Subject – The Health and Criminal (Covid-19) (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2021

Dear Senator / TD,

I am writing to you to lobby you to oppose the extension of the Emergency powers outright and  by any amendment which continually grants unconstitutional and extreme powers to the Minister for Health on the following grounds.

I send this mail with Government parties included as well as Senators. I have little expectation of replies from those who would propose such outrageous powers in a democracy while under funding and under resourcing the Health Service which these drastic powers are supposed to be protecting.

You could just increase the Hospital Capacity and deal with the endemic virus this is and stop hiding behind NPHET who are an unelected committee without any background in the Rights and Liberties of the People.

For Senators on this mail with integrity read on and consider what’s being done while you have a voice to oppose it.

Grounds for outright rejection of emergency powers and amendments:

• The necessity and proportionality of these powers and measures in view of the fact that the power was originally granted under Part 3 of the 2020 Act on the basis that Covid-19 was recently declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation. It is now 20 months later and the State has had sufficient time to put in place public health measures to ‘limit, minimise and slow the spread of Covid 19’.
• The power of detention is open to serious abuse of process as the Act requires only one medical officer to make an order for detention.
• Under Part 3 of the 2020 Act a medical officer has the power to make an order for detention if they ‘believe in good faith’ that :

(i) a person is a potential source of infection: and

(ii) a person is a potential risk to public health

The definition of these terms under the Act include:

‘…any other person whom the medical officer believes in good faith to be a potential source of infection with Covid-19…’

This definition is wide and open to interpretation. For example, a medical officer could potentially make an order to detain an unvaccinated person on the grounds that they believe in ‘good faith’ that he/she is a potential source of infection and a potential risk to public health and no other evidence is required.

• Part 3 of the Act refers to detention in a hospital ‘or other such place specified in the order’. This sweeping power to detain a person in any place specified in the order is not defined under the Act which effectively means a person could be detained anywhere at the discretion of the medical officer.
• Part 3 of the Act does not specify the maximum period of detention. It states that the medical officer may in writing order the detention and isolation of such a person in a hospital or other place specified in the order until such time as the medical officer certifies that the person’s detention is no longer required. The medical officer is under a duty to review the detention no later than 14 days. The detained person has a right to request a review by another person other than the medical officer but there are no details on this process and therefore it breaches the rules of fair procedure, due process and natural justice.
• The power of detention contravenes Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 6 (right to fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life)  of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is quasi criminal providing a medical officer with extensive powers to make a detention order against a person that they believe is a potential source of infection and risk to public health. There is no, or no sufficient, evidence base for this measure nor has the State scientifically validated such a measure which could potentially have far reaching effects depriving people of their liberty.