Share this page!

Adam Wagner Profile picture
Twitter logo
8 Jan, 16 tweets, 6 min read
This sounds very concerning. On 20 May 2020 the UK was still in lockdown. As the article says, the "bring your own bottle" request, as well as officials replying it was a bad idea, suggests it wasn't necessary for work.
"long tables laden with drink, crisps, sausage roles..."
The law at the time was "no person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse". This included "the need to work". However, if an activity was not necessary for work that wouldn't be a reasonable excuse to be out.
legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/…
This is I assumed the gathering referred to in @Dominic2306's recent blog, which I assume prompted the ST investigation
Also should be noted that this event would not breach the gatherings ban on 20 May 2020 as gatherings were only unlawful in public places, which this wasn't.
legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/…
Should also be noted that since this was the No. 10 garden, it is unlikely the Prime Minister and Carrie breached the "being outside the place you are living without reasonable excuse" rule because I assume (though am not sure) this was part of the place they were living.
"For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises."

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/…
In principle, if the Prime Minister organised the event or played a role in organising it he could be an accessory but I haven't seen accessorial offences used in the context of the coronavirus regulations. Criminal lawyers may be clearer than I am on this.
Meanwhile, a Conservative peer conveniently confirmed just yesterday that there is no blanket exception in Crown Properties such as No. 10 for coronavirus regulations
One of the most notable aspects of the (I think now 8) "parties" alleged to have been held by government departments during 2020 is that details have never been denied by the government, just blanket assurances that guidance or rules were kept to
* rolls not roles - sorry it is late!
“plausible fall guy”
thetimes.co.uk/article/4bb8ed…
2-3 weeks for the Gray inquiry to report apparently
Very interesting choice of words here

"The prime minister has insisted he broke no rules, so if the finding is that he did then he will obviously have very serious questions to answer"

What if "he broke no rules" (see my tweet above) but he was at a party for people who were?
(source bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…)
Nb this is why the gatherings organiser offence was added a few months later - it closed the loophole of people not themselves being liable for having parties in their back gardens
Nb also you can be an accessory to a crime under the coronavirus regulations

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Adam Wagner

Adam Wagner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdamWagner1

Adam Wagner Profile picture
10 Jan
This looks unlikely to be legal for attendees. Being outside the home was illegal at the time unless (the only potentially relevant exception) it was for the need to work. “Socially distanced drinks” / “BYOB” don’t sound like work.
This is more detail on the legal aspects. Sounds like a big party not work. Extraordinary really and so brazen. The PM wouldn’t be breaking that law as he was in his own garden but perhaps could be an accessory to everyone else’s breach of regulations
It’s called “drinks”! Honestly, what did they think they were doing? Why did the PM attend and obviously problematic event?
Read 4 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
7 Jan
I will let others explain the exact procedure but there is a basic issue which will be becoming clear to ministers - a jury verdict sets no precedent, so the law is as it was, but a Court of Appeal decision would set an important precedent, which may not be the one the govt wants
Throughout yesterday people including government ministers were talking as if the Colston verdict set a precedent, which in legal terms is wrong. The irony of wanting to "do something" about it is that the "something" may cause an actual precedent to be set
One other point: on maybe the most important point in the case, whether "lawful excuse" element of the offence can include reference to the human rights concept of proportionality, this will ultimately be decided regardless of the Colston case as there will be other cases...
Read 7 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
6 Jan
It is being widely assumed (by critics) that the jury in Bristol acquitted inspite of the very clear law. We don't know why the jury acquitted but my understanding of the defences considered by the jury is it is entirely possible they acquitted because defendants had a defence Image
(source doughtystreet.co.uk/news/edward-co…)
Which means this wasn't necessarily a jury just deciding that they didn't fancy applying the law, but rather a jury applying the law on the basis of the evidence they (and nobody else not in the court room) heard. The opposite of perverse.
Read 4 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
6 Jan
Re the story at the top, I was asked for a comment on this and said that I didn't think it was unreasonable for the BBC to ask for the names of potential claimants (which it offered to keep confidential) when responding to a pre-action letter. 1/2 thejc.com/news/news/outr…
It's normal in my experience for a potential party to litigation to expect to know who is potentially suing them.

My thoughts on the overall story is that the BBC need to account for what sound like serious mistakes in their coverage 2/2
My comment hasn't been published - I guess because it didn't fit with the narrative they wanted, which seems a bit unfair to the BBC (not least because we are talking here about questions of propriety) 3/3
Read 4 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
6 Jan
One thing about the #Colston4 acquittal the government should see as a warning: criminalising protest you don’t approve of (as is happening through the #PolicingBill) will have the opposite effect you want: politicisation of the courts and juries and more unlikely acquittals
The #Colston4 case was criminal damage so the acquittal was unusual. If the govt criminalises *peaceful* protest as planned, there will be many more arguments of this type, based on the protest being justified and the prosecution unjustified. And the public will sympathise.
In other words, be careful if you wish for peaceful protest to become a criminal issue because the public may not oblige your illiberal intentions.
Read 4 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
5 Jan
From the way this is described it sounds worrying and demonstrates the almost unlimited power of social media platforms to control speech when they want to, without accountability. Twitter should have an independent appeal system like Facebook now has through @OversightBoard
Social media platforms are not public authorities but they mediate public discourse in a way which is a lot like a public authority. They can learn a lot from human rights principles - including balancing between free speech and different social harms.
The Facebook @OversightBoard is certainly not perfect but it at least does attempt to use human rights and other principles to determine whether "moderation" decisions are appropriate or not, which is a start and should be what Twitter is doing too.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AdamWagner1 has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AdamWagner1!

Read all threads by @AdamWagner1

:(