Very interesting development. If compulsory vaccination to work in the front line was going to happen anywhere first, it was going to be the care home sector.
Raises difficult, complicated issues - though certainly not clear it would be illegal bbc.co.uk/news/uk-574922…
The first big question is what happens to people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons - the article suggests some will be redeployed off the front line, I would imagine that this would have to happen (rather than sacking) for that group.
Second big question is whether vaccination is something which can reasonably be a requirement as part of an employment contract. It's a medical procedure, even if it is a relatively benign one (that is, very low risk of side effect and obvious positive impact).
Third question is whether this is a harbinger of things to come in wider frontline health service. e.g medical+nursing staff on geriatric wards, is there really much difference in terms of risks? I imagine it wouldn't be long before this moves out of care homes as article suggest
Any court considering this would look at the fact that tens of thousands of people died in care homes from Covid. Elderly care home residents are an extremely high risk group. On other side of the balance is privacy and bodily autonomy of workers.
A number of people pointing out that immunisation has been a requirement of the NHS contract (I think for certain areas) for years.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm getting a lot of questions about rules for organising weddings 💒
Obviously a big worry for people as could end up with a £10,000 fixed penalty notice if they don't follow rules (including law and even guidance).
What questions do you have about covid rules and weddings?
OK, so the problem, I think, isn't with people organising weddings - it's that the law is confusing. And I'm afraid I might not be able to make it entirely clear. Because it's not.
The starting point is anyone who "hold[s], or [is] involved in the holding of, a relevant gathering" can get a £10,000 fixed penalty notice
A relevant gathering is a gathering of more than 30 people where no exception applies
This would raise interesting issues if it went to court. A long-standing teacher at an Orthodox Jewish studies college lost her post because she qualified as a female rabbi (still not permitted by most of the Orthodox world).
Sounds like sex discrimination as I assume she wouldn't have lost her post if she was a man who qualified as a rabbi. They would argue, I imagine, that any individual who breached Orthodox 'red lines' would not be able to teach. But if those red lines only exist for women...
I know there are exemptions for religious institutions in the Equality Act 2010. But would they apply in this case?
The courts have been reluctant to intervene with Covid restrictions but I do think there will come a time - perhaps it has even come - that there are decent prospects for a legal challenge to a refusal to allow a business such as a nightclub to open to double vaccinated customers
I appreciate there are possible arguments against such as strains getting through vaccines but the risk is significantly reduced that it is arguably below the risk of any other reason for shutting venues and closing businesses.
Article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights requires that any interference with the ‘peaceful enjoyment of property’ must be proportionate. Big socioeconomic decisions such as this are hard to challenge as the state is given a wide margin. But…
This reminds me of the 'Jack Bauer fallacy' I sometimes talk about in the context of terrorism. It is correct that the public, in the throes of a crisis, sometimes signal that they want officials to 'throw off the red tape' and 'dispense with niceties to get things DONE'...
... and the most recent example pre COVID was the ticking bomb - you think a suspect has the location... do you torture? The argument for: we will save lives if the torture works. Argument against: we will fall below an essential standard that democratic societies don't torture..
... and you see this argument over public procurement. "Yes of course we broke the rules, wouldn't you have? I had a mate who could provide 200m masks tomorrow, no time for niceties... we saved many lives!" The approach is superficially attractive as how can you argue against...
The claim succeeded on Ground 3, about real possibility of bias. Probably the most important ground as it isn't an attack on the specific contract but about the principle of fair administration
What I find so impressive about @GoodLawProject is they are taking an attritional approach - claim after claim all focussed on establishing principles of good administration. Very few public lawyers have the resources and strategic approach to achieve this
It's difficult to explain how difficult it is to bring a single public law case against the government - to find the right case, the enormous funds required to protect your clients... taking this kind strategic approach is almost impossible, but it's getting results.
"26.—(1) The following Regulations are revoked—
...
(b)the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the International Travel Regulations”)"
"(4) Nothing in these Regulations applies in relation to a person who arrived in England before 4.00 a.m. on 17th May 2021 (and accordingly, the regulations mentioned in paragraph (1) continue to have effect in relation to such a person)."
2/3
How can regulations both be revoked and continue to have effect?
Or is what is really happening that they have been revoked *except* for people who arrived before 4am on 17 May 2021?
3/3