The Durham Police statement pretty much exactly as I predicted in @thetimes thetimes.co.uk/article/durham… 
This is another important point - if they are not taking retrospective action in respect of members of the public generally, they should treat Cummings the same. I think they *could* in theory give a retrospective fine (regs dont seem to prevent that)
Here is an interesting point which will I imagine please @SeethingMead - the police are focussing on these being public health powers so are taking into account the public health risk of his actions - I think that's right...
... but it is different to 'ordinary' policing and does add to the complication. I wrote about this in The Telegraph on why policing the coronavirus crisis is basically impossible (or at least almost impossible) telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/1…
And as much as will frustrate people (perhaps due to politics as much as principle) that police are generally not prosecuting reports of older breaches, I think from a 'preserving social fabric' perspective this is not a bad thing. Wrote about that re encouraging public report..
Finally, as I said at outset of this, as tempting as it is to see this as a legal controversy (so leading to 'easy' answer - innocent or guilty) it is primarily a *political* one. Guidance (which Cummings prob contributed to!) was always stricter than law
My view all along is that he clearly breached the guidance, probably deliberately, and may or may not have broken the law- but that a prosecution was in any event unlikely
I should end by saying my "might have might not have" approach is a clear outlier amongst many (and many better) lawyers on Twitter (though I haven't taken a national poll of lawyers) so treat with caution!
I find this issue difficult to manage - part of me wants police to throw book at Cummings because I have Brexit feelings about him, but I look at approach of Durham Police and also think "yes that is exactly how I have been saying for 2 months police should approach these powers"
