Having listened intently to the two days of arguments in the case against mandatory quarantine, my sincere hope is that the applicants and all those who may have contributed to the legal costs of the team of Courtenay Griffiths, Mark Pettingill and Eron Hill get their money back.
The debacle that I witnessed would have been a comedy were it not for the seriousness of the issues. It was clear that the applicants’ legal team were not prepared and thought their social-media grandstanding would be sufficient to get them over the line in a court of law. On two occasions — that is correct, two occasions — they have asserted the wrong law. Both at the injunction hearing and again this week.
This culminated in Mr Pettingill having to concede that Mr Griffiths was wrong in his opening submissions and that as a team they had brought the wrong law yet again. Not only was their law wrong, but it became clear that they also had no evidence to support the wild contentions they have made as part of this case.
There was a serious constitutional issue to consider in this case and, like many, I, too, am not entirely comfortable with the whole quarantine approach, but fully understand the need for it. But as a citizen, I would have been better served if my government had faced a serious challenge to its actions and then, no matter the outcome, one would’ve seen a fair argument from both sides. This appalling display had none of that. Delroy Duncan was measured, thorough and at some points compelling in his submission.
Messrs Griffiths, Pettingill and Hill have a done a grave disservice to their cause by presenting such a weak and ill-founded argument. They and so many others would do well to remember that, thankfully, not only is justice blind, but it doesn’t have WhatsApp.
KENDRE L. SMITH