“Pardonable in the heat of crisis- but we must urgently return to the rule of law.”

9 April 2020 by

UKHRB readers may be interested to see a paper co-authored by Guy Mansfield QC, formerly member of 1 Crown Office Row. Guy – Lord Sandhurst QC – is a past Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales, and a current member of the Executive of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. He has kindly given us permission to link to the paper here.

Anthony Speaight QC is Chair of Research of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, and was a member of the Government Commission on a UK Bill of Rights.

Here is a very short summary of the paper’s arguments.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 was published on Thursday 19th March. It had its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday 23rd March. By Wednesday 25th March it had completed all stages in both Houses and received royal assent.

It is a massive statute in every sense running to 348 pages in length. Perhaps curiously, however, it currently plays no part in the curtailments on shops, places of entertainment, churches and citizen movements. These have been achieved for England by a relatively short statutory instrument, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 350).

The Coronavirus Restrictions Regulations were made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. 

The authors point out that the orders to close specified premises and businesses including hotels etc. during the emergency have not, broadly speaking, been the subject of controversy. What has been causing considerable debate, and distress, is Regulation 6, ‘Restrictions on movement’.

We have all heard anecdotes about the unfair impact of these restrictions and their exceptions. The plant nursery that has to close down while the supermarket next door continues selling plants. Groups on social media are reporting on individuals going to the coast for a swim in the sea. But the “reasonable excuse” definition in Regulation 6, say the authors,

includes the need to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household. Nothing in the regulation, says that one may only take exercise once a day. 

The “mission creep” of unlawful restriction on liberty, argue the authors, comes from the government’s ‘Guidance’, published a full three days after the making of the regulations: Coronavirus outbreak FAQs: what you can and can’t do.

I urge anyone interested in the limitations of laws limiting our basic freedoms to read this paper in full and bear the authors’ caveats in mind when wondering whether to go for that second walk on a fine day:

a Government document which purports to set out the law should not assert a restriction which does not exist.

The authors are at pains to stress that they fully support the underlying aim of the regulations, and they do not criticise the substantive detail of the policies. However, they conclude that it will not be pardonable if Government does not take steps at an early date to return our country to the rule of law.

That will best be achieved by the Minister addressing these concerns, to the extent that he can prior to further primary legislation, in the review which must be held by 16th April; and by the Government as soon as Parliament reassembles bringing forward emergency primary legislation to place the curtailments of freedom on a surer legal footing, with such protections for the citizen as can be reconciled with the achievement of social distancing.

1 comment;

  1. John Allen says:

    Long-time friend Keith Miller, actually one of the SAIS avalanche reporters, sent this to me. He probably knew I would be concerned about swiftly and unconsidered new laws via parliament, and in the period 19-23 March I had email contact with him on this subject. Mission creep is likely, as this extract suggests!
    I hope you and G are well.

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: