Thread by @SimonFRCox

did national media publish this sort of legal falseness before Brexit? We can discuss what s.73 *means* but you only have to read it to see it does not “state”this.

Or is it just a feature of the Spectator becoming a blog?

https://twitter.com/SBarrettBar/status/1468599516521713673

I say “falseness” deliberately. It’s fine for lawyers to argue that provisions don’t mean what they say, or mean more than they say. But that isn’t the claim here. And the piece is by a lawyer, about the law. It’s not a passing comment.

But does Section 73 *mean* that Covid Regs don’t apply on Gov land? (Courts seem to behave as if they do.)

Why would a local authority’s agreement be needed to for Ministers to apply their own Regs to the land they control?

The much better (only?) meaning of s.73 is that it relates to the powers given by the Act *to local authorities* to regulate *premises*. Not to those given to Ministers. As explained here.

https://twitter.com/levinslaw/status/1469367877157466113

If the Spectator is right, then none of the central Gov Covid Regs have applied to any central Gov buildings. Because Department of Health & Social Care forgot to tell anyone that each local authority has to approve that.

This is Sovereign Citizen level stuff.

I’m not saying the Covid Regulations were breached. My concern is with a piece being published which begins with a false claim; presented as if it’s a knock-out legal blow, in a context where any passingly competent lawyer would know that it can’t be.