Several human rights groups are campaigning for schedule 21 of the act, which creates criminal offences, to be repealed
It gives police the power to direct “potentially infectious persons” to a place suitable for screening and assessment, and makes it an offence to refuse
The Coronavirus Act was drawn up in March, when the threat was mainly perceived to come from abroad, and places where infectious people can be detained were never set up
The Health Protection Regulations were later introduced under a separate law to enforce lockdown restrictions
Many wrongful prosecutions appear to stem from the early similarity between the Health Protection Regulations (which then banned going outside without reasonable excuse) and Coronavirus Act
The regulations have been updated but the Act has not
This is unbelievably lazy and dangerous, especially from a former solicitor running to lead the Conservative Party
Robert Jenrick gets the charges wrong then launches into "cover-up" dogwhistle while surely knowing how the law limits what information can be released before trial
"The Southport attack hit me personally," Jenrick claims. But somehow there's no mention of the actual victims or their families
Keir Starmer is unlikely to be able to directly respond to this in any depth for obvious legal and ethical reasons, which Jenrick probably knows
Merseyside Police saw this sort of thing coming and issued a direct plea today. Have Jenrick and other politicians read it and chosen to ignore it, or just not bothered?
"We all need to do the right thing by [victims and families] to ensure the justice process is not prejudiced”
Breaking: A neo-Nazi has been convicted of attempting to murder an asylum seeker at a hotel in Worcester in April
Callum Parslow launched his terror attack while on bail for targeting a black woman with racist and sexual messages online. His victim survived
Parslow's trial began at Leicester Crown Court on 7 October but the media has been unable to publish anything until now because of reporting restrictions
They were imposed until the outcome of a second trial he faced for other offences, but he just changed his plea to guilty
Parslow admitted sending sexual and racist messages online in July and August last year, which he previously denied
He was arrested in December 2023 but freed on bail and committed the terror attack on 2 April
He is expected to be sentenced in December at Woolwich Crown Court
Because of the misinformation about the horrific attack in Southport, I am going to use this thread to give factual information on how mass stabbings are investigated and what the involvement of counter-terrorism police means
These are general processes not specific to this case
In cases of all kinds, police are banned from identifying suspects who have been arrested until they are charged with an offence
If the suspect is under18, they have automatic anonymity. It lifts when they turn 18, unless further restrictions made, or when a judge orders it
Counter-terrorism police involvement in an investigation does not mean that the incident is terrorism, and they have been involved in many cases that were not e.g. the Nottingham stabbings
They are often drawn in following murders or mass killings where the motive is uncertain
The government has responded to this High Court order, stating that it "does not intend to carry out enforced removals to Rwanda before the General Election on 4 July 2024"
The FDA's legal challenge against the Safety of Rwanda Act is going ahead on 6 June
The government missed its initial Friday deadline for responding to the order, claiming it was “unable” to state the earliest date for removals and was given an extension until Tuesday
Another order had to be made on that yesterday, pretty chaotic
Oh wow. In a rare move, the High Court has issued an order for the government to formally inform it of "the earliest date on which the Government intend to begin removals to Rwanda"
Because Rishi Sunak's media statement on Thursdsy directly contradicted its own legal arguments
This is the legal challenge against the Safety of Rwanda guidance for civil servants, brought by the FDA union
The government was reprimanded by the High Court on 10 May for messing it about with dates, which affected how the case was scheduled
The government originally wrote to the High Court claiming “the earliest a removal is expected to take place is 1 to 15 July 2024”, but then wrote again saying the date was based on 22 April Sunak press conference and 10 to 12 weeks was actually the "week
commencing 24 June"
New: The Home Office has already started freeing people it detained for Rwanda flights
It will not confirm how many asylum seekers have so far been granted immigration bail but applications were expected. It plans to keep detaining more people to fill allocated detention space
It is responding to individual legal challenges against detention as they come, which can be based on someone's individual vulnerabilities or an argument they will not be deported in a "reasonable period"
The applications are handled by independent judges rather than Home Office
The detention operation - codenamed Operation Vector - only started a couple of weeks ago, and Rwanda flights are still at least 7 weeks away according to the government's own timetable
Many more bail applications will be lodged in that time