The Round Up: Police State Debates and Post Office Delays

7 April 2020 by

Police officers direct traffic in the wake of new legislation

In the News

In the past week, Covid-19 has once again dominated the news, effectively occluding all other topics. Given that Monday evening saw leaders including Emmanuel Macron, Michel Barnier, Donald Trump and Sir Keir Starmer expressing their hopes for Boris Johnson’s swift recovery after his sudden removal to intensive care, this dominance does not  seem disproportionate.

Among legal commentators, the focus has been on the Coronavirus Bill 2020. The regulations, to which the United Kingdom became subject on 26 March, are the most severe restrictions ever imposed on liberty in this country, going far beyond the wartime measures in the Defence of the Realm Act 1914 and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939. But most accept that they are also vital to the global fight against the virus.

Perhaps the most prominent figure among those who do not appear to accept the measures as necessary is former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who warned a week ago, before the legislation came into force, that the UK was in danger of becoming a “police state.”

Since his statement, the first Covid-19 convictions have begun to come through the courts. A man who coughed on a police officer, threatened to bite him, and claimed to have the virus was convicted of assaulting an emergency worker and jailed for six months. A man who boasted on social media of visiting a hospital without a medical reason was jailed for 12 weeks after he pleaded guilty to causing a public nuisance and admitted breaking the emergency restrictions. Perhaps most significantly, British Transport Police admitted to incorrectly charging a woman under the Act; the woman was detained for two days and fined £660. Meanwhile, a solicitor representing a 17-year-old arrested for gathering with five others attacked the “ridiculous” decision to bring multiple defendants into court in custody, thereby exposing a substantial number of other people to the risk of contracting the virus.

Other lawyers have since echoed Sumption’s warning, including the head of serious and general crime at Hickman & Rose solicitors.

In contrast, Professor Jeff King has published a two-part article on the UK Constitutional Law Association (“the UKCLA”) blog entitled “The Lockdown is Lawful,” in which he asserts that he is satisfied that the lockdown legislation is fundamentally compatible with human rights principles.

Shortly afterwards, lawyer and journalist David Allen Green claimed the same blog had refused his offer to write a response criticising the regulations, and stated UKCLA were “not showing the true breadth of the current constitutional concerns.” However, he also said he was satisfied, for the time being, that the required debate was taking place on other blogs and sites. In particular, Tom Hickman QC, Emma Dixon and Rachel Jones argued on the Blackstone blog that a “plausible” defence of the legal basis for the regulations could be mounted before a sympathetic court, but suggested respects in which they could be “tightened, reinforced and improved to enhance legal certainty and civil liberty.” In addition, Robert Craig’s response to Professor King on this blog went further still, concluding that “the legal underpinnings of the provisions are so thin it is difficult to see how their vires can remain unquestioned.”

A few months ago, it was already a stock observation that the political upheavals of the past few years would make their way into constitutional law textbooks. As a new debate begins, it seems the books have more amendments in store.  

In Other News

  • Among the important items of news which have been overshadowed by the virus recently is the publication of the long-awaited “Windrush: Lessons Learned Report” published on 19 March. It is available in full here. Among other findings and recommendations, the report called on the government to provide an unqualified apology to those affected, found that misconceptions and ignorance on race contributed to the scandal, suggested some Windrush victims remain vulnerable to homelessness and unemployment due to Home Office policies, and stated the Home Office’s ‘target-dominated’ work environment fostered defensiveness and a lack of empathy.
  • In addition, the Post Office has used the outbreak to justify delaying the launch of a scheme to independently assess applications from current and former postmasters who believe they experienced shortfalls related to previous versions of its computer system Horizon. A spokesperson said that the Post Office’s “immediate focus is to prioritise support for our postmasters through the current coronavirus health crisis.” Postmasters were prosecuted and imprisoned after the Horizon accounting system allegedly showed their branches to be in deficit. Others were fired, lost their homes, suffered ill health, declared bankruptcy, or committed suicide. The scheme was promised after the Post Office paid a landmark £57.75 million settlement late last year after more than 550 claimants brought legal action. The settlement was finally reached after an appeal was rejected by Lord Justice Coulson in a searing judgement, in which he stated that the appeal was based on the premise that the Post Office “was not obliged to treat [postmasters] with good faith, and instead entitled to treat them in capricious or arbitrary ways which would not be unfamiliar to a mid-Victorian factory-owner.”

In the Courts

  • Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14: by a majority, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to award a claim for the costs of commercial surrogacy and the use of donor eggs, after a series of negligent cervical smears and biopsies failed to detect the claimant’s cervical cancer before it was too far advanced for her to retain the ability to bear her own child. This was in spite of the fact that commercial surrogacy arrangements are banned in the UK under s2(1) of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. Lord Carnwarth dissented on the basis that it would go against the broad principle of legal coherence for civil courts to award damages based on conduct which, if undertaken in the UK, would offend its criminal law. A full summary can be found here.
  • Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13: the Supreme Court unanimously allowed Barclay’s appeal against the decision that it is vicariously liable for 126 sexual assaults allegedly committed between 1968 and 1984 by the late Dr Gordon Bates, a self-employed medical practitioner whose work included conducting medical assessments of prospective Barclays employees. The Court held that, since Dr Bates was an independent contractor and not a Barclays employee, it cannot be held liable for his wrongdoing. A full summary can be found here.
  • WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12: the Supreme Court unanimously allowed an appeal against a decision that the appellant was vicariously liable for a disgruntled employee’s deliberate decision to upload payroll data for the appellant’s entire workforce to a publicly accessible filesharing website, in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Court held that, since the employee was not engaged in furthering his employer’s business, but was rather pursuing a personal vendetta, the “close connection” test was not satisfied, and so the employer was not liable.
  • The Secretary of State for the Home Department v FTH, R. (On the Application of) (Rev 1) [2020] EWCA Civ 494: the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the Upper Tribunal decision that the “expeditated process” employed by the Secretary of State, in her attempt to deal with children in the Calais refugee camp who refused to make asylum applications in France and claimed to have close relatives in the UK, had breached article 8. The Secretary of State had breached her common law obligations of procedural fairness due to deficiencies in the expedited process, but not article 8. The Court restricted the tribunal’s declaration to reflect this decision, and quashed an order for the Secretary of State to pay damages, since damages were dependent on a finding that she had been in breach of article 8.

On the UKHRB

  • Guest contributor Robert Craig analyses some of the restrictions on movement of individuals announced by the government, arguing that they raise serious constitutional concerns.
  • Gideon Barth asks what the issues at inquests into deaths in custody from Covid-19 are likely to be.
  • Robert Kellar QC provides an overview and assessment of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.
  • William Edis QC assesses the Supreme Court’s decision to hold a defendant hospital liable for the costs of a commercial surrogacy arrangement in Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14.
  • Dominic Ruck Keene offers an assessment of R (DN – Rwanda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 7, in which the Supreme Court held the Claimant was entitled to pursue a claim for unlawful detention.
  • In the first post of a two-part series, Darragh Coffey explores why the Coronavirus Act 2020 was considered necessary, and outline some general aspects of the Act.
  • Rosalind English summarises the decision of the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (Appellant) v Various Claimants (Respondents) [2020] UKSC 12, concerning vicarious liability in relation to breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: