Devon van stopped on route to Windermere

[Lightning]

Make all the assumptions you like but i'll lay odds on these being idiots flouting the rules.

But you don’t know do you. Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt because we don’t know their circumstances, and on top of that it’s none of our business. As you say, the police are dealing with it, so why not leave them to it.

 

[toeknee]

Last night i spotted 3 Great Whites parked up in our town.
It really isn’t on. English Heritage have locked the main car park at the castle, but they park around the surrounding area...
One at the front of the castle and two parked at the Abbey...
View attachment 57179

Personally I think that as long as they are keeping distance from others then they are not doing anything wrong. If they are potentially spreading virus then obviously that’s not on but hard to see how. Technically though they are breaking guidelines.

 

[Amarillo]

I heard the other day that some billionaires were separating themselves from the rest of the population on their super yachts.

Would the police be as interested in a yacht making the passage from Devon to an isolated anchorage in Cumbria. Or is it driving that they are particularly concerned about?

 

[T6 CFO]

Rumour has it that the even richer are speeding up plans for travel to distant galaxies. What are the police doing about them. It’s hardly fair when they’re persecuting some poor bloke in his camper just wanting a holiday.


Mike

 

[Velma's Dad]

I heard the other day that some billionaires were separating themselves from the rest of the population on their super yachts.

Interesting strategy... until you find you caught the virus somehow anyway, need urgent hospital treatment in the country where you've anchored offshore, but they won't let you land.

 

[Jay gas]

Interesting strategy... until you find you caught the virus somehow anyway, need urgent hospital treatment in the country where you've anchored offshore, but they won't let you land.

Damn I’ve been snookered again. I would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky kids

 

[Vagophile]

I heard the other day that some billionaires were separating themselves from the rest of the population on their super yachts.

Would the police be as interested in a yacht making the passage from Devon to an isolated anchorage in Cumbria. Or is it driving that they are particularly concerned about?

People on ships seem to be rather prone to infection.
Do the police have many patrol boats? I'm asking, I don't know.

 

[campandfly]

Couple of Yachties pulled up in our harbour the other day. They come ashore and wander about the village.

 

[Amarillo]

People on ships seem to be rather prone to infection.
Do the police have many patrol boats? I'm asking, I don't know.

I saw one today cruising down the Thames. My boys thought it was a fishing boat!

I expect patrolling the coast for suspect viral holidaymakers making a dash from Devon to Cumbria by yacht would fall to the Coastguard.

 

[Victor]

London family drive through night to go fishing in Devon

Police escorted them back out of the county and issued them with fines

www.devonlive.com

 

[Jodalo]

People on ships seem to be rather prone to infection.
Do the police have many patrol boats? I'm asking, I don't know.

The Police would be lucky

People on ships seem to be rather prone to infection.
Do the police have many patrol boats? I'm asking, I don't know.

Patrol boats? They would lucky to get their hands on some Coracles after being decimated so badly in recent years.

 

[Amarillo]

London family drive through night to go fishing in Devon

Police escorted them back out of the county and issued them with fines

www.devonlive.com

If they were fishing for food, this might be their "get out of jail free" card.

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.​

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—​

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food​

There is no restriction on distance travelled to obtain basic necessities.

However, if they were fishing for sport, I think they should pay the £30 fine and learn from the experience.

 

[LemonDrop]

If they were fishing for food, this might be their "get out of jail free" card.

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.​

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—​

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food​

There is no restriction on distance travelled to obtain basic necessities.

However, if they were fishing for sport, I think they should pay the £30 fine and learn from the experience.

They might have trouble arguing why they couldn't get the fish from their local Tesco.

 

[Jodalo]

If they were fishing for food, this might be their "get out of jail free" card.

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.​

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—​

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food​

There is no restriction on distance travelled to obtain basic necessities.

However, if they were fishing for sport, I think they should pay the £30 fine and learn from the experience.

I’m just of to Kenya, I can’t survive without my sugar snap peas and fine beans.

 

[Amarillo]

They might have trouble arguing why they couldn't get the fish from their local Tesco.

I don't think that they have to. There is no requirement in the law to shop or hunt for basic necessities at a particular location. But I think that fresh fish would most certainly fall under the general description of "basic necessity".

Of course, it would be for any judge to interpret the law, and paying the £30 fine may be the more straightforward option.

 

[LemonDrop]

I don't think that they have to. There is no requirement in the law to shop or hunt for basic necessities at a particular location. But I think that fresh fish would most certainly fall under the general description of "basic necessity".

Of course, it would be for any judge to interpret the law, and paying the £30 fine may be the more straightforward option.

Wouldn't travelling hundreds of miles for fish that could be obtained locally be deemed "unnecessary travel" though? Unless they were going to argue that for some reason they needed to get that specific fish....

 

[Amarillo]

Wouldn't travelling hundreds of miles for fish that could be obtained locally be deemed "unnecessary travel" though? Unless they were going to argue that for some reason they needed to get that specific fish....

Unless I am mistaken, "Unnecessary travel" is advice not law, but travelling such a long distance might go against the "reasonable excuse" stipulation. However, "to obtain basic necessities" appears to trump the "reasonable excuse" stipulation.

 

[LemonDrop]

Unless I am mistaken, "Unnecessary travel" is advice not law, but travelling such a long distance might go against the "reasonable excuse" stipulation. However, "to obtain basic necessities" appears to trump the "reasonable excuse" stipulation.

Looking at https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...dance-on-staying-at-home-and-away-from-others:

1. Requiring people to stay at home, except for very limited purposes.

I doubt whether driving from London to Devon for fish would be considered a limited purpose if they failed to pay the £60 fine (£30 if paid within 14 day) and took it to court:

For both individuals and companies, if you do not pay, you may also be taken to court, with magistrates able to impose potentially unlimited fines.

I wouldn't rate their chances!

 

[Amarillo]

Looking at https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...dance-on-staying-at-home-and-away-from-others:

1. Requiring people to stay at home, except for very limited purposes.

I doubt whether driving from London to Devon for fish would be considered a limited purpose if they failed to pay the £60 fine (£30 if paid within 14 day) and took it to court:

For both individuals and companies, if you do not pay, you may also be taken to court, with magistrates able to impose potentially unlimited fines.

I wouldn't rate their chances!

That is just guidance. The legal text is here:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require the closure of businesses selling food or drink for consumption on the premises, and businesses listed in Part 2 of Schedule 2, to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except for limited permitted uses. Restrictions are imposed on...

www.legislation.gov.uk

I simply don't know how much weight, if any, magistrates and judges can place on non-mandatory guidance. They may have the leeway to take a common sense approach and say, "Driving London to Devon to fish is clearly unacceptable", or they may have to stick rigidly to the letter of the law. I'm afraid I just don't know. I would hope, for the sake of our legal system, that judges have to stick to the law, and not have to account for the often contradictory ramblings of ministers.

If judges do need to follow the law, the fundamental problem appears to be that the emergency legislation was rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny. It was simply "laid before Parliament under section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984".

 

[LemonDrop]

That is just guidance. The legal text is here:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require the closure of businesses selling food or drink for consumption on the premises, and businesses listed in Part 2 of Schedule 2, to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except for limited permitted uses. Restrictions are imposed on...

www.legislation.gov.uk

I simply don't know how much weight, if any, magistrates and judges can place on non-mandatory guidance. They may have the leeway to take a common sense approach and say, "Driving London to Devon to fish is clearly unacceptable", or they may have to stick rigidly to the letter of the law. I'm afraid I just don't know. I would hope, for the sake of our legal system, that judges have to stick to the law, and not have to account for the often contradictory ramblings of ministers.

If judges do need to follow the law, the fundamental problem appears to be that the emergency legislation was rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny. It was simply "laid before Parliament under section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984".

It's definitely ambiguous and there is potential for a long drawn out court case. If I'd driven London to Devon for any reason now though (apart from to attend a funeral) I'd consider that I'd been got bang to rights.

 

[Amarillo]

It's definitely ambiguous and there is potential for a long drawn out court case. If I'd driven London to Devon for any reason now though (apart from to attend a funeral) I'd consider that I'd been got bang to rights.

I see this law as being very clear and unambiguous. It is the guidance being spouted that I find contradictory. But perhaps that is the aim of the Government. To spout guidance backed up by a weak law, and hoping that will be enough to get us through the next few weeks without too many problems.

I note that Manchester Police have been threatening to pepper spray a man for dropping off a food parcel for a relative.



Click picture for link to the news report.

 

[Velma's Dad]

That is just guidance. The legal text is here:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require the closure of businesses selling food or drink for consumption on the premises, and businesses listed in Part 2 of Schedule 2, to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except for limited permitted uses. Restrictions are imposed on...

www.legislation.gov.uk

I simply don't know how much weight, if any, magistrates and judges can place on non-mandatory guidance. They may have the leeway to take a common sense approach and say, "Driving London to Devon to fish is clearly unacceptable", or they may have to stick rigidly to the letter of the law. I'm afraid I just don't know. I would hope, for the sake of our legal system, that judges have to stick to the law, and not have to account for the often contradictory ramblings of ministers.

If judges do need to follow the law, the fundamental problem appears to be that the emergency legislation was rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny. It was simply "laid before Parliament under section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984".

You are quite right Tom that magistrates and judges can and must only make judgements according to law. In a criminal trial they need to determine whether or not the prosecution has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the particular offence as charged. As simple as that.

The offences in discussion here are 'summary-only' which means they can only be heard in a magistrates court, not in a Crown court, and therefore without a jury. In a magistrates court the magistrates themselves are the judges of fact, ie whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

In making that judgement of fact the magistrates must take into account all the evidence that has been presented in open court by both the parties - the prosecution and the defence. But they must not bring into their decision any factors not relevant to the charge and the evidence.

With terms like "reasonable", which is an element of quite a range of criminal charges, a principle often adopted in deliberation is to contemplate what the hypothetical "man on the Clapham omnibus" would deem to be reasonable - of course in practice using a more modern and less sexist framing of the same question .

You can draw your own conclusions about how likely this hypothetical average citizen would be to deem, or not, that driving xxx miles to go fishing was a reasonable excuse under the relevant law. But the court will only make that deliberation after hearing all the evidence.

Of course, none of the above is legal advice.

 

[LemonDrop]

I see this law as being very clear and unambiguous. It is the guidance being spouted that I find contradictory. But perhaps that is the aim of the Government. To spout guidance backed up by a weak law, and hoping that will be enough to get us through the next few weeks without too many problems.

I note that Manchester Police have been threatening to pepper spray a man for dropping off a food parcel for a relative.

View attachment 57389

Click picture for link to the news report.

Interesting difference of perspective! To me it couldn't seem less clear. It it the potential for differences in interpretation of the law that makes me think it's ambiguous..

 

[Velma's Dad]

Interesting difference of perspective! To me it couldn't seem less clear. It it the potential for differences in interpretation of the law that makes me think it's ambiguous..

A lot of criminal law requires careful interpretation at the case level, so in that sense you might describe much of it as "ambiguous" definitionally. Public order offences are one big example category: particularly those around threats and harassment, which create offences which are impossible to pre-define with precision in statute for every situation in the real world. A lot therefore has to be established in the courts, creating case precedent, including challenges at appeal to judgements of the lower courts.

But again, the "reasonable person's" view of what the law was intended to mean is often the principle of reference.

 

[LemonDrop]

A lot of criminal law requires careful interpretation at the case level, so in that sense you might describe much of it as "ambiguous" definitionally. Public order offences are one big example category: particularly those around threats and harassment, which create offences which are impossible to pre-define with precision in statute for every situation in the real world. A lot therefore has to be established in the courts, creating case precedent, including challenges at appeal to judgements of the lower courts.

But again, the "reasonable person's" view of what the law was intended to mean is often the principle of reference.

Agreed - which is why I said I wouldn't rate the chances of the "London to Devon for fishing" lot if they tried to argue they were obtaining basic necessities.