Revised English Covid Regulations from 8 March 2021

[LAX54]

You're only in a polling station for 5 minutes, tops.

Hardly worth getting worked up about.

Or...just do a postal vote...even easier

You are totally correct. You can travel anywhere you like from yesterday for the purposes of a recreational activity. The English law doesn't stop you from travelling into Scotland or Wales either.

However, Scotland or Wales have their own laws which stop you (potentially) from crossing the border.


Please, please show me where it says anywhere or even implies anywhere, that there needs to be a subjective opinion? There is no such law or restriction! You can travel wherever you like, whether 1 mile or 1000 miles. You are not seemingly understanding this is not illegal. Unless there is a law preventing something, generally, in the UK, it is by default, permitted. It is in black and white that exercise (or now recreation) is a reasonable excuse. Not a reasonable excuse subject to a 5 mile limit, not even anything close. If you are out of the house for exercise or recreation (or even to go to a cash machine to "collect money") - that is the only thing you need to comply with. Nothing more than that! It is horrific that, even people such as yourself, who I am sure is a good honest citizen, have fallen victim to the confusion the government, police and media have created, almost in every case, as a result of people interpreting non-binding guidance or "policies" which both have absolutely no lawful basis.

In Wales, for example, they at one time, explicitly legislated for a 5 mile cap. In England, this has NEVER been a feature of the law.

From Gov.UK March 8th Update:
exercise, or for outdoor recreation in a public outdoor space - this can be on your own, with your household or support bubble or with one other person (in which case you should stay 2m apart). You should minimise the amount of time spent outside your home, and you should not travel outside your local area

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Or...just do a postal vote...even easier


From Gov.UK March 8th Update:
exercise, or for outdoor recreation in a public outdoor space - this can be on your own, with your household or support bubble or with one other person (in which case you should stay 2m apart). You should minimise the amount of time spent outside your home, and you should not travel outside your local area

This is an absolutely fine example of people who do not understand law, and have no ability to think for themselves.

A statement on a website (even a government website) is NOT THE LAW. If they wrote "The sky is bright yellow" on the website, would you just say, yes OK, I understand that the sky is bright yellow?

In any event, it just about manages to caveat itself, by using the word "should", not "must". Because they know full well the law does not allow them to say otherwise.

Even the 2 metres is just "advice".

I'm not saying some of the guidance/advice isn't sensible, some of it probably is - but the government is being inherently (and very deliberately) dishonest with it's citizens because it knows, full well, that they cannot lawfully restrict people in the way they would like, (mix of domestic law, treaties, Human Rights etc). So all they are left with is causing extreme confusion as to what the law actually is, so people, like you, start to believe that the messaging isn't just "advice", and you perceive it as "law", even though it's not. Had the government made what is written in the guidance actual "law", it would have almost certainly have resulted in numerous high profile defeats in the senior courts, which would have seriously and irreversibly undermined ALL restrictions afterwards, causing havoc with their strategy to manage the pandemic. They, quite accurately, concluded that the law needed to be relatively "weak" to avoid legal challenges, but still needed a mechanism to ensure as many people complied as possible, and that was quite simply by scare tactics, letting the media run away with themselves, and publishing guidance which had an appearance of legality, whilst conveniently not doing anything to correct that misconception.

 

[DB]

This is an absolutely fine example of people who do not understand law, and have no ability to think for themselves.

A statement on a website (even a government website) is NOT THE LAW. If they wrote "The sky is bright yellow" on the website, would you just say, yes OK, I understand that the sky is bright yellow?

In any event, it just about manages to caveat itself, by using the word "should", not "must". Because they know full well the law does not allow them to say otherwise.

But this is absolutely the point - the law and the guidance are not the same, but many people (including some police forces) are treating it as if it is. What the courts would make of it remains to be seen as it hasn't (so far as I'm aware) actually been tested.

But there is no guarantee that following the law as written won't see you fine / hauled up before the courts - and most people will not want this hassle.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

But this is absolutely the point - the law and the guidance are not the same, but many people (including some police forces) are treating it as if it is. What the courts would make of it remains to be seen as it hasn't (so far as I'm aware) actually been tested.

But there is no guarantee that following the law as written won't see you fine / hauled up before the courts - and most people will not want this hassle.

It doesn't "remain to be seen" at all! A court can only base it's verdict on the law. The law is actually very clear. Even a layman reading it can understand it clearly. There is a bad habit amongst the public who are not used to reading legislation, which causes them to "add context" or import words or phrases which don't appear.

A jury trial isn't available for these offences, but if there was, a judge would have to direct a jury to return a "Not Guilty" verdict. Even at the Magistrates', the Justices' Clerk (legally qualified) would send the case packing as soon as "No case to answer" was pleaded.

I'm quite sure some police forces will do everything they can to get you into court, but in fairness to the CPS, they seem to know what they are doing, and things are quietly dropped or notices cancelled.

Anyone who is arrested for being X number of miles away from home whilst exercising would do well to go along with it, because it's highly likely to result in compensation once the sensible people review the case!



A favourite rail example of this I was reading some case law about recently was Railway Byelaw 18(2).

First Capital Connect had prosecuted somebody for this offence:

1. a person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person

The customer had handed over a ticket, but it had expired / wasn't valid for the journey.

He was convicted by Magistrates. However, on appeal, the Crown Court determined that both the Prosecutor and Magistrates had erred in law. The Prosecutors and Magistrates had added a word to the law which wasn't ever there, "valid", i.e. hand over his (valid) ticket.

The customer handing over an invalid (or any) ticket was legal, he just had to hand over a ticket, regardless.

Now, most people would have agreed with the Prosecutor and Magistrates'! Of course it should be valid they would conclude! That seems sensible doesn't it? But that is not what the law says, and you can only convict someone if they do or don't do something defined in the legislation.

 

[DB]

It doesn't "remain to be seen" at all! A court can only base it's verdict on the law. The law is actually very clear. A jury trial isn't available for these offences, but if there was, a judge would have to direct a jury to return a "Not Guilty" verdict. Even at the Magistrates', the Justices' Clerk (legally qualified) would send the case packing as soon as "No case to answer" was pleaded.

I'm quite sure some police forces will do everything they can to get you into court, but in fairness to the CPS, they seem to know what they are doing, and things are quietly dropped or notices cancelled.

Anyone who is arrested for being X number of miles away from home whilst exercising would do well to go along with it, because it's highly likely to result in compensation once the sensible people review the case!

Nevertheless, I would not be at all surprised to see it getting upheld at a magistrates' court (although no doubt overturned on appeal) - you have a higher level of trust in the lower courts than I do!

 

[Tracked]

I've been taking "Local Area" to mean the area covered by my Local Authority, seeing as on the Gov's Corona site they give the option to look at cases/hospitalisations/deaths by that (the interactive map breaks it down into villages, and if I went by that it'd mean I'd be going against guidance if I crossed the road).

There's a lot of vagueness to it, a bit similar to the original Lockdown; a lot of people were saying an hours' exercise, but in the booklet sent out at that time (which I still have) it just said to minimise time spent outside and keep two metres apart. Now the weather's getting nicer I'm looking again at the word "should" in "should only go out once for exercise", it's only been easy to follow when the weather's been normal for this time of year.

 

[Watershed]

I've been taking "Local Area" to mean the area covered by my Local Authority, seeing as on the Gov's Corona site they give the option to look at cases/hospitalisations/deaths by that (the interactive map breaks it down into villages, and if I went by that it'd mean I'd be going against guidance if I crossed the road).

There's a lot of vagueness to it, a bit similar to the original Lockdown; a lot of people were saying an hours' exercise, but in the booklet sent out at that time (which I still have) it just said to minimise time spent outside and keep two metres apart. Now the weather's getting nicer I'm looking again at the word "should" in "should only go out once for exercise", it's only been easy to follow when the weather's been normal for this time of year.

I think you would do well to read any instance of "you should" in the government Covid guidance as "the government would like you to". Things would be much clearer then.

For example, the main section of the English guidance would read:

Leaving home​

You must not leave, or be outside of, your home except where necessary. Legally permitted reasons to leave home include to:

• ...
• exercise, or for outdoor recreation in a public outdoor space - this can be on your own, with your household or support bubble or with one other person (in which case you should stay 2m apart). The government would like you to minimise the amount of time spent outside your home, and would like you to not travel outside your local area.
• ...

If you do leave home for a permitted reason, the government would like you to always stay in your local area - unless it is necessary to go further, for example to go to work.

Staying in your local area means staying in the village, town, or part of the city where you live.

If you are clinically extremely vulnerable the government would like you to go out only for medical appointments, for exercise, or if it is essential. We recommend that you do not attend work. The government would like you to follow this guidance until 31 March 2021.

Meeting others​

You may leave your home for exercise or to visit a public outdoor place for recreation. This must be on your own, with your household or support bubble or with one other person when in a public outdoor place. The government would like you to minimise the time you spend outside your home for this, and the government would like you to not travel outside your local area.

The government is well and truly aware that it is already at the limits of what restrictions it can legally impose, given the ever-improving circumstances. Indeed some activities, or at least things that are being prevented by the police, are probably being restricted to an unlawful degree - for example socially distanced protests.

That is undoubtedly why so many of these stipulations exist only in guidance and not in law.

To paraphrase Sir Humphrey, things don't become illegal just because Prime Ministers aren't very keen on them

 

[LAX54]

This is an absolutely fine example of people who do not understand law, and have no ability to think for themselves.

A statement on a website (even a government website) is NOT THE LAW. If they wrote "The sky is bright yellow" on the website, would you just say, yes OK, I understand that the sky is bright yellow?

In any event, it just about manages to caveat itself, by using the word "should", not "must". Because they know full well the law does not allow them to say otherwise.

Even the 2 metres is just "advice".

I'm not saying some of the guidance/advice isn't sensible, some of it probably is - but the government is being inherently (and very deliberately) dishonest with it's citizens because it knows, full well, that they cannot lawfully restrict people in the way they would like, (mix of domestic law, treaties, Human Rights etc). So all they are left with is causing extreme confusion as to what the law actually is, so people, like you, start to believe that the messaging isn't just "advice", and you perceive it as "law", even though it's not. Had the government made what is written in the guidance actual "law", it would have almost certainly have resulted in numerous high profile defeats in the senior courts, which would have seriously and irreversibly undermined ALL restrictions afterwards, causing havoc with their strategy to manage the pandemic. They, quite accurately, concluded that the law needed to be relatively "weak" to avoid legal challenges, but still needed a mechanism to ensure as many people complied as possible, and that was quite simply by scare tactics, letting the media run away with themselves, and publishing guidance which had an appearance of legality, whilst conveniently not doing anything to correct that misconception.

Its not the law, it is guidance, guidance for the benefit of all, indeed some cannot think things through, and will say it is just 'guidance' it does not apply to me, so maybe some are so stupid it needs to be law ! Jumping off a cliff, the guidance is don't do it, there is no law saying you can't do it, although the odd few do of course !

 

[35B]

This is an absolutely fine example of people who do not understand law, and have no ability to think for themselves.

A statement on a website (even a government website) is NOT THE LAW. If they wrote "The sky is bright yellow" on the website, would you just say, yes OK, I understand that the sky is bright yellow?

In any event, it just about manages to caveat itself, by using the word "should", not "must". Because they know full well the law does not allow them to say otherwise.

Even the 2 metres is just "advice".

I'm not saying some of the guidance/advice isn't sensible, some of it probably is - but the government is being inherently (and very deliberately) dishonest with it's citizens because it knows, full well, that they cannot lawfully restrict people in the way they would like, (mix of domestic law, treaties, Human Rights etc). So all they are left with is causing extreme confusion as to what the law actually is, so people, like you, start to believe that the messaging isn't just "advice", and you perceive it as "law", even though it's not. Had the government made what is written in the guidance actual "law", it would have almost certainly have resulted in numerous high profile defeats in the senior courts, which would have seriously and irreversibly undermined ALL restrictions afterwards, causing havoc with their strategy to manage the pandemic. They, quite accurately, concluded that the law needed to be relatively "weak" to avoid legal challenges, but still needed a mechanism to ensure as many people complied as possible, and that was quite simply by scare tactics, letting the media run away with themselves, and publishing guidance which had an appearance of legality, whilst conveniently not doing anything to correct that misconception.

But the positioning of "reasonable" in government guidance will have an effect upon how the legislation is interpreted. You are asking us to accept that, as exercise is defined as a reasonable excuse to be out of the house, that is the sole legal restriction on what we can do. My position is that, if that had to be assessed, the reasonableness of what I do is a subjective assessment, and needs to be informed by the guidance provided by government.

My example was extreme, and I support the view that this legislation is poor. But a narrowly technical interpretation, devoid of all public policy considerations, is as flawed as a sweeping interpretation like that of the Welsh 5 mile rule.

 

[liam456]

Had the government made what is written in the guidance actual "law", it would have almost certainly have resulted in numerous high profile defeats in the senior courts, which would have seriously and irreversibly undermined ALL restrictions afterwards, causing havoc with their strategy to manage the pandemic.

Scotland seems to have no problem legislating ridiculous restrictions such as the local area + 5 mile rule, or even worse and less enforceable, not being able to leave Scotland at all unless for an 'essential' reason.

Not that it has bothered me too much yet....

 

[nlogax]

Scotland seems to have no problem legislating ridiculous restrictions such as the local area + 5 mile rule, or even worse and less enforceable, not being able to leave Scotland at all unless for an 'essential' reason.

They've legislated a hell of a lot but I've seen practically no enforcement outside of large gatherings which have made the national news.

 

[Watershed]

But the positioning of "reasonable" in government guidance will have an effect upon how the legislation is interpreted.

The government guidance is, for various legal reasons, of little to no relevance for a court interpreting the Regulations. The only time where it has any bearing is for permitted large gatherings, where the legislation refers to the government guidance in determining the appropriate measures that must be taken to ensure the gathering is 'Covid secure'.

You would like to hope that the CPS is above referring to such guidance, so I suppose it's possible a magistrate would convict on the basis of inaccurate guidance, but it would be among the easier appeals to make if it came to it!

 

[liam456]

They've legislated a hell of a lot but I've seen practically no enforcement outside of large gatherings which have made the national news.

Exactly, thank goodness most of the provisions in those SI's are hardly worth the paper they were written on.

 

[Huntergreed]

Scotland seems to have no problem legislating ridiculous restrictions such as the local area + 5 mile rule, or even worse and less enforceable, not being able to leave Scotland at all unless for an 'essential' reason.

Not that it has bothered me too much yet....

I really don’t understand the not being able to leave rule.

I entirely understand quarantine measures for coming into Scotland, but what purpose exactly does restricting outward travel serve?

Surely, if anything, this would result in a lower transmission risk (less people to transmit) so if anything it actually decreases the risk, not increasing it?

Of course, you could argue that they’ll come back having caught the virus from England, but the rules are similar, so is it really necessary to restrict travel between these two areas, or is this a largely political measure?

 

[liam456]

so is it really necessary to restrict travel between these two areas, or is this a largely political measure?

I agree with the sentiment here; those who don't cross the border all that often will continue to not do so, and those who do (e.g. me for regular medical appointments) will continue to do so, and I haven't been hassled once over multiple journeys.

 

[Bikeman78]

If you travel a great distance to do something you could reasonably have done more locally, you end up running the risk of falling foul of the law.

Pretty difficult to ride 317s in Cardiff

 

[island]

The reasonable excuses to leave the home are defined. There is no need to further interpret the reasonableness of carrying out a defined "reasonable" activity, which by definition, is reasonable, and therefore permitted without further limitation, except where it is specifically referenced in the text.

The law is very simple.

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—



Taking exercise into consideration, the law essentially says this:

You cannot leave the house without a reasonable excuse, but here are the reasonable excuses. 6(1)

A reasonable excuse is to leave the house for exercise either alone or with someone else from your home. 6(2)(a)

The only time a test of "reasonableness" applies is:

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

Every other clause is without any reasonable test whatsoever, and the legislation has declared that, save for (f) and (l) - the reasons do not require a reasonableness qualifier.

You’ve written a very extensive post and very extensive arguments and responses built on that post, but they’re built on crumbling foundations, and sadly, quite wrong.

The regulations you quote appear to be the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. These were revoked on 3 July 2020.

The current regulations in effect governing the legal reasons for leaving home are the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020; more specifically, Schedule 3A thereto.

You will see in paragraph 2 (2) of that Schedule, for example, that a reasonable excuse includes “is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)” … “(c) to take exercise outside” (my emphasis).

Naturally, what is reasonably necessary falls to a court to interpret, but it would be a brave defendant who tries to run a case that it was reasonably necessary to be 100 miles from home to do something that could have been done within five.

 

[Cdd89]

I’ve read the relevant section of law countless times, and the words “reasonably necessary” are incredibly ambiguous.

Travel distance is the most often cited limitation that these words could allude to, but frequency could be more important, if for nothing else because it is easier to use as an example. Starting with a clear cut example, someone spending all day in a supermarket would be in breach of this clause because that’s not reasonably necessary. Similarly someone taking more exercise than is “reasonably necessary” for them (though this is almost impossible for anyone to assess).

This falls down now that “open air recreation” is added to the list; this is not a necessary activity in the first place (if it were, it would have been in prior iterations of the law). It is laughable to suggest that someone is taking “too much” open air recreation, because that would set the bar for “too much” at zero.

I would argue the same logic can be applied to travel. While a permitted activity is a necessity it can be interpreted to limit travel to the minimum necessary to achieve the necessary outcomes, but when inherently unnecessary activities are mixed in it does not make sense that travel, or frequency, or any other criteria can be applied in the exercise of those activities.

 

[yorksrob]

These regulations allow an outdoor activity/exercise to be undertaken with a friend.

Since it is unreasonable (and no attempt has been made) for the Government to try and stipulate who or where those friends are, it seems logical for me that one is entitled travel however far one needs to travel in order to undertake those activities with said friend.

It is an interpretation I have no qualms in applying liberally to my own activities.

 

[Watershed]

but it would be a brave defendant who tries to run a case that it was reasonably necessary to be 100 miles from home to do something that could have been done within five.

Not necessarily - both distances require you to leave or remain away from home, and therefore undertaking an activity at either location requires a reasonable excuse.

It is easy to interpret the simple, if ambiguous, requirement to remain at home as limiting the time or distance you spend away from home, if you have a reasonable excuse for leaving home. But I see no such provision.

The addition of the "open air recreation" exception means this is all mostly moot in a legal sense, because anyone questioned as to their presence away from home can simply say they are meeting a friend to undertake said recreation - and as @yorksrob says, who is the government to determine where your friends may live?

OK, perhaps that is a rhetorical question, after all the government has had no qualms with interfering with just about every daily activity we do...

 

[birchesgreen]

Are we allowed open air recreation on our own or do you have to be with a friend? Bit unfair to me if so as I don't have any.

 

[Watershed]

Are we allowed open air recreation on our own or do you have to be with a friend? Bit unfair to me if so as I don't have any.

It can be on your own, or with members of your household/bubble, or with one person who is neither in your household nor your bubble.

Not having a friend to meet up with does make it a bit harder to 'justify' travelling a long distance to undertake open air recreation but it's still a pretty open set of criteria.

 

[MikeWM]

Are we allowed open air recreation on our own or do you have to be with a friend? Bit unfair to me if so as I don't have any.

Yes

(i)alone,
(ii)with—
(aa)one or more members of their household or their linked household, or
(bb)where open air recreation is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or
(iii)with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household, or their linked childcare household,

 

[AlterEgo]

It can be on your own, or with members of your household/bubble, or with one person who is neither in your household nor your bubble.

Not having a friend to meet up with does make it a bit harder to 'justify' travelling a long distance to undertake open air recreation but it's still a pretty open set of criteria.

In any case, long journeys are certainly not a vector for transmission if they are done in a private car.

 

[Bertie the bus]

This is only my understanding so I’m sure someone will correct me if it is incorrect. The coronavirus regulations don’t make it compulsory to provide your details to the police, they can’t assume wrongdoing if you don’t and they can only arrest you to confirm your details if they suspect you are breaking the law.

So to make it relevant to some on here, if you drove 50 miles to photograph trains and whilst doing it were questioned by the police you could just refuse to state where you had come from and as what you are doing is perfectly legal there is nothing that could be done about the distance you have travelled whether it is considered reasonable or not.

 

[Watershed]

In any case, long journeys are certainly not a vector for transmission if they are done in a private car.

Unfortunately the legislation seems to have little to no regard for the actual risks inherent in a given activity. All sorts of things which are vectors for transmission are endorsed, and things which are not a vector for transmission are banned. It's a political tool, no more than that.

This is only my understanding so I’m sure someone will correct me if it is incorrect. The coronavirus regulations don’t make it compulsory to provide your details to the police, they can’t assume wrongdoing if you don’t and they can only arrest you to confirm your details if they suspect you are breaking the law.

So to make it relevant to some on here, if you drove 50 miles to photograph trains and whilst doing it were questioned by the police you could just refuse to state where you had come from and as what you are doing is perfectly legal there is nothing that could be done about the distance you have travelled whether it is considered reasonable or not.

Well, yes and no!

You're under no obligation to provide the police with your details for them to issue you with a FPN.

However, if an officer has grounds for reasonable suspicion that you're committing an offence under the Regs, they can arrest you if you refuse to provide your details (for the purposes of prosecution).

You wouldn't have broken the law, but you would be kept (and if necessary brought before the next Magistrates' Court session) until you were identified. So, basically, you're best off giving your details if asked.

Of course, that all hinges on there being reasonable suspicion of an offence. The threshold for such suspicion in relation to Covid Regs is an untested area of law (if nothing else because the Regs have been changing so frequently!). My view is that mere presence in a public place is not sufficient grounds for suspecting an offence, but obviously it would be dependent on the circumstances.

 

[Bertie the bus]

So the answer is yes and yes as pursuing a leisure activity in a public place isn't grounds for reasonable suspicion you have broken the regulations therefore the police would have no powers of arrest to ascertain your details.

 

[MikeWM]

As I've mentioned on occasion, do note there are these extra wibbly-wobbly 'powers' of arrest that have been a feature of pretty much all of the regulations so far

(5) Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applies in relation to an offence under this regulation as if the reasons in subsection (5) of that section included—
(a)to maintain public health;
(b)to maintain public order.

(Section 24 gives the conditions under which a police officer may perform a warrantless arrest).

I don't believe this is actually legal (secondary legislation cannot modify primary legislation unless the primary legislation allows it, and I can't see that it does in this case), though it is there anyway. That probably wouldn't stop a police officer trying to exercise that power if they were so inclined.

 

[bramling]

Or...just do a postal vote...even easier


From Gov.UK March 8th Update:
exercise, or for outdoor recreation in a public outdoor space - this can be on your own, with your household or support bubble or with one other person (in which case you should stay 2m apart). You should minimise the amount of time spent outside your home, and you should not travel outside your local area

But the bold part is *guidance*, not *law* - as I understand it? So whilst it may be essentially a recommendation, it is not legally enforceable.

Or am I getting this wrong?

These regulations allow an outdoor activity/exercise to be undertaken with a friend.

Since it is unreasonable (and no attempt has been made) for the Government to try and stipulate who or where those friends are, it seems logical for me that one is entitled travel however far one needs to travel in order to undertake those activities with said friend.

It is an interpretation I have no qualms in applying liberally to my own activities.

It’s absolutely ridiculous. If I post a list of places I want to carry out recreation, anyone fancy being my friend for the day?

What a farce!

 

[221129]

So the answer is yes and yes as pursuing a leisure activity in a public place isn't grounds for reasonable suspicion you have broken the regulations therefore the police would have no powers of arrest to ascertain your details.

Given that is currently an offence to be outside of your home without a reasonable excuse. Until you have provided the reasonable excuse they would have reasonable suspicion maybe but not after? I'm not a lawyer just thinking here.