The Weekly Round-Up: Three Tiers

19 October 2020 by

Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester

In the News:

On 12 October 2020, the Prime Minister made a statement in Parliament and addressed the nation to announce a new three tier lockdown system would be introduced across the country. The Secretary of State for Health introduced three statutory instruments before Parliament which came into force two days later.

In oversimplified terms, the restrictions in place in each tier are as follows:

  • Tier 1 (Medium Risk)
    • Restricts gatherings of more than six people, unless a relevant exception applies (for example, all being from one household).
    • Restaurants and pubs to close between 10pm and 5am.
    • Schools, universities and places of worship remain open.
    • Enforcement powers allow a “relevant person” to direct people to disperse or return to their homes, remove people from gatherings, and use reasonable force in doing so. Offence and penalties apply.
    • Must be reviewed once every 28 days. Due to expire after six months.  
  • Tier 2 (High Risk)
    • Restricts indoor gatherings, unless all people are from the same household or another relevant exception applies.
    • Restricts outdoor gatherings of more than six people, unless a relevant exception applies (for example, all being from one household).
    • Restaurants and pubs to close between 10pm and 5am.
    • Enforcement powers as above for Tier 1.
    • Schools, universities and places of worship remain open.
    • Must be reviewed (in relation to specific areas every 14 days. Due to expire after six months.
  • Tier 3 (Very High Risk)
    • Restricts gatherings in any indoor setting, private garden or at most hospitality venues, unless all people are from the same household or another relevant exemption applies.
    • Permits gatherings of up to six people from different households in outdoor public spaces, such as parks.
    • Schools, universities and places of worship remain open but household mixing is not permitted.
    • Enforcement powers as above for Tier 1 and 2.
    • Must be reviewed at least once every 28 days. The inclusion of areas in the Tier 3 category expires automatically after 28 days. Due to expire after six months.

postcode checker on the government website shows which alert level applies in each area and the NHS COVID-19 app will also direct people to this information. A longer overview of the restrictions imposed can be found here.

In response, Sir Keir Starmer called a press conference on Tuesday evening during which he shattered the last semblance of a political consensus over the UK’s handing of the pandemic. He called for a different approach: a nation-wide two-week “circuit breaker”.  The idea was first proposed by Sage, the government’s committee of scientific advisers, last month. Mr Johnson opted instead for more limited measures to avoid economic damage.

In addition to Labour’s dissent, commentators in the North of England have criticised the government for a “highly centralised approach to Covid-19 [which] has been a disaster for northern regions.” In a development which brought to focus an often-overlooked conflict –between local and national government – the mayor of Greater Manchester has said that the region will “stand firm” against plans to move it to Tier 3 unless more financial support is offered for people affected by tougher rules.

In Other News:

  • Last week’s Round-Up discussed Priti Patel’s condemnation of “lefty lawyers” interfering in immigration appeals and Boris Johnson’s claim that the criminal justice system was “hamstrung by … lefty human rights lawyers.” It has since been reported that Patel ignored warnings from two senior colleagues to stop targeting immigration lawyers after a knife attack against a solicitor last month was linked to her rhetoric.
  • Two senior family lawyers have offered mixed assessments of remote hearings in the family court system during the pandemic. In the opening session of an online conference, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the Family Division, said that some family courts had adapted so well to remote working that they no longer had a backlog of cases. However, he also acknowledged widespread fatigue and demoralisation. During the same conference, High Court judge Mr Justice Francis welcomed  “absolutely immense” cost savings. On the other hand, he emphasised the acute strain of having to deal with egregious and disturbing cases in one’s own home.
  • An inquiry into indiscriminate orders not to resuscitate care home residents (“DNACPR decisions”) has been launched by the Care Quality Commission. More than 18,000 people died from confirmed or suspected Covid-19 in UK care homes in the first phase of the pandemic. Concerns about conditions and human rights infringements in care homes are widespread, although there has also been broad acknowledgement of the exceptionally trying circumstances over the past several months.

In the Courts:

  • R (on the application Z and another) v Hackney London Borough Council and another [2020] UKSC 40: the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a single mother of four small children, two of whom have autism, who had to wait longer to be allocated suitable housing as she is not a member of the Orthodox Jewish community and so larger properties owned by the Agudas Israel Housing Association were not available to her. An exception to the Equality Act 2019’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of “religion or belief” applied; namely, the Association’s policy of making social housing available to members of the Orthodox community was a proportionate response to the needs and disadvantages of that group. The Court also found that the Association was not in contravention of the Race Directive, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, since its allocation policy rested on the basis of religious observance.

On the UKHRB:

  • Michael Spencer summarises recent Court of Appeal judgments which clarified the approach to determining whether separating a foreign national criminal from his settled child or partner is “unduly harsh”.
  • Ronan Cormacain argues that clause 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is “the mother of all ouster clauses”.
  • Paul Edrunast overviews a recent Court of Appeal judgment regarding unlawful detention under the Detained Fast Track system.

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 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 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 Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation 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 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 Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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: