Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
18 Jun, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Not obvious to me that this is a legally relevant consideration in imposing quarantine on return from an amber country on the double-vaccinated under *public health* powers.
The basis for imposing quarantine on a person under section 45F of the Public Health Act 1984 is that the requirement is for preventing danger to public health.
If quarantining P isn’t justified on the basis that (unless quarantined) P poses a danger to public health, then P can’t be quarantined: it’s irrelevant that it’s “not fair in many ways” that P isn’t subject to that obligation while others (who do pose that danger) are.
(Typo in 2nd tweet: should be section 45B, though s45F is the general power to make breach of a s45B requirement an offence.)
Brings up a general point on “vaccine passports”: since the powers at issue all depend on danger to public health, if that danger is significant for the non-vaccinated but not significant for the vaccinated, it’s hard in law to justify not recognising that difference.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with George Peretz QC

George Peretz QC Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgePeretzQC

George Peretz QC Profile picture
18 Jun
This is an interesting talk. A few comments (they deserve an essay but I’ll do my best).
1. The thesis that the rule of law is a difficult concept that may be being over-extended has some force. But that may be because it’s being used to do jobs that in a mature constitution would have been properly articulated: such as the boundary between courts and legislature.
2. These claims are not alternatives: they can be (and are) both true. The U.K. executive in the 50s/60s had an extraordinary amount of power (Hailsham’s “elective dictatorship”). It was constrained by “good chaps” understandings of how that power would be used.
Read 16 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
17 Jun
Interesting set of responses to that question. The best answers note that inward mobility from the EU may not be in the national interest simply because the volume will be larger.
But that response raises further questions about the current government’s position.
1. The govt now accepts that it’s in UK national interest to have outward mobility for young people/creatives/business etc to 🇦🇺.
Read 8 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
16 Jun
A series of points on the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.
1. It sets out binding obligations under international law - as an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
2. It is also incorporated into U.K. law (s.7A of the EU Withdrawal Agreement). It binds the U.K. government as a matter of domestic law (subject to legislation clearly overriding it, which would be unlikely to clear the House of Lords).
Read 21 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
15 Jun
This would be a good quote for an exam question: are ministers more like bosses, or clients, of the civil service?
A good answer would focus on the civil service code and on Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
In favour of “boss”: Ministers’ power to manage the CS; the requirement that the CS code “to carry out their duties for the assistance of the administration as it is duly constituted for the time being, whatever its political complexion.” (ss.3(1) and 7(2)).
Read 10 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
13 Jun
One under-discussed aspect of threats by the U.K. government to breach/ignore the I/NI Protocol: it needs to be remembered that non-compliance with the Protocol is also non-compliance with *domestic* U.K. law which the U.K. government has no *domestic* power to over-ride.
See s7A of the Withdrawal Act.
Subject to issues of standing (which are these days rarely decisive) the U.K. courts could be asked to make orders (declarations/injunctions) to restrain any government attempt to waive or legislate to remove Protocol obligations.
Read 8 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
11 Jun
I think it’s important to explain why this take by @Dominic2306 is wrong (particularly as the thread goes on to call for - unspecified - JR reforms, on the basis that this shows why JR is damaging to good government). (Long thread)
First, when reading his criticisms of the detailed procurement rules, remember that the judge actually found that (apart from the apparent bias issue) the government complied with those rules and was entitled to use the emergency procedures.
(Judgment here: see grounds 1 and 2 - paras 71-131.) drive.google.com/file/d/1zf_3NX…
Read 31 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @GeorgePeretzQC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GeorgePeretzQC!

Read all threads by @GeorgePeretzQC

:(