Two legal challenges to the use of Covid passports for entry into some hospitality venues in Northern Ireland have been dismissed by the High Court in Belfast.
Two men, both unvaccinated, had sought permission to mount judicial reviews of the decision by the Stormont Executive.
The first argued that the requirement for digital Covid certificates was unlawful and breached data protection regulations.
Dismissing the challenge, Judge Adrian Coltan said the data protection issue was not relevant to the applicant, as he was not vaccinated so the processing of a digital certificate would never apply to him.
The court also said the regulations had been subject to regular review by the Stormont Executive and that since last month, had only applied to certain "high risk" locations such as nightclubs and indoor venues with 500 or more attendees.
The judge also noted that an alternative admission criteria - the production of a negative lateral flow Covid test result - was also acceptable.
"Further, the regulations were introduced as emergency measures in the midst of a pandemic by an executive committee, in which the five political parties participate," the judge said in a ruling issued this morning.
He added: "The court accepts that there is a legal argument about whether or not the data processing complained about is 'necessary' within the context of the statute and regulations.
"However, the court is also conscious that it will be slow to interfere in a decision as to what is reasonably necessary in the context of a public health emergency, when decisions are taken by elected representatives, who are best placed to assess the public interest.
"Notwithstanding the legal issue raised...the court is not persuaded that this is an appropriate case in which to grant judicial review."
The second applicant argued that the requirement for a Covid certificate was a breach of his human rights, and that there was either no, or insufficient, scientific data to justify the restrictions.
Judge Coltan said it was "unarguable" that vaccination reduces the risk of becoming infected with the virus.
He added: "Thus, those who attend high risk settings and who are vaccinated are less likely to be infected and inevitably therefore there is less risk of vaccinated persons, or those with a negative test, transmitting the infection."
The court accepted that the restrictions arguably engaged the applicant's human rights in that they imposed a restriction on his ability to attend certain social venues "and, in the event that he does attend such venues, he is required to disclose aspects of his medical status."
However, Judge Coltan said he accepted that while there had been interference, it was limited as the applicant was not prohibited from attending high risk settings, as they "could avail of the option of proof of a negative lateral flow test, which are free and easily available in this jurisdiction."
While he said the court accepted the applicant's argument that obtaining such a test was an inconvenience, that had to be seen in the light of the "legitimate and overwhelming aim of protecting public health."
He concluded: "The court rejected the application for leave to apply for judicial review saying that in its view the case was unarguable and had no realistic prospect of success."
