Today, Thursday 25th June 2020, there was a hearing on the application for an injunction against the government by the ‘virus mania’ group. It was broadcast live online and I caught part of it. I heard the last 15 minutes of the plaintiff’s case and the rest of the proceedings.

The two main figures behind the virus mania group led the challenge, and appeared to do so in a far from polished performance. Towards the end they demonstrated behaviour reminiscent of a spoilt child – not to put too fine a point on it – and concluded by invoking their right to substitution on the grounds of bias.

They challenged the government’s use of ‘measures’ on the grounds that they were undemocratic and had unproven value, yet apart from the closure of schools, all the other measures had been advice on the part of the government, albeit backed by powers enabling the police to enforce them and prosecute or issue fines to those ignoring the rules.

The defence made a good point in stating that the request for the injunction failed to demonstrate which constitutional rights had been infringed by which measures. Even I could see that sweeping statements by the plaintiffs were not going to win them their injunction request.

I am forced into the conclusion that they knew this already. They could have prepared their arguments with concrete examples but they did not. What they achieved was simply publicity. Publicity for what? I am somewhat afraid that when you compare their performance in court with the level necessary to challenge the State, their only motive was to fuel anarchism.

The government has done its best to issue rules and advice for the whole nation in order to mitigate the threat posed by the corona virus. It may be that they overreacted on certain points and erred on the side of caution, but the Virus Mania group did not focus on any specific points. Instead, all they wanted to do was split public opinion, and thus the consential basis for the measures.

In my book that is a cheap attack on the government of the nation whose only demonstrable aim has been to reduce the effects of the pandemic in this country.

As I write this, the courts first have to decide on the motion for substitution, before the whole three-ringed circus begins again. In my opinion this is a misuse of the court system, although I would still rather see such nonsense played out in court than on the streets.

To be continued!