Read on Twitter
A brief thread about law, instincts, and regulations
1.
1.
Look at Regulation 6 of the Coronavirus Regulations
This is the provision that restricts movement during the lockdown: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6
2.">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020...
This is the provision that restricts movement during the lockdown: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6
2.">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020...
6(1) provides a prohibition
This prohibition applies to everyone, other than - if you scroll down to 6(4) - the homeless
There is no express exception for Dominic Cummings
3.
This prohibition applies to everyone, other than - if you scroll down to 6(4) - the homeless
There is no express exception for Dominic Cummings
3.
The 6(1) prohibition is subject to one carve out
This is a "reasonable excuse"
The word "reasonable" is legally crucial here
Not just "excuse" - but a "reasonable excuse"
This means it is not for person to decide themselves, it is an objective test - ultimately for a court
4
This is a "reasonable excuse"
The word "reasonable" is legally crucial here
Not just "excuse" - but a "reasonable excuse"
This means it is not for person to decide themselves, it is an objective test - ultimately for a court
4
If the word "reasonable" was not in 6(1) then it would be an "anything goes" situation - if you had an excuse - any excuse - the prohibition would not apply
The requirement of reasonableness means mere instinct or any subjective belief is not enough
And there is more
5.
The requirement of reasonableness means mere instinct or any subjective belief is not enough
And there is more
5.
There is a non-exhaustive list of "reasonable excuses" at 6(2)
None of these mention "instinct"
But you will see that, in the head clause, each of these excuses is also subject to the word "need"
This means there is another legal test: necessity
6.
None of these mention "instinct"
But you will see that, in the head clause, each of these excuses is also subject to the word "need"
This means there is another legal test: necessity
6.
So to escape the prohibition there needs to be not only a reasonable excuse but that the excursion has to be necessary
The test of necessity, again, would be an objective one - further reinforcing that mere instinct or subjective belief is not enough
7.
The test of necessity, again, would be an objective one - further reinforcing that mere instinct or subjective belief is not enough
7.
Take the words "reasonable" and "the need" out of 6(1) and then you could have the subjective provision which would make instinct a trump card, but they are there
8.
8.
Assuming Dominic Cummings is not homeless, given his number of homes, then he is a person to whom 6(1) would apply
As such, there are objective tests of reasonableness and necessity for any excursion to meet, for which "instinct" is insufficient
9.
As such, there are objective tests of reasonableness and necessity for any excursion to meet, for which "instinct" is insufficient
9.
So, to assert that his "instinct" is enough for the rules not to apply to him is wrong at law
If he had a "reasonable excuse" then that ultimately is not for him to determine
And this is why the defences of him following his instinct are wrong-headed and legally unsound
10/end
If he had a "reasonable excuse" then that ultimately is not for him to determine
And this is why the defences of him following his instinct are wrong-headed and legally unsound
10/end
ps
Nothing in this thread or in my other commentary can or should be taken that an offence has been committed
The point is more narrow: the "instinct" defence, by itself, is not even insufficient - it is irrelevant
Nothing in this thread or in my other commentary can or should be taken that an offence has been committed
The point is more narrow: the "instinct" defence, by itself, is not even insufficient - it is irrelevant
