Judicial recourse to prohibit attending religious services



[ad_1]

Final ganley. Entrepreneur defies level 5 restrictions stated

Aodhan. O’Faolain
Supreme court
aof1 / 6112020

The businessman Declan Ganley has initiated a challenge in the Superior Court against certain regulations aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19 which, according to him, violates his constitutional right to religious freedom.

The Co Galway-based businessman, who is a practicing Roman Catholic, claims that as a result of the state’s implementation of Level 5 restrictions, he is unable to leave his home and attend mass.

It states that the measures, which were introduced last month and may expire on December 1, allow certain religious activities to take place, including weddings and funerals.

However, he claims the restrictions do not allow him or anyone else to want to attend mass or similar religious service, which he says is protected by the Irish Constitution.

This, he claims, is a violation of his constitutional rights to practice his religion.

Hence, a judicial review process has begun against the Minister of Health. Ireland and the Attorney General are notified parties to its proceedings.

The matter came before Judge Charles Meenan, who said the proposed challenge was related to measures included as part of the government’s Level 5 plan to combat the pandemic.

Those particular measures, he said, may expire on December 1, which may make Mr. Ganley’s action moot or worthless.

The judge added that there is no probability that what is a complex case, if the respondent State chooses to challenge it, will be heard before the end of the month.

The judge, who ordered that the request for permission to present the challenge be heard with notification to the State, postponed the matter until December 8, when the circumstances can be reassessed.


Latest coronavirus stories


The judge said he presumed the state would oppose the matter.

However, he was free to go to court at any time to say that he did not object to Ganley’s action, the judge added.

In response, Mr. Ganley’s attorneys said the matter was urgent and argued that similar restrictions on attendance at religious services could be re-imposed in the future.

In his action, Mr. Ganley, represented by Neil Steen SC, Darren Lehane SC, instructed by Gateley Tweed attorney Eamonn Cunningham, requests various orders and statements from the court.

These include an order repealing certain temporary regulations introduced as part of the government’s efforts to deal with the pandemic, namely Regulation 5 (1) and (3) of the Health Act of 1947.

It also requests statements from the court that the challenged rules are inconsistent with various articles, including article 44, where the state recognizes the right of individuals to freely practice their religion, of the Irish Constitution.

Alternatively, a statement challenged by the regulation does not prevent you from leaving your residence for the purpose of practicing your religion, including participation in public worship.

Mr. Steen said that the issue was extremely important to his client. It was accepted that the vast majority of religious services, including Catholic Masses, had been canceled by church leaders due to the pandemic.

The regulations, he said, did not appear to prevent services such as Masses, Catholic priests cannot leave their homes to perform Mass, nor can people like Mr. Ganley attend such services.

The lawyer said that the constitution has express provisions that protect freedom of religious practice. It is the case of your client that the specific contested regulations, which were introduced by the Minister of Health, cannot interfere with those rights.

The lawyer said that while it was accepted that the contested restrictions could be lifted before December 1, there were concerns that the government could reimpose the restrictions.

The lawyer added that the case ultimately generated a net point and was very different from other challenges presented against government measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.



[ad_2]