So, what do they say? Yes, I am here at 23:48 on a Sunday night doing this. Thanks @pritipatel, who for some reason has replaced Matt Hancock as the minister responsible for these new regs.
Usually the time they are made is there too but clearly they are so embarrassed... /2
OK, have had a first read through. Took a bit as these are *complicated*. As you know, people are prohibited from now in England from meeting in groups of more than 6 unless an exception applies. And there are loads, and loads, of exceptions, and plenty of room for confusion /3
I'll do a brief run through - not detailed - as I need to go to bed. As I suggested a few days ago, it looks like for the first time the guidance and law are coming together, joining hands, one set of regulations to bind us all. So the list in the guidance below is about right /4
But there is a lot of new stuff in the regulations.
The starting point is no more than 6 people may gather - unless the gathering falls within a list of exceptions. /5
But here's the complicated bit - which is going to be nigh on impossible to enforce - you can participate in gatherings organised by charities, businesses, public bodies [hey, what happened to political bodies? Gone from the last regulations]... but you have to join as... /6
... a 'qualifying group' which basically means you go along as a 6 or less, or a household, but then you are not allowed to (@davidallengreen@SeethingMead you're going to love this) *mingle* with anyone else. It's illegal to mingle! What does mingle mean? /7
Is saying hello to someone at a gathering "mingling"? What about holding the door open for them? I know it's late but this is all I can think of now 👇 - children of the 80s, join me! /8
There are some brand new terms, perhaps never before seen in law, in the exceptions:
- "Support group" /9
- "significant event gathering"
[this has replaced 'life cycle event" as perhaps that wasn't a term enough people understand, but this is all rather wide isn't it?
Would it apply to a finishing school party?
Kind of reminds me of this
/10
And then there is "sports gathering"
Doesn't this exclude privately organised sporting activities, i.e. organised by individuals, such as 5-a-side football games? /11
"Relevant outdoor activity"
God this is all so convoluted /12
Weddings and wedding receptions are allowed - no more than 30 people though as promised in the guidance /13
Good to see, as promised in the guidance, for the first time in six months protests are permitted as long as they complete a risk assessment and follow guidance
Weirdly, 'political body' has stayed in this bit but come out of the overall exception. I guess the govt... /14
... think that all political bodies do is organise protests, or that the only valid in-person activity over 6 people they organise is protests? /15
According to Westlaw, this is the first appearance of the word "mingle" in English legal history. Probably. /16
As before, you can 'link households'. For those who have forgotten, in short one of the two households must only have one adult (and however many children). The other household can have any number of adults. The linking means you can meet with more than 6 from 2 households /17
I really must go to bed now. I'm sorry the government did this so ridiculously late and have launched the most complex and convoluted set of lockdown regulations on England yet. I don't see how these are enforceable in any real sense - so many complex exceptions /18
Good night, I hope above doesn't seem frivolous - it isn't meant to, it's just exasperating and you have to laugh sometimes. Please do follow guidance which (thankfully, for the first time in 6 months) reflects the law. Let's look out for each other /19 gov.uk/government/pub…
Just to add - you can’t rely on the PDF the govt published last night alone. It amends (adds to) July regulations. So you have to insert/delete as you are going to see full list of exceptions to regulation 5
Original: legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/684/…
Amendments legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/986/… /20
The official guidance has now been updated to match the new regulations - note that there are already some 'explanations' of the regulations in the guidance, though a court would have to make up its own mind.
The Divisional Court has ruled that the Government acted unlawfully and irrationally when deciding not to implement the full funding recommendation in Lord Bellamy’s Criminal Legal Aid Review.
I had the rare honour of acting for my professional colleagues, Criminal Law Solicitors Association (@CrimeSolicitors) and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (@lccsa), the Interested Parties in the case. Their press release is below.
The Claimant @TheLawSociety was superbly represented by Tom de la Mare KC @thebrieftweet, Gayatri Sarathy and Emmeline Plews of @BlackstoneChbrs, instructed by John Halford of Bindmans LLP Gayatri Sarathy and Emmeline Plews of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by John Halford of @BindmansLLP.
The amount of work which went into putting the case together and presenting the oral arguments, and standing up for the rule of law, was extraordinary - a credit to the profession.
Together with the Law Society, the CLSA and the LCCSA provided the Court with a large number of witness statements from solicitors up and down the country, at every level of seniority, describing the relentless, physically demanding and emotionally draining nature of criminal defence work and the chronic underfunding which has led to a crisis in the retention of solicitors who are leaving in their droves for better pay and conditions that can be found elsewhere.
The Government response to the Criminal Legal Aid Review utterly failed to grasp the extent of the crisis. Despite the review recommending a 15% increase to solicitors fees as “no more than a minimum starting point”, it increased fees by only 9% with a further 2% promised this year.
The ruling today confirms that the Government response to the review was so flawed as to be unlawful and irrational.
In today’s ruling Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Jay described the evidence we submitted from our members alongside the Law Society as “a mass of convergent evidence from honest, professional people working up and down the country”, which is “cogent”, “impressive” and “compelling”, and which “brings home [that] women and men working up and down the country at all hours of the day and night, in difficult and stressful circumstances, carrying out an essential service which depends to a large extent on their goodwill and sense of public duty”.
Some very public-facing comments by Lord Reed in the opening of his summary of the judgment:
- Policy is not that the UK will process asylum claims whilst people are in Rwanda, Rwanda will process them (despite the former often being claimed)
- The non-refoulement principle is contained in a number of treaties not just the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act
Prediction is a mug's game but if I were giving a public judgment rejecting the government's appeal this is how I would begin it!
This is a beautifully clear summary of the relevant legal principles. A model of its form - plain English, focussed on the public
The Home Secretary acted unlawfully by accommodating, since December 2021, thousands of unaccompanied child asylum seekers in hotels. Kent Council also acted unlawfully in passing on responsibility for them.
A judgment suffused with humanity, legal rigour and common sense from Mr Justice Chamberlain, starting from changing the parties' preferred acronym to emphasise the human element.
The House of Commons Privileges Committee has reported on the conduct of MPs who impugned 'the integrity of that Committee and its members' and attempted 'to lobby or intimidate those members or to encourage others to do so'
This is the suggestion of contempt based on Erskine May (the Parliamentary procedure bible) - which I think is quite convincing. The comments of members about the Privileges Committee being essentially corrupted were very arguably over the line
One point which I think was striking about the MPs who criticised the report is none of them seemed to point to any particular finding they disagreed with. They just went for the committee and the individuals on it.