In a decision that is extremely disappointing and of grave concern, the High Court has dismissed outright the claimant’s application for judicial review and to challenge the offer of Pfizer’s mRNA injectables to healthy five to 11 year-olds. Mrs Justice Farbey’s decision on July 19th 2022 reveals the court’s determined and seemingly now absolute reluctance to scrutinise Government decisions where Covid is involved.
As it stands, it also arguably leads to the conclusion that the court will not entertain challenge to any:
- ministerial decision said to be in response to a pandemic reliant on expert advice;
- advice or decisions of any expert regulatory body (certainly including the MHRA and JCVI);
- poor or inaccurate information being provided by the Government to the public about medical treatments (regardless of any misinformation or coercion).
There could be an exception, for example a case of obvious fraud, but it is hard to imagine those circumstances being discovered.
With the High Court declaring the application “totally without merit”, the only way forward now is to the Court of Appeal, but this carries great risk, since complete endorsement of this decision by that court would set a precedent that other judges would have to follow.
The decision with its limited reasons is here. On whether to appeal, and time is very short, the claimants will need to consider and reflect at least on the following extracts of the decision.
1. A challenge of highly detailed and scientific evidence.
The judge asserts the “well-established principle that the courts will be reluctant to interfere with multi-factorial decisions that raise broad questions of social policy and/or decisions that rest on highly detailed technical and scientific evidence”.
Fair enough, but the challenge was precisely that there was no highly detailed technical and scientific evidence in respect of key issues, such as risks from: endless production of toxic spike proteins gathering around ovaries, liver, spleen and other organs; toxic lipid nano particles crossing the blood brain barrier; damage to the immune system and increased risk to Covid infection; that the off-the-scale increase of vaccine injury reports may have a causal connection etc.).
The Government’s defence did not deny that many of these significant risks to children had not been taken into account at all, let alone by consideration of highly detailed technical and scientific evidence. Is it enough for the court that the Government effectively says, ‘No comment. We need not answer any specifics, just take our word for it we have experts who will have looked sensibly at everything’?
2. Realism.
The judge wrote:
Given the evidence-based views of JCVI and MHRA, on which the Defendant was entitled to rely and which the court would take into consideration, the submission that the decision under challenge could not have been made by any reasonable public body is lacking in realism.
Even though the Government did not deny the existence of specific risks and would not say how they had been taken into account, the lack of realism lies in the lack of appreciating the apparent assumption that the JCVI and MHRA shall always and only have “evidence-based views” and shall be assumed to have obtained and taken all relevant evidence into account.
On that ‘realism’, the advice and decisions of these regulatory bodies are put beyond scrutiny and they may in practice act without accountability.
The judge adds:
The claimants’ submissions amount upon analysis to no more than a disagreement with the risks and benefits of vaccination for young children.
It is difficult to understand the reasoning for the judge’s analysis as none is given. The challenge was specifically not about disagreement with advice but claimed that specific risks had not been considered or factored into the advice – claims not denied by the Government. That is a very conventional judicial review challenge.
Complaint is made about recitation of evidence, but if the court is not provided with evidence of the existence of unconsidered risks, then the court would reject the claim on the basis it is without evidence. The court appears to be saying it may expect to be provided with evidence but might not explain what if any regard it has to it.
The judge continues:
This is upon analysis a collateral challenge to the work of the JCVI and/or MRHA. It is a factual challenge which is inapt to found a claim for judicial review against the Defendant. It is bound to fail.
This is principally a reference to the claim’s questioning the basis on which the MHRA says there is no signal to be seen in the off-the-charts increase of reports of adverse reactions, when no basis has been disclosed. The MHRA is hiding its reasoning and this was no collateral challenge. It was expressly a direct challenge to the work of the MHRA and JCVI. If they are not making reasonable assessments the minister cannot legally rely on them. Unfortunately, it seems that the court will not contemplate the possibility that scientists will make an unreasonable assessment of available information. It appears, instead, determined always to assume that a challenge to a factual assertion by an appointed expert body (of the type, for example, ‘there is nothing to see here’) cannot and will not be considered in judicial review proceedings.
3. Informed consent.
In relation to the provision of informed consent, the judge says the court “will not micro-manage the wording of information for parents which is a matter for the Defendant and those who advise him”.
It is not wording that matters, but the information. Or rather, the lack of it. Conveniently, none of that need be addressed as the court considers that “even if the available information gave rise to a generalised argument about informed consent, it would not apply to the claimants who are not vaccinated and who have not suffered any breach of a right that could or should be vindicated in judicial review proceedings. They would not benefit from the grant of any relief”.
If parents and unjabbed children cannot bring a challenge, who can and for what benefit? Children who have already been jabbed? It’s a bit late for them. And given the civil immunity from liability for damages in respect of the injection, where would the judge suggest there would ever be the required benefit the court requires of bringing a claim before it?
The dismissal of this aspect of the claim is tantamount to a green light for the Government to ignore long-established principles in relation to providing information about medical treatments, and for anyone administering them to do so as well and in ignorance.
4. What consequences?
The judge notes that the decision to mass-inject our five to 11s “has significant social and economic consequences for the United Kingdom”.
One might have imagined this observation would weigh in favour of giving some further consideration to the claim. Instead, it is used to criticise the claimants for not bringing the claim promptly enough. But what consequences does the court have in mind? Is it the fears and feelings of the adult population that need addressing promptly?
There is much that the court does not see the need to address at all or, if addressed, to explain.
In light of this decision, it is now also hard to imagine a successful challenge to a decision to inject day-old babies with the experimental mRNA injections, let alone the mass injection of six month to four year-olds which is being discussed right now by the JCVI.
The protection given by the principles of informed consent have primarily been established through decades of case law by the courts stepping in to protect the rights of individuals. Judges did so in accordance not only with the common law rights of U.K. citizens but the rights of European and world citizens, formulated since the Second Word War as a defence against the return of fascism and authoritarian regimes that was enabled by the subjugation of rights of individuals to the will of the government of the time.
By this decision the court has finally and fully stepped aside from protecting U.K. citizens. It has abandoned all restraints on the power of the Government when wielded in the name of Covid or any other pandemic that may be declared.
Children cannot expect any protection from the courts where they are put at risk in the name of Covid.
Stephen Jackson of Jackson Osborne Solicitors writes on behalf of the mother and child claimants. Further case updates will be posted here.
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.
“Equality” —–A cautionary tale.—– “Equality” according to who? Does “equality” mean the same to a black person who are convinced they are oppressed as to white person who does not feel like an oppressor? Does “equality” mean the same to someone on minimum wage as it does to a billionaire? Do people want “equality” of opportunity or do they think we should have “equality of outcomes? —–I suggest “equality” is in the eye of the beholder.
Vernal looks like a total mincer to me, what do you think Varmint?
Not by looking at his face. Only by listening to his words and looking at his actions. The whole “equality” business is just like every other commie scam.
Vernal look rather effete to my gimlet eye. Why are we giving non jobs to such utterly mediocre mincers?
If you give someone a well-paid job with prestige and power, and you call it “Head of Equality”, they have no incentive to increase “equality” because if they did then they’d be out of a job.
Exactly
Like SAGE, who only exist when there’s an “emergency”, or the WHO who peddle “pandemics”, or pharma companies who may prefer us to rely on their “treatments” instead of looking after ourselves.
Orwell prediction comes true, yet again!!!
And what a surprise he’s not Mother’s Pride.
Any organisation with an ‘Equality Officer’ deserves to be shut down in its entirety.
Off-T
Slightly.
https://thenewconservative.co.uk/islam-demands-labour-will-comply/
Even Frank Haviland is issuing words of warning as sectarian politics pushes in to the space vacated by the Uniparty.
How precisely does expressing oppositon to the policy and actions of the state of Israel in the middle-east compromise the safety of Jewish students at Oxford?
Are you actually serious? I’d guess you are just plain stupid but hey, maybe you think you are right and there is nothing to see here just like 1936.
I guess that you don’t have an answer to the question and that’s why you’re trying to insult me instead.
The excerpt mentions two demands of the protestors:
Professor Goldman asserts that this would compromise the safety of Jewish students […] at Oxford. However, he doesn’t state why he believes so and you calling me names and waving Nazi tokens doesn’t demonstrate that, either. Hence, so far, there’s no reason for this assertion. I can think of a meta-reason, namely, both Goldman and you really want someone powerful to shut these protests down, nat-con style.
I actually find it impossible to believe you said that to be honest. Does it not occur to you what “From the River to the Sea” means? How would you feel if a bunch of your co-workers chanted, day after day, a slogan which meant they wish to kill you?
Seriously, does it really not compute that they are deliberately and knowingly targeting Jewish students? I cannot, for the life of me, see how you can not see this.
Does it not occur to you what “From the River to the Sea” means? How would you feel if a bunch of your co-workers chanted, day after day, a slogan which meant they wish to kill you?
I “feel” you’re making an incoherent statement. “From the River to the Sea” refers to the country between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea which is supposed to be liberated from Israeli control. This doesn’t express a wish to kill aynone, not even necessarily for someone to be killed there, as a peaceful solution is perfectly conceivable and not really more unlikely than any other, ie, totally unlikely, as Israel is the military great power in this area and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
BTW, my position on that is that I resent being dragged into the petty squabbles between J-semites and M-semites in a “distant country I know (next to) nothing of” and couldn’t care less about. Except maybe a bit of Schadenfreude that our former enemies (ie, enemies of the central powers) in this region are still at each other throats fighting for the spoils of 1918.
I did think this was funny, mind. The terrorist-supporting, Jew-hating rape-apologists won’t see the humour though. To them every word reported by actual terrorist organizations, who can’t stop declaring how much they hate, well, everyone who isn’t them, is the Gospel;
https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1788257560182571464
Many years ago the leftie nutcases stood solidly behind the Jews at the Battle of Cable Street. Today they are the Nazi’s. Socialism does not really change much, it just has a change of clothes now and again. The sad thing is that people like this fool, and those in the camps, do not even realise who they are.
The Black Shirts of Oswald Mosley were fascists but not antisemitic, at least until their marches were sabotaged by Communists & Jews.
The rise of Oswald Mosley:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4ZZkPTTkrM
Maybe Nigel Biggar, the Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology at Oxford should resign as he has obviously lost his “moral” compass by supporting the Jewish slaughter of the indigenous Palestinians.
Do please look up some history and remove the “indigenous” bit. Also, did you know that Israel has the best record in the world for not killing civilians? They make a point of warning exactly where they are going to attack and give civilians time to move.
Perhaps the terrorist-supporting Jeremy Corbyn fan club on here could remind us of a time when Israel actually initiated a conflict in the Middle East, in comparison to their many hate-fueled, barbarian jihadist neighbours that surround them. I’d rather be surrounded by a load of Jews than live in a Muslim majority neighbourhood any day of the week.
You are hilarious.
Love the satire.
This is hilarious:What are the conspiracy theories MPs have been warned about? (msn.com)
Good grief. More taxpayers money wasted. So if the usual “fact checkers” – ‘trusted news initiative’ FFS – declare a conspiracy theory then we are supposed to believe it.
Yeah right.
So there is no ‘reset?’
There is no ‘replacement?’
We really are living through ‘1984’ and 2 + 2 definitely equals 5.
I thought this letter written by Jewish students to the community of Columbia University was excellent. I will never ever, for as long as I live, understand why people would wish to deny these people their fundamental right to self-determination in their homeland. Muslims have 50+ nations, many of which they got rid of Christians and Jews from, and if there are any still left in some of those places they live like second class citizens, persecuted and murdered every single day. And yet they have the absolute audacity to begrudge and war over a tiny piece of land, approx the size of Wales, which is the only place the Jews get to call ”home”. There is no sense, no rational to that sort of mindset, none.
And yet these ‘useful idiots’, these cheerleaders of terrorists have the temerity to show their ignorance by accusing Israel of ”ethnic cleansing”?! LOL Well I think opening a history book might be a good place to start before you accuse Jews of ethnic cleansing, because the Muslims know a thing or two about being ‘colonizers’, to put it mildly. Approx 2 million Muslims/Arabs live peacefully, enjoying equal rights in Israel. How many Jews and Christians can say the same living in the majority Muslim countries?
”Many of us sit next to you in class. We are your lab partners, your study buddies, your peers, and your friends. We partake in the same student government, clubs, Greek life, volunteer organizations, and sports teams as you.
Most of us did not choose to be political activists. We do not bang on drums and chant catchy slogans. We are average students, just trying to make it through finals much like the rest of you. Those who demonize us under the cloak of anti-Zionism forced us into our activism and forced us to publicly defend our Jewish identities.
We proudly believe in the Jewish People’s right to self-determination in our historic homeland as a fundamental tenet of our Jewish identity. Contrary to what many have tried to sell you – no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel. Zionism is, simply put, the manifestation of that belief.
Many of us are not religiously observant, yet Zionism remains a pillar of our Jewish identities. We have been kicked out of Russia, Libya, Ethiopia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Poland, Egypt, Algeria, Germany, Iran, and the list goes on. We connect to Israel not only as our ancestral homeland but as the only place in the modern world where Jews can safely take ownership of their own destiny.
The evil irony of today’s antisemitism is a twisted reversal of our Holocaust legacy; protestors on campus have dehumanized us, imposing upon us the characterization of the “white colonizer.” We have been told that we are “ the oppressors of all brown people ” and that “the Holocaust wasn’t special”. Students at Columbia have chanted “we don’t want no Zionists here”, alongside “death to the Zionist State” and to “go back to Poland” where our relatives lie in mass graves.”
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRQgyDhIjZupO2H-2rIDXLy_zkf76RoM-_ZIYsOfn9FkI7TETgRtOfXK9VobMvGh6iEZfDPgALXJTCR/pub
Well 10 out of 10 for consistency, at least. 0 out of 10 for common sense, decency or democracy.
He managed to mess up the police then move on to Oxford? His credentials must be brilliant because from Essex to Oxford is quite an upgrade. Whoever appointed him should be ashamed. Mind you, these days every HR department has to kowtow to Stonewall. Diversity champion my foot!