-covid-19-biometric-tests-in-2015-and-2017/
  • COVID-19 19 tests were manufactured and sold around the world from at least as far back as 2017 perhaps Australia was one of many nations that purchased the covid19 tests at that time. 902780# see EXHIBITS-TESTING
  • As we know from the media, the new “novel” coronavirus COVID-19 disease appeared discovered in China towards the end of It was named COVID-19 which is an acronym for Corona Virus Disease 2019. Data from the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS), however, shows that in 2017 and 2018 – hundreds of millions of test kits for COVID-19 were distributed worldwide. This baffling data was discovered online by someone on 5 September, 2020 from the list of tariffs on the WITS site, who then posted screen shots on social media. The next day it went viral all over the world. On 6 September the WITS suddenly changed the original designation ‘COVID-19’ on its website into the vague term ‘Medical Test Kits’. Using general terms to describe a commodity in the medical/pharmaceutical trade for international distribution is not normal industry practice. There are just too many types of medical test kits for different diseases so they must be specifically named and distinguished from each other.
  • The fact that WITS removed the specification ‘COVID-19’, after this data became known worldwide, raised suspicion The administrators of the WITS site however forgot to delete one detail: the product code for these ‘Medical Test Kits’ is 300215 (which means: ‘COVID-19 Test Kits’) The fact that WITS removed the specification ‘COVID-19’, after this data became known worldwide, indicates concealment. See screen shots in EXHIBITS – TESTING KITS



  • The Australian    Regulator   TGA   said    the    Covid19    tests    are   unreliable

Language has already been updated from that site as you can see from a historical search: testing-australia-information-health-professionals

·         Tests don’t distinguish from common colds

  • The CDC admits there is no proper isolation of the covid19 virus-

Dr Cowan comments: Shockingly, on page 39 of the CDC’s July 2020 bulletin, the CDC acknowledges no published “isolates” of the coronavirus are known. Equally shockingly, the authors of the six most important papers on the isolation and characterization of this new virus all publicly and in writing admit that they neither purified nor isolated this virus. At this point, there is simply no evidence this virus exists, let alone causes any disease. refer to CDC Report EXHIBITS–TESTING KITS In a paper published on the FDA’s website, independent journalist Jon Rappaport discovered that the CDC – at least in their summer of 2020 – had no virus isolates of the novel coronavirus “currently available” and reveals that all the assays


used to design diagnostic testing algorithms for COVID-19 were of other isolates meant to “mimic clinical specimen.”

·         There are Physical dangers of testing with Nasal Swabs- deaths or injury have been sustained

  • Victoria is the only state in Australia to have purchased tests from BGI, China without open tender and with fast tracked Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) is the Chinese company chosen to provide test kits to Victoria and the company also specialises in making test kits for DNA collection. No other state in Australia has obtained their kits from this company but instead rejected them. The United States have also rejected these kits. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has written reports stating that BGI is a National Security Threat. BGI has also been accused of being an arm of the CCP and building a Genetic database of Western Populations as well as non-Han ethnic Populations. BGI test kits were banned from California by the CIA as they were deemed to be a security threat. Ref: EXHIBITS TESTING /SUMMARY



Australian governments rely on The Doherty Institute and researches there who have fast tracked test kit approvals without any gold standard: ref page 37 HARRISON REPORT

The Doherty Institute has been an instrumental influence in developing the Australian government’s policy response to the novel coronavirus outbreak. Covid-19 modellers from the Doherty Institute have interpreted international data to provide projections which inform the government’s actions. A significant number of the Doherty Institute’s Global Projects and researchers collaborate with and receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its close partner, the Wellcome Trust. ref page 73 & 89 HARRISON REPORT




  • In the UK laws have already been passed allowing the retention of a person’s DNA after they submit to a Covid19 test. Premier and Prime Minister is this taking place in Australia now or are there plans for a similar law to be introduced here? If so, for what purpose? Is consent being obtained for DNA harvesting? Who is managing the DNA database? Is it Chinese?
  • The Gates Foundation is heavily involved in gene editing technology. The Foundation has previously used genetic material taken from the databases of a commercial company 23andme (Google funded company which uses a saliva swab to determine a client’s ancestry), to perform “deep gene sequencing and sophisticated bioinformatic analysis”. Eventually the Foundation wants to deliver gene-editing components via injection into In 2018, Gates-founded Microsoft announced they would be joining the ID2020 alliance, “a global Alliance whose goal is to create universal digital identities for everyone.”
  • The World Bank has pushed for universal digital identity for several years, stating this is in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (of which Australia is a signatory to.)
  • Microsoft announced that, as a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance, its developers would be working to create a blockchain based identity system, as a “shared database that is concisely reconciled”, that “would allow interoperability of people, apps, products and services across cloud providers, other blockchains and ” ref page 209 HARRISON REPORT



  • There are significant financial incentives to stake holders and health care providers for carrying out testing, and care for Covid19 patients and attributing deaths to Covid19
  • In addition, further financial incentives were announced in the Australian Federal Budget See EXHIBITS CONFLICT OF INTEREST – SUMMARY FINANCIAL INCENTIVES



Huge foreign loans are given to sovereign nations by the World Bank, IMF and the likes. But the conditions that come attached to these loans are seldom told by governments to their citizens. A recent case in Belarus has exposed the conditions laid by these agencies for loans being provided for COVID-19.

The President of Belarus has exposed that the World Bank coronavirus aid comes with conditions for imposing extreme lockdown measures, to model their coronavirus response on that previously of Italy and even changes in the economic policies which he refused as being “unacceptable”.

Conditions of funding according to the President of Belarus were:

  • His country had to impose extreme lockdown on the people;
  • His country had to force the people to wear masks;
  • His country had to impose very strict curfews;
  • His country had to impose a police state; and
  • His country had to crash the imf-offered-a-billion-usd-bribe-to-impose-covid-19-lockdown

Prime Minister and Premier- is Victoria or Australia getting similar financial incentives from the World Bank or IMF for following their policies on Covid19 or any other global policy? If so what are the details?




  • The Australian and in particular Victorian Death Toll from Covid19 has been Deceased with comorbidities are counted as Covid19 deaths even if the comorbidity was the cause of death ref: EXHIBIT SUMMARY -DEATHS AND CASES
  • Total worldwide deaths on average and for all countries have not increased since the declaration of covid19 “According to the mortality graphs, for Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic Korea, Slovakia, and Slovenia COVID-19 pandemic is definitely not a “once in 100 years event” but more like a seasonal flu event.”- EXHIBIT-DEATHS AND CASES – DATA SCIENTIST REPORT AND CHARTS
  • The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not require 100% proof or testing of covid19 deaths declared- it is enough that they are “assumed”.


  • The Australian Medical Association does not require 100% proof or testing of Covid19 deaths See EXHIBITS-DEATHS AND CASES
  • No known autopsies of so called Covid19 deaths have been revealed publicly as of this date in Autopsies carried out in Italy concluded blood coagulation and other reasons for death, not a virus, and then doctors modified their medical treatment protocols.
  • The Australian Government’s own report shows that 91% of deaths had comorbidity so only 9% at most were caused solely by EXHIBIT-DEATHS AND CASES – COVID 19 EPIDEMIOLOGY REPORT NO.22- see page 14
  • The CDC estimated that only 6% of all numbers attributable to death of COVID-19 19 actually died from that as the sole This is remarkably inconsistent with current policies in Victoria and Australia.
  • Florida is investigating all COVID-19 deaths as are other states and countries but not yet Florida investigation concluded that the data for Covid19 deaths lacked integrity. cases-wednesday-october-21-20201021-r52k7q2th5dnvf3ywfeljroaby-story.html
  • And a recent CDC Study Admits COVID “Virus” Infects Only Poisoned Monkey Cells, Not Humans! only-poisoned-monkey-cells-not-humans/





The Victorian and Australian governments, heads of health and associated individuals and ministers responsible for delivering good health policy to Australians, appear to have ignored tens of thousands of independent medical and science expert opinions and peer reviewed studies when making or changing health policy  in relation to Covid19 and the alleged pandemic. see EXHIBIT MEDICAL EXPERTS SUMMARY- LIST OF AUSTRALIAN AND INTERNATIONATIONAL MEDICAL AUTHORITIES DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS LETTERS AND REPORTS



  • The Victorian Chief Health Officer as far back as in 2001 stated that masks were not even of proven benefit during surgery. Many medical professionals have spoken out about the dangers of Even the WHO has stated that masks provide no known benefits, only refer to the “psychological” benefit for people that want to “do the right thing”. There is ample evidence to show that masks have no justification, regardless of whether there is a true pandemic and there is further evidence to show that continued wearing of masks pose health risks and can even lead to permanent health problems. See EXHIBIT- MASKS SUMMARY
  • Dr Griesz-Brisson states that brain damage from masks cannot be reversed: ref EXHIBITS MEDICAL EXPERTS
  • A new CDC study finds that the majority of those infected with COVID-19 ‘Always’ Wore Masks” – California Globe finds-majority-of-those-infected-with-covid-19-always-wore-masks/



  • The Melbourne night -time curfew (which has since been lifted) COULD NOT be justified by any credible medical or legal advice and should not be put into place The Loielo case in the Victorian Supreme Court challenged Melbourne’s now defunct curfew. Documents filed in the course of the trial revealed DHHS legal advice warned that there was the risk the curfew would breach human rights. (ref ref Shannon Deery, Herald Sun).
  • Regardless o this lower court decision on the matter, it was publicly acknowledged by Premier Andrews that he made the call to introduce the curfew merely to assist policing It was not based on independent relevant health advice.
  • One wonders if the same situation arises with travel restrictions and other



  • Like the curfew imposed, and the 5km from home restriction imposed, the current 25km travel from home restriction in Melbourne has no justification. It cannot be justified by any credible medical or legal advice.
  • People must be able to move freely and choose a place of residence within a country (and in and out of a country) without restrictions, including establishing a purpose or reason for doing Governments have a duty to ensure that a person’s freedom of movement is not unduly restricted by others, including private persons or companies. The right applies to all persons lawfully within Australian territory, not only to Australian citizens. freedoms/freedom-movement

·         The original Australian Constitution specifically disallows for prohibition on freedom to travel and trade between states.

  • The local, and regional and interstate travel restrictions are clearly disproportionate even if a pandemic The Australian government has not provided evidence to show that societal lockdown is proportionate to the risks of society continuing to function, with more nuanced management strategies. It has offered vague promises of ‘winning the battle” and implied threats of an apocalyptic public health meltdown if perpetual lockdown is not adhered to. This statements are supported by the advice of modellers who appear to have serious financial conflicts of interest, and who have not published the full extent of their taxpayer-funded work, to allow for external scrutiny. I believe the Australian government’s premise of the ‘fighting the Covid-19 outbreak’ may be an unjustified suspension of civil rights. It is my opinion that the Australian government’s policy response blatantly disregards the international Siracusa Principles, which indicates their policies may be in violation of international law.”  EXHIBIT-HARRISON RESEARCH REPORT PAGE 225



  • The Victorian Charter of Human Rights allows for protests as does the framework of human rights laws in general, even though it may allow for limiting such rights if the limitations are necessary, justified and proportionate (sec 7(2) of the Charter).
  • Statements of Compatibility have been made by the Victorian Attorney General in order to allow passing of Victorian Legislation, stating that there is compatibility with the Victorian Charter as well as the Australian However limiting rights of travel and freedom of political expression (including protests) and rights to assemble, and restricting the movement of healthy people are neither necessary, justified or proportionate.


  • The Bill of Rights 1688 was adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia, The Constitution and the framework of domestic and international law on human rights upholds a person’s right to assemble and politically
  • It is well established in Australia that there is implied in the Commonwealth Constitution -a freedom of communication about governmental and political matters: Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR The freedom is a “limitation upon the power of government to regulate communication relating to matters of government and politics”: Clubb v Edwards (2019) 366 ALR 1 at [8] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ).
  • The High Court cases over the decades such as Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, the have held that Australians had the freedom of political communication, and that freedom of association is a necessary incident of the freedom of communication, given that the ability to communicate is contingent upon people being able to gather together: Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission. The High Court has expressly noted that implied freedoms can be limited, but only if restrictions are “reasonably appropriate and adapted” to serve a legitimate objective in a manner consistent with representative and responsible
  • It does not accord with arresting protestors or directly or indirectly banning protests in Victoria and is not proportionate.



  • Increased suicides and self -harm have plagued the Victorian as well as other Australian Victoria is under the most harshest of lockdowns in the world.
  • Doctors and nurses are reporting off the record that they are dealing with wards of people who have attempted suicide, self- harmed or have acute mental Witnesses have seen not much evidence of Covid19 cases in hospitals but plenty of evidence of attempted suicide cases. “What I say was two wards of young people mainly young women, who had tried to commit suicide because their livelihood have been taken away from them. All new business owners who lost all hope. They were the overflow into the private hospital from The Alfred (Hospital) where cases are so bad, they have taken over other floors there and still can’t cope with arrivals” – M. Walsh, Portsea
  • Victorian Premier admitted himself of the increase of young people presenting to hospital for self- However The Victorian Premier literally and physically turned his back during parliament questioning during September 2020, when he was told about the 2 parents who suicided after they left their children with the children’s grandparents.
  • Crimes which have also increased in Victoria since the lockdowns took place are:
    • drug use and possession
    • breaches of intervention order
    • public health and safety offences see EXHIBITs ”SUICIDES & CRIME”
  • As of 7 October 2020 the known cases of suicide since Melbourne lockdowns took place -are 530 people (391 were men and 139 women)
  • The government records of covid19 deaths in Victoria up to same date is 800 but taking into account 80% of those were elderly in aged care with percentage of those who died WITH covid19 and not OF Covid19 (not even taking into account the fact that the tests are unreliable), it is clear that the numbers of deaths that may be attributed solely to Covid19 are significantly less than suicides during the same


  • There have been likely more deaths arising out of the lockdowns with cancer and other patients with a high fatality rate condition, unable to obtain The lockdowns have prevented urgent medical treatment that could have saved lives.
  • In October 2020 four newborns in Adelaide died after being denied lifesaving heart surgery because it wasn’t available in Adelaide and they couldn’t be transferred to other states because of travel restrictions (ref Chanel 9 News).



  • This study published 30th of September 2020 with lead author Professor Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, concluded:‘’The randomized clinical trials performed to date demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine use in outpatients, safely reduces the incidence of the composite of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death.”
  • Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so if used early, for Covid-19: A systematic review concluded it is consistently effective against Covid19 when used early in outpatient setting and that it is safe; These are very recent studies but there are many more: see EXHIBIT MEDICAL EXPERTS – SUMMARY HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE
  • Minister for Health Victoria Martin Foley WHY have you banned this life saving drug for during 2020 and up to 22 January 2021?
  • Medical debate has been stifled and censured if it does not align with the government narrative and government cherry picked medical “experts”. Parliamentarians such as MP Craig Kelly are being ignored in Parliament (29.10.20) when seeking to table Journals including several peer-reviewed medical papers of medicine from around the world supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine. Silencing debate is not
  • It is further an infringement on the doctor/patient relationship and the doctor’s ability to prescribe life- saving drugs to This is in contradiction to the doctor’s oath duty to patient, and the Helskinki Declaration. declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human- subjects/



There is extensive evidence that lockdowns do not work and/or that they can be worse than a pandemic: declaration-strongly-opposing-covid-lockdowns/

The Australian government has not provided hard evidence that lockdown is necessary or that it is effective. It has not shown that lockdown is proportionate to the risks of society continuing to function, with more nuanced management strategies. It has offered vague promises of ‘winning the battle” and threats of an apocalyptic meltdown if perpetual lockdown is not adhered to. These statements are supported by the advice of modellers who appear to have serious financial conflicts of interest, and who have not published the full extent of their taxpayer-funded work. The information in this letter is intended to facilitate discussion and a more rigorous examination and challenge of the government’s Covid-19 mitigation policies.



Further they have been held by superior courts to be unlawful:

·         Michigan, USA state-of-emergency-michigan-supreme-court-rules.html


·         Pennsylvania, USA and-business-closure-orders-violate-us


·         New Zealand: unlawful-court-finds-20200819-p55nap.html


·         Spain: cases-infections-lockdown-court-freedom-europe-spain-b887530.html


  • The WHO itself has urged world leaders to stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method leaders-to-stop-using-lockdowns-as-primary-virus-control-method


·         “Disease Mitigation in the Control of Pandemic Influenza.”  Paper against lockdowns diseasemitigationcontrolpandemicflu.html


  • Health Sector advice was ignored (the Victorian Pandemic Plan from March 2020 did not recommend lockdowns). It was shelved and abandoned by Victorian pandemic-plan-for-vic




  • Governments have not taken into account the expert evidence in relation to the effects of The economic effects and consequences of indirect deaths can be worse than what they are designed to protect against. See EXHIBIT RESEARCH REPORTS: & SUMMARY OF EFFECT OF LOCKDOWNS Foster and Sabhlok
  • Economic Advice appears to have been ignored: Open letter to the Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance, Victoria | Catallaxy Files of-treasury-and-finance-victoria/




In March 2020, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the creation of the ‘National Covid- 19 Coordination Commission (NCCC). Members of the NCCC do not appear to represent the interests of small business or ‘everyday Australians’. Instead, they hold senior board positions of companies in mining, oil and gas, airlines, private hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, casinos and superannuation giants. One member is a


billionaire. Another was recently accused for being ‘an international tax dodger’ by a Senator. Another chairs an international organisation at the forefront of brokering private-public partnerships and garnering billions in taxpayer dollars to fund Covid-19 vaccine development.

The Morrison Government’s choice of NCCC board members, and the glaring omission of any member who could be said to represent small business or employee unions, is a farcical premise of ‘mitigating the economic and social effects’ of Covid-10.

I believe to be the true function of the NCCC Executive Board is apparent – to facilitate the taxpayer-funded bailout of the industries they represent, and to broker the transfer of vast swathes of public money to private coffers. ref pages 75-76 HARRISON REPORT



The Conflicts of Interest include:

  • Jane Halton’s involvement with CEPI and other entities: Jane Halton participated as a key panel member in the controversial and disturbing ‘invite only’ high level simulation pandemic exercise Event Today, Jane Halton serves on the Executive Board of the Australian Government’s National COVID-19 Coordination Commission (NCCC). ref pages 42-62 HARRISON REPORT
  • Jane Halton represented Australia at EVENT 201 on 18 October 2019 in NYC, which held a pandemic simulation She was chair of the board at the W.H.O. and worked for the BILL and MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION, she is Australia’s Covid- 19 Coordinator and she is the person that both our Federal and State governments answer to.
  • Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, Brett Sutton is the brother of Trevor Trevor Sutton is one of three deputy Australian statisticians at the Bureau of Statistics and leads the Statistical Business Transformation Group, tasked with running a $256 million investment program that will “transform the way the ABS collects, processes, analyses and disseminates information and related statistics. Trevor Sutton is the husband of Jane Halton.

·         The ABS does not report on Covid19 deaths save for “estimates” (see DEATHS)

  • The Rockefeller Foundation influence on Australian policy makers: it has published their recommended policy response to Covid-19. Their answer to ‘restart the economy’ is mass genetic testing, bio-surveillance and the launch of a ‘Covid-19 Community Health Care Corps’ – a disturbingly militarised mass-testing and surveillance This includes using medical health records, digital tracking of workforces and resting heart rate and temperature trends, in a ‘privacy-centric’ [not private] program. ref pages 69 & 212 HARRISON REPORT
  • Conflict of interest of members of the Federal Covid Commission members and task forces relate to CEPI, Cochrane, Who, and Jane Halton- see pages 78-84 HARRISON REPORT
  • Greg Hunt- Doherty – Jack Ma/Alibaba Group -financial relationships and conflict of interest and big pharmaceutical companies- and using Australian blood Why is Minister Hunt using his political platform to cajole Australians into handing over their blood for the apparent purpose of contributing to a ‘global leading’ pharmaceutical product? see pages 88-89 and 111-117 HARRISON REPORT
  • Doherty -Glaxo -Apprise- AAHMS There are conflicts of interest as the chief Investigator of Apprise has served on advisory boards to a number of pharmaceutical/vaccine companies see pages 90-100 HARRISON REPORT

·         Conflicts of interest- Dr Frazer inventor of HPV Vaccine, Greg Hunt and WHO.

Despite harm caused by the HPV vaccine it is still praised by WHO, UQ and Professor


Frazer and remains on the Australian Government’s immunisations schedule and advocated for by Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt. Professor Frazer remains Chair of the government’s Australian Medical Research Advisory Board, which advises the government on where to commit public funding for medical research. see 105-106 HARRISON REPORT

  • Deep financial ties- Doherty Institute and Gates In April 2020, Prime Minister Scott Morrison “reiterated that life as we know it will not return for months as global leaders race to find a coronavirus vaccine… that while many states have managed to “push the curve down”, ultimately, “there needs to be a vaccine”…“A vaccine ultimately enables everybody to go back to life as it was.. Both Professor McVernon and her employer, the Doherty Institute, appear to have deep financial ties to pharmaceutical and vaccine companies, and pro-vaccine organisations such as the Gates Foundation and CEPI. The Doherty Institute has received millions of dollars in federal and industry funding to develop a Covid-19 vaccine. See pages 130-132 HARRISON REPORT
  • Australia’s reliance on WHO for health policy –but WHO receives large financial voluntary contributions from vaccine and pharmaceutical companies In its most recent 2017 voluntary contribution report the WHO accounted for the $2.1 billion it received from private foundations and global This compared to just over

$1 billion voluntarily provided by governments. see pages 180-182 HARRISON REPORT

  • Large pharmaceutical companies are policing approval of their own its-own-vaccines/
  • It is reported overseas that large pharmaceutical companies influence and control which doctors are on safety boards: pharma-control-approval-covid19-vaccines.html
  • Conflict of Interest Dan Andrews, Brett Sutton, Trevor Sutton, Jane Halton, Unified Security           and            SSG            and           Pinskier           family

·         Additional Conflicts of Interest- refer to EXHIBIT Summary Conflicts of Interests



Brett Sutton is employed by the Burnet Institute, is a consultant to government who pays the Burnet Institute for his services. The Burnet Institute through its subsidiary 360 Biolabs is actually financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Its patron is the Victorian Attorney General, Jill Hennessy. This is all documented on the Burnet Institute and Government websites.


  • The Victorian State Government has previously funded “money for a waste water treatment plant at Port Fairy to enable the expansion of Glaxosmithkline (GSK). In 2012, the Victorian Government announced GSK would inject $60 million and 58 jobs at the Glaxosmithkline Boronia A media release said “the Victorian coalition government was supporting GSK to expand its manufacturing and new drug development activities in Victoria.”

·         During 2013-14 Budget estimates, the Minister for Technology Gordon Rich- Phillips declined to indicate “what level of support, the government had for that facility.”

  • The Deputy Chair Martin Pakula: ”You would be aware of course that this week GSK announced the offshoring of 120 .”


  • Minister Rich-Phillips: “The government is disappointed, frankly, with the announcement by GSK this week around the closure of that particular line and the loss of those manufacturing jobs in ”
  • Regardless of this, in 2015 GSK received an additional $1 million federal government grant for the Boronia

·         In 2016, the Andrews Government announced it would invest $4 million into the Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre (MMIC), in a partnership between the Victorian Government, Monash University and Glaxosmithkline.

  • In 2017, The Andrews Government has also funded a $10 million funding partnership with BioCurate – a collaboration between the University of Melbourne and Monash GSK is also developing drugs based on research licensed from the University of Melbourne. The University of Melbourne is partnered with the Doherty Institute.

·         In Parliament during the 2017 announcement, the Andrews Government also said it supported a number of other initiatives including “Luring global firms to conduct world-first clinical trials to test new products in Victoria”, although it did not specify how much funding was committed to this or exactly what this entailed.

  • The Victorian Government’s Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre (MMIC) is a formal partnership with Monash University and Glaxosmithkline is collaborating with the University of Queensland, the Doherty Institute and Gates- backed CEPI to fast-track a Covid-19 vaccine. (See Harrison Report page 104-“CEPI, Gates Foundation & University of Queensland”) See pages 193-195 HARRISON REPORT
  • The Victorian Government appears to have a financial conflict of interest in ensuring that Victorians stay under lockdown until a Covid-19 vaccine is created (apparently to be mandatory).



Murdoch and Big Pharma

In addition to ‘health scare’ and ‘pro-vaccine’ articles, the ‘No Jab No Pay’ Bill received wide and favourable coverage in the Murdoch press. The Murdoch media’s potential conflicts of interest are not disclosed- Murdoch media’s corporate partnership and association with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, which conducts research on Australian children in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies.

It now appears that the Murdoch media are rolling out a similar campaign for Covid-19.

Arguably obsessive coverage of Covid-19 has dominated all mainstream media outlets, including Murdoch media.  Vaccines for Covid-19 are being developed by  a number of pharmaceutical companies, including those associated with Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. See pages 151-155 HARRISON REPORT


Victorian main- stream media

  • It appears there is some mainstream media complicity with aiding the dissemination of false representations made by ministers and public officials, without independent impartial journalistic


  • Mainstream media although critical of some government departments and ministers, has failed to bring to the public the evidence that contradicts the misrepresentation of a pandemic existing or continuing or of any evidence challenging the government core narrative about Covid19.
  • Journalists are supposed to adhere to a strict code of ethics, which maintains that honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others are the core commitments of journalism.
  • Bill Gates has also already steered at least $250 million to mainstream media to control the narrative about Covid19 which arguably has conflicted media-to-control-the-narrative/




  • As advised in the recommendations of Event 201, social media and big tech giants are playing a role in managing Covid-19 ‘misinformation’, acting as unelected ‘narrative editors’ for billions of

·         Event 201 recommended: “Governments need to work with social media and the private sector to counteract misinformation during the next pandemic to “flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information…. media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.” (Emphasis added)

  • Facebook is now using ‘fact-checking organisations’ to rate Covid-19 content. If content is deemed ‘false’, Facebook reduces its distribution and shows warning Facebook said 95% of the time, their warning labels stopped users going on to view the content. “We’re going to start showing messages in News Feed to people who have liked, reacted or commented on harmful misinformation about COVID-19 that we have since removed. These messages will connect people to COVID-19 myths debunked by the WHO…”
  • YouTube has now introduced ‘De Monetisation’ penalties for videos that the platform determines contain ‘medical misinformation’ about covid-19. “Medical Misinformation: Content that misinforms users about health matters related to COVID-
  1. This includes content that encourages non-medical tests or exams for COVID-19, or false/unsubstantiated claims about the cause, promotion of dangerous remedies or cures, origin or spread of COVID-19 that contradict scientific consensus. See pages 205-206 HARRISON REPORT



  • On 18 March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia, the Governor- General declared that a human biosecurity emergency The declaration gives the Minister for Health expansive powers to issue directions and set requirements in order to combat the outbreak. This is the first time these powers under the Biosecurity Act have been used. On 3 March 2020, Law Council of Australia President, Pauline


Wright, cautioned the government on the Biosecurity Act 2015, prior to the Governor- General’s declaration of a human biosecurity emergency.

  • Ms Wright said “…powers under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) are extraordinary and must be approached with the utmost caution and should only be used as a last The exceptional powers under the Act do not have the types of safeguards and independent oversight protections afforded to our law enforcement and security agencies’ exercise of coercive powers. The determination of a particular disease as a Listed Human Disease (LHD) can have  significant  repercussions  under the Bill, particularly in relation to control orders.”

·         Despite section 60 of the Biosecurity Act (Cth) referring to individual control orders in relation to individual people with illnesses, there has been unfettered use of power against masses of healthy people.



The first cohorts of Australian citizens coming from overseas were forced into quarantine without any testing. It has been reported that they were put in solitary confinement with police and army  continuously violating their privacy  and ignoring personal requests to be left alone. The behaviour was threatening and intimidating and in violation of the human rights that Australian citizens who are not accused of a crime NOR are sick have as a matter of right. The government does NOT give human beings free will and liberty. They are also not entitled to take it away.

It is reported that further cohorts are being forcibly temperature checked every day (against their wishes) as well as being forced to have multiple nasal swab tests. This is a grievous breach of body sovereignty and the threats being used by the health officials and the police in order to force compliance are unacceptable. People have the right to refuse medical treatment if they so wish. Threats of jail time and fines for simply requesting that their person not be continuously violated simply because they have been forced into quarantine (which is unlawful) is unacceptable behaviour from any person paid out of the public purse and is beneath the expectations set for Australian society.




  • Most if not all of the Covid19 related Directions of the Victorian Chief Health/Medical officer (CHO) are ultra vires (outside the power given to him).

·         Sect 190 of the Public Health and Wellbeing 2008 gives the CHO powers but they are not to be arbitrary- decisions must be supported by evidence that is relevant and reliable. Citizens must be informed and the measures must be proportionate not arbitrary and any infectious disease prevention is to be with minimum restrictions on rights (sec 190, 5, 8, 9, 11)

  • The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Commonwealth) has been wrongly interpreted at
  • Section 8 of the Bio Security Act 2015 (Commonwealth) clearly states that every state law enforced must not be inconsistent and must abide by this Under the act there is no provision for locking up healthy people or directing them to do things that infringe upon their liberties including forced masking or testing or answering questions from police. The Act makes it clear that an individual would first need to be served with a bio security control order given by the Federal Health Minister, and only if the individual is exposed to a health risk to the disease or if you have signs and symptoms to that disease. We are healthy until proven sick. A zero case elimination strategy was never the intention of passing the Bio Security Act.



  • Based on the evidence, there is no justification for the Premier of Victoria to declare a state of emergency or disaster in relation to
  • The CHO of Victoria has not complied with section 199 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 regardless of the state of emergency, because he cannot justify that all his specific directives are necessary to eliminate a public health risk, and he has overreached in authorising officers to exercise emergency powers in this

·         Even if such declarations were valid, The Public Health and Wellbeing Act Division 1 Section 111 states the spread of an infectious disease should be prevented or minimised with MINIMUM RESTRICTIONS on the RIGHTS of any person.

  • Anything more would give the Chief Health Officer arbitrary power to decide what’s minimum to get his job done as he sees fit, and with no consultation with or consent of the person, whose rights are being





Despite Prime Minister Morrison’s Covid19 vaccine announcements for Australians, insufficient disclosure about the dangers of vaccines has been made to Australian public. For example: Astra Zeneca, a vaccine company that the Prime Minister of Australia has stated will be engaged in making vaccines for Australia, has a history of violations, fines and unsafe practices. This includes millions of dollars in penalties for unapproved promotion of medical products. Only six companies (out of 65 parent pharmaceutical companies found in the Violation Tracker database) were penalised with higher amounts than AstraZeneca.

Other penalties fined to Astra Zeneca include for kickbacks and bribes, consumer protection violations and false claims and related offences. refer to EXHIBIT- RESEARCH REPORTS/ ASTRA ZENECA RESEARCH REPORT




The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It is dated 13 July, 2020 and on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” it states: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”


VIRUS.   So, what can Covid19 testing and Covid19 vaccines be based on?



On the 13th of October 2015, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights scrutinised the legislation and reported that it had identified significant human rights incompatibilities in the No Jab No Pay Bill. The Committee requested a response from the Minister of Social Services, (now Prime Minister) Scott Morrison. Scott Morrison did not respond. Without addressing the Committee on Human Rights’ concerns, on the 23rd of November 2015, the No Jab, No Pay Bill passed both Houses. See EXHIBIT RESEARCH REPORT- HARRISON REPORT  This lack of due process is irregular and arguably the no jab no pay law is invalid.




In a research paper Wilyman (2015) says, “The Australian  government’s  NIP [National Immunisation Program], like all member countries of the World Health Organisation (WHO), is recommended by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). This is a partnership with the WHO and UNICEF that includes the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations Development Fund (UNDF) and other private research institutions.

Agenda 21/30

On 25 September 2015 the Hon Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, joined 193 Leaders and Ministers from across the globe at the United Nations in New York, to welcome and endorse the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda). Australia actively participated in international discussions to design the 2030 Agenda and supported the involvement of all development actors, including civil society organisations, the private sector, philanthropic organisations and academia.

Police force being used against citizens to further global agendas, contrary to human rights

The letter to Michael Fuller Police Commissioner of New South Wales from Senior Constable Cooney dated 26 October 2020 sets out serious concerns about the police force being expected to enforce oppressive rules in the name of Covid19. “ We feel a real calling to do our part to stop this oppression, so we are writing to you to raise the following issues:-

  • Police Force employees have ‘choice’ as to whether or not to receive vaccines;
  • The Police believe that all members of the community also have choice around receiving vaccines;
  • Police do not participate in any way in the forcing of vaccines upon the population;
  • That the Police Association start preparing to defend Police employees who choose to not be vaccinated
  • To raise the alarm that there is a global dictatorship occurring and the Police Force is being used as a tool to push these global and corporate agendas upon the population; and
  • To warn the Police Force not to simply acquiesce to these requests, rules and laws and to act in the best interest of its population, not tyranny of “




“When governments apply compulsory health measures the IHR’s do not require due process protections Global health strategies have resulted in a decline in the authority of governments over the control of population health even though governments formally have the right to decide health policies for their own regions and populations. This is a fundamental principle of the international community and transgressing this principle results in a loss of authority over human rights for individuals. Australia is legally bound by the WHO’s International Health Regulations and to follow WHO’s health directives, including the management of the Covid-19 outbreak. But who is really dictating the direction of the WHO’s policies? About 80% of the WHO’s finances come from voluntary contributions.” See pages 107, 118 and 225-226 HARRISON REPORT




Provisions of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been overridden by ministerial and bureaucratic overreach and policing in Australia, particularly in Melbourne, Victoria, namely:

Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13 Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.




International human rights law (IHRL) APPLIES IN BOTH TIMES OF WAR AND PEACE, and to all human beings. The universality of human rights is highlighted in the UN Charter, which commits member states to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, colour, sex, language or religion. The UN Charter is a binding international treaty. No one can take away a person’s human rights.  Australia is bound by this.

A person’s human rights can be violated — and often, they are — but this doesn’t mean that they are taken away from the person concerned. Human rights are interdependent and equally important. This means that the realization of one human right is linked to the realization of the others. For example, in order to be able to express a genuine political opinion


through a vote, citizens must have access to adequate and relevant information. Over time, human rights have come to be protected by domestic laws, national constitutions, and international law. Because human rights are established in international law, they are legal and internationally guaranteed. – ref: AdreaTejada, Humanitarian and former Ambassador, International Human Rights Advisory Council.




  • The Omnibus Act in Victoria that amended the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and other acts which further infringe on human rights and are INCOMPATIBLE with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and the Australian
  • Any further proposed laws to mandate vaccination (either directly or indirectly by withholding a citizen’s right to travel and receive tax paid government benefits etc) also infringes on human rights and would be also INCOMPATIBLE with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and the Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution 51(xxiiiA) FORBIDS Commonwealth provision of medical and dental services to require anybody to accept those services (medical conscription).
  • A signed compatibility statement stating that such legislation/ amendments are compatible with the Constitution, in order to get the legislation passed, DOES NOT mean that they are in fact compatible or You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Such legislation is open for judicial review for validity. You are testing the Australian people if they are forced each time to bring such matters the courts to address legislation passed which is not in fact lawful or valid.



Legal correspondence about human rights and other legal violations, from lawyers and legal agencies has been ignored by the Victorian government. – refer to EXHIBITS LEGAL EXPERTS




  • Acts of intimidating Victorian citizens, manipulating parliament sittings and due process, passing laws that are clearly not in line with the Constitution or the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and/or disproportionate and knowing same in light of medical legal and other expert research available ARE
  • There is a difference between legislation passed to make something “legal”, and what is actually in law “lawful”.
  • Simply writing out a “compatibility statement” stating that a new law is compatible with human rights charters and the Constitution glossing over the reality does not
  • Statements of compatibility need to be questioned -who exactly gave legal advice before they were signed off and what was the legal advice about compatibility? Attorney General Jill Hennessy please respond in this regard concerning the 2020 amendments made to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act and other amendments introduced to public health via the Omnibus


Covid19 cannot be used as an excuse to wipe out human rights.


“A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all”

~Justice John Latham, High Court of Australia HCA 1942 (65 CLR373 at 408)



  • Whilst it may be claimed as a defence that the state of scientific knowledge at the time lockdowns and other restrictions were imposed and implemented, based on the knowledge that supported those decisions, that can no longer be the
  • Further it is not for the public to have to prove certain medical directives imposed are dangerous or The onus should be on who is imposing such directives for testing, isolation, vaccination etc. to prove safety and benefit. There is insufficient evidence of safety or benefit of these directives and proposed directives.



Forced testing of, and quarantining healthy people and forced expenditure for same as a condition of travel, imposed lockdowns, forced masking, imposed contact tracing, curfew or travel restrictions, restrictions over protesting, assembly or association and freedom of speech, marshalling businesses, and martial law type actions against the citizens under the guise of Covid19 or a health crisis which does not exist -cannot be justified at law.

It is submitted to you DIRECTLY AND PERSONALLY that the continuation of these restrictions and medical conscription actions imposed on Australians is a breach of the following laws amongst others:

  • The Victorian Charter of Human Rights– (legislation must be compatible before being enacted);
  • The Australian Constitution (legislation must be compatible before being enacted)

·         Occupational Health and Safety (Work Safe) Laws;

  • The Universal Charter of Human Rights (which links in with domestic human rights law);

·         International Law and Treaties and Codes including the Nuremberg Code and The Siracusa Principles ;

  • The Bill of Rights 1688 also espouses basic rights;

·         Magna Carta;

  • Oaths of office of Ministers personally taken and associated covenants;
  • (arguably) the Australian Federal Criminal Code in relation to forced medical conscription and prohibiting people to exercise their day to day lawful activities and legal and political rights – Section 4, Section 92.3 reckless foreign interference, section 137 False and misleading statements, Section 142.2 Abuse of public office, giving information from falsely derived or misleading documents Section 145.5 and causing harm to public officials and acts not in proper administration of government (Part 7) bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html
  • Compatibility principles being falsely or improperly applied; Domestic laws cannot be made that are incompatible with international law: discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/statements-compatibility-templates
  • The advice of actual head of UN human rights is also being ignored: un-human-rights-chief-says-98192 (see EXHIBITS LAW- LEGAL LINKS)



  • It appears probable if not possible that responsible ministers and chief medical officers may have or are blatantly and recklessly disregarded science and medicine (including from the WHO and CDC) bio ethics, economic and legal advice in imposing lockdowns, the quarantine of healthy people, forcing the wearing of masks, restricting travel, closure of business and other restrictive

·         Conscious or reckless indifference by certain minsters and chief health offices as to the consequences and risks of implementing a new health plan involving inhuman isolation and prohibition of carrying out expression or movement protected by human rights carries LIABILITY.

  • Secrecy of sources of advice cannot Ministers are not fully immune to the obligation to provide reasons for decision just as are subordinate administrative public servants and bodies.

·         Passing unprecedented legislation through the parliament during peacetime which is in contradiction with the Australian Constitution, Human Rights Charter of Victoria and universal human rights laws, which is not in accordance with the seven international treaties- is at best misuse of power, but at worst conscious maladministration or deliberate abuse of power.

  • This could arguably amount to misuse of public power that holds SPECIFIC LEGAL PERSONAL CONSEQUENCES
  • Class actions against government ministers both state and federal for breaches of office and  malfeasance  and  misfeasance  are  now  likely  to  commence  if  not commenced already applying principles laid down in Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberin (2017) 248 FCR 311(Nyoni)




In addition to civil claims and class actions seeking judicial review, there have been Victoria OHS Work Safe reports already made seeking to prosecute. Additional reports to Federal Police to prosecute under sec 137 of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995 have been made and more are expected. See Afp asked to investigate EXHIBITS LEGAL EXPERTS

Overseas lawsuits are also commencing based on crimes against humanity. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is a consumer protection trial lawyer in Germany and California. He is a member of the German Corona Investigative Committee. The committee also comprises doctors, and scientists who together have reached the conclusion that COVID 19 may well be the greatest crime against Humanity in history. Dr Fuellmich describes how there is no legal doubt about the possibility of a class-action lawsuit against those responsible for the lockdowns. He covers the key players such as the WHO, faulty PCR tests, and the impact of this global lockdown. about-crimes-against-humanity-and-corona-fraud-2020-10-20




In addition, based on the facts and evidence, but dependent upon the individual’s knowledge of the facts and evidence and intentional or reckless disregard of same, there may be potential claims liability and prosecutions based on the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995: section 137



In addition, based on the facts and evidence, but dependent upon the individual’s knowledge of the facts and evidence and intentional or reckless disregard of same, there may be potential claims liability and prosecutions based on the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995: sections 83.4




In addition, based on the facts and evidence, but dependent upon the individual’s knowledge of the facts and evidence and intentional or reckless disregard of same, there may be potential claims, liability and prosecutions based on the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995:

  • 12 Crime against humanity–imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty “committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population”
  • 13 Crime against humanity—torture “committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population” noting that expert research has found that “no touch” torture is an actual form of torture upon the human psyche:


  • Chapter 8 Offences against humanity and related offences (inhuman treatment, biological experiments, wilfully (recklessly causing great suffering)


Intentionally withholding the option of a medical treatment, from a person with a potentially life-threatening illness, by interfering in the sanctity of the Doctor/Patient relationship, when the weight of international evidence demonstrates that the treatment is safe and effective – is both a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity that should be prosecuted at the International Court of Justice.  State Government ministers and health bureaucrats are now ON NOTICE


As a result of reckless excess of authority and statements made by ministers Victorians and Australians have suffered unnecessary fear, trauma, deaths including suicides, health problems, mental health problems, spike in domestic violence, financial losses, job losses, business bankruptcies, and other financial and health and freedom losses.



  • Our civil liberties are being stolen under the guise of emergency measures.
  • Ministers in Australia and other countries are not exempt from having to explain reasons for decisions for health or emergency policy and directives: https://scc-
  • Victorians and all Australians deserve to know the truth and to be protected from
  • All ministers and chief health officers need to act on the truth, not selectively chosen science to match up protocols and directives from global think tanks.
  • Ministers are to represent their constituents, not their own party or corporations or global agendas at the health and financial expense of their constituents.

Premier Daniel Andrews:




  1. Let the People of Victoria go!
  2. There is insufficient independent legal medical or other basis to support all the lockdowns and their restrictions or declaration of state of emergency or disaster so we request you immediately reverse your
  3. Make any guidelines for health regarding covid19 voluntary only, with each person and business to decide how to protect their own health and that of their staff and clients against Covid19 if they deem it necessary. Wind back all Omnibus
  4. There is otherwise a prima facie case against you and we forthwith put you on NOTICE OF
  5. Allow protests and social gatherings, and restore the rule of law and Westminster system of democracy and separation of
  6. Fully declare your financial and other interests and that of your family members in companies engaged in the Hotel Quarantine Program, pharmaceutical companies, contracts with the CCP and otherwise all financial
  7. Fully declare the funding allocated towards Covid19 public relations, advertising and public



Prime Minister Scott Morrison:

  1. Release all modelling and data that you have based your decisions on in relation to all Covid19
  2. Restore our Australian sovereignty and detach from global agendas and wind back all agreements that have had or will have adverse effects to Australian
  3. Fully declare your financial and other interests and that of your family members in vaccine Refute the evidence of collusion reported by independent journalists and researchers. and-halton-in-big-dirty-vaccine-deal-part-2/
  4. Open up all our state and country
  5. List all types of “emergencies” that the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020 is designed to Why this unprecedented move to allow foreign troops and police into our country? And why are they being given immunity from prosecution? Will they be used against Australian citizens who lawfully protest? Will they be used against citizens who refuse medical conscription such as testing and vaccinations? What will they be used for and who will


be  paying  for  them? further-enhance-military-deployment-capabilities-for-civil-emergences/



All Chief Medical/Health Officers and State Premiers:

  1. Declare each and every financial interest you have relating to pandemic measures taken and be transparent regarding your conflicts of Resign if you have conflicts of interest that interfere with acting in the best health interests of Australians.
  2. Release all modelling and data that you have based your decisions on in relation to all Covid19 measures you have advised on or
  3. Advise your State Premiers to end Covid 19 states of emergency/disaster
  4. Publicly account for all contracts and agreements with vaccine and vaccine research companies involving yourself and family members.
  5. Account for all reasons for decisions for imposing stage 2, 3 and 4 of lockdowns recommended by you to cabinet and ministers of
  6. Disclose documents relating to such decisions including polls taken and any activity related to Covid 19 planning, actions taken and reports commissioned since 1 Jan 2017.

Notice to All Ministers:

  • YOU have been put on NOTICE of the medical evidence and the law; and
  • YOU have been put on NOTICE of the financial and other conflicts of interest of ministers, chief health offices and members of the government appointed Covid19 committees and some task Although one can understand that elected government ministers who are responsible for portfolios of health or overseeing same may not necessarily have any medical background (as they are simply elected representatives ) there is no excuse for governments to appoint boards to advise government on health matters where the board members clearly have no medical background but do have other vested interests or at least conflicts of interest personally and professionally. Accordingly YOU are put on NOTICE should you continue to be guided by- committees task forces or delegated officers of any kind who have neither medical qualifications or experience as well as conflict of interests concerning foreign companies and bodies- when you making Covid19 or other  health laws and directions; and
  • YOU have been put on NOTICE of potential liability against you; and
  • YOU have been put on NOTICE of alleged breaches of international and human rights law, OHS laws and federal criminal codes and international codes against you; and
  • YOU have been put on NOTICE of this request to meet your responsibilities of your public service office; and
  • YOU have been put on NOTICE of this request to direct the wind back of the lock downs and other Covid19 restrictions and cancel the state of emergency and state of disaster declarations and allow full open up of trading and


Notice to All Parliamentarians:

  • We request that you make full and frank disclosure of all financial interests and connections with pharmaceutical and drug companies (including vaccine research development and manufacturing) that you or your family members
  • We request that you also make transparent all gifts, bonuses, financial incentives received from such companies by you or your family
  • We also request that you make public all relevant disclosures as to the processes, tendering and and/or discussions and negotiations leading to the contracts being awarded for any vaccine
  • We request that you hold other ministers in office accountable and raise questions in open parliament about all these


Concerned Lawyers Network

Signed on behalf of Concerned Lawyers Network:


Maria Rigoli B.A. LLB. (Melbourne University) Acc.Spec (Fam)


Jeff Tran B Science LLB (Melbourne)


Russell Sumner LLM GDipDisRes  Post GradDLegal Practice (UK)(LLB) (HONS)


Shemarrah Davis LLB (Monash University)


Tony Nikolic LLB Criminology (Uni. Western Sydney) LLM (College of law)


Liesl Tziolis B.A, LLB, (Hons, Uni of Qld), MBA











Schedule of recipients of letter – next page


Schedule of recipients of letter

Victorian Premier & MP’s


First NamePortfolio/TitleEmail
The Hon. Daniel Andrews (Premier)Premier of Victoria

The Hon Jacinta AllanMinister for Transport Infrastructure

Minister for the Coordination of Transport: COVID-19 Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop
The Hon Ben CarrollMinister for Public Transport Minister for Roads and Road
The Hon. Lily D’AmbrosioMinister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change

Minister for Solar Homes

The Hon. Luke DonnellanMinister for Child Protection Minister for Disability, Ageing and
The Hon. Martin FoleyMinister for Equality Minister for Ambulance Services

Minister for the Coordination of Health and Human Services: COVID-19
The Hon. Jill HennessyAttorney-General

Minister for the Coordination of Justice and Community Safety: COVID-19

The Hon. Melissa HorneMinister for Ports and Freight Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation Minister for Fishing and
The Hon. Natalie HutchinsMinister for Crime Prevention Minister for Corrections Minister for Youth Justice Minister for Victim
The Hon. Shaun LeaneMinister for Local Government

Minister for Suburban Development Minister for Veterans



The Hon. James MerlinoMinister for Education Minister for the Coordination of Education and Training: COVID-19

Minister for Mental Health

The Hon. Lisa NevilleMinister for Water Minister for Police and Emergency Services

Minister for the Coordination of Environment, Land, Water and Planning: COVID-19
The Hon Martin PakulaMinister for Racing Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events

Minister for the Coordination of Jobs, Precincts and Regions: COVID-19

Minister for Industry Support and Recovery

Minister for Trade Minister for Business Precincts
Mr Tim PallasTreasurer

Minister for Economic Development Minister for Industrial Relations

Minister for the Coordination of Treasury and Finance: COVID-19
Mr Danny PearsonAssistant Treasurer Minister for Regulatory Reform

Minister for Government Services

Minister for Creative Industries
The Hon. Jaala PulfordMinister for Employment Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy

Minister for Small Business

The Hon. Ros SpenceMinister for Multicultural Affairs

Minister for Community Sport Minister for Youth

Ms Ingrid StittMinister for Workplace Safety Minister for Early Childhood Education

The Hon. Jaclyn SymesMinister for Regional Development

Minister for Agriculture Minister for Resources



The Hon. Gayle TierneyMinister for Training and Skills Minister for Higher
The Hon. Gabrielle WilliamsMinister for Prevention of Family Violence

Minister for Women

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
The Hon. Richard WynneMinister for Planning Minister for
Dr Brett SuttonChief Health
Hon. Linda Dessau ACGovernor of VictoriaOfficial Secretary:
Shane PattonChief Commissioner of Victoria


Prime Minister and Federal MPs



First NamePortfolio/TitleEmail
The Hon Scott Morrison MPPrime Minister

Minister for the Public Service
Senator the Hon Marise PayneMinister for Women Minister for Foreign
The Hon Greg Hunt MPMinister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet

Minister for Health
The Hon. Ken WyattMinister for Indigenous
The Hon Michael McCormack MPDeputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional

The Hon Paul Fletcher MPMinister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the
The Hon Alan Tudge MPMinister for Population, Cities and Urban



The Hon Josh Frydenberg
The Hon. Alan TudgeMinister for Population, Cities and Urban
Senator the Hon Mathias CormannMinister for



The Hon David Littleproud MPMinister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management

The Hon Sussan Ley MPMinister for the

The Hon Keith Pitt MPMinister for Resources, Water and Northern
Senator the Hon Simon BirminghamMinister for Trade, Tourism and
The Hon Christian Porter MPAttorney General

Minister for Industrial Relations
The Hon Peter DuttonMinister for Home
The Hon Dan Tehan MPMinister for
Senator the Hon Michaelia CashMinister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family
The Hon Karen Andrews MPMinister for Industry, Science and
The Hon Angus Taylor MPMinister for Energy and Emissions
The Hon Keith Pitt MPMinister for Resources, Water and Northern
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSCMinister for
The Hon Darren Chester MPMinister for Veterans’ Affairs

Minister for Defence Personnel
Senator the Hon Anne RustonMinister for Families and Social
The Hon Stuart Robert MPMinister for NDIS & Govt



(Copy to) other Federal Ministers and Federal Police Commissioner  
The Hon Mark Coulton MPMinister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local
The Hon Andrew Gee MPMinister for Decentralisation and Regional Education

Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education
The Hon Michael Sukkar MPMinister for
The Hon Alex Hawke MPMinister for International Development and the
The Hon Melissa Price MPMinister for Defence
Mr Reece Kershaw APMAustralian Federal Police


Other State Premiers/ CHOs / Ministers of Health


First NamePortfolio/TitleEmail
Copy to State Premiers  
The Honourable Gladys Berejiklian MPPremier of New South
The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk MPPremier of,
The Honourable Steven Marshall MPPremier of South,
The Honourable Peter Gutwein MPPremier of
The Honourable Mark McGowan MLAPremier of Western
The Honourable Andrew Barr MLAACT Chief


NB On 11 September 2020, the ACT Government assumed a Caretaker role, with an election to be held 17 October 2020

The Honourable Michael GunnerChief Minister of the Northern




OFFICER and copy to other chief health officers

Paul Kelly(Federal) Chief Health
Dr Kerry Chant PSMNSW Chief Health
Dr. Jeannette YoungQLD Chief Health
Associate Professor Nicola SpurrierSA Chief Public Health
Tony LawlerTAS Chief Medical Officer and Group Head, Health Professional Policy and Advisory
Dr Andrew RobertsonWA Chief Health
Dr Kerryn ColemanACT Chief Health
Copy to State Health Ministers  
The Hon. (Brad) Bradley Ronald Hazzard MPNSW Minister for Health and Medical
Hon Roger Cook MLAWA Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Mental
Hon Dr Steven MilesQLD Deputy Premier and Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services: 11 May
The Hon Stephen WadeSA Minister for Health and
Sarah Jane Courtney MPTAS Health
Hon Natasha FylesNT Minister for
Rachel Stephen-Smith, MLAACT Minister for Health(Caretaker mode)


Ausztrál ügyvédek nyílt levele a kormányhoz 6.11.2020

Írországi beadvány

[2020] IEHC 209
[2020 271 JR]
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 13th day of May, 2020
1. The applicants, who appeared in person, seek the leave of the Court to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the constitutionality of legislation and regulations enacted to arrest the spread of a virus, Covid-19, within the State. The applicants are further challenging the steps taken and the procedures followed by the Oireachtas in enacting the legislation.
2. On 4 January 2020, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) reported on a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, Hubei Province of the People’s Republic of China. Less than three weeks later, 22 January 2020, the WHO issued a statement stating that there was evidence of human to human transmission in Wuhan of such pneumonia disease, and that more investigation was needed to understand the full extent of transmission.
3. On 30 January 2020, the WHO reconvened its Emergency Committee. This Committee reached a consensus and advised that the outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. On 11 February 2020, the WHO advised that this coronavirus disease would be officially named Covid-19. With international travel it was inevitable that Covid-19 would spread well beyond the borders of China.
4. The first country in Europe to experience a significant outbreak of Covid-19 was Italy. The effects on the health service, society and the economy were devastating. It was only a matter of time before Covid-19 spread to Ireland. This happened on 29 February 2020. The first death related to Covid-19 was reported on 11 March 2020, when there were 43 confirmed cases. At the time this application heard before the Court on 5/6 May, in Ireland there were some 22,248 confirmed cases of Covid-19 and 1,375 deaths. Covid-19 was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020.
5. The first named respondent took a number of measures to halt the spread of Covid-19 and to address the economic and social effects of the virus. Two pieces of legislation were enacted: –
I. Health (Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act, 2020; and
II. Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act, 2020.
In addition, a number of statutory instruments were made: S.I. No. 121/2020 –Health Act, 1947 (Section 31A¬ – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) Regulations, 2020 and S.I. 128/2020 – Health Act, 1947 (Section 31a – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020.
6. There was a further S.I.: S.I. No. 153/2020 – Health Act, 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 2020, which extended the regulations to 18 May 2020.
7. Following the general election of February 8, 2020 the newly elected Dáil, on 20 February 2020, failed to elect a new Taoiseach. Under the provisions of Article 28.11.1°, the Taoiseach having resigned, the members of the Government were deemed also to have resigned; but the Taoiseach and other members of the Government continue to carry on their duties until their successors are appointed.
Application for judicial review
8. On 15 April 2020, the applicants made an application, ex parte, seeking the leave of the court to bring judicial review proceedings. This application was grounded upon a “statement required to ground application for judicial review” together with a short verifying affidavit. The original Statement of Grounds did not state with any clarity what reliefs the applicants were seeking, this was clarified in a further affidavit from the applicants sworn on 5 May 2020.
9. The applicants are seeking, inter alia, reliefs including: –
“The relief sought is an order of certiorari of the above legislation and/or such further or other order to declare and render the legislation null and void on the grounds of its repugnancy to the various provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann 1937.”
The legislation is that referred to at para. 5 above.
10. Further, the applicants maintain that the said legislation: –
“has not been validly enacted in accordance with the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann, Dáil Standing Orders of business 2020, the Interpretation Act, 1937 and the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947.”
11. Given that the applicants have raised issues concerning the legislative process, the notice parties (whom I shall collectively refer to as “the Oireachtas”) were joined to the proceedings.
12. The ex parte application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings was made before Sanfey J. who directed, pursuant to O.84, r. 24 RSC, that the application be made on notice to the respondents.
13. The matter was mentioned before Murphy J. on 21 April 2020 and before myself a week later for the purposes of setting out a timetable for the delivery of affidavits and legal submissions. On both occasions the applicants were invited to deliver legal submissions in support of their application. They chose not to do so. The matter was then fixed for hearing commencing 5 May 2020.
14. At the hearings, both before Murphy J. and myself, the applicants submitted that, by reason of limited access to the court for the public who wished to attend, the hearings were contrary to the provisions of Article 34.1 of the Constitution. Both Murphy J. and myself ruled on this matter in similar terms. I will refer to this ruling later in the judgment.
The legislation/regulations
15. I will set out in summary form the provisions of the legislation which the applicants seek to have declared unconstitutional, I will also refer to the regulations made thereunder: –
(1) Health (Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act, 2020.
The long title of this Act states: –
“An Act, to make exceptional provision, in the public interest and having regard to the manifest and grave risk to human life and public health posed by the spread of the disease known as Covid-19 and in order to mitigate, where practicable, the effect of the spread of the disease known as Covid-19, to amend the Health Act 1947 to confer a power on the Minister for Health to make regulations prohibiting or restricting the holding of certain events or access to certain premises and to provide for enforcement measures; to provide for powers for certain medical officers of health to order, in certain circumstances, the detention of persons who are suspected to be potential sources of infection …”
16. Section 10 of the Act amends the Health Act, 1947 (the Act of 1947) by the addition of a s. 31A which has the title “Regulations for preventing, limiting, minimising or slowing the spread of Covid-19”.
“31A.(1) The Minister [the first named respondent] may, having regard to the immediate, exceptional and manifest risk posed to human life and public health by the spread of Covid-19 … make regulations for the purpose of preventing, limiting, minimising or slowing the spread of Covid-19 … to deal with public health risks arising … and, … such regulations may, in particular, provide for all or any of the following:
(a) restrictions to be imposed upon travel to or from the State;
(b) restrictions to be imposed upon travel to, from or within geographical locations to which an affected areas order applies;
(c) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b), restrictions to be imposed upon persons or classes of persons resident in, working in or visiting locations referred to in paragraph (b) including (but not limited to)—
(i) requiring persons to remain in their homes, or
(ii) without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act or regulations made thereunder requiring persons to remain in such other places, as may be specified by the Minister;
(d) the prohibition of events, or classes of events, …

(f) the safeguards required to be put in place by owners or occupiers of a premises or a class of premises … in order to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the risk of persons attending such premises of being infected with Covid-19;
(g) the safeguards required to be put in place by owners or occupiers of any other place or class of place, (including the temporary closure of such place or class of place) in order to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the risk of persons attending at such place or class of place of being infected with Covid-19;

(k) such additional, incidental, consequential or supplemental matters as the Minister considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of giving full effect to the regulations.
(2) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Minister—
(a) shall have regard to the following:
(i) the fact that a national emergency has arisen of such character that there is an immediate and manifest risk to human life and public health as a consequence of which it is expedient in the public interest that extraordinary measures should be taken to safeguard human life and public health;
(ii) the fact that a declaration of Public Health Emergency of International Concern was made by the World Health Organisation in respect of Covid-19 and that Covid-19 was duly declared by that Organisation to be a pandemic;

(6) A person who—
(a) contravenes a provision of a regulation made under subsection (1) that is stated to be a penal provision,
(b) obstructs, interferes with or impedes a relevant person in the course of exercising a power conferred by regulations under this section on that relevant person,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) A member of the Garda Síochána who suspects, with reasonable cause, that a person is contravening or has contravened a provision of a regulation made under
subsection (1) that is stated to be a penal provision, may, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the regulation, direct the person to take such steps as the member considers necessary to comply with the provision.
17. Section 11 of the Act amends the Act of 1947 by the addition of a s. 38A: –
“38A.(1) Where, having regard to the matters specified in subsection (2), a medical officer of health believes in good faith that—
(a) a person is a potential source of infection, and
(b) the person is a potential risk to public health, and
(c) his or her detention and isolation is appropriate in order to—
(i) prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of Covid-19, and
(ii) minimise the risk to human life and public health,
(d) such person cannot be effectively isolated, refuses to remain or appears unlikely to remain in his or her home or other accommodation arranged, or agreed, by the Health Service Executive,
the officer may in writing order the detention and isolation of such person in a hospital or other place specified in the order (including such other hospital or other place as may subsequently be appropriate and specified in the order) until such time as the medical officer certifies that the person’s detention is no longer required for the purposes of this section.

(4) A medical officer of health who makes an order under subsection (1) shall keep the detention order under review and ensure that a medical examination of the person who is the subject of the order is carried out as soon as possible and in any event no later than 14 days from the time the person has been detained.
(5) A person who is the subject of an order under subsection (1) may request that his or her detention be reviewed by a medical officer of health, other than the officer who makes the order concerned, on the grounds that he or she is not a potential source of infection.
18. The first named respondent made regulations pursuant to s. 31A by way of S.I. No. 121/2020. These regulations concern, inter alia, the restriction of movement of “applicable persons”, “applicable person” means a person whose place of residence is located within an area in which an “affected areas order” applies.
19. Regulation 4 provides: –
“(1) An applicable person shall not leave his or her place of residence without reasonable excuse.
(2) such reasonable excuse … includes an applicable person leaving his or her place of residence … to –
(a) provide, or assist in the provision of, an essential service, whether for remuneration or not,
(b) go to an essential retail outlet for the purpose of obtaining items (including food, beverages, fuel, medicinal products, medical devices or appliances,

(e) attend a medical appointment or accompany, to a medical appointment, any other person residing in the relevant residence or a vulnerable person,

(g) donate blood or accompany any other person residing in the relevant residence to donate blood,

(i) exercise, either alone or with other persons residing in the relevant residence,
(j) attend to vital family matters (including to provide care to vulnerable persons),
(k) attend the funeral of –

(l) fulfil a legal obligation (including attending court, satisfying bail conditions, or participating in ongoing legal proceedings),
20. By way of S.I. 128/2020 the first named respondent provided that the above regulation would remain in operation until 5 May 2020. It was subsequently renewed.
21. (2) Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act, 2020.
This Act made amendments to several pieces of legislation for the purposes of mitigating “the adverse economic consequences resulting, or likely to result from the spread of [Covid-19]… and to mitigate its impact on the administration of vital public service functions….” (Long title)
22. The applicants referred to part 2 and part 5 of this Act as being contrary to the Constitution.
23. Part 2 concerns the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004. It provides that for a period of three months commencing the day of the commencement of the Act a landlord shall not serve a notice of termination in relation to the tenancy of a dwelling. There is a prohibition on rent increases and: –
“(7)(a) … all proposed evictions in all tenancies in the State, including those not covered by the Act of 2004, are prohibited during the operation of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020….”
24. Part 5 of this Act makes certain amendments to the Mental Health Act, 2001. These provisions provide for changes to the Mental Health Tribunal providing where a Mental Health Tribunal cannot be appointed in the usual way “due to the exigencies of the public health emergency” a Tribunal consisting of one member shall be a practising Barrister or Solicitor has not less than seven years’ experience may be appointed. Provision is also made for the carrying out of medical reports under s. 17 of the Act of 2001.
Principles to be applied
25. The principles which a court should apply to an application such as this are well established. I refer to the following passage from the judgment of Finlay C.J. in G. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] 1 I.R. 374. At p. 377 of the judgment Finlay C.J. stated: –
“It is, I am satisfied, desirable before considering the specific issues in this case to set out in short form what appears to be the necessary ingredients which an applicant must satisfy in order to obtain liberty of the court to issue judicial review proceedings. An applicant must satisfy the court in a prima facie manner by the facts set out in his affidavit and submissions made in support of his application of the following matters:–
(a) That he has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates to comply with rule 20 (4).
(b) That the facts averred in the affidavit would be sufficient, if proved, to support a stateable ground for the form of relief sought by way of judicial review.
(c) That on those facts an arguable case in law can be made that the applicant is entitled to the relief which he seeks…”
26. It is to be noted that Finlay C.J. referred to these “ingredients” as being “set out in short form”.
27. There was further elaboration in the Supreme Court judgement of Esme v. Minister for Justice and Law Reform [2015] IESC 26, where Charleton J. stated: –
“Any issue in law can be argued: but that is not the test. A point of law is only arguable within the meaning of the relevant decisions if it could, by the standards of a rational preliminary analysis, ultimately have a prospect of success. It is required for an applicant for leave to commence judicial review proceedings to demonstrate that an argument can be made which indicates that the argument is not empty. There would be no filtering process were mere arguability to be the test without, at the same time, taking into account that trivial or unstatable cases are to be excluded: the standard of the legal point must be such that, in the absence of argument to the contrary, the thrust of the argument indicates that reasonable
prospects of success have been demonstrated. It is still required to be shown that a prima facie legal argument has been established. … In terms of law, the test is no different: it is a point of law which if not balanced or outweighed by other principles will suffice to establish the contention. This is the filter, which the leave application is designed to be, in order to ensure that there is sufficient reason to disrupt administrative decisions and to litigate them.”
28. Finally, I refer to the decision of Birmingham J. (as he then was) in Agrama v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IECA 72 where he stated that a point cannot be arguable if it is contrary to existing case law or if it is “based on a fundamental misconception”.
29. The principles that emerge from these authorities are very clear. The burden is on the applicant to depose to such facts in his/her grounding affidavit which, if proven, could make an arguable case in law that has a prospect of success. A case that is contrary to case law or contrary to the clear wording of an Article(s) in the Constitution would not be such a case. If there were not such a requirement then an application for leave would be a pointless procedure. The application for leave has a low threshold but it is, nonetheless, a threshold.
30. In addition, there is also a requirement that the applicant satisfy the court that he/she “has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates”. I refer to the following passages of Henchy J. in Cahill v. Sutton [1980] I.R. 269, where at p. 282 he states: –
“On the contrary, in other jurisdictions the widely accepted practice of courts which are invested with comparable powers of reviewing legislation in the light of constitutional provisions is to require the person who challenges a particular legislative provision to show either that he has been personally affected injuriously by it, or that he is in imminent danger of becoming victim to it. This general rule means that the challenger must adduce circumstances showing that the impugned provision is operating, or is poised to operate, in such a way as to deprive him personally of the benefit of a particular constitutional right. In that way each challenge is assessed judicially in the light of the application of the impugned provision to the challenger’s own circumstances.”
and, at p. 283: –
“While a cogent theoretical argument might be made for allowing any citizen, regardless of personal interest or injury, to bring proceedings to have a particular statutory provision declared unconstitutional, there are countervailing considerations which make such an approach generally undesirable and not in the public interest. To allow one litigant to present and argue what is essentially another person’s case would not be conducive to the administration of justice as a general rule. Without concrete personal circumstances pointing to a wrong suffered or threatened, a case tends to lack the force and urgency of reality. There is also the risk that the person
whose case has been put forward unsuccessfully by another may be left with the grievance that his claim was wrongly or inadequately presented.”
31. This issue was more recently considered by the Supreme Court in Mohan v. Ireland [2019] IESC 18. O’Donnell J. stated: –
“12. The step of permitting a challenge to the constitutional validity of a piece of legislation should not, therefore, be taken lightly, simply because someone wishes, however genuinely, to have the question determined, but rather should only be taken when a person can show that they are adversely affected in reality. Courts do not exist to operate as a committee of wise citizens providing a generalised review of the validity of legislation as it is enacted, nor should courts become a forum for those who have simply lost the political argument in the legislature to seek a replay of the argument in the courts, repackaged in constitutional terms. On the contrary, the question of the validity of legislation is treated by Article 34.3.2° as part of the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts only, established under Article 34.1, whose function it is to administer justice between the parties. This normally requires a real case or controversy which the parties require (rather than simply desire) to be resolved in order to establish and justify the court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and the possibility of the invalidation of legislation. Accordingly, it is necessary to show adverse effect, or imminent adverse effect upon the interests of a real plaintiff. …”
and: –
“16. It is, I think, noteworthy that Henchy J. speaks in terms of a person’s ‘interests’ being affected, rather than his or her rights. This, in my view, is logical, even if there is little harm in conflating the two questions in most cases. Strictly speaking, however, the first question is whether a person’s interests are affected by the provision in question. ‘Interest’ is a deliberately broad term, extending beyond constitutional or even legal rights. It is sufficient if a person is, therefore, affected in a real way in in his or her life…”
32. As mentioned earlier, the burden of proving that the legislation in question is repugnant to the Constitution lies on the applicants. This is a heavy burden. As was stated by Keane C.J. in The Article 26 and the Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [2000] 2 I.R. 321, referring to Ryan v. Attorney General [1965] I.R. 294: –
“the presumption that every Act of the Oireachtas is constitutional until the contrary is clearly established applies with particular force to legislation dealing with controversial social and economic matters. It is peculiarly the province of the Oireachtas to seek to reconcile in this area the conflicting rights of different sections of society and that clearly places a heavy onus on those who assert that the manner in which they have sought to reconcile those conflicting rights is in breach of the guarantee of equality.”
33. In this application an order has been made that the application be made on notice to the respondents (and now the notice parties). This raises the issue as to whether the applicants now face a higher threshold. I am of the view that they do not (see Denham J. in D.C. v. DPP [2005] 4 I.R. 281). However, the applicants do have to deal with the submissions made by the respondents and the notice parties which they otherwise would not have had to do were this application made ex parte.
The application
34. The applicants’ case against the respondents concerns the constitutionality of the legislation and regulations referred to. The case against the notice party, the Oireachtas, concerns the legislative process. I propose to deal with these matters separately.
The claim of unconstitutionality
The submission of the applicants
35. The applicants submitted a lengthy statement, of some 34 pages, to ground their application. The first number of pages are under the heading: “background facts”. The narrative concerning the extent and consequences of Covid-19 in this State ends on 16 March 2020. An affidavit verifying the grounds, sworn on 5 May 2020, deposed to no new additional facts since 16 March 2020.
36. The Statement of Grounds sets out various pieces of legislation which they seek to challenge. In respect of ss. 31A and 38A of the Act of 1947 (as amended) they state: –
“… are not only repugnant ab initio to the provisions of the Constitution …but furthermore are wholly disproportionate to the incidence and effects of Covid-19 with respect of the Regulations constricting the movement of persons I say that such were made ‘..with no legal or clinical justification or cause, and with no evidence being presented to the public that such measures have ever succeeded in any comparable situation in achieving the stated purpose of the government, and with no state of emergency being formally declared by the Houses of the Oireachtas either and notwithstanding the fact that no state of emergency in actuality exists is grossly disproportionate to the aims (irrespective of their validity) of the Minister…”
This formula of words is used in several places throughout the Statement of Grounds.
37. On the amendments to the Mental Health Act, 2001, the applicants state: –
“.. these draconian, regressive and unnecessary measures have no role or function in addressing or mitigating the situation vis-a-vis Covid-19, which the government has claimed as the basis for the contents of this legislation, and place at grave risk the liberty, safety and wellbeing of vulnerable people and others and in doing so set backwards many of the gains that have been made in recent decades in safeguarding the rights of psychiatric patients for no ostensible purpose related to the present claimed circumstances.”
38. As for the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004, the applicants state: –
“Section 7 of the Emergency Measures Act, 2020 is repugnant to the provisions of Article 40.3 as same provides for a suspension of proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal in which landlord and tenant disputes are adjudicated thereby directly interfering with the rights of landlords and tenants to resolve disputes relating to occupancy and rental payments among other matters set down by the Residential Tenancy Act, 2004 and constitutes a direct impediment to the access of justice in respect thereto despite no state of emergency being ratified by that House of the Oireachtas ..”
39. In their submissions to the Court, the applicants submitted that the only “emergency” provided for in the Constitution is that referred to in Article 28.3.3° and that the Covid-19 pandemic is not such an emergency. The applicants questioned the accuracy of the figures relating to the amount of persons infected by Covid-19 and the number of deaths. They also referred to the first named respondent as acting on “fraudulent science”. In addition, there were references to a statement made by a former judge of the U.K. Supreme Court (who was not commenting on the legislation in question), the arrival of a “police state” and a parallel made with Nazi Germany.
40. The applicants identified a number of Articles in the Constitution which they claim the legislation (and regulations) are in breach of: –
“Article 40
3.1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. [Reference was made also to unenumerated rights]
2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

4.1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.

5. The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.
6 .1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –
i …
ii. The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Article 41
1.1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
Article 44.2
1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
Article 45
2. The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:–
i. That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.”
41. The applicants submitted that the regulations made by the first named respondent were unconstitutional as the first named respondent had no power to legislate, as per Article 15.2.1°.
42. The applicants further submitted that provisions in the legislation were contrary to various Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Submissions of the respondents
43. Mr. Patrick McCann SC, on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the applicants adopted an incorrect procedure in bringing these proceedings to have the legislation declared unconstitutional. The correct procedure was to bring the application by way of plenary proceedings, not judicial review proceedings. In support of this, he referred the Court to the decision of Kearns J. (as he then was) in S.M. v. Ireland [2007] 2 ILRM 110 at 119: –
“Although the [Supreme] Court in [Riordan] did in fact consider the constitutional issues raised in the case notwithstanding that the plaintiff had proceeded otherwise than by way of plenary summons, it is by now well established that a statutory provision should only be challenged on grounds of unconstitutionality in judicial review proceedings if there is an underlying administrative or judicial decision which is being attacked. One can then ‘tack on’ a challenge to the validity of particular legislation.”
However, counsel did accept that there is a provision in the Rules of the Superior Courts to order that the proceedings continue as if they had been begun by plenary summons (O. 84, r. 27(5)).
44. On the merits of the application, Mr. McCann submitted that the applicants satisfied none of the tests required for a court to grant leave. Referring to Cahill v. Sutton and Mohan v. Ireland, Mr. McCann submitted that the applicants had not established sufficient interest or standing to challenge the legislation or regulations. This was all the more so in the case of their challenge to the amendments of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004 and the Mental Health Act, 2001.
45. Though not conceding on the issue of interest or standing in respect of the restrictions on movement, detention of persons and closure of premises, Mr. McCann pointed to the complete absence of any facts deposed to by the applicants whereby it could be argued that the measures taken to combat Covid-19 were disproportionate. The respondents relied on a lengthy and detailed affidavit of Ms. Bernie Ryan, Principal Officer in the Department of Health, which set out the factual background to the enactment of the legislation.
46. It was submitted that the respondents are not relying on the provisions of Article 28.3.3° so as to make the legislation immune from constitutional attack. Mr. McCann maintained that other emergencies arise from time to time, other than an emergency “in time of war or armed rebellion”, and that legislation to address such emergencies has to be constitutional.
47. On the applicants’ case being made, that the regulations under the legislation are contrary to the provisions of Article 15.2.1°, Mr. McCann submitted that the courts have repeatedly confirmed that the making of regulations under statute is constitutionally permissible. He pointed out that the applicants have made no case that the regulations in question are more than giving effect to the principles and policies which are contained in the statute (City View Press Limited v. An Comhairle Oiliúna [1980] I.R. 381).
48. The respondents further submitted that the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or other EU law does not have application.
Consideration of issues
49. On the issue concerning the procedure followed by the applicants in challenging the constitutionality of the legislation, I accept the submissions of the respondent. However, were I to reach the conclusion that the applicants had established an arguable case, I believe that the correct course for me to take would be to order that the proceedings continue as if they had been begun by plenary summons.
50. Sections 31A and 38A of the now amended Act of 1947 set out the statutory basis for the restrictions on the free movement of people, the detention of people in certain circumstances, the closure of premises and the prohibition of certain events. The stated purpose of these restrictions is to halt the spread of Covid-19 and, thus, are designed to affect every person residing in the State. This clearly includes the applicants. Thus, I am satisfied that the applicants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of these sections.
51. The next matter that I then have to consider is whether the applicants have established an arguable case. Previously in this judgment, I have set out the applicable legal principles and also various Articles of the Constitution which the applicants maintain ss. 31A and 38A are in breach of.
52. Article 41 concerns “the family”. In my view, no case has been made out that s. 31A, s. 38A or any other amendment to the Act of 1947 is inconsistent with Article 41. The
applicants maintain that restrictions on movement and assembly are destructive of family life. There is no doubt but that these restrictions do interfere with normal family life, but this is not a breach of Article 41. The rights as to free movement of persons and assembly are to be considered in the context of the relevant Articles that provide for such. I am also satisfied that the applicants are not entitled to rely upon Article 45, which sets out principles of social policy. These principles are not “cognisable by any court under any of the provisions of this Constitution”, as stated in the Article. Nor was any case made that any unenumerated constitutional right was breached.
53. Previously in this judgment, I have set out the Articles of the Constitution that provide for the personal rights of the citizen, that the dwelling of every citizen is inviolable, the right to assemble peaceably, and the practice of religion. It is clear from the wording of these various Articles that such rights are not absolute and may be restricted. The applicants accept this but maintain that the restrictions and limitation of rights provided for in ss. 31A and 38A are “disproportionate”.
54. To begin to make an arguable case that these restrictions and limitations of rights are disproportionate, it was necessary for the applicants to put on affidavit some facts which, if proven, could support such a view. There was a complete failure by the applicants to do so. The narrative in their “statement required to ground application for judicial review” ended on 16 March 2020 when some 268 cases of Covid-19 and the deaths of two persons were reported. The application for leave was made ex parte four weeks later, on 15 April 2020, without the narrative being updated. The applicants’ grounding affidavit was sworn on 5 May with still no update in the narrative. This was, now, some seven weeks after the date on which the applicants had ended their narrative. It is worth noting that on 5/6 May, the Department of Health stated that there were some 22,248 cases of persons having Covid-19 and 1,375 deaths. The applicants made no reference to this.
55. In their Statement of Grounds and submissions to this Court, the applicants questioned the accuracy of the figures given for the numbers of persons infected with Covid-19 and the number of deaths reported. They went a good deal further and maintained that the science involved was “fraudulent”. Other than their views, the applicants identified no supportive expert opinion either in the Statement of Grounds or grounding affidavit. As opposed to this, the respondents filed an affidavit of Ms. Bernie Ryan, Principal Officer in the Department of Health, which set out, in detail, the background and reasons for the legislation in question. The applicants did not seek to reply to this affidavit.
56. Unfortunately, in making their case for leave the applicants, who have no medical or scientific qualifications or expertise, relied upon their own unsubstantiated views, gave speeches, engaged in empty rhetoric and sought to draw an historic parallel with Nazi Germany – a parallel which is both absurd and offensive. Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, empty rhetoric and a bogus historical parallel are not a substitute for facts.
57. In my view, the applicants do not have standing to challenge the amendments to the Mental Health Act, 2001. This Act, in its terms, is clearly directed towards persons who are in a defined category. The applicants made no case that they were within such
category. In deciding this, I am applying the principles, already set out, in Cahill v. Sutton and Mohan v. Ireland. A similar situation arises in the case of the applicants’ challenge to the amendments of the Residential Tenancy Act, 2004. The applicants have not sought to make any case that they are affected by these far reaching amendments. They did not claim to be landowners, landlords, or tenants.
58. The applicants made the case that the first named respondent, in making regulations under the statute in question, was acting unconstitutionally. Delegated legislation is permissible under the Constitution and no case was made by the applicants that the regulations were outside the principles and policies contained in the enabling statute. Rather, the attack on the regulations was based on the view of the applicants that the restrictions in question were disproportionate, a matter I have already dealt with.
59. I accept the submission of the respondents that the European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003) is not directly effective and that measures cannot be invalidated on the basis that they are repugnant to it. I also accept, as submitted by the respondents, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or other EU law does not apply to domestic law.
60. By reason of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the applicants, where they have standing, have not made any arguable case in support of their claim that the legislation and regulations in question are unconstitutional.
The Oireachtas
61. The applicants maintain that the passage of the legislation through the Dáil and Seanad was unconstitutional. In support of this, they question the legal standing of the Government given that three Ministers are no longer members of Dáil Éireann. They also question statements made by the Ceann Comhairle limiting the number of deputies present in the Dáil given the requirements for social distancing.
62. In their Statement of Grounds, the applicants refer to a “caretaker Dáil” and an “outgoing incarnation of Seanad Éireann”.
63. In support of their submission that these matters are justiciable, the applicants referred to the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister and Cherry v. Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41. Further, the applicants were critical as to what they considered to be the absence of any real debate on the legislation as it passed through the Dáil and Seanad. The applicants also referred to a “note” from the Oireachtas Library & Research Service which they claim is supportive of their case.
Submissions of the Oireachtas
64. Mr. Francis Kieran BL, on behalf of the Oireachtas, submitted that the issues raised by the respondents were not justiciable. This flows from the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. He referred the Court to the provisions of Article 15.10, which reads: –
“10. Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.”
65. Mr. Kieran cited a number of authorities in support of his submission. He referred to the following passage from the judgment of Ó Dáiligh J. (as he then was) in Wireless Dealers Association v. Minister for Industry and Commerce (Unreported, Supreme Court, 14th March, 1956):-
“This survey of the Constitution is adequate to demonstrate that the Constitution makes each of the two Houses of the Oireachtas complete master of its own deliberations and that the High Court, while granted the general jurisdiction to pronounce on the constitutional validity of laws, i.e. measures which have been passed by both Houses and duly signed and promulgated by the President, exercise no functions with regard to the deliberations of the Oireachtas.”
66. This passage has been cited more recently in Maguire v. Ardagh [2002] 1 I.R. 385 and Callely v. Moylan [2014] 4 I.R. 112.
67. The number of deputies present when this legislation was being debated and passed by the Dáil cannot be considered by this Court. Mr. Kieran referred to Article 15.11.1° and 15.11.3° of the Constitution, which provide: –
“1° All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.

3° The number of members necessary to constitute a meeting of either House for the exercise of its powers shall be determined by its standing orders.”
68. It also follows from this that the criticisms which the applicants make of the Ceann Comhairle are non-justiciable as they concern the internal procedures of the Dáil.
69. Mr. Kieran submitted that what is often described as a “caretaker government”, though the term is not used in the Constitution, is clearly provided for in Article 28.11.1°, which reads:-
“11.1° If the Taoiseach at any time resigns from office the other members of the Government shall be deemed also to have resigned from office, but the Taoiseach and the other members of the Government shall continue to carry on their duties until their successors shall have been appointed.”
Also, the terms used by the applicants such as “caretaker Dáil” and “outgoing Seanad” have no meaning in law. It was submitted that the Dáil and Seanad which passed the legislation were validly constituted under the Constitution.
Consideration of issue
70. In my view, the submissions made by Mr. Kieran are correct. The Articles of the Constitution referred to and the authorities relied on make it very clear that the complaints made by the applicants concerning the actions of the Ceann Comhairle and the procedure followed by the Dáil and Seanad in passing this legislation are non-justiciable. For a court to embark on the hearing of such complaints would be a clear breach of the principle of separation of powers.
71. Article 28.11 of the Constitution makes clear that the Government remains in office until their successors have been appointed. Further, “the Taoiseach and other members of the Government shall continue to carry on their duties…”. The fact that a number of the members of the Government who were in office at the date of the dissolution of the Dáil are no longer members of the Dáil does not affect this. It cannot be doubted that one of the duties of the Government is to take steps to address the health and economic issues that arise from the Covid-19 pandemic.
72. No case has been made that the Dáil and Seanad that considered and passed this legislation were not validly constituted.
73. The applicants’ reliance on the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister and Cherry v. Advocate General for Scotland is misplaced given the totally different constitutional position in this jurisdiction and the different factual background. The “note” from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service does not, as stated therein, have any legal standing, and anyway, is couched in general terms.
74. If the applicants are dissatisfied as to the quality of the contributions in the Dáil and Seanad made during the passage of this legislation, then this is a matter that should be taken up with the Deputies and Senators concerned. The court has no role in this.
75. In conclusion, I am satisfied that the applicants have established no arguable case against the Oireachtas. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the case which they seek to make is unstateable.
Hearing in Public
76. Article 34.1 of the Constitution provides:-
“Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.”
Amongst measures introduced to prevent the spread of Covid-19 was “social distancing”. In a court setting, social distancing means that it is no longer possible to have as many members of the public physically present in court as used to be the case. It was always
the case that for the hearing of certain actions, not every member of the public who wished to attend in court could do so. There is an obvious physical restraint, being the size of the courtroom. With social distancing, the facilitating of members of the public who wish to attend in court has been reduced. However, it does not follow that because every member of the public who wishes to attend cannot do so, that the hearing is not being held in public. In this case, members of the media who wished to attend to report on the proceedings were facilitated. Most members of the general public acquire their knowledge of court cases through the media. In addition, Murphy J. directed that the applicants be furnished with a copy of the transcript of the hearings without the usual charge. I continued this order for the hearings before me. I am satisfied, notwithstanding the physical limitations imposed by social distancing on the numbers of the public who could attend in court, that these hearings were heard in accordance with Article 34.1 of the Constitution.
77.(1) The applicants have sought to challenge the constitutionality of certain legislation enacted to combat the Covid-19 virus. They also challenge the legal standing of the Government and the procedures followed in the Oireachtas in the passing of this legislation. Such an application should have been brought by way of plenary proceedings, not judicial review. However, as under the Rules of the Superior Courts, the court may order the proceedings to continue as if they had been begun by plenary summons, I will not take any point on this;
(2) The principles to be applied by a court on an application seeking leave to bring judicial review proceedings are clear. The applicants must have standing and depose in their grounding affidavits facts that would be sufficient, if proved, to support arguable grounds for the reliefs sought;
(3) I am satisfied that the applicants have standing to challenge the provision of ss. 31A and 38A of the Health Act, 1947 (as amended) and the regulations made thereunder. I find that the applicants have no standing to challenge to the amendments of the Residential Tenancies, 2004 and Mental Health Act, 2001;
(4) The legislation enacted to address the health and economic issues that arise from the Covid-19 pandemic undoubtedly restrict people’s constitutional rights. However, the constitutional rights involved are not absolute, so for an arguable case to be made, the applicants must depose such facts on affidavit which, if proven, would establish that such restrictions are disproportionate. No such facts were deposed;
(5) In their “statement required to ground application for judicial review” filed in court on 15April 2020, the applicants set out a narrative of events concerning the effects of Covid-19 which ended on 16 March 2020. In their subsequent verifying affidavit, sworn 5 May 2020, the applicants did not bring this narrative up to date. On 16 March 2020, it was recorded that there were 268 confirmed cases of persons infected with Covid-19 and the deaths of two persons infected with the virus. The relevant figures for 5/6 May 2020 were 22,248 persons infected and 1,375 deaths;
(6) The applicants, who have no medical or scientific qualifications, in their Statement of Grounds and submissions to the Court maintained that the figures in relation to the number of persons infected with Covid-19 and number of deaths were overstated. Further, the applicants submitted that the first named respondent was following “fraudulent” science. No factual basis nor any supportive expert opinion was deposed to, to support this. Rather, in court, the applicants gave unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, engaged in empty rhetoric and sought to draw an historical parallel with Nazi Germany. Such a parallel is both absurd and offensive. Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, rhetoric and a bogus historical parallel are not substitutes for facts;
(7) Contrary to the assertions of the applicants, the making of regulations by the first named respondent pursuant to the legislation is constitutionally permissible;
(8) The applicants are not entitled to rely upon, as they seek to do, the European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003) and/or the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or other EU law;
(9) Given the clear terms of the relevant Articles in the Constitution and the legal authorities that have considered same, the applicants have made no arguable case against the notice parties (the Oireachtas). The case which they sought to make against these parties is unstateable; and
(10) I am refusing the applicants’ application seeking leave to bring these judicial review proceedings and will dismiss the application.
78. As this judgment is being delivered electronically, I invite the parties to make written submissions as to the consequential orders, in particular, the matter of costs.

Írországi beadvány

A Portugál beadvány


Felperesek 2020. augusztus 1-jén érkeztek repülővel Németországból. Érkezés előtt 72 órával COVID19 tesztet készíttettek, amelynek negatív lett az eredménye. Ezt az igazolást leszállás után megmutatták a helyi egészségügyi hatóságoknak.  

Egy hétre rá, a helyszínen készült tesztek közül  egyikük tesztje pozitív lett. Bármiféle orvosi vizsgálat nélkül karanténra kötelezték valamennyiüket. A karantént csak negatív teszt bemutatása után hagyhatták el. A csoport egyik tagja sem mutatott soha semmilyen tünetet, mégis valamennyien 16 napon keresztül szobáikba voltak zárva. A hatóság semmiképpen nem kezelhette volna egyformán azokat a személyeket, akik negatív tesztet produkáltak és az egy pozitív esetet. A felperesek csak emailben tudtak a hatóságokkal érintkezni, vagyis ők írtak leginkább, a hatóság nem válaszolt. Ha a hatóság kommunikált velük, akkor azt portugál nyelven tették a német helyett, tolmácsot nem biztosítottak. A számukra kijelölt szállodai szobákat semmilyen formában nem hagyhatták el. A felperesek nem követtek el semmilyen bűntettet és semmilyen adminisztratív jellegű kihágást sem.


A per tárgya szerint törvényellenesen indult bűnügyi eljárás felperesek ellen és egészségügyi témával kapcsolatban korlátozták  emberi szabadságjogaikat.

Portugália alkotmánya alapján, megelőző intézkedésként a hatóságnak nem állt jogában karantén intézkedést hozni. Az egészségügyi hatóságok által körlevelekben hozott utasítások semmilyen formában nem mondhatnak ellent Portugália alkotmányának. A felperesekre kötelezően előírt megelőző elszigetelés semmilyen formában nem kötelező érvényű, mivel ez csak egy adminisztratív iránymutatásként kezelhető.

A helyi hatóságok csak körleveleket adtak ki azzal kapcsolatban, hogy milyen eljárás vonatkozik a feltételezett és igazolt pozitív esetekre, hogyan kell az esetek környezetét beazonosítani és milyen eljárás vonatkozik rájuk.

A bíróság véleménye alapján az eljárás során mellőzésre került az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezménye (5. cikkely /2 és 6 bekezdés, 3§), az Emberi Jogok és Alapvető Szabadságjogok  Római egyezmény (Róma, 1950.11.04.),  valamint a büntető eljárásokra vonatkozó szabályok (Büntető Törvénykönyv 92. cikkely).

Ugyanakkor a döntéshozónak semmilyen formában nem volt jogosultsága egészségügyi témában határozatot hozni. A Bűnügyi törvényszék pedig bűnügyekkel kapcsolatban hozhat ítéleteket, foszthat meg szabadságától személyeket. Ugyanakkor nem dönthet fertőzésekkel, betegségekkel kapcsolatban.

Diagnózisra, egészség visszanyerésével kapcsolatos előírások meghozatalára kizárólag orvosnak van joga, ahogy ezt az Orvosokra vonatkozó Törvény (698/2019, 5.9) tartalmazza.

Ennek alapján egy vírusos fertőzés megállapítására vonatkozó diagnosztikai módszer, valamint egy fennálló vírusos fertőzés felismerése bármely személy esetében, nem történhet jogi úton, rendelet alapján, mivel ezen tevékenységek elvégzése kizárólag orvosi hatáskörbe tartozik.

Aggodalomra ad okot, hogy jelen esetben semmilyen bizonyíték nincsen arra, hogy a törvény előírásai alapján jártak volna el. A tények azt mutatják, hogy egyetlen érintettet sem látott orvos, s ez teljességgel elfogadhatatlan egy fertőzés feltételezett súlyossága miatt.

Az egyetlen bizonyíték az intézkedések meghozatalára az RT-PCR teszt elvégzése, amely az egyik személy esetében pozitív eredményt hozott.

A jelenlegi tudományos bizonyítékok alapján egy ilyen teszt nem alkalmas arra, hogy minden kétséget felülmúlóan igazolja azt, hogy az illető személy SARS-CoV-2 vírussal fertőzött. Ennek számos oka van, amely közül kettőt szeretnénk kiemelni:

Az RT-PCR teszt eredményét nagymértékben befolyásolja, hogy a teszt készítése során milyen ciklusszámon futtatják a levett mintát.

A megbízhatóságot nagymértékben befolyásolja az is, hogy a tesztelt minta milyen mennyiségben tartalmaz bármilyen vírust.

Bármely diagnózis felállítása, súlyos vírusos fertőzés megállapítása megelőző orvosi vizsgálat nélkül alapjaiban sérti a törvényi szabályozást (698/2019, 5.9) valamint a büntetőjogi törvények előírását is (Ordem dos Médicos, 97§, C.Penal §358 al.b).

Ha egy hatóság vagy személy olyan rendelkezést hoz, amely alapján fizikálisan megfoszt bárkit szabadságjogától, (nevezhetjük ezt elszigetelésnek, karanténnak, egészségügyi megfigyelésnek, előzetes védelemnek vagy bármi másnak is), bár a törvényi előírások ezt nem teszik számára lehetővé (CRP 27§), a törvényi előírások ellenében dönt.

Mivel a személyek elzárása törvénybe ütköző módon történt, a lisszaboni fellebbviteli bíróság bűnügyi részlege elrendeli a felperesek azonnali szabadon bocsátását.

A helyi (Azori Directorate) egészségügyi hatóság felülvizsgálati kérelme, amely szerint a személyek folyamatos megfigyelés alatt állnak, nagy egészségügyi kockázatot jelentenek a kimutatásra került SARS-CoV-2 vírus miatt, elutasításra került. Súlyos aggályok merültek fel amiatt, hogy mi alapján fosztották meg az állampolgárokat személyi szabadságuktól. A helyi hatóságok körlevelet adtak ki arról, hogy pozitív teszt esetén milyen intézkedéseket kell hozni. A meghozott intézkedések rendkívüli mértékben fosztották meg a német állampolgárokat mozgási szabadságuktól, emberi szabadságjogaiktól. Portugália alkotmánya értelmében mindenkinek joga van a szabadságra és biztonságra (27. cikkely). A szabadság fogalma több dimenziós. Tartalmazza a fizikai szabadságot, tehát a szabad mozgásnak a szabadságát is. Ezt a szabadságot bárkitől csak letartóztatás esetén, érvénybe lépett bírósági döntés alapján, börtönbüntetés alapján lehet elvenni.

Jelenleg az ország egy nehéz helyzet megoldására összpontosítja minden erejét. Ugyanakkor ebben a helyzetben is védelmezni kell az alapvető jogokat és ebben a bíróságoknak jelentős szerep jut. Az orvostudomány és általában a tudomány mellett a jognak, különösen az emberi jogok vonatkozásában, létfontosságú szerep jut. A jog nem tilthat és szankcionálhat, ugyanakkor védelmeznie kell. Jelenleg a koronavírus jelent vészhelyzetet országunk számára. Ugyanakkor nem tudjuk, hogy mit hoz a holnap. Amit ma megteszünk vagy nem teszünk meg annak érdekében, hogy a jogi alapelvekhez hűek maradjunk, annak hatása van a jövőnkre is. Teljesen világos, hogy a COVID-19 terjedése a jog területén is zűrzavart okozhat, ugyanakkor ez a helyzet nem lehet hatással az egyének szabadságára, biztonságára, emberi méltóságára.

Akár egy pozitív teszttel rendelkező személy karanténja, akár ennek hiányában bárki izolációja megelőző védekezésként, nem történhet meg, mivel az az egyén szabadságát korlátozza az Alkotmánybíróság szabályozása értelmében.

Egy ország helyi egészségügyi hatóságainak a földrajzi eloszlás alapján az egészségügyi ellátást kell biztosítaniuk. Gondoskodniuk kell arról, hogy rendelkezésre álljanak a tárgyi és személyi eszközök optimális arányban annak érdekében, hogy megvalósítható legyen a Nemzeti Egészségügyi Terv. Ennek a programnak az elkészítésében aktívan együtt kell működniük az ország vezetésével.  Folyamatosan monitorozniuk kell az egyes településeken a program megvalósulását. Ugyanakkor nem dönthetnek személyek elzárásáról, alapvető szabadságjogaik megfosztásáról a törvény alapján.

Összegzésként megállapítható:

  • Az alkotmány és a jog alapján egészségügyi hatóságoknak semmilyen formában nincsen lehetősége arra, hogy bárkinek is a szabadságát korlátozza. Országunkat az érvényben lévő jogok szabályozzák, s ezek alapján senkit nem lehet fogva tartani egészségügyi hatóság döntése alapján.
  • A személyes mozgás korlátozása már korábban is megvitatásra került olyan közegyészségügyi problémákkal kapcsolatban, mint a HIV fertőzés vagy a tuberkulózis. Le kell szögezni, hogy soha, senkinek az alapvető szabadságjogai nem kerültek korlátozásra azért, mert felmerült a fertőzöttségének a gyanúja vagy esetleg be is bizonyosodott bárkinél a betegség. A törvény ezt egyszerűen nem teszi lehetővé. A 4 felperest törvényellenesen fosztották meg szabadságjogaiktól.
  • Egy diagnózis felállítása orvosi tevékenységet takar, azért orvosnak kell felelősséget vállalnia. Orvos az a személy, aki megfelelő végzettséggel rendelkezik gyógyítási feladatok ellátására és képes diagnózis felállítására, gyógyításra, kezelésre. Az orvos köteles személyes vizsgálattal diagnosztizálni a rendellenességet, a betegséget köteles tanulmányozni a tüneteket, figyelembe véve az elkészített teszteket is. Ez vonatkozik vírusos fertőzések megállapítására is. Esetünkben valószínűsíthető teszteredmények alapján és egészségügyi rendelkezések alapján került sor intézkedésre. Ugyanakkor egy teszt elkészítése csak egy kiegészítő diagnosztikai lehetőség jelen esetben egy vírus megtalálása érdekében. Se a jog, se a törvényhozás nem tudja az orvost helyettesíteni. Az orvosi tevékenység elvégzéséhez a pácienseknek minden esetben beleegyezésüket kell adniuk.
  • Jelen esetünkben a bíróságot az is aggasztja, hogy semmilyen bizonyíték nincsen arra, hogy a törvények előírásai szerint bármilyen orvosi vizsgálat is történt volna. Felpereseket egyáltalán nem látta orvos. A feltételezett fertőzés, annak súlyossága ezt a lépést elengedhetetlenné teszi.
  • Az egyetlen bizonyíték az RT-PCR teszt elvégzése, amely pozitív eredmény mutatott egy személy esetében. Ugyanakkor a rendelkezésre álló tudományos ismeretek alapján ez a teszt önmagában nem alkalmas minden kétséget kizárólagosan eldönteni, hogy az adott személy fertőzött-e SARS-CoV-2 vírussal. Ezen kijelentésünknek számos oka van, de csak kettőt említenénk meg közülük. A teszteredményt nagymértékben befolyásolja, hogy milyen ciklusszámon futtatják le a tesztet a laboratóriumban. A teszt eredménye attól is függ nagymértékben, hogy a vizsgált személy szervezete milyen víruskörnyezettel rendelkezik. Portugáliában az RT-PCR teszteket orr- és szájüregi váladékminták alapján végzik. Ezek molekuláris biológiai tesztek, amelyek egy vírus RNS-ét képesek felfedezni. Az alkalmazott amplifikációs szám nagymértékben befolyásolja ezen tesztek megbízhatóságát. Ugyanakkor a megbízhatóság szempontjából a tudománynak nagy szerep jut.
  1. szeptemberében az Oxford Academic kutatócsoportja, amely a világ és Európa legtekintélyesebb tudósait gyűjtötte össze, a következő tanulmányt tette közzé:

A tesztek értékelésekor, 25 amplifikációs szám alkalmazása esetén, a sejtkultúrából vett mintáknak kb. 70 %-a mutatott pozitivitást (vagyis fertőzés állt fenn). 30-as amplifikációs szám alkalmazása esetén a mintáknak 20 %-a mutatott pozitivitást, 35-ös szám esetén pedig csupán 3 %. Magasabb amplifikációs szám esetén egyetlen minta sem mutatott fertőzöttséget, pozitivitást. Az USÁ-ban és Európában 35-ös, vagy magasabb amplifikációs számot alkalmaznak a tesztelések során. Ez  azt jelenti, hogy annak az esélye, hogy a személyről kimutatható legyen a  fertőzöttség, kevesebb mint 3 %. A fals pozitív eredmény kimutatásának esélye 97 % vagy több.

Tudósok, akik tanulmányozták a PCR teszt eredménykimutatási hatékonyságát. Elena Surkova, Vladíslav Nikolayevsky és Francis Drobniewski. Publikációjukat  a The Lancet, Respiratory Medicine, orvosi tudományos folyóiratban

7/fulltext publikálták. Komoly kételyeiket fejezték ki azzal kapcsolatban, hogy a SARS-CoV-2 vírus kimutatása az alkalmazott teszttel mennyire pontos. Amennyiben diagnosztikai tesztet végzünk, akkor egy betegségnek a megléte már a teszt készítése előtt valószínűsíthető. Tehát tünetek vannak, a kórtörténet Covid 19 betegség lezajlását tartalmazza, ellenanyagok kerültek már kimutatásra. Amennyiben bárki kapcsolatba került a SARS-CoV-2 vírussal, pozitív eredményt adhat a teszt akkor is, ha a vírus RNS hosszú ideig megtalálható a szervezetben, akár több héten át is a felgyógyulás után. Ugyanakkor ez egyáltalán nem azt jelenti, hogy fertőzés áll még fent. A fertőzés kimutatásához további laboratóriumi módszereket is kellene alkalmazni. Megállapíthatjuk, hogy a fals pozitív Covid-19 tesztek valószínűsége az Egyesült Királyságban egyre inkább valószínű a jelenlegi járványkezelés során, s ennek jelentős következményei vannak az emberek számára, valamint az egészségügyi rendszer számára.

Szaktekintélyek fejezték ki jelentős kételyeiket a tesztek megbízhatóságát illetően.

Egy bíróság soha nem lesz képes annak eldöntésére, hogy fennáll-e fertőzés és az milyen fokú.





A Portugál beadvány

Weimari ítélet: “Az érintettet felmentették”



2020 tavaszán nem volt „általános egészségügyi vészhelyzet” Thüringen vagy Németországban bárhol másutt – állapította meg a bíróság. Ennek megfelelően nem volt sem az a kockázat, hogy egészségügyi rendszerünk összeomlik, sem az, hogy a halálozások száma „teljesen más dimenziókban” nő, mint a „rendszeresen előforduló influenzahullámok” esetén.

Ezért az államnak nem volt joga elzárást elrendelni, és így érvényesíteni “a Szövetségi Köztársaság történetében az alapjogok legátfogóbb és legátfogóbb korlátozását”.

A politikusok és a tudósok teljesen másképp tekintettek a helyzetre

A felelős politikusok teljesen más módon értékelték az akkori fertőzési arányt és az ebből eredő, a lakosságot fenyegető veszélyt, és álláspontjuk szerint abszolút felelősségteljesen léptek fel. Ezenkívül nagy nyomás nehezedett rájuk, hogy cselekedjenek ebben a szélsőséges helyzetben.

Döntéseik meghozatalakor neves tudósok tanácsát vették igénybe. Biztos, hogy a fő ügyvédek is részt vesznek benne, akik gondosan ellenőrzik, hogy a javasolt intézkedések jogilag elfogadhatóak-e. A szakértők nyilvánvalóan egészen más következtetésekre jutottak, mint a weimari helyi bíróság.

Konkrét eset: nyolc ember egy születésnapi partin a kertben

Az a tény, hogy egy kis étel olyan intenzíven működik a nem éppen bonyolult témában, rendkívülinek mondható. Végül az értékelendő ügy csupán közigazgatási szabálysértés volt, amelynek fenyegetése meghaladta a 200 eurót: Egy fiatal férfi 2020. április 24-én hét barátjával ünnepelte születésnapját egy hátsó udvarban. Ezzel megsértette a Corona elleni védelemről szóló türingiai rendeletet. Azt írta, hogy csak „a háztartáson kívüli más személlyel” találkozhatsz.

Németország helyi bíróságai hosszú hónapok óta foglalkoznak hasonló jogi szabálysértésekkel. De míg ott gyakran csak a bírság összegéről van szó, a weimari kerületi bíróság megkérdőjelezte a politikai döntés jogalapját. Olyan rendeletek esetében, amelyeket a Bundestag vagy a Landtag nem hozott meg, minden bíróság maga dönthet az alkotmányosságról.

Weimari ítélet: “Az érintettet felmentették”

Az összes tény figyelmes mérlegelése után a bíróság arra a következtetésre jutott: „Az érintettet felmentik. Az államkincstárnak kell viselnie az eljárás költségeit és az érintett személy szükséges költségeit. “

A türingiai bíróság által felhozott érvek figyelemre méltóak, mert nemcsak tagadják a lezárási intézkedések jogszerűségét, hanem vitatják azok hatékonyságát is.

Az ítélet szerint az állam a kapcsolattartás általános tilalmával az állampolgárok közötti fizikai távolság kényszerítésével támadja a „társadalom alapjait”. A bíróság szerint azonban: “Az a kérdés, hogy egy állampolgár hány embert hív meg otthonába, vagy hány ember találkozik nyilvános helyeken sétálni, sportolni, vásárolni vagy egy padon ülni, alapvetően nem érdekli az államot. “

Általános kapcsolattartási tilalom: a bíróság elismeri a “tabuk megsértését”

A bíróság azt feltételezi, hogy a koronai válság során társadalmunkban “értékváltás” történt. Ma már sokan „normálisnak” tartják a korábban elképzelhetetlen dolgokat, a korlátozott alapjogok tekintetében is. Mindazonáltal nem lehet „kétséges”, hogy a kapcsolattartás általános tilalmával rendelkező demokratikus alkotmányos állam „megsértette a korábban magától értetődő tabut”.

Az állampolgárokat megfosztják alapvető szabadságuktól, hogy maguk dönthessenek el arról, hogy mely kockázatoknak akarják kitenni magukat. Már nem választhatja szabadon, hogy „este kávézóba vagy bárba megy” és „elfogad egy légúti vírusfertőzést” – vagy inkább otthon marad, hogy biztonságban lehessen. Az állam az állampolgárait olyan tárgyaknak tekinti, amelyeket erőszakkal kell “elhatárolni” az ítélet szerint. “A szabad alany, aki felelősséget vállal saját és embertársai egészségéért, ebből a szempontból felfüggesztésre kerül.”

Lezárás: Kétségek a jelentős pozitív hatásokkal kapcsolatban

Jogi szempontból mindez valószínűleg még mindig elfogadható, ha az állam a bíróság szerint „nagyon kivételes vészhelyzetbe kerülne”. Például, ha az „egészségügyi rendszer országos összeomlása” fenyeget, vagy nyilvánvalóvá válik, hogy a halálozási arány rendkívüli mértékben emelkedni fog. A bíróság azonban nem tud azonosítani ilyen jeleket a 2020 tavaszán értékelendő közigazgatási szabálysértés idejére.

Ezen túlmenően a kapcsolatfelvétel általános tilalmától „nem várható jelentős hozzájárulás a járvány pozitív hatásához”. Az eredetileg csak egy hónapra, 2020 novemberében elrendelt “hullámzár lezárása”, amelyet most kétszer hosszabbítottak meg, megerősítené, hogy “a lezárások nem befolyásolják jelentősen a fertőzés folyamatát és különösen a halálos kimenetelű esetek számát”.

Ezen a ponton is sok tudós és politikus teljesen más álláspontot képvisel. Elengedhetetlennek – és törvényileg megengedhetõnek – tartják az emberek közötti kapcsolatok abszolút minimumon tartását. Csak így lehet elkerülni az új fertőzéseket és hatékonyan nyomon követni a fertőzési láncokat.

A döntés általában nem érvényes, de jelerővel

A kerületi bíróság ítéletének nincs országos jelentősége. A konkrét hatások a felperesre és Weimar városára korlátozódnak. Ennek ellenére a döntésnek Türingia határain túl is vitákat kell indítania, és elő kell mozdítania az ügyvédek közötti vitát. Végül is Németországban jelenleg nincs egységes ítélkezési gyakorlat a kapcsolattartás korlátozásainak alkotmányosságáról.

Vitathatatlan, hogy az államnak a polgári szabadságjogokba való beavatkozásának lehetőségei korlátozottak, és minden egyes esetben nagyon jól meg kell indokolni őket – vagy különösen pandémiás helyzetben. Ez igaz volt 2020 tavaszán, valamint 2021 januárjában. Ebben a tekintetben továbbra is izgalmas kérdés marad, hogy a bíróság hogyan értékelné egy hasonló esetet, ha csak néhány napja történt volna.

Az ügyészség az ítélet megsemmisítésére törekszik

Weimari ítélet: “Az érintettet felmentették”

Politikai igazságosság a weimari köztársaságban

Politikai igazságosság a weimari köztársaságban

A weimari köztársaságban volt egy politikai igazságszolgáltatás, amely “vak volt a jobb szemében” annak érdekében, hogy annál jobban szemügyre vehesse a bal oldalt. Adolf Hitler és más vádlottak bírósági tárgyalása az augusztus 8/9-i puccskísérlet miatt a jobboldal elleni engedékenységre utal. 1923 novemberében Münchenben, amikor Hitler és Erich Ludendorff tábornok megpróbálták megragadni a hatalmat Bajorországban, és a berlini meneteléssel megdönteni a Stresemann-kormányt. A vádirat árulás volt: “A vádlottak a Kampfbund fegyveres erői és a gyalogos iskolák fegyveres ereje alapján vállalták a bajor kormány és a császári kormány erőszakos felszámolását, a császári alkotmány és a Szabadság erőszakos megváltoztatását. Bajorország állama és alkotmányellenesvé tegye őket Kormányhatalmak létrehozása.

A vádlottak – Hitler és Ludendorff tábornok mellett Ernst Pöhner volt müncheni rendőrségi elnök, a későbbi birodalmi belügyminiszter, Wilhelm Frick és a “Német Harci Liga” hat vezetője, köztük Ernst Röhm – fórumként használhatták a meghallgatást. a köztársaság és képviselői ellen folytatott agitációjukért a bíróság komoly elutasító felhasználása nélkül. Az ítélet rendkívül enyhe volt. Hitlert öt év börtönbüntetésre ítélték egy erődben, és ezzel egyidejűleg hat hónap elteltével próbára bocsátották a tárgyalóteremben. A köztársasági védelmi törvény azon rendelkezését, amely szerint nem hazaárulásért elítélt nem németeket deportálni kellett, Hitlerre, aki akkor még osztrák állampolgár volt, nem alkalmazták. Ennek oka: ”
Az igazságszolgáltatás a későbbi (1936) Nobel-békedíjas Carl Carlos Ossietzky elleni díjazásban döntött 1931-ben. A “Weltbühne” szerkesztőjeként és szerkesztőjeként Ossietzky cikket nyomtatott, amelyben a német repülés katonai újrafegyverzéséről és a Reichswehrre és a Szovjetunióra, a versailles-i békeszerződés rendelkezéseivel ellentétben, rámutattak. Ennek eredményeként őt és a cikk íróját egy év és hat hónap börtönbüntetésre ítélték katonai titkok elárulása miatt, annak ellenére, hogy csak a Versailles-i szerződés megsértését tárták fel.

1933. február 28-án, a Reichstag tűzvészét követő reggelen, amikor a nemzetiszocialisták megragadták az alkalmat, hogy céltudatosan megszüntessék a rezsim ellenzőit, az elkötelezett pacifistát és demokratát, Carl von Ossietzkyt ismét letartóztatták, majd később koncentrációs táborba vitték.

A weimari köztársaságban egy politikai igazságszolgáltatás két dolgot mért: Míg Adolf Hitlert viszonylag enyhén büntették meg 1923-as puccskísérletéért, Carl von Ossietzky újságírót (jobboldali kép, ügyvédei kíséretében) 1931-ben elítélték katonai titkok elárulása miatt. , bár csupán elítélték, feltárta a Versailles-i szerződés megsértését.A weimari köztársaságban egy politikai igazságszolgáltatás két dolgot mért: Míg Adolf Hitlert viszonylag enyhén büntették meg 1923-as puccskísérletéért, Carl von Ossietzky újságírót (jobboldali kép, ügyvédei kíséretében) 1931-ben elítélték katonai titkok elárulása miatt. , bár csupán elítélték, feltárta a Versailles-i szerződés megsértését. (© Interfoto / Kortárs Történeti Intézet)
Sajtórajz (1924. március 4-től) Adolf Hitler 1923-as puccskísérletének tárgyalásából - a tárgyalás néhány eredeti dokumentumának egyike, amely fennmaradtSajtórajz (1924. március 4-től) Adolf Hitler 1923-as puccskísérletének tárgyalásából – a tárgyalás néhány fennmaradt eredeti dokumentuma közül (© SZ Photo / Süddeutsche Zeitung Photo)


A náci diktatúra: a törvény elferdítése

Minden diktatúra a törvényesség látszatára törekszik. A hatalom fenntartására irányuló kényszerintézkedéseket tehát törvény formájában öltöztetik a diktatórikus rendszerek. A náci diktatúra is ezen az úton járt, ahol végül még a “Führer-rendet” is átalakították egy törvény legitimitásával. Ez az eszköz lehetővé tette Hitler számára, hogy “törvényen felüli” parancsokat adjon ki, amelyek azonnal érvényesek voltak.

Az állítólagos Röhm putch elnyomásáról szóló, mintegy 100 SA-vezető és politikai ellenfél meggyilkolásával összefüggő jelentésében már felhívta a Reichstagot: “Abban az órában én voltam felelős a német nemzet sorsáért, és így a német nép legfelsőbb bírósági ura. ” A 300 000 fős SA vezetőjét, Ernst Röhmöt Hitler az állam hatalmának riválisának tekintette. Ezért használta Hitler 1934 júniusának végén Röhm állítólag közelgő putchjét, hogy szétzúzza az SA-t, és meggyilkolja annak vezetését, valamint más népszerűtlen személyiségeket – mindenféle tárgyalás nélkül. Az állami sürgősségi védelmi intézkedésekről szóló 3. 1934. július – a gyilkosság befejezése után egy nappal telt el – ezeket a bűncselekményeket “törvényesnek” nyilvánították annak érdekében, hogy – amint Hitler a kabinet előtt állította – legalizálni “egy olyan akciót, amellyel az egész népet megmentették a mérhetetlen károktól”. A Reichstag 1942. április 26-i határozatával Hitler végül maga nevezte ki a legfelsõbb bírósági urat.

Ennek ellenére a nemzetiszocialisták kezdetben úgy tűnt, hogy szorgalmazzák a jogállamiság homlokzatának fenntartását. Csak korlátozták a törvényt – vagy speciális bíróságok útján kijátszották őket -, ahol útját állták ellenfeleik üldözésének. A Reichstag állítólagos gyújtogatóját, Marinus van der Lubbét csak a bűncselekmény után elfogadott törvény alapján ítélték halálra. Így elvetették a “nulla poena sine lege” (latinul: törvény nélkül nincs büntetés) jogállamiságot.

Már 1933 márciusában elfogadták az állam és a párt elleni alattomos támadások elhárításáról és a párt egyenruhájának védelméről szóló törvényt (amelyet 1934 decemberében szigorítottak), amely szerint bárki, aki “nyilvánosan gyűlöletkeltő, gyulladásos vagy alacsony az NSDAP-ról, az államról vagy Hitlerről tett gondolkodó kijelentések akár két év börtönnel is büntethetők.

Az 1936. február 10-i Gestapo-törvény végül hivatalosan megszüntette az állami rendőri intézkedések minden bírósági ellenőrzését, és a Titkos Államrendőrségnek (Gestapo) szabadon hagyta, hogy maga határozza meg felelősségi körét. Például a nem kívánt embereket a Gestapo most is koncentrációs táborba küldhette, még a börtönből való szabadulásuk után is. Így megszűnt az egyén jogi védelme. Az olyan vezető német jogászok, mint Carl Schmitt (1888–1985), feladták magukat, hogy az alkotmányjog révén legitimálják a törvény e korai elferdülését.

A nemzetiszocialisták világosabbá váltak a zsidókkal szembeni hátrányos megkülönböztetésben és a jogok teljes megfosztásában, még akkor is, amikor megpróbálták titkolni, hogy a zsidó lakosságot koncentrációs táborokba deportálták és szisztematikusan meggyilkolták ott. Ugyanez vonatkozott más csoportok, például a fogyatékkal élők, a homoszexuálisok, valamint a sintik és a romák üldözésére is. A törvényt a cél elérése érdekében beépítették a náci ideológiába. Ami állítólag az emberek javát szolgálta, helyes volt; a diktátor vagy a rezsim határozta meg az előnyöket.

Gustav Radbruch (1921/22 és 1923 birodalmi igazságügyi miniszter) 1946-ban “törvénytelen igazságtalanságnak” minősítette az ilyen törvényeket. Ezzel szemben “törvényen felüli törvényt” követelt, és ezért elsőbbséget biztosított az elismert emberi jogoknak. Az emberiség elleni bűncselekményekről szóló ítéleteket hasonló alapon hozták meg a nürnbergi háborús bűnökkel kapcsolatos tárgyalások során. 1946-ban a nürnbergi nemzetközi katonai bíróság elítélte a vezető nemzetiszocialistákat, de olyan bűnszervezeteket is, mint az SS, a Gestapo és az NSDAP. 1946 és 1949 között Nürnbergben újabb tizenkét tárgyalásra került sor a náci rezsim politikai, társadalmi és katonai vezetői csoportjai ellen az amerikai katonai bíróságok előtt.

Halálos mondatok
A náci igazságtalansági törvényeket a büntető igazságszolgáltatási rendszer megfelelően és kiterjedten alkalmazta – és nem csak a “hétköznapi” bűnözőkkel szemben. Különösen a politikai büntetőjogi törvény alkalmazta az ellenzék elnyomásának eszközét. Az 1934-ben létrehozott Népbíróság, valamint a különleges bíróságok és a hadbíróságok így váltak a terror eszközévé. A különbíróságokat 1933 márciusában hozták létre. Eleinte politikai ellenfelek ellen irányultak; később (1938/39) felelősségi körük kibővült a súlyos és közepes bűnözéssel. Hosszú távú politikai vita alakult ki a náci igazságszolgáltatás által hozott halálos ítéletek számáról. Kezdetben csak a polgári igazságszolgáltatásban szereplő halálos ítéleteket számolták.

Politikai igazságosság a weimari köztársaságban