Ooh these are *complicated* regulations. Always a bad sign when there is a contents page
Preliminary point: Absolutely absurd that these regulations have been published less than 24 hours before the vote. They are so complex they should have had months of debate like a proper law.
So the first bit is about which events require Covid passes - Category A, B, C and D events
B, C and D events are subject to exceptions so watch out
Cat A: venues listed in Schedule 1 (will come to that)
Cat B: "is attended, or is likely to be attended, at any point" 😬by 500 or more people indoors or partly indoors and partly outdoors
Cat C: Outdoors with 4,000 or more people
Cat D: events with over 10,000 people
Category B events require that the 500+ people "are likely to stand or move around" during the event, and that *doesn't* include going to the toilet or getting food or drink. 🚽
Regulation 5 sets out the requirements to ensure that nobody enters relevant events without satisfying the criteria in Regulation 8 - coming to that, that's Covid passes
Regulation 6 provides for the possibility of spot checks "not reasonably possible to carry out a check on every person within regulation 5(3)as described in that paragraph, without endangering the safety of any person attending, or providing services at, the venue or event"
Bureaucracy for local authorities who have to approve spot check plans
Regulation 7: requirement for venues to keep statements and records. Hope that venues have this sorted by Wednesday!
Regulation 8 is the Covid Pass regulation, includes:
1⃣ 2 vaccine doses
2⃣ Approved test up to 48 hours before entering
3⃣ Clinical trial
4⃣ Can't be vaccinated for clinical reasons
NOT positive PCR within six months - this has been taken out it appears
Regulation 9: accepted proof
Can be NHS Covid pass or equivalent for other parts of UK.
Could also be overseas vaccination proof
Valid notification of a negative result from a qualifying test - assume you can bring the lateral flow with you?
Proof of negative test
Regulation 10 - exempt persons
Important list, includes:
- People under 18
- Services providers (e.g. employees) at venues
- organised sports or fitness activities attending venue (so excludes people attending gyms?)
Regulation 12: new power for local authorities - Coronavirus Improvement Notices
Another new power for local authorities under regulation 13: Coronavirus Immediate Restriction Notices
LAs can close premises or require improvement
And another new power under regulation 14: Coronavirus Restriction Notices
The usual offences and fixed penalty notices.
For those saying "this is easily fakeable", there is a £10,000 fixed penalty notice for a person who "makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply false evidence of COVID status to another person which P knows is false or misleading"
Otherwise it's £1,000 (or £500 if paid within 14 days) for other offences under the regulations - e.g. venue not complying with duties or LA improvement notices
Schedule 1: venues where the rules apply
Schedule 2: exempt events
- Weddings and weddings receptions
- "significant life events" (ooh, isn't the PM having a christening soon? I seem to remember the only time we had "significant life events" before was when his last child was!)
Here is the explanatory note
Note these regulations come into force on Wed 15 December at 6am - get ready everyone!
They expire on 26 January 2022 but can obviously be extended by new regulations
Nb if you run a venue please read these regulations and the guidance in full, I haven't included everything in these brief tweets. Lots to get your head around and sorted by Wed.
I have updated my Covid resources table. Because this is an entirely new category of restrictions and regulations I have added a *new table row colour"! docs.google.com/document/d/1ne…
The Divisional Court has ruled that the Government acted unlawfully and irrationally when deciding not to implement the full funding recommendation in Lord Bellamy’s Criminal Legal Aid Review.
I had the rare honour of acting for my professional colleagues, Criminal Law Solicitors Association (@CrimeSolicitors) and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (@lccsa), the Interested Parties in the case. Their press release is below.
The Claimant @TheLawSociety was superbly represented by Tom de la Mare KC @thebrieftweet, Gayatri Sarathy and Emmeline Plews of @BlackstoneChbrs, instructed by John Halford of Bindmans LLP Gayatri Sarathy and Emmeline Plews of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by John Halford of @BindmansLLP.
The amount of work which went into putting the case together and presenting the oral arguments, and standing up for the rule of law, was extraordinary - a credit to the profession.
Together with the Law Society, the CLSA and the LCCSA provided the Court with a large number of witness statements from solicitors up and down the country, at every level of seniority, describing the relentless, physically demanding and emotionally draining nature of criminal defence work and the chronic underfunding which has led to a crisis in the retention of solicitors who are leaving in their droves for better pay and conditions that can be found elsewhere.
The Government response to the Criminal Legal Aid Review utterly failed to grasp the extent of the crisis. Despite the review recommending a 15% increase to solicitors fees as “no more than a minimum starting point”, it increased fees by only 9% with a further 2% promised this year.
The ruling today confirms that the Government response to the review was so flawed as to be unlawful and irrational.
In today’s ruling Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Jay described the evidence we submitted from our members alongside the Law Society as “a mass of convergent evidence from honest, professional people working up and down the country”, which is “cogent”, “impressive” and “compelling”, and which “brings home [that] women and men working up and down the country at all hours of the day and night, in difficult and stressful circumstances, carrying out an essential service which depends to a large extent on their goodwill and sense of public duty”.
Some very public-facing comments by Lord Reed in the opening of his summary of the judgment:
- Policy is not that the UK will process asylum claims whilst people are in Rwanda, Rwanda will process them (despite the former often being claimed)
- The non-refoulement principle is contained in a number of treaties not just the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act
Prediction is a mug's game but if I were giving a public judgment rejecting the government's appeal this is how I would begin it!
This is a beautifully clear summary of the relevant legal principles. A model of its form - plain English, focussed on the public
The Home Secretary acted unlawfully by accommodating, since December 2021, thousands of unaccompanied child asylum seekers in hotels. Kent Council also acted unlawfully in passing on responsibility for them.
A judgment suffused with humanity, legal rigour and common sense from Mr Justice Chamberlain, starting from changing the parties' preferred acronym to emphasise the human element.
The House of Commons Privileges Committee has reported on the conduct of MPs who impugned 'the integrity of that Committee and its members' and attempted 'to lobby or intimidate those members or to encourage others to do so'
This is the suggestion of contempt based on Erskine May (the Parliamentary procedure bible) - which I think is quite convincing. The comments of members about the Privileges Committee being essentially corrupted were very arguably over the line
One point which I think was striking about the MPs who criticised the report is none of them seemed to point to any particular finding they disagreed with. They just went for the committee and the individuals on it.