On another busy, remote broadcast on the 2nd October the case concerning Ryanair’s challenge to the Government’s measures which were announced on the 21st July in respect of travel restrictions were highlighted as the judgement was handed down earlier. The High Court ruled that the Government’s advice against nonessential travel to most countries due to the risk of Covid 19 infection is legal. The essence of the challenge was in respect of a claim by Ryanair that the advice was mandatory in nature and had the same effect as regulations but that it had not been introduced by any Acts of the Oireachtas and was therefore unconstitutional and in breach of the 1970 and 2020 Health Acts, the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It was the contention of the State that there was no mandatory nature in the measures, that they were advisory only, this point was referred to in the context of the latest announcement in respect of national Covid 19 restrictions prohibiting more than 6 gathering in any one house and curtailing such gatherings to the one family. Seamus Gunn was of the view that this was impractical and impossible to police. A debate followed in relation to measures restricting one’s rights in their family home and the powers that would be necessary in order to implement such actions. Our contributor was of the view that there would be a better argument to be made on the Constitutional front if any such regulations were introduced, pointing out that while they had been mooted to be referred to the AG for consideration, it seemed that they had been shelved to date. A view was also proffered that it was time to pursue a strategy of more conversation and less alienation, pointing to recent examples in respect of student gatherings on the reopening of colleges.
A lively Q & A session followed, which included some interesting questions on different aspects of Wills.