Some good news for those following scandalous conditions for asylum seekers at Napier Barracks. In its first judgment the High Court ordered a vulnerable asylum seeker to be transferred out in 24 hrs. @DoughtyStreet’s @leoniehirst acting for @dpg_law, I act in 2 linked cases
Really excellent hard work from the @dpg_law team @SueWillman@EmilySoothill and my brilliant colleague @leoniehirst. The four cases of vulnerable asylum seekers held in atrocious, dangerous conditions we act for will be heard at a permission hearing in 2 weeks.
The judgment was given orally but will he up I imagine quite soon. Some important ‘prima facie’ (preliminary) findings on the truly atrocious conditions on the site and confirmation that asylum seekers can lawfully be moved out under the self-isolation regulations.
Some troubling evidence that asylum seekers were told they couldn’t leave the site under any circumstances because of COVID outbreak, enforced by police. These are not detained people, self-isolation regulations don’t allow for detention, sounds a lot like false imprisonment
Sorry for missing out @ahmedali_ and Rosa Potter of @dpg_law. Unbelievably hard work, complex case with lots of moving parts.
This is very troubling footage. These are not detainees. I am dubious that there is a legal basis for the police using force. There is a power under the self-isolation regulations to use reasonable force to return somebody to the place they are supposed to be isolating ... /1
but as far as I know, people at barracks weren’t given formal notifications to self isolate (I hear people tested but not given results/ a letter sent by ‘Ready Homes’ telling them to self-isolate prob isn’t formal notification) and therefore there was no power of enforcement /2
In any case, I can’t see how the police can have known who was legally required to self isolate and who was not. We do not know the full facts but it is plausible the police have unlawfully assaulted this man
As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence
Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400
Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000
Some thoughts on the legality of hotel quarantine (thread)
- What will be the legal basis of hotel quarantine? I am guessing s45B(2)(b) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Seems a pretty straightforward provision... /1
... but important questions about what detail will be.
- since likely to be a deprivation of liberty in human rights law will need safeguards.
- Will it need specific authorisation each time?
- regular reviews or will 14 days be compulsory?
- access to judicial review?
- As far as I understand Norway (another European Convention on Human Rights state) did this but without legal compulsion
- Interesting Human Rights question whether detention of *potentially* infectious people falls within article 5 exception (will depend in part on necessity)
I’m afraid to say that this behaviour may have been triggered in part by bogus advice going round the ultra orthodox Jewish community about how to get round the Covid restrictions. I have tweeted about it before
I have tried repeatedly to communicate with Rabbi Teitelbaum (whose leaflet I understand has gone to thousands of homes) as I guessed his constituents are not my followers on Twitter. I achieved some success in a leaflet being amended but not enough sadly