Enniskillen man’s legal review of Covid vaccine priorities withdrawn

Enniskillen man Lee Martin – who has Diploid-triploid Mosaicism (DSM), a genetic condition caused by an abnormal number of chromosomes – brought the proceedings in 2021 in relation to the Covid-19 vaccine priority scheme.

A clinically extremely-vulnerable person, and at high risk of death or serious harm in the event that he contracts coronavirus, particularly without the protection offered by the vaccine, Mr. Martin brought the judicial review proceedings because of the delay in receiving his vaccination, the refusal of the Department and Trust to vaccinate him when asked, and because of concerns that the Department had unlawfully prioritised backroom staff ahead of all clinically vulnerable individuals.

In January, 2021, Professor Harnden of the JCVI publicly stated that JCVI did not consider the decision to prioritise backroom staff complied with its guidance.

However, unlike every other part of the UK, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is not required by law to follow JCVI guidance.

The Department’s argument that the judicial review proceedings were “academic” was rejected by the court when leave was granted, and Mr. Justice Colton held that “the court considers that the issue of priority for vaccinations is likely to arise in the future, and there is merit in a review of how priorities were dealt with in the initial phase of the Covid-19 vaccination process”.

A statement from Mr. Martin’s legal representatives, KRW Law, read: “Following the court’s judgement in August, it is clear that the Department changed course by prioritising only frontline staff during the roll-out of the booster vaccination, as required by the JCVI.

“In light of this change of course, and because our client does not wish to damage public confidence in the vaccination programme at a time when the booster programme is ongoing, our client has agreed to withdraw the judicial review, on the Department’s agreement to pay our client’s costs.

“Unfortunately, the prioritisation of vaccines is only one example of inadequate provision being made for the most vulnerable individuals in our society.

“Our client and his family will continue to advocate for his rights, and the rights of other vulnerable and disabled people, now and in the future.

“Our client wishes to thank NILSA for the grant of legal aid which enabled the case to be brought. Their decision has been fully vindicated by the costs order against the Department.

“Our client also wishes to thank Mencap and Access Social Care for their support, assistance and important correspondence to the Court during the judicial review proceedings."