Quite frustrating on Twitter to find people who argue with lawyers every day experience of how fixed penalty notices work.If Cummings had not accepted advice he would’ve had a FPN and if not paid a court date. The police did not regard him as innocent but potentialy prosecutable.

Penalty notices are defined in the CJPA 2001, s. 2(4) , “as notices that offer the opportunity, by paying a penalty, ‘to discharge any liability to be convicted of the offence to which the notice relates”.

In other words the chance to avoid conviction by paying a penalty.

Where a police officer has reason to believe that a person aged 18 or over has committed a penalty offence, he may give him a penalty notice in respect of the offence ( s. 2(1) ).”

So when Durham police they would likely advise Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham-

- that means the police held the view that Cumming’s conduct was not lawful. Why else would they ask him to desist and return?
Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. Therefore had he not accepted it action would have been taken

Now a fixed penalty notice is not a conviction. It is at that stage merely a reflection that the conduct was unlawful or in this case ‘dangerous’ in the circumstances of a pandemic. If paid that would be the end of the matter. If however instead of paying Mr Cummings contested-

- the allegation or disputed the legality of the FPN, Section 4 allows the recipient to ask to be tried for the alleged offence “in the manner specified in the penalty notice and before the end of the period of suspended enforcement”
That may or may not lead to a conviction.

Durham police said they had ‘no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public’.
That is a matter of discretion for the police and not an implication-

- or suggestion that Mr Cummings would not be found guilty by the court if police advice not taken and the FPN not paid and the option taken to contest the matter in court. Predicting a court outcome is not a matter for the police. But they felt there was misconduct and had they-

- chosen to do so that could have resulted in a more formal manner that might have ended in a conviction by the court. They were generous to Mr Cummings in keeping with their treatment of others. But people who claim Cummings was exonerated by the police are simply wrong. That -

-does not mean that Mr Cummings was guilty because that finding of fact and law was never tested in court, but it does mean that the police formed a view that his conduct was dangerous in the circumstances and liable to enforcement action which may well ended up in a conviction

If others wish to dispute the law and facts set out in this thread please quote your legal and factual basis for doing so but to those claiming Mr Cummings was cleared by relying on the generous approach by Durham police, please stop. He was not cleared. Far from it.

@threadreaderapp please unroll for easy access

Regulation 11 does say proceedings may be brought by CPS so that is a check on the automatic progress to trial. The CPS would have to consider the evidence if no payment of FPN received.
That would depend upon if they agreed with the officers view that there had been a breach.

But that intervening conditionality of the FPN prior to proceedings does not mean that Durham police viewed Cummings conduct as not being a breach as some suggest. They clearly did feel there was a breach in relation to the trip to test eyesight & fitness to drive.