Can we talk about new Coronavirus Regs 5(3)(g), 5B & 5C vs. the need for certainty in criminal law, please? @AdamWagner1 @thebrieftweet @Joanna__Hardy @davidallengreen @BarristerSecret A particularly absurd example - subjective+++

To work out whether a ‘significant event gathering’ is lawful requires consideration of (1) what is a ceremony, rite or ritual;

(2) is the ceremony, rite or ritual the purpose of the gathering;
....

(3) is the purpose of the ceremony, rite or ritual marking or celebrating a significant milestone in a person’s life;

(4) whether, according to a person’s religion, belief or lack of belief, something is a significant milestone

(5) or maybe whether the ‘celebrating or marking’ is in accordance with a person’s religion, belief or lack of belief

(6) whether a risk assessment is ‘suitable and sufficient’ in the meaning of the MHSW Regs. 1999, notwithstanding the references therein to employers, employees, work, undertakings etc

(7) whether the effect of Reg. 3(6) of the 1999 regulations is that the Coronavirus Reg. 5G(a) assessment must be recorded (i.e. in writing?)

(8) which guidance issued by the government is relevant; and

(9) whether in light of that risk assessment and any relevant guidance all reasonable measures have been taken to limit the risk of transmission of the coronavirus.