Taxpayer will not fund parties seeking exhumation of under 80s who died after covid vaccination

As well as seeking the exhumations, so that the bodies can undergo autopsy, the three persons taking the case also want the court to make orders preventing children aged between five and 11 years from receiving the covid-19 vaccination.

A High Court judge has ruled that the taxpayer will not have to pay the legal costs of parties seeking unprecedented court orders including the mass exhumation of all people under 80 years who died suddenly after getting the covid-19 vaccination, if they lose.

As well as seeking the exhumations, so that the bodies can undergo autopsy, the three persons taking the case also want the court to make orders preventing children aged between five and 11 years from receiving the covid-19 vaccination.

The proceedings are against the Taoiseach, the HSE and the minister for health, who all oppose the action which they say is "alarmist and scandalous".

Ruling on a preliminary issue in the action, Mr Justice Michael Twomey said the court was not prepared to make a protective costs order in favour of Sharon Browne of Garryowen, Co Limerick, David Egan from Galway City, and Emmanual Lavery of Rear Cross, Co Tipperary, who have brought the action.

He said they had "by a long way" failed to comply with the various conditions that need to be satisfied to allow a court to make a protective costs order.

The granting of such an order would have meant they would not have had to pay the legal costs of taking the proceedings even if they are unsuccessful in their action.

The judge said while the outcome of the case was a matter for the judge hearing the full action, the court was not convinced the claim by the three had "any, let alone a real, prospect of success."

The judge said he was not satisfied within the first hour of the hearing of the pre-trial application to grant the protective costs.

It would not be fair to grant such an order, nor had the case raised any point of law of any special and general public importance.

The judge said the three were in effect seeking an order from the court that would "subsidise them in suing the State", and allow them to avoid be subjected to the general legal principle that "the loser pays" the legal costs incurred.

'Scandalous claims'

The judge said the three "do not have the right to make such extraordinary broad and scandalous claims based on internet speculation", and "do not have a right to pursue such litigation at the cost of the taxpayer".

If they believe that their "extraordinary claims" will be successful, then they will need to "back their belief with their own money and not at the expense of the taxpayer."

In addition to finding the case had no prospect of success, the judge said he deemed the action, which includes baseless claims of mass killings and comparisons to Nazi Germany, an abuse of process.

The judge said the three claim the vaccine is "a bio-weapon" and compared the administration of the vaccine to the actions of the Nazis in the Second World War.

The applicants also sought orders seeking the mass disinterment of the bodies of all vaccinated persons under 80 years of age who died suddenly in the last two and a half years so that they could under go a specific type of autopsy.

They further seek a full public commission of inquiry into the use of early treatments for covid-19, the judge noted.

Claims about 'mass killings'

As well as making claims about "mass killings" the judge said the three had made several other "breathtaking claims" in thousands of pages of documentation.

These included the claim that the covid-19 vaccine inserts nanochips into recipients, and that the use of the bioweapon is part of a plan by US tech billionaire Bill Gates to "depopulate the world".

"The alleged evidence for all of the plaintiff's claims is a combination of hearsay, speculation, commentary, questions, internet sites, blogs YouTube videos, etc" the judge said.

While it is important that every citizen has access to the courts, the judge said a key issue in the proceedings was who is going to pay for the very considerable legal costs incurred.

While they were, subject to the defamation laws, "perfectly free to express on the internet and elsewhere their views on conspiracies regarding the covid 19 vaccine", the judge said "it is a separate matter if they should be facilitated in making these claims in court."

The plaintiffs, he said, "appear to genuinely believe that they are acting in the public interest and appear to be completely convinced of the claims they make about mass killings and a need for national disinterment of bodies.

However not being motivated by personal gain was not enough to be granted a protective costs order, or to have taxpayers' monies diverted for their own purposes rather than other causes.

Costs order

The judge said he was taking the provisional view that the costs of the preliminary hearing, which ran for one day before the High Court, should be measured and paid by the three.

He was making this provisional finding because the "unmeritorious" claims in this case had to be defended at the taxpayers' expense.

This costs order, he said, should be made as soon as possible in order to act as a deterrent and to discourage in the strongest possible way further abuse of process.

The judge, who invited submissions from the parties in relation to the costs of the hearing of the preliminary issue, adjourned the matter to a date next month.