There has been much debate among lawyers as to whether the various “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (i.e., lockdown measures) that have been imposed over the past year and a half are actually legal.
In April of 2020, the barrister Francis Hoar wrote an article laying out the case for the illegality of Britain’s lockdown. While his piece is very much worth reading in full, I will do my best to summarise the main points here.
Hoar argues that lockdown measures were a “disproportionate interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights”, and were therefore in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.
To make his case, he appeals to the so-called Siracusa Principles, which were adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1984. These principles stipulate that government responses to national emergencies that involve the restriction of human rights must fulfil certain criteria.
Specifically, they must be: carried out in accordance with law; directed toward an objective of general interest; strictly necessary to achieve that objective; the least intrusive way of achieving that objective; based on scientific evidence, and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory; of limited duration, respectful of human dignity and subject to review.
Hoar argues convincingly that lockdown measures failed to meet several of these criteria. For example, lockdowns were not strictly necessary, since the same outcomes could plausibly have been achieved with far less intrusive measures (i.e., a focused protection strategy).
And it’s highly doubtful that lockdowns were “respectful of human dignity and subject to review”, given that they initially proscribed all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception – a measure unprecedented in British history.
Hoar suggests that, “were they challenged by judicial review”, the measures should be “disapplied if necessary”. (Recall that he was writing back in April of last year). Incidentally, a longer and more detailed version of his article is available here.
Another figure from the legal community to argue for the illegality of the UK’s lockdowns is Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court Justice. In a lecture delivered to the Cambridge Law Faculty in October 2020, he claimed that lockdown measures were without legal basis, and described the U.K.’s response as “a monument of collective hysteria and government folly”.
As readers may be aware, there was in fact a major legal challenge to the U.K.’s lockdowns, brought by the entrepreneur Simon Dolan (and funded to the tune of £427,000). The challenge sought a judicial review of the lockdown measures. Unfortunately, it proved unsuccessful.
I’ve been told by people with legal expertise that mounting another challenge would be difficult, given the adverse judgement in the case brought by Dolan. It’s therefore unlikely the Government will be liable for claims from individuals and businesses who’ve suffered due to lockdown.
Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that legal bodies in each of the following countries have found at least some aspect of the lockdown policy illegal: France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Spain, Finland, Czechia, Scotland, Slovakia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States.
So while the High Court in London did reject Dolan’s case against the Government, lockdown opponents have won important victories in a number of countries.
And given that the evidence against lockdown has only increased since the judgement in Dolan’s case, lockdown opponents will have plenty of ammunition if any future Government decides to lock down in response to a similar virus.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
All entirely consistent with the BBC’s approach to everything and its actual purpose which is to change the world or just beat people with their elite virtue. It’s not a news or broadcast or entertainment organisation, it’s a woke propaganda organisation.
” a somehat thin-skinned”
So when Muslims mock the religious beliefs of others we should all and always bite our tongues?
I don’t doubt the author’s outrage but we have had lies and propoganda from the BBC for years now. Quite simply it is now a shameful and embarrassing, tawdry, national disgrace.
Bending over backwards to placate the followers of Mohammed is absolutely par for the course. The real shock horror headline will be revealed when the BBC finds itself reporting a story accurately and impartially but hell will have healed over before that ever happens.
As Michael Wendling, one of their Disinformation team, wrote to me regarding my criticisms of their reporting of an early anti-lockdown protest:
“Of course those who believe in conspiracy theories are not going to call their beliefs conspiracy theories, and are going to call themselves mainstream, moderate people.
We viewed footage of the speakers and spoke to people who were there.
We have no obligation to give a platform to erroneous ideas. We don’t, to take an extreme example, broadcast the manifestos of mass murderers alongside police statements so that people can “make up their own minds”.
I’m not saying the people there were violent. Some of them were (as the story reflected) were drawn by legitimate concerns. But the speakers (Mr Icke and others) were not expressing mainstream views that would benefit from airing and debate.”
They simply know that they know better than the plebs who pay their wages.
“We have no obligation to give a platform to erroneous ideas.”
I think the members on here have more than sufficient intelligence to be able to determine what is or is not “erroneous.” I certainly do not require that information is vetted before I am allowed to see it.
What a jumped up a#sehole. And on taxpayers money.
If you want to make a difference then stop paying your license fee. This is the only thing we can do to retaliate. Gov will do nothing as they need the BBC to spread propaganda in other countries around the world in the name of regime change. We CAN do something though.
I sometimes wonder if the BBC does this sort of thing in the hope it may generate a conflagration. Think of the air time they would have.
It is clear that with the BBC, Muslim is most favoured, non-white is next and non-British after that.
Needless to say, it is not so much that this “blasphemy” was offensive than that they were more afraid of the people who might protest against this “blasphemy” than they were of, for example, anti-lockdown protesters.
I suspect that there is an element of projection in this too. With the BBC is staffed by the same sort of Guardian reading types who make up the Labour party, which is reputed to hate anyone who disagrees with them including often enough elements of their own party, perhaps they naturally assume that people who make “offensive” comments about a belief (especially that of a group of people who have had a bizarre alliance with the liberal left) necessarily hate people of that belief. I for one though am not like that. As I’ve said before, I bear no malice towards any man. Naturally I disagree with many people on many things, including such beliefs as these, but that does not mean I can’t get on with them.
You sound like a tremendous chap.
The British Establishment, including the BBC, is terrified of the militant Muslims they’ve spent 2-3 decades importing into the UK.
They have a long history of appeasement and that’s the name of the game they’re playing with these Islamists.
I like millions of others have cancelled my lisence payment. Was the best action I’ve ever taken I don’t care or even think about that fading corporation.
An item in today’s Telegraph has the headline “Government Islamophobia adviser calls for film ban”.
Obviously Qari Asim has been running very, very hard to jump up on the band wagon to demonstrate his virtue signaling attitudes. So he’ll be resigning his position? I think not.