Good summary of the recent, non-debated and unscrutinised changes to the lockdown regulations (which were themselves non-debated and unscrutinised). This in particular is bothering me /1 ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/05/01/mak… 
It is unsatisfactory to have a criminal law which (1) depends entirely on intention of a person for being outside their house (2) penalises having the wrong intention (3) which can change in an instant, (4) penalties depend on what police officer "considers" a person is thinking
Probably as I have been knee deep in this area of law for a year or so but this does remind me of judicial criticisms of protest injections which rely entirely on a person's intention, which can change, to define a potentially criminal act (contempt). /3 bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…
A number of lawyers noticed original regulations only penalised *leaving* the place you are living without a reasonable excuse. That seemed a bit odd but at least it pinpointed in time exactly when you needed to have the reasonable excuse. Now it's more complicated - and vague /4
The effect is that police officers have almost unlimited power to use force, issue penalties or charge with criminal offence based on what *they* consider - it appears that many police are using their powers responsibly but the potential for abuse is huge /5
*injunctions not injections! (tweet /3)
