Although, a recent judicial review permission decision which I will post soon (not publicly available) says people aren’t detained (strictly ‘deprived of liberty’) despite being stuck in a guarded hotel room with 15 mins exercise in the car park per day. I think that’s wrong
Here is the judgment in Khalid - permission decision (first stage of Judicial Review). Mr Justice Linden held that hotel quarantine (which for most people is 23 hrs 45 mins per day stuck in a guarded room) is not even arguably a deprivation of liberty (!) …ughtystreetchambers-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal…
This decision, which I think is wrong, will be challenged through the new hotel quarantine Judicial Review which is referred to in the thread.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some detail (via @gabrielquotes) on the question I have been wondering about for a few months - why Lord Sumption is no longer on the Supreme Court supplementary panel. whatdotheyknow.com/request/765192…
"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
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