Taking Action for Lockdown Harms » Blog » Why do Judicial Reviews keep Failing?

Why do Judicial Reviews keep Failing?

Following last week’s newsletter, I’ve been asked to explain what exactly is the difference between CACUK and judicial reviews against Covid Measures, which have all failed as I predicted last summer

Quite simply, CACUK is a tort case – in tort law, you can sue a person for causing you harm, providing you can prove the harm, and the cause, and several other legal ‘tests.’  With CACUK, we can easily prove the harm and the cause, and we have substantial evidence to satisfy the other legal elements required.

Examples of tort are: trespass, assault and battery (assault and battery are actually TYPES of trespass)

By contrast, JUDICIAL REVIEW is simply a process of deciding whether a public body went through the correct procedures before establishing a particular law or policy, (for example, the Coronavirus Act, or the care home vaccine mandates, and now the NHS vaccine mandates.

Limited Scope

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary Website states,

“Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

“In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

“It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were ‘right’, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the ‘correct’ decision.”

So, a judicial review is a special type of case.  It is limited in its scope. 

The Science is Settled???

In Simon Dolan’s £500,000 judicial review last year, many people were horrified that the judge refused to look at the science.  But it is not the remit of a judicial review to judge the science. 

Other types of cases are able to review the science, and often do – this is where you get expert witnesses in!  However, in a JUDICIAL REVIEW, the judge is neither obliged, nor has the authority, to decide which scientist was telling the truth or was conflicted or incompetent.

So, if you are going to oppose Covid Measures by saying the science is wrong, then a judicial review is the WRONG TOOL.

False Assumptions?

In the recently failed judicial review of the care home regulations, even though a significant proportion of this country think it’s abhorrent to try and mandate vaccination or any medical intervention, the government’s reasoning is that care homes are exceptional, because of the duty to protect vulnerable people from a deadly virus; therefore, ASSUMING ALL VACCINES ARE SAFE, as has been propagandised for the last two centuries, and ASSUMING THERE IS A PANDEMIC, as has been propagandised for the last two years, if you are going to be working in a care home, you really ought to get vaccinated because the manager has a duty to ensure a safe environment for service users

One of the grounds in the above judicial review was ‘irrationality.’  Here’s what the Institute of Government says about the ground of irrationality, one of the limited number of grounds in a JUDICIAL REVIEW:

A decision can be overturned on the ground of irrationality if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person, acting reasonably, could have made it. This is a very high bar to get over, and it is rare for the courts to grant judicial review on this basis.

The court decided that the government didn’t act irrationally in their decision to mandate vaccines in care homes, for which the official justifiable reason is to protect the vulnerable and allow care home managers to discharge their duty to ensure a safe environment for their residents.

Perhaps the decision may have been different had the courts NOT been operating under the ASSUMPTION that there is a deadly virus running rampant…

Challenge the Assumptions!

Of course, to challenge and correct these assumptions one would have to prove the scientific facts in court…

And, for the reasons explained above, you are NOT going to do that with a JUDICIAL REVIEW.

CACUK’s legal case is set up in a way that allows the science to be debated in court.  And, unlike the other cases, we DO challenge the assumption of a pandemic

For obvious reasons, I cannot give any depth of detail about how we do this, until we are ready to issue a statement of claim, which will then be published – by then, the defendant will have already seen it.  But at the bottom of the home page there is an FAQ section, which gives you a brief guide. 

We have a huge cohort of individuals who have been harmed by Covid Measures, medically, psychologically and financially.  They want to see this case in court, as we are sure you do too!

Every time a judicial review fails, the nation’s truth warriors feel defeated and demoralised.  There is no need.  Judicial reviews are inherently limited.  Judicial reviews were never going to challenge the Covid narrative, but judicial reviews are not the ONLY type of legal case!! 

Nobody in the UK has yet properly challenged the existence of a pandemic.

So, with the UK’s lawyers now starting to accept that judicial review will not succeed in challenging Covid Measures, will you now consider backing CACUK so that we can finally challenge the ‘Plandemic’ in court?

You can donate here to help get this case off the ground.

1 thought on “Why do Judicial Reviews keep Failing?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *