Velma's Dad
Super Poster
VIP Member
I realise the police have been trying to do the best they can but I find some of the statements in that notice very surprising. The statement that magistrates can interpret police or government guidance when deciding what is "reasonable" is highly questionable. Conviction in a court requires it to be proved that all the elements of an offence, as laid down in the relevant statute or regulation, are present. Magistrates may have regard to what they believe was the intention of parliament in making the law (that is called "statutory interpretation"). But they certainly will not have much time for prosecution speculation about what the police or the government thinks the law means.Interesting interpretation of the law, by North Yorkshire police, based on the guidance to determine what is a reasonable excuse for leaving the place you live. They were running checks on car registration addresses to see how far you’d travelled, sometimes issuing fines. One I know of was issued after they drove 8 miles to go for a walk
That's not to say that a court won't draw its own conclusions from a specifics of an alleged offence when considering "reasonable excuse". If I had driven 30 miles to go grocery shopping, or on a 30 miles bike ride for exercise, the court might or might not decide that I had gone beyond the bounds of reasonableness for that purpose. It would depend on the evidence given in court of the particular circumstances.
The Law Society Gazette reported (24 Feb): "Almost a third of prosecutions made under the coronavirus regulations have been wrongly brought, leading to hundreds of cases being dropped. The latest figures from the Crown Prosecution Service showed that 359 of 1,252 charges last year were either withdrawn or quashed in court. All 232 prosecutions brought under the Coronavirus Act 2020 were flawed, and a further 127 wrongful charges were brought under the Health Protection Regulations."