OK, have had a bit of time to think through the Cummings story (phone has been switched off since last night).

Have been knee-deep in the legal regulations and the government guidance for two months now and I know it pretty much back to front.

Have written extensively... /1

... on the fact that both the law and the guidance are fairly unclear and confused. What is clear, though, is there was never an *express legal prohibition* on travelling to another place for family welfare reasons. Regulation 6 as it was at the time looked like this: /2

It has a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses for leaving home and none is particularly close to what Cummings is reported to have done, but I think the best you can say is that it is unclear whether he broke the law. See the first JCHR report https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5801/jtselect/jtrights/correspondence/Chairs-briefing-paper-regarding-Health-Protection-Coronavirus-Restrictions-England-Regulation-2020.pdf /3

... legally, it is a question for court if journey he had his family took was leaving house with a "reasonable excuse", which would depend on all circumstances. Sounds like police followed their guidance by starting by engaging and explaining rather than jumping to prosecution /4

But - that's not the end of the story. There have always been two different pictures painted by the government's approach - what is against the *law* and what is against the *guidance*. And the guidance itself has generally been stricter than the law. See /5

I basically agree with this analysis that there is a little bit of wriggle room in the guidance ( https://omarsalem.com/2020/05/23/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-dominic-cummings/). And, I'm wary that Cummings is such a divisive and in some quarters hated figure that there is likely to be some confirmation bias at work here... /6

... But in the end, guidance has always been about treading a line between encouraging public compliance and maintaining public trust. So that means those in charge have to keep to it to the letter, and the spirit of it, and be seen to be doing that. /7

Ultimately, question of whether Cummings broke guidance is straightforward. Just imagine a journalist posing the scenario at press briefings in March/April. I have no doubt answer would have come back - no. Don't travel long distances. Arrange groceries & childcare at home. /8

I don't think this is fundamentally a legal question - though he may have broken law - it's a political one. And the public who watched briefings and took careful note of what was said in letter and spirit will recognise cabinet defences today for what they are: rank hypocrisy /9

The public, who it turns out were good at understanding the guidance and keeping to it because they cared about the bigger picture, will know the truth which is that this scenario would not have been approved by a single government minister before yesterday, and that stinks /end