In March the U.K. was subject to the most severe and wide ranging restrictions on liberty probably ever imposed. But to what extent were we following legal rules and to what extent was the lockdown advisory?

On 16 March we were following public health advice and there was no intention to use criminal laws to confine us to home.

That changed shortly before 23 March, when we were told to stay home under compulsion of law.

At this point public health advice collided with criminal law and the ‘coronavirus guidance’ on the government webpage became an obscure amalgam of the two.

Much of what people thought to be law after that time, was not in fact law or it was a contestable interpretation of the law.

The two meter rule was not law, the once a day jog was not law, the ‘leave home for four reasons only’ was not law.

Ambiguity as to the nature of the instructions set out in the coronavirus guidance became pervasive and, indeed, a central feature of the way the guidance worked.

There are lessons to be learnt about the use of guidance as a means of communicating instructions to the country in times of emergency. Lessons about clarity, transparency and respect for autonomy.

For anyone interested my thoughts in a working paper are here : https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3686857