Read on Twitter
Power of police to direct a person home is under regulation 8(3)(a): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/8/made
To exercise power, police must be consider there was a breach of 6(1) - there was no reasonable excuse
1.
To exercise power, police must be consider there was a breach of 6(1) - there was no reasonable excuse
1.
If the Durham police statement means that an officer would have exercised the 8(3)(a) power to direct Cummings home then it would mean the officer would have considered Cummings to have been committing an offence
2.
2.
In my view, that would mean that, had Cummings refused to follow the advice, then such a direction would have been given
3.
3.
The "might" in the statement means that the police would have "considered" that there was a breach for the exercise the 8(3)(a) power
It would not be for the police officer to determine criminal liability: that is a matter for the court
4.
It would not be for the police officer to determine criminal liability: that is a matter for the court
4.
The Durham police statement is confusingly worded
But what it means, legally, is that a police officer would have been in a position to exercise their power under 8(3)(a), which in turn means they would have considered Cummings to have committing an offence
5.
But what it means, legally, is that a police officer would have been in a position to exercise their power under 8(3)(a), which in turn means they would have considered Cummings to have committing an offence
5.
Not all breaches of the prohibition lead to prosecutions or fines
Some sanctions, such as a direction to return under 8(3)(a) is very mild
But it means that a police would have "considered" a minor offence was being committed
6.
Some sanctions, such as a direction to return under 8(3)(a) is very mild
But it means that a police would have "considered" a minor offence was being committed
6.
The key word is "consider"
And so if one was to say, on the back of the Durham statement, that Durham police considered that Cummings had committed an offence, then that would be correct and libel-safe
7.
And so if one was to say, on the back of the Durham statement, that Durham police considered that Cummings had committed an offence, then that would be correct and libel-safe
7.
It does not mean a criminal offence was or was not committed, or that there is a criminal sanction or penalty
8.
8.
(This thread replaces a now-deleted shorter thread which made the same point but without reasoning.)
Fwiw
I think the Durham police decision is the correct one
A minor infringement of 6(1) warrants such a minor response - as long as that would be consistent with what would have happened any other member of the public in those circumstances
10.
I think the Durham police decision is the correct one
A minor infringement of 6(1) warrants such a minor response - as long as that would be consistent with what would have happened any other member of the public in those circumstances
10.
And it is good that the police use the evidence (and lack of evidence) of social distancing as their basis for action
That shows sensible enforcement
Confusingly worded decision from Durham police, but in my opinion the correct outcome (on known facts)
11.
That shows sensible enforcement
Confusingly worded decision from Durham police, but in my opinion the correct outcome (on known facts)
11.
"might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention"
The "might" here is going to the intervention, not to the breach
12
The "might" here is going to the intervention, not to the breach
12
Quoting statement as
"might have been a minor breach of the Regulations"
is misleading
"might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention"
means there was a breach, but not one sufficiently seriousness for more than advice
13
"might have been a minor breach of the Regulations"
is misleading
"might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention"
means there was a breach, but not one sufficiently seriousness for more than advice
13
That police consider there was an offence is also supported by
"had advice been accepted no enforcement action would have been taken"
- ie, if advice rejected, 8(3)(a) power would have been used
"view this as minor"
- which is not the same as saying there was no breach at all
"had advice been accepted no enforcement action would have been taken"
- ie, if advice rejected, 8(3)(a) power would have been used
"view this as minor"
- which is not the same as saying there was no breach at all
So in summary:
- confused police statement wording
- police consider the Castle Barnard trip as an offence under the regulations
- but on known facts it was so minor that words of advice would have been given
- only if words of advice rejected, more formal police powers invoked
- confused police statement wording
- police consider the Castle Barnard trip as an offence under the regulations
- but on known facts it was so minor that words of advice would have been given
- only if words of advice rejected, more formal police powers invoked
