Thread by @BarristerSecret

An important point about the burden of proof in the Cummings saga:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 provide that it is an offence for a person to leave the place where they are living *without reasonable excuse*. [1/4]

It is agreed that he left the place where he was living. The prosecution can prove that part of the offence.

There is then (at least) an evidential burden on the accused to demonstrate an *objectively* reasonable excuse.

So far, there has been no evidence offered at all. [2/4]

It can only be said that Cummings was not in breach of the law if he presents at least *some* evidence to support the claim that his actions were reasonable.

This evidence would have to include, at the very least, a full account of exactly what he did and why he did it. [3/4]

No such account has been offered to the public. Nor to any of the ministers, MPs or Attorney Generals rushing to declare no legal wrongdoing.

This is why, on the basis of what the public has been told, it is impossible to say no offence has been committed. [4/4]

It’s important to add that it is of course possible that a reasonable excuse might exist. There could be compelling evidence that establishes the defence.

My point is that there is presently insufficient in the public domain for anybody objectively to reach that assessment.