The decision has been made not to appeal the Court's refusal on 2 November to grant a judicial review of the regulations requiring workers in care homes to have had a full course of Covid-vaccines.

Short oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing which have been reflected on. Regardless of belief in the strength of legal arguments put forward by a highly experienced, QC-led, legal team, it is important to take a practical and pragmatic view of likely outcome at appeal.

The attitude of the Courts in considering this and similar challenges to the government's actions remains stubbornly consistent, even as we pass more than one and a half years after the first lockdown in March 2020, regardless of all we have learned. It might be summarised in this way:

1. we are still in a pandemic
2. the government has a very wide discretion in such circumstances
3. where complex science and data is being considered, as long as scientists have been consulted, it is to be presumed that it will be almost always impossible to establish that government decisions or actions in line with that advice are unlawful
4. it is, seemingly, for the government alone to determine, without scrutiny from the Court as to what is proportionate or necessary, whether interference of fundamental human rights is justified.

For the reasons set out at length in submissions for the claimants, we disagree with the above being a correct formulation of the law, particularly where the Courts are considering legislation that interferes with fundamental rights as gravely as this. 

Nevertheless, the decision not to appeal means that if a group of doctors or nurses or their unions wish to challenge regulations that will make injections mandatory for NHS workers, they will, at least, not have to overcome the higher decision of a Court of Appeal. If the reaction of the public to the damage to care services done by these mandatory regulations, and if enough doctors and nurses in the NHS step forward to reject these government policies over the next several months, the attitude of the Courts might just change. The extent to which the legal arguments or facts would be different may be subtle, but when it comes to achieving a desired outcome the Courts have historically always been adept.

We would thank everyone who has given their financial and public support to this case. We must now close this crowd fund and move on and look to the next battle.

After a frustrating and protracted series of correspondence, yesterday the repeated applications of the Claimants were finally put before a Judge and directions given for hearing alongside a case brought by an unrepresented individual also challenging the regulations. The joint hearing is set for 11:30am at the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, this Tuesday 2nd November.

The skeleton argument for the Claimants can be read here.

As a reminder, this will be an oral hearing of the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. If permission is granted, the next steps would be for the Court to give directions for a full hearing of the challenge on an expedited timetable. If it is not, the Claimants will need to consider appeal to the Court of Appeal.  

Thank you for your support which is vital not only to the carehome workers but also to NHS workers who are next in the government's sights. Please share and keep up the pledges.

This update is later than hoped. We had hoped to have something more positive to report.

The Honourable Mrs Justice Eady DBE refused the application for judicial review without considering it necessary even to hear oral argument. The Claimants immediately renewed the application, as a result of which an oral hearing must be granted.  At that hearing, the Claimants will be represented by barristers Edmund Williams QC, Francis Hoar and Joshua Jackson.  The government team is led by Sir James Eadie QC, Senior Treasury Counsel to the Crown.

However, the Claimants' concern for the urgency is not being reflected in the Court's administration of the matter. The position at time of this update is that, despite regulations under challenge coming into force on 11 November, the hearing has been listed for 2 November.  This clearly does not allow for a substantive  of the claims before the regulations come into force and is, to say the least, disappointing. The Claimants have applied, again, for an earlier listing but are still waiting for the Court to respond. 

As for the reasons for the initial rejection of the challenge, they included that the claims

• "seek to persuade the Court to determine a matter of political balance and judgement, which must be for those involved in governmental decision-making and not for judicial resolution."

and in respect of human rights and bodily autonomy, 

• "Given, however, the other obligations of the State (in particular under Article 2 ECHR [right to life]) and the margin of appreciation afforded to the Defendant, I am not persuaded that there is an arguable basis for contending that any interference with the Claimants’ Convention rights would not be justified as necessary and proportionate in these circumstances"

As to what "these circumstances" are, that is not further specified but, presumably, they should at least be those of an ongoing pandemic emergency which vaccination would actually address.

The Claimants would disagree of course. A further update will follow when the hearing date is confirmed. 

The judicial review claim was filed in Court on Thursday 09 September and has been served on the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, via his lawyers.

A very short summary of the case is this: 

1. Mandatory vaccination is a breach of human rights
2. The UK has Acts of Parliament and a history of prohibiting mandatory vaccination.
3. The government has achieved vaccination target for workers in care homes without needing these regulations.
4. Weekly death rates in care homes are massively reduced since April 2020.
5. the evidence has evolved that transmission is not prevented by these Covid-19 vaccines.

This is not a case in which it would be necessary or helpful to challenge the nature or efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines themselves but, taking the last point above, perhaps the public will learn from the Minister in advance of any Court hearing why he is not following the science. 

In any event, the detailed claim can be read here:

• Statement of Facts and Grounds

In view that the regulations come into force on 11 November, we have asked the Court to expedite the matter and to give an early hearing date.  We will provide a further update when the Court replies.  

Please continue to share and pledge your support.

The letter before claim was sent to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 05 August. 

It is long letter and can be read here: Letter before claim challenging mandatory vaccination of care home workers.

We have to allow a short time for the government's response but the next step will be to issue the claim with the Court and to seek a hearing as soon as possible. 

Although in the end we might imagine these cases come down to fairly simple and fundamental principles, such as the right to bodily autonomy, from the letter before claim you will see many legal arguments are likely to arise and need to be addressed. Grab a cup of tea before reading.

To ensure we are able to take this case all the way and to stop mandatory vaccination of care workers, we need all the financial support we can get. Please continue to share this case, and share again, and encourage others to donate.