“It was not a party” update:
- cheese and wine
- not socially distanced
- “business meeting”
I know I mentioned this before but this keeps bringing back the utter distress of my 7 student clients who got £10,000 fixed penalty notices for house parties. Families paying life changing £ they couldn't afford, regulators + student authorities disciplinary processes triggered
For many of them, they didn't know or only vaguely understood the laws, the police (who I don't blame) did what they were told by politicians to do. I can't imagine seeing the laughing and joking of people in No. 10 will make them feel.
And then there are the millions of people who scrupulously followed the rules as best they could, amongst the inconsistencies and ambiguities
A number of the students' fixed penalty notices were reported in the press I assume to shame them and make an example.
The Prime Minister has been very clear he believes all guidance was followed. I assume he has had legal advice as to whether any criminal laws were broken.
That legal advice should be published. It is time for the government to come clean on this.
I have an inkling that the PM has been advised that the law didn't apply to 10 Downing Street. If that is the case (a) that itself is a scandal, (b) how long have they thought that for and did they act as if it didn't apply deliberately?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If, in the space of 10 years, politicians haven't been able to find other *true* cases to beat the Human Rights Act with, perhaps the reason is there aren't any.
Human rights laws have been hugely important in the UK and a source of real progress for many different parts of the society. I helped made this a few years ago to highlight 50 examples eachother.org.uk/50-human-right…
I initially thought I disagreed, because of the "permitted organised gatherings" requiring a risk assessment, but then Matthew pointed out (and I remembered from the time) that weirdly indoor gatherings didn't require one
But, as Matthew points out, if the gathering was a "permitted organised gathering", the individuals who were invited would not be allowed to mingle outside their households. If they did, they would be breaking the law. So in a way that makes the potential law breaches of...
Yes there is no legal issue with bringing prosecutions - or giving out fixed penalty notices - for something that happened a year ago. But the police have said before that they don't tend to look retrospectively at Covid offences... (1/2)
... but I know from my own work that police definitely do retrospectively investigate Covid offences, e.g. I had a client who allegedly escaped hotel quarantine who was investigated afterwards. It's discretionary (2/2)
I think, to be fair to the Met, there is a public interest point in putting Covid issues behind us and not encouraging thousands of "neighbour on neighbour" complaints about lockdown. But surely the public interest balance is different for alleged offences by government officials
Pretty extraordinary interview with Dominic Raab on Marr.
- Accepts if there was a party it broke rules
- Refuses to speculate on "anonymous and unsubstantiated" sources, though (a) doesn't deny it happened, (b) if you listen carefully doesn't answer if he knows it happened
Has anyone got to the bottom as to whether there would be any way of retrospectively prosecuting (seems unlikely because of 6-month rule) or giving a fixed penalty notice for the No.10 parties? There used to be saving provisions for fixed penalty notices bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
I'm sorry, the tweet above is wrong - the time limit is 6 months beginning on the date the prosecutor thinks it is sufficient to justify proceedings comes to the prosecutor's knowledge. See the CPS charging guidance (thanks to the person who sent it to me) cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance…
So in theory an offence last Christmas which only came to the CPS's knowledge recently could be prosecuted.
I don't know about Fixed Penalty Notices as I would need to look at the saving provisions to see if they can still be imposed.