I read articles like this and it feels like there is a genuine rewriting of history going on - *I* didn't turn social activity into a criminal offence, it was the government - the same government who told us every day the rules were not trivial, they were deadly serious... 1/3
... and the rules may have been inconsistent, or at times difficult to understand, and god knows I tried to help people with that, but 170,000+ people died and millions were infected with a potentially deadly virus. For anyone now to say, in a nakedly self-interested... 2/3
... attempt to build political cover, that this wasn't actually very serious, and it was trivial for those making the rules to also flagrantly and repeatedly breach them, and conceal those breaches, is an insult to the rule of law and obvious rewriting of history. 3/3
Another possibility is that arrests have been or are about to be made, in which case "proceedings" have begun under the Contempt of Court Act?
I suppose we will see what the story is - I wouldn't assume a "cover up" but it is possible (a) that police have evidence of more serious offences than under coronavirus regulations, (b) they are being super cautious in the context of a sensitive politicised investigation
I am not a criminal lawyer so perhaps I am missing something. How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating "prejudice" their investigation?
It is absolutely normal for concerns to be raised about prejudice to a criminal *trial*. That is due to a concern that the jury will be influenced by press coverage and not be sufficiently objective (so we have special rules about jury trials and press coverage).
But the police don't, as far as I am aware, ask journalists not to report on ongoing *investigations* and often media will report on the factual circumstances surrounding a police investigation, then clam up once a charge has been brought.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has changed its policy on trans rights - no longer supporting major changes to the Gender Recognition Act to de-medicalise the process. Says further research needed but does not explain what further research is needed to justify reform
Also does not explain on what evidential basis aside from “concerns” it has changed its position so significantly from its 2018 response to the GRA consultation.
Obviously it is correct that the debate around this issue is polarised but the EHRC should set out its full reasoning for this change in policy given its 2018 consultation response was itself detailed and evidenced equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/bl…
The story is odd. They don’t accept that the slur the BBC initially reported with heard on the bus was not a slur, despite forensic analysis. Their explanation is circular, that CST confirmed by text their understanding, but surely they should go back to the original evidence?
… and decide whether it actually was a slur or not? Basic journalism, no?
Interesting @UKSupremeCourt judgment confirming that carrying the flag of a proscribed organisation at a rally is a strict liability offence and human rights law doesn't alter that conclusion supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks…
Interesting comments on test for proportionality, adding a slight gloss to Lord Sumption's "4 requirements (or elements)" in Bank Mellat case. Not easy to follow but I think means least restrictive means has to be weighed against the legitimate aim in the proportionality analysis
My colleagues Joel Bennathan QC and @judebunting shortly-to-be QC acted for the appellant.
I don't think Sue Gray should be *investigating* whilst the police are but that's a different point. Sounds like her investigation was basically complete.
And there is no possible reason not to publish the report about the gatherings which *aren't* being investigated by the Met Police