Thread by @legalhackette

UPDATE: PoIice & @cpsuk say woman fined £660 for breaching #coronavirus act was charged under an INCORRECT section of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

They have asked North Tyneside Magistrates’ court for case to be relisted & conviction set aside. media.btp.police.uk/r/17169/corona…

Deputy chief constable Adrian Hanstock said “There will be understandable concern that our interpretation of this new legislation has resulted in an ineffective prosecution

“This was in circumstances where officers were properly dealing with someone who was behaving suspiciously in the station & who staff believed to be travelling without a valid ticket ... Regardless, we fully accept that this shouldn’t have happened and we apologise."

This case is worrying. On the first time that new legislation was used, the police & CPS got it wrong -- this does not inspire confidence in the authorities at a time when government has given them unprecedented powers & the police have already been accused of acting excessively.

Why had neither the police, CPS, prosecutor in court, court clerk (whose function is to give legal advice to the magistrate/s) or tribunal (whether district judge or lay magistrates) read the law properly? Especially, on its 1st use, you'd think they'd give it anxious scrutiny.

It shows the dangers for people who are not represented by lawyers, esp where they are appearing in criminal proceedings remotely rather than in person - & in circs where the press was not told of the case in advance & was therefore unable to observe the proceedings remotely.

From 1st @BTP press release (which I can't now find online), the woman was held in custody for 2 days, pleaded not guilty, wasn't produced at court & was convicted of an offence wrongly charged. Should criminal trials, esp for unrepresented defendants, be going ahead remotely?

The @cpsuk appear to be abdicating responsible, informing me that "@BTP was responsible for the charges here". But the case would have been reviewed by the CPS, who would have agreed to the charge, and the case would have been presented by a lawyer acting for the CPS.

Apologies if any of the facts in the above thread are a bit sketchy -- the information provided by @BTP, the @cpsuk and the court on this crucial first prosecution under #coronavirus laws, which give huge powers to police, has been slight. Which is itself a problem. [Ends]