No arguable case established that public restrictions and limitations put in place due to Covid-19 are disproportionate

Judicial review - Application for leave to judicially review – on notice - Covid-19 emergency – two journalists challenging the constitutionality of legislation and regulations enacted to arrest the spread of Covid-19, within the State - challenging the steps taken and the procedures followed by the Oireachtas in enacting the legislation – history of the virus – Minister for Health took a number of measures to halt the spread of Covid-19 and to address the economic and social effects of the virus – no new government convened following General Election - the Taoiseach and other members of the Government continue to carry on their duties until their successors are appointed – procedural history - raised issues concerning the legislative process – Oireachtas joined as notice parties – right of access to the courts – relevant statutory provisions - principles which a court should apply to an application for leave - sufficient interest – stateable grounds - arguable case in law - 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 - application for leave has a low threshold but it is, nonetheless, a threshold – affecting interests not rights - burden of proving that the legislation in question is repugnant to the Constitution lies on the applicants – heavy burden - claim of unconstitutionality – argued that the pandemic is not an emergency as provided in the Constitution - questioned the accuracy of the figures relating to the amount of persons infected by Covid-19 and the number of deaths – questioned the science relied upon by the State – arguments referred to “police state” and Nazi Germany - number of Articles in the Constitution which they claim the legislation (and regulations) are in breach of – power to legislate – principles and policies test - incorrect procedure – should have commenced by way of Plenary Summons - had not established sufficient interest or standing to challenge the legislation or regulations - 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 – whether the applicants have established an arguable case - rights are not absolute and may be restricted - 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 – complete failure to do so - 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 - do not have standing to challenge the amendments to the Mental Health Act, 2001 - 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 – Court 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 – arguments against the Oireachtas are not justiciable – separation of powers - Article 28.11 of the Constitution makes clear that the Government remains in office until their successors have been appointed - hearing in public – social distancing - members of the media who wished to attend to report on the proceedings were facilitated - applicants be furnished with a copy of the transcript of the hearings without the usual charge - 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 – application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings refused –