IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY

WHEREAS, the ECHR, Article 15 - "Derogation in time of emergency" - states:"1.

In time of war or other public health emergency threatening the life of thenation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its
obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by theexigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are notinconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

2.

No derogation from Article 2 [the "Right to Life"], except inrespect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or fromArticles 3 ["Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading
treatment", 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under thisprovision."

This means that the right to life [Article 2 of the ECHR, Article 3 of the UDHR], cannot bederogated from in a so-called public health emergency. Even in times of war, the right toderogate is limited to "lawful acts of war", not unlawful ones.
This also means that the right to "Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading
treatment" [Article 3 of the ECHR, Article 5 of the UDHR ], cannot be derogated from undera public health emergency - even if it is threatening the life of a nation.
In respect of other rights listed in the ECHR, the right to derogate is limited to those measuresthat are STRICTLY required. However, the measures taken must not be inconsistent with otherobligations under international [and European and UK] law. Any act/omission by you, theschool, its employees, agents, or others which derogates from the child/child's, parent/s,
grandparent/s, or others right to life, is a prima facie breach of Article 2 of the ECHR, inaddition to Article 3 of the UDHR; andNON-DEROGABLE

Human Rights - the Right not to have Rights and Freedoms destroyed by any activity or act
by a State, group or persons.
WHEREAS, Article 30 of the UDHR states:"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group orpersons any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at thedestruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."This enshrines the statutory interpretation that should be applied to the UDHR when
considering the right to derogate/limit/restrict any of the human rights set out therein. ; andWHEREAS, Article 17 - Limitations on use and restrictions of rights, states:"The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shallnot be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have beenprescribed."; andWHEREAS, Article 15 - "Derogation in time of emergency" - ECHR states:"1.

In time of war or other public health emergency threatening the lifeofthenation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations
under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of thesituation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its otherobligations under international law.

2.

No derogation from Article 2 [the "Right to Life"], except in
respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from
Articles 3 ["Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading
treatment", 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under thisprovision.

3.

Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep theSecretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures
which it has taken and the reasons therefore.
It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
whensuchmeasures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being
fully executed."

Given that you, the school, its employees and others are availing yourselves of the right toderogate from Article 2 and Article 3 and other Articles of the ECHR, and the requirement tokeep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe "fully informed" of the measures which
it has taken and the reasons therefore, you are required to provide evidence to the person
whose rights you seek to derogate from. The evidence sought is listed in this Notice ; andActs of Parliament and the Common Law cannot be changed by the executive.
WHEREAS, the ECHR has been incorporated into UK domestic law in the Human Rights Act
1998. There are no emergency derogations to the Human Rights Act for any purpose relating
to an emergency in the UK and the right at common law to valid consent has no emergency
derogations. You, the school, its employees and others, including the courts, cannot therefore
lawfully use the pandemic to claim that any of the human rights engaged should be derogated
for the purposes of the pandemic emergency.
"The executive (government) cannot change law made by Act ofthe common law"

Parliament,nor- R Miller v DExEU [2017] UKSC 5.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html; andWHEREAS, the ECHR ensures the need for interventions taken by the Government and Stateto remain "evidence-based" as well as "necessary" and "proportionate". "Proportionate"means balancing the competing interests with "evidence-based" facts: in this case, todetermine whether the UK has a "Public Health Emergency" under which the Government
and the State, you, the School and others are claiming their right to derogate from their
obligations to uphold human rights; whether the implementation of both Non-PharmaceuticalInterventions (such as Lockdowns, Social distancing, "bubbles", quarantining of healthyindividuals) and Pharmaceutical Interventions (such as the so-called "COVID-19 vaccines", theface masks, the PCR or lateral flow tests) are strictly "necessary" in a democratic society inthe interests of public safety, for the maintenance of public order, for the protection of healthor morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; andAllegation of infringement of inalienable, fundamental human rights.
WHEREAS, infringements and violations of living men, women and children's inalienable,
fundamental rights, civil liberties and freedoms by so-called "pandemic" laws are unnecessary,
unfounded, disproportionate, unreasonable, irrational, unethical, immoral, unconstitutional,undemocratic, unlawful, illegal under domestic, European and International civil law andcriminal law;
United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights for introducing COVID
public health response measures.
WHEREAS, In an article published by Monash University's Castan Centre for Human Rights
Law, the author, Professor the Hon Ken Bell AM QC, considered the COVID guidance issued by
the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights for introducing COVID
response measures consistent with human rights. He provided the following summary:[Requirement for emergency measures that restrict human rights to be "proportionate","necessary" and "non-discriminatory"]:•International law allows emergency measures in response to significant threats - butmeasures that restrict human rights should be proportionate to the evaluated risk,
necessary and applied in a non-discriminatory way. This means having a specificfocus and duration, and taking the least intrusive approach possible to protect publichealth.

[Requirement for emergency powers to only be used for "legitimate" public health goals]:•With regard to COVID-19, emergency powers must only be used for legitimate publichealth goals, not used as a basis to quash dissent, silence the work of human rights
defenders or journalists, deny other human rights or take any other steps that arenot strictly necessary to address the health situation.

[Requirement for Governments to inform the public of what the emergency measures are,where they apply, for how long and provide updated information, widely available]:•Governments should inform the affected population of what the emergency
measures are, where they apply and for how long they are intended to remain ineffect, and should update this information regularly and make it widely available.

[Requirement for Governments to ensure a return to life "as normal" and NOT use emergency
powers to "indefinitely" regulate day-to-day life]:•As soon as feasible, it will be important for Governments to ensure a return to life as
normal and not use emergency powers to indefinitely regulate day-to-day life,
recognising that the response must match the needs of different phases of the crisis."
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/COVID/Academics/Castan_Centre_and_Prof_Joe.pdf; andLegal opinion re unlawfulness of Public Health Orders and re right to suspend human rights
during states of emergency or disaster.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that, inter alia:"[173] In summary, the powers to make Public Health Orders (PHOs) cannot lawfully
be used in a way that is punitive, and human rights are not suspended during statesof emergency or disaster.
PHOs, by their nature, are designed and intended for short term use in the event of anemergency or crisis. They are not intended to be an ongoing vehicle to enforce
significant deprivations of our civil liberties.
The COVID pandemic started over 20 months ago. The time is fast approaching here
the reliance on PHO's will no longer be justified on publichealthgrounds,
particularly where there is such a significant intrusion on civil liberties"

- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.
Legal opinion re the "necessity" and "reasonableness" of the denial or restrictions on basicliberties
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that, inter alia:"[160].. the necessity and reasonableness of the denial or restrictions on basic liberties
must be weighed against a variety of other serious flow on consequences such as thesignificant increase in mental health issues and domestic violence, and against theserious economic damage that has been caused and will continue to be caused by theexisting measures found in the Public Health Orders."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.
Legal opinion re "far less restrictive" and "less intrusive" ways to ensure public health.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that, inter alia:"[164] It should be abundantly clear that there are other, far less restrictive and lessintrusive ways in which we can ensure public health and appropriately address the riskof COVID without resorting to the extreme measures currently in place."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.; andLegal opinion re "proportionality" of COVID-19 public health measure.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that:"[172] The initial predictions of a 60% infection rate from COVID with a 1% death rate
thankfully did not materialise.
It is now time to ask whether the "cure" is proportionate to the risk, and the answer
should be a resounding no.
When deciding now what is reasonable, necessary and proportionate in terms of any
response to COVID, governments and employers should actively avoid the hysteria andfear-mongering that is now so prevalent in the public discourse, and which will cloud
rational, fact- based decision making."[173] The current PHOs have moved well past the minimum necessary toachieve public health aims, and into the realm of depravation.
It is not proportionate, reasonable or necessary to "lock out" those who areunvaccinated and remove their ability to work or otherwise contribute to society."; and- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.; andLegal opinion that mandating or blanket rules regarding vaccines for everyone FAILS the testof "proportionality", "necessity" and "reasonableness"
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated, held that, inter alia:"[181] Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across awholeprofession or industry, regardless of the actual risk, fail the test of proportionality,necessity and reasonableness.
It is more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot bejustified on health grounds.
It is a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should besoundly rejected by courts when challenged."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that, inter alia:"[146] Finally, it should be clearly understood that employers who mandate
vaccinations will be liable for any adverse reactions their workers may experience,given this is a foreseeable outcome for some people,";- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ; andExpert legal opinion on requirement to be "particularly vigilant to protect civil liberties andhuman rights"
WHEREAS, in an article recently published by two Senior Lecturers from the Faculty of Law at
Monash University entitled "Wars, Pandemics and Emergencies What can history tell us about
executive power and surveillance in times of Crisis", the authors concluded that "in anemergency, we must be particularly vigilant to protect civil liberties and human rights
against incursions that are more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat thecrisis..."; https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/07-NgGray.pdf; andHuman Rights - the Right to an Effective Remedy.
WHEREAS, the European Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR"), contains the following
human rights, inter alia:

Article 13. the "Right to an effective remedy":"Everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in thisConvention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."(emphasis added).
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf; andWHEREAS, you are therefore required to provide evidence that the measures you have
employed are "necessary" "legitimate" "reasonable" and "proportionate", "evidence-based"and "least restrictive" as weighed against the harm that is being caused by these measures
such as:a. the increase in mental health issues ;b. the increase in domestic violence issues ;c. the increase in financial and economic loss;
d. the increase in suicides - "deaths of despair";e. the increase in learning and other difficulties;
and issues of the child/children, the family of the child/children, employees and others
affected by your measures; andWHEREAS, infringement of human rights may incur liabilities on the enforcers, promotors
and/or administrators of such infringements for harm, loss, suffering, injury and/or deathcaused by actions and/or omissions;
Sanctions for breach of Human Rights - the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020
No.680
WHEREAS, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations
2020 No. 680, states, inter alia:"6.2.

The Sanctions Act establishes a legal framework which enables
Her Majesty's Government (HMG) to continue to give effect tothose sanction regimes and to introduce other new sanctions
regimes. Section 1 of the Sanctions Act enables sanctions
regulations to be made for the purposes of compliance withUnited Nations obligations and other international obligations, as well as for anumber of other purposes which include:
promoting compliance with international human rights law
and respect for human rights...or promoting respect for
democracy, the rule of law and good governance.""What is being done and why?
7.1.

HMG seeks to champion human rights, good governance and the rule oflaw. Serious human rights violations by State actors, and similar conduct bynon-State actors, leads to unstable and less prosperous societies. Such
conduct perpetuates violent conflict, creates a world where terrorism
flourishes and where democratic institutions are weakened.
It has a devastating impact on individuals and places the safety ofindividuals and societies at risk.
Successfully deterring such conduct would help create fairer
and more just societies, which support the long-term global
conditions most conducive to security, economic growth and thesafety of all.
7.2

This instrument will enable HMG to designate persons who are involved incertain activities which, had they been carried out by or on behalf of a State
within the territory of that State, would amount to a serious violation bythat State of certain human rights.
These are:an individual’s right to life;
an individual’s right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment; andan individual’s right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or
required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Such persons are able to be designated for the purpose of a travel ban or an
asset freeze. The designation of such persons is intended to deter, andprovide accountability for, such activities. The activities could be carried out
by a State or a non-State actor. "(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/680/pdfs/uksiem_20200680_en.pdf; and