The resignation of Sir Jonathan Jones raises questions such as: ‘How sure does a Government lawyer have to be before advising that proposed conduct will be unlawful?’ And: ‘how certain does it have to be that conduct will be unlawful before a Minister should not proceed?’
An answer is to be found in the government policy on legal risk which applies to both domestic and international law. Released under FOIA in 2018.
Ministers can legitimately proceed even if it’s very likely conduct is unlawful, described as over 70 per cent:
It is only if there is ‘no credible argument’ that conduct is lawful they should be advised that the conduct will be unlawful and should not proceed:
You may be surprised how much leeway the policy gives Ministers to act ‘within the law’. But it gives an indication at least of the territory that Sir Jonathan Jones was presumably in when he decided that he had to resign.

Full policy is here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tom Hickman

Tom Hickman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TomRHickman

9 Aug
A thread on the gov panel set up to reform judicial power to review gov action in the UK, details of which here: gov.uk/government/new…
FIRST: context. In its Manifesto the Gov promised a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission to look at how our institutions operate and ‘restore trust’. It’s remit included: Image
This has been abandoned no doubt because the task is too vast as party political reform: it would take years and years to complete sensibly.
Read 26 tweets
24 Jul
A long thread on the making of today’s face covering regulations and some reflections on coronavirus law-making in general. Consider this timeline:
13 July: Gov announces face masks are to be required in shops.
14 July the policy is announced to Parliament (it should have been announced there first). Two justifications given, the first sound in principle but requiring some examination is to protect shop workers; the other, not a public health rationale, is to boost confidence on high st
Read 16 tweets
14 Jun
This week everyone has been talking about ‘changing the 2m rule’. (See numerous press articles). My (controversial?) suggestion is that the debate is ill-informed and there’s no rule that needs changing.
My sense is that most people, journalists, Ministers and scientific talking heads included, don’t always have a clear sense what it is they are debating changing.
Most of the discussion seems to assume that it’s about changing a mandatory 2m requirement imposed on people and businesses.
Read 12 tweets
6 Jun
(1) So, the 14 day quarantine regs. How do they affect your summer holiday plans? Your work? Let me explain. And let me explain some surprising features of the rules. legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/568/…
(2) You may be thinking that people arriving in the UK - including you returning from a summer holiday - would have to observe the sort of stay at home measures you were observing in March and April. Wrong.
(3) The regs would require you to stay at home full stop. No leaving for exercise, not even once round the block. No leaving for shopping, unless you are on brink of starvation and no-one can go for you ("exceptional circumstances") No cleaner, no nanny,...
Read 11 tweets
13 May
Having slept on the draft Englsih Coronavirus amendment regs (I am not quite geeky enough to mean that literally).

Ok ok I probably am. But I didn't.

My thoughts are these.... [long thread]
This is a very middle English lockdown easing. Picnics, garden centres, tennis, golf, taking garden waste to the local tip, day trips to the country in the family car and house buying are all back.
So is sitting in the park with a mate and a coffee (or in present circs something rather stronger*)

*but NB Tennents Super probably would not satisfy the "physical or emotional wellbeing" requirement for recreation.
Read 22 tweets
10 May
I’m also confused after Boris’ speech: (1) going to work when you can’t work from home was already the position but now you should avoid public transport: that’s an additional rule not a relaxation; and [Thread]
(2) from Wed you can take unlimited ‘exercise’ : but that was the law yesterday, today and since 23 March; and
(3) you will be able to ‘drive to take exercise’ but that’s also already the case (see eg police guidance ‘it is lawful to drive for exercise’ college.police.uk/What-we-do/COV…); and
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!