The government's rules criminalised conduct which would, ordinarily, be unremarkable:
- standing in the street with others
- walking 'shoulder to shoulder' with a friend
- sitting in a car with others
- drinking beer in the park
Fines in spring 2020 were relatively small (£60/£100) but could grow considerably once in front of a magistrate.
3 friends drinking in a park in Apr 2020 were fined £660, £810 & £660.
The 4th friend, who committed the same offence, had a different magistrate and was fined £150
The court records show Covid rule-breaking - even when apparently fairly minor - could lead to criminal prosecution.
The fine for attending a BYOB party in the first national Covid lockdown was £60.
If the case went to court, the financial penalty was much bigger.
Here are extracts of police evidence when 4 people were having a drink in the sunshine in a west London park in Spring 2020.
Two of those at this gathering were fined £660 each. A third was ordered to pay £810. The fourth, who was dealt with by a different magistrate, was told to pay £150.
None had paid the initial £60 penalty, which would have been reduced to £30 if they settled it within 14 days.
There are thousands of people around the country who were fined, prosecuted, & left with criminal records for breaking Covid rules.
They were caught at the time, rather than evidence emerging months later.
Police appear to be no closer to investigating goings-on last Christmas in Downing St or Tory HQ
Let me tell you about a young Kingston man & his year fighting a massive fine for a party on Dec 13 last year.
This should make MPs stop and think about the system they've created.
Student Othniel Agyei, 21, is accused of throwing a birthday party for a friend at his home, with around 40 people present.
People were enjoying a drink, shoulder to shoulder in the kitchen, 'cheek by jowl' perhaps...
Sounds like a breach of Tier 2 rules, on police evidence.
There is a second police statement, however, which may be important.
One of the guests at the party identified a man called 'Ben' as the organiser, casting at least a little doubt over who organised the event and who might liable for a fine.
The Downing Street 'party' debacle has shone a welcome light on what's been happening in Covid-19 prosecutions in London.
That Ilford gathering I posted earlier is one of a series of cases dating back to December 2020 which are before a magistrate this week:
All bundled through the Single Justice Procedure, not in open court, not publicised in any meaningful way to the public, dealt with by a magistrate sitting behind closed doors.
There have been more than 2000 of these type of prosecutions in London since last September.
More than £1.2m in fines imposed, for lockdown parties, illegal gatherings, after hours work drinks, and more.
The Met Police happens to be, this week, prosecuting an alleged illegal gathering on December 18 last year.
Not in Downing Street, but a house in Ilford.
Being around a year ago isn't the issue - I'd imagine this prosecution was launched last month.
However the basis of it is overwhelmingly likely to be a police officer's statement, giving evidence of what they saw on Dec 18.
The Downing St 'party' case faces two obstacles:
- police policy not to investigate Covid breaches its officers didn't personally witness
- a lack of actual evidence
Nothing insurmountable, but you'd imagine a whistleblower speaking to police is essential.
"Why are they still appearing by videolink?", asked a member of court staff, of barristers in a sentencing hearing.
"A lot of people are getting sick", replied her colleague.
"Maybe they just don't want to come anymore", said the first.
At first, I was annoyed to hear this kind of comment, as if caution & safety measures should be set aside simply because the pandemic has been going on for a while.
Covid-19 cases are rising sharply, shouldn't remote solutions be preferred - if possible - as winter approaches?
A top judge the other day said: "We've now reached a stage in the playing out of the pandemic when it is possible to contemplate a gradual increase in the volume of cases that are heard in person in
court".
It might be 'possible' but is that kind of sweeping approach sensible?