On @BBCr4today@pritipatel was asked if a family of 4 stoping and chatting with another family of 4 on the way to the park was "mingling" which was banned.
She suggested it was - people listening will think 'mingling' on the way to the park is banned.
This is *wrong* [thread]
The ban on mingling has a specific context and definitely does *not* apply to two families meeting on the way to the park.
It is about events organised by charities/businesses/public authorities where 'qualifying groups' (households up to 6) must not mingle with each other /2
People walking to the park must not form a 'gathering' of more than 6. But that has a different definition
A gathering is where people are "present together... in order to engage in any form of social interaction..."
I doubt people accidentally bumping into each other... /3
.... saying 'hi' would meet that definition as they are not there 'in order' to socially engage, they have bumped into each other unintentionally.
There is no definition of "mingling" though Patel offered one as "people coming together". That is probably wrong - too wide /4
It is really disappointing that the Minister who signed these regulations into law doesn't understand them herself. The government should urgently correct her /5
This is what happens when you draft criminal laws in secret, spring them on country 20 minutes (yes really) before they come into force, make them increasingly complex and unworkable. Reg 5 (gatherings) has ballooned from 850 to over 2,000 words - PM said it was "simplifying" /6
And the idea that people should stop basic social interaction, added to policing minister's plea yesterday for people to report each other, is terrible for social cohesion - we are in the middle of a pandemic and we can strengthen social ties whilst physically socially distancing
Am I being unfair on Priti Patel? You may say, well this is a pretty vague law anyway and she did eventually say something to the effect of people should wear masks and socially distance. ...
... But there has been a theme throughout the pandemic of complex laws being drafted in secret and released shortly before coming into force. This has been the cause of huge public and police confusion, exacerbated by ministers not really understanding law before explaining it.
A fair response might be - well, Covid cases are increasing, we need to make it clear (through law and/or guidance) that people can't go about their everyday lives unless they mitigate risk. But, I can't see how unclear laws passed by diktat and not well understood help that.
I am not saying there should be no criminal laws around the lockdown - I am not a behavioural scientist, I am a lawyer. But I have the strong sense that they could be done differently and better - treating the public more like adults, and helping police - than at present.
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.