"Applications are considered by trained Departmental staff, following detailed procedures designed by public health professionals and are supported by medically qualified public health professionals"
What does "are supported by" mean? Who knows
In May over 35,000 people had been through the hotel quarantine system, so it stands to reason that it is tens of thousands more by now
The exemption for medical reasons was added after a pre-action letter in a case which I am acting in - the second success of that case was getting the gov to accept people should not have to pay the full amount if they can't afford it
After the medical exemption was added I acted in this case which was on the extreme end - but I had assumed that more medical exemptions would allowed after that. They have been in about 10 cases I know about but surprised the total is only 60. Of 10,000s!
I think many would be forgiving of the "tear up the rule book to get results" approach if the results didn't so obviously demonstrate why the rule book matters in a crisis - it prevents government contracts going to donors/friends and profiteering
Have been thinking about the term "profiteering" for a bit - seems so apt to some of those PPE contracts. Doesn't seem to be illegal in the govt procurement context but would be in consumer law (blakemorgan.co.uk/law-in-a-time-…)
🚨As expected, changes to travel regulations from Monday to allow EU & US vaccinated Amber List travellers to avoid quarantine
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021 legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/914/…
Important judgments - Supreme Court (Lords Sales/Burnett giving judgment) decided test for challenging non-statutory government policy is if it "sanctions, positively approves or encourages unlawful conduct by those to whom it is directed" not whether it is "inherently unfair"
Meanwhile, although rolling back the years in public law (80s are BACK!), the Supreme Court continues to expand the boundaries of various duties of care, in this case for tour operators. A sad case on its facts but ultimately helpful judgment for customers supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-201…
Artists' rendition of the Supreme Court Justices deciding that the 1986 Gillick case would now be the test for policy unlawfulness
Michael Mansfield QC disowned Labour Against the Witch Hunt when in 2018 I sent him some of their tweets including calling Jewish Labour Movement "racist scum", using "Zios" and comparing Zionism to Nazism.
Important new report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Sounds boring right? But hundreds of statutory instruments have been used to make Covid criminal laws for the past year and a half, controlling the minutiae of our lives
This is a good report - a bit of "we have tried to work with the government, we have been polite and respectful" etc at the beginning but then goes on to make some serious criticisms of unclear and irrational criminal laws, failure to provide enough notice, guidance vs law etc
I'm not going to summarise as I don't have time but I will post some screenshots of important bits in my opinion
Still don’t really understand the legal basis for this if workers are avoiding test and trace notifications (not just the app). Is it all “research”? Is there guidance on it somewhere? bbc.co.uk/news/business-…
I don’t want to be a stick in the mud but currently there is no “critical services“ exception to self isolation regulations so strictly (it looks to me) if workers follow govt guidance they will be breaking the law gov.uk/guidance/nhs-t…
There is a essential infrastructure exception for the international returns self-isolation regulations but that is different. I suppose that workers could rely on an unlisted reasonable excuse to avoid prosecution but it’s not ideal