I've seen this reported twice. It is nonsense & appears to have been pushed to the media to discourage ppl from driving. In short, absent the commission of other offences, driving in any circumstances is almost certainly covered. news.sky.com/story/coronavi…
First, the new lockdown 'No. 4' Regulations impose no restrictions on a person from driving.
Secondly, the list of 'reasonable excuses' for being outside 'the place where [you] live' is inclusive not exclusive&includes exercise and recreation with no geographical restriction on where that may be. There is no mention of 'essential' save in respect of shops that may open.
Thirdly, whatever the government's guidance may say, it has no legal force.
Finally, it is right to say that the limitations of an insurance policy depend on the policy. I therefore looked at sample terms and conditions from AXA, which you can download here: axa.co.uk/car-insurance/…
This policy *does* have an exclusion for 'any liability, loss, damage, cost or expense caused by, resulting from
or in connection with your or a named drivers criminal or illegal act,...
...in circumstances where the convicted offence is one where the court has the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment.' (General Exclusions, para 15, p 31)
None of the regulations impose a sentence of imprisonment - they cannot as health protection regulations under the Public Health Act 1984 may not do so.
Thus, even if it could be established that a person was outside the place where they lived without a reasonable excuse, they would not be excluded under the terms of this policy. Other policies are likely to be similar.
While it is always advisable to check insurance policies, this appears to me to be a scare story intended to put people off driving. The irresponsible comments by those who should know better in this and other reports are nothing more than that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a quite disgraceful and shameful update from the @barcouncil. Not *one word* on the government's decision - pushed through Parliament days after it was announced - to strip - without reservation - cardinal democratic and fundamental rights. r1.dmtrk.net/4CGD-YDFW-0545…
Not so much as a whisper about the fact that the government has, by secondary legislation imposed under an Act that was before never envisaged to give such widespread powers:
- Removed wholesale the right to protest - something that even this government has said, in representations to *Zimbabwe* should not be done in response to this very virus;
It is a dangerous delusion to think we can 'wait' for a vaccine. There certainly won't be a safe one soon.
Meanwhile, we are approaching community immunity in the south of England and the peak of infections in the north in October (see government dashboard)...
...and the plateauing of deaths (suggesting peak infections leading to deaths three weeks before, well before the introduction of 'tiers') suggests we are moving to it there.
The shocking level of conflicts of interest in SAGE (see further below) and in other medical committees throughout the world, demonstrate how little one can rely on them to advise any measures disinterestedly.
I have been sent this by a concerned parent of a sixth former at a boarding school, who was sent it in turn. It is atrocious and would appear to amount to false imprisonment. It is all too typical of schools and universities so I use it to illustrate the gravity of this problem.
This is without prejudice to the contention that the Regulations themselves amount to false arrest. Even if that is right, an institution may be guilty of the offence and tort of false imprisonment if the restrictions they impose go beyond (here, well beyond) the law.
Two initial points.
First, the children are told they 'must' abide by the restrictions.
Secondly, it has been indicated to them that these restrictions are because of the law, when most of the restrictions emphatically are not.
Countries whose police forces break up protests violently and do so spouting state propaganda are not liberal democracies.
Lawyers and others who stand aside and greet this with silence - or, worse, active support - are no friends of liberal democracy. bbc.com/news/uk-englan…
The @barcouncil and @TheLawSociety went into apoplexy when the government passed a law allowing one element of an international treaty about trade to be disregarded in domestic law.
Yet when the government tears up cardinal democratic rights and breaches the fundamental rights to freedom of worship, to family life and to property they stand by.
Mute.
This appears to be the serious criminal offence of false imprisonment. @gmpolice must investigate. If these students are being locked in their Hall or restricted from leaving, they must require these students to be released and should arrest those responsible. @UniversityManch
There is no possible legal justification. Under the new Regulations, students are permitted to leave their residences for a reasonable excuse. The list is inclusive, not exclusive, and includes leaving for the purposes of outdoor recreation as well as exercise.
Nor do the Regulations permit any but police constables, PCSOs or officers appointed by the Secretary of State to enforce the Regulations (in any circumstances). Nor is it ever permitted for any person - including officers - ...
I sent these questions to members of the Science and Technology Cmte to ask Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance. All linked carefully to government & other data.
They have not been asked, so I am publishing them to show how these public officials could have been examined.