Surely they aren’t enforcing law; they are enforcing guidance?
1 Like
At the moment most forced aren’t enforcing anything, they are stopping those out and about and reiterating guidance, giving advice and pointing things out.
Even if you do get a Fixed Penalty if you think you weren’t breaking the Law instead of stumping up the £60 you have the option to go to Court and let a Magistrate decide. In which case it will all come down to reasonableness which is always fun in Court.
Boom.
Summary justice. Love it.
I guess the military assistance includes co-opting stackers into the supply chain…
3 Likes
Very good!
Except…
I saw this & looked through the SI; not a legal beaver but could’nt work out where the charge related to the legislation.
“Police have been accused of using the wrong law to prosecute a woman and fine her £660 in the first arrest on the railways under the lockdown. Marie Dinou, 41, from York, was arrested and fined after failing to tell police why she was at Newcastle Central station on Saturday morning. British Transport Police said she was detained because she “refused to speak” to officers after being seen “loitering between platforms”. Dinou was fined at North Tyneside magistrates’ court on Monday after she was found guilty of “failing to provide identity or reasons for travel to police, and failing to comply with requirements under the Coronavirus Act”. The Times has established, however, that Dinou appeared to have been prosecuted after police asked for information that their own guidance cautions against.” ):
“Police have been accused of using the wrong law to prosecute a woman and fine her £660 in the first arrest on the railways under the lockdown. Marie Dinou, 41, from York, was arrested and fined after failing to tell police why she was at Newcastle Central station on Saturday morning. British Transport Police said she was detained because she “refused to speak” to officers after being seen “loitering between platforms”. Dinou was fined at North Tyneside magistrates’ court on Monday after she was found guilty of “failing to provide identity or reasons for travel to police, and failing to comply with requirements under the Coronavirus Act”. The Times has established, however, that Dinou appeared to have been prosecuted after police asked for information that their own guidance cautions against.”
Tweet from the QC involved - more of a legal beaver than me! 
Quote:
She was prosecuted under Schedule 21 Coronavirus Act 2020. But didn’t commit an offence under that Act. It gives powers to police in relation to “potentially infectious” persons (eg after directions from public health officers before, during & after screening/assessment)
1 Like
I refuse to pay to access the Times so I’m having to go with what Twitter is repeating.
From what I can make out she HAS committed an offence just not the one that she appears to have been charged with.
From my experience one of 3 things have happened:
-
The person making the Charging decision (either a Police Sergeant or a CPS Lawyer) has authorised a Charge for the wrong piece of legislation.
-
The Charge for the correct offence has been authorised but the Custody Sergeant has put the wrong code into the Computer and has had her Charged with the wrong offence.
-
Someone in either the Police or CPS Media Department has put out a very poor Press Release despite having done everything correctly.
If a mistake has been made at 1) or 2) the fault equally lies with the CPS Prosecutor at Court and with the Magistrate themselves as they should’ve noticed too.
When you write legislation is 4 days and then publish it and put it into use with no time for Forces legal teams to examine it or for Training Teams to provide any training mistakes are going to be made. (You normally get about 6 months before new laws become law for a reason.)
It’s also worth remembering that since she was on the railway a whole different raft of powers exist. So purely by loitering she was committing an offence punishable by a £1000 fine (the question why are you here and where are you going is a pretty early opening for the Railway Militia.)
3 Likes
Undoubtedly - but very strange for this to be escalated / disposed off so quickly. I “refreshed” my reading of the Act, & can’t really see any valid reason for any charge anywhere (*** not a legal beaver proviso highlighted - do not use this in court - unless I’m right! )
As to timescale, same with any rushed through policy statement - I would have gone for a damage limitation “review” as soon as the Act issued = do a text search for “exercising the powers” or similar phraseology, & see where the “uh oh” points or important provisos are.
I also find it strange that the initial fixed penalty wasn’t used - but certainly “not giving a reason for essential travel” is very different from the Corona Virus Act S.21 charge. This is very different from Statutory Instrument - The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England)
Regulations 2020 - which of course outlines the fixed penalty options, etc.
You can only have an Out of Court Disposal (OoCD) if you provide your details and technically you also have ago accept it. If you refuse to accept it (and on the basis that she went not guilty that’s a distinct possibility) then the only other alternative is to go to court.
Edited to add it will have been escalated quickly due to the fact that by refusing details she caused herself to be arrested. (If the Police have your name and address it can all be dealt with slow time but if they don’t you Force their hand and it gets dealt with here and now).
Awaiting with interest if this get published:
New guidance on the Coronavirus Act 2020 is to be published on Friday.
1 Like
So it looks like it’s this one then!
I notice a slight mistake in the Indy Article though, they state that she was prosecuted under the Corona Virus Act rather than for Ticket Fraud, but the original articles claim she was prosecuted for both offences and with separate penalties.
The basic gist is still that she did commit an offence but they charged her with the wrong part of the act and have decided not to re-prosecute (I would guess based on the financial cost of doing so). Would be interesting to know who authorised the Charge whether it was Police or CPS.
Also the JP has some questions to answer, you would think he would read up on the legislation before finding someone guilty.
That particular police force isn’t exactly known for its sound decision making…
Ha ha - N Wales Police copped their chief!
However, whilst I can’t (yet) find the full NPCC guidance, this media source says:
The guidance, which has been updated since it was originally sent to forces last week, said policing should be “by consent” with the initial response to “encourage voluntary compliance”.
It says: “There is no power to ‘stop and account’. The police will apply the law in a system that is flexible, discretionary and pragmatic.
Obviously not got through to N Wales Police.
That’s exactly the same guidance that has been out from day 1.
The whole thing about Stop & Account being in the guidance is just causing confusion for the Press & Public and is completely redundant for Police Officers.
Stop & Account is a Policing term and has zero meaning in law. You don’t need a power to Stop & Account as a “Stop & Account” is just a Police Officer talking to a person and asking them why they are where they are and what they are doing. Police Officers do it all day every day with or without a global pandemic.
So saying “their is no power to Stop & Account” doesn’t mean that you can’t Stop and Account for this, it means their is no Statutory Power in addition to what you would usually do. So as an example if you’re stopping a car you are using your powers under Section 163 the Road Traffic Act 1988 not a specific power under the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (England) 2020.
2 Likes
Thanks - I found this useful
I knew that it was no longer a requirement for a constable to give a reason for stopping a motor vehicle but that explained a lot for me. (NB in particular, that as there is no power of search, there is no need to show the constable your shopping.)
Personally, I find it repugnant that we see film on TV of police arbitrarily stopping private cars to ask intrusive questions, but maybe I’m just an old liberal after all.
1 Like
The inability of people to be sensible strikes again!
1 Like
It’s going to be absolutely awful if this happens. Especially for the many people who don’t have any access to their own outside space.
1 Like
That’s the thing, isn’t it. Nobody involved in making that decree is going to suffer. They’ll all have gardens.
1 Like
Plenty of people who have been following the rules would suffer too.
Group punishment has never been a sensible move in any circumstance, but they may not have any other tool in the box as direct enforcement is too difficult.
1 Like