Scottish Parliament Election 6 May 2021 ~ Scottish Independence Referendum

The Scottish Parliamentary election was held on 6 May. The Parliament comprises 73 constituency seats and 56 regional list seats – (previous post 29 March). The Scottish National Party (SNP) won 64 of those seats and is therefore just one seat short of an overall majority. The Conservative Party won 31 seats, Labour 22, Greens 8 and Liberal Democrats 4.  The new Alba Party under the leadership of former First Minister Alex Salmond failed to secure a seat.One way of reading the result is that there is at least a majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament who favour holding a further referendum on Scottish independence, The SNP and the Green Party campaigned on pro-independence manifestos - SNP manifesto - Green manifesto. Therefore, the  likelihood is that political pressure will now increase for a further independence referendum. It is a pressure which may prove difficult for the UK government to resist. Analysis of the Scottish election may be seen at Financial Times 8 May 2021, BBC News- Election 2021: The fourt key takeaways in maps and charts  and BBC News - Professor Sir John Curtice - What the 2021 election results mean for the partiesPresiding Officer:The new Scottish Parliament will elect a Presiding Officer. It is an impartial role and whoever is elected will give up their Party membership. The Scotsman 10 May looks at possible candidates. The Presiding Officer does not normally vote, but has a deciding vote if there is a tie. If the vote is for Stage 1 of a Bill, the Presiding Officer will usually vote to allow the Bill to continue to Stage 2. At other times, the Presiding Officer will usually vote against a motion or amendment.How could a further referendum lawfully come about?The UK government could agree to a referendum being held and ensure that a so-called "Section 30 Order" was made in order to give the Scottish Parliament competence to legislate for the referendum. This was the mechanism used in 2014 (previous post) when voters rejected independence.  Such agreement to hold a further independence referendum cannot be ruled out but, at the time of writing, is perhaps unlikely.If the UK government were to refuse the Section 30 route then an interesting question might arise - Does the Scottish Parliament have powers under the Scotland Acts to legislate for a referendum in Scotland to determine whether the Scottish electorate wishes Scotland to become an independent nation. The Scotland Acts:The Scotland Act 1998 created the Scottish Parliament and defined its powers. Certain matters were reserved to the UK Parliament at Westminster.Section 29(1) of the 1998 Act provides that - An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.Section 29(2) goes on to provide that - A provision is outside that competence so far as any of the following paragraphs apply - (a) - (not relevant here)(b) it relates to reserved matters,(c) to (e) - not relevant here.Section 30 gives legal effect to Schedule 5 (Reserved matters) and Schedule 5 provides that the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England is a reserved matter.Scottish Parliament legislation to hold a referendum would appear to relate to a reserved matter - i.e. the Union of Scotland and England. I find it hard to read the words "relates to" in any other way but argument could possibly be put forward to the effect that the legislation will do no more than test public opinion in Scotland on the question of independence and that the legislation is of an "advisory" nature not requiring politicians to act on the outcome. At the time of writing, we do not know precisely what the arguments might be.Political resolution of this issue should be the preferred way but the question may eventually end up before the Supreme Court.Draft Independence Referendum Bill (March 2021):In March 2021 the Scottish Government published its thinking as well as the text of a draft bill - Draft Independence Referendum Bill.Links and Developments:BBC 9 May 2021 - Scottish Independence: Could the Supreme Court rule on an independence referendum? 10 May 2021.

Coronavirus Log - Part 7 - from 13 February 2021

This post is a continuation of the Coronavirus Log.  See Coronavirus Log Part 1 - (December 2019 to 28 April 2020) - Part 2 (29 April 2020 to 24 May 2020) - Part 3 (25 May to 21 June 2020) - Part 4 (22 June to 26 July 2020) - Part 5 (27 July to 1 November - Part 6 (2 November 2020 to 13 February 2021). Position at 13 February 2021:The national "lockdown" imposed on 6 January 2021 continues.As at 13 February there have been 116,827 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. On 12 February a further 15,144 new positive tests were reported. Vaccination (using Pfizer-Biontech or Oxford-AstraZeneca) has continued with 14,012,224 people having received a first dose up to and including 11 February. 13 February - The Guardian - White House has concerns over China role in WHO Covid-19 report  13 February - The Guardian - UK failed to heed the virus alerts, says vaccine creator 14 February - Government data reported that up to 13 February there had been 116,908 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 13,308 new positive tests reported on 13 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 14,556,827 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 534,869 a second dose) up to and including 12 February 2021(Monday) 15 February - BBC News - Covid: New phase begins after first vaccine target hit in England15 February - The Guardian - Ministers flatly reject Tory demands to end Covid controls by May15 February - Government data reported that up to 14 February there had been 117,166 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 10,972 new positive tests reported on 14 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 15,062,189 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 537,715 a second dose) up to and including 13 February 202116 February - Government data reported that up to 15 February there had been 117,936 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 9765 new positive tests reported on 15 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 15,300,151 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 539,630 a second dose) up to and including 14 February 202117 February - Government data reported that up to 16 February there had been 118,195 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 10,625 new positive tests reported on 16 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 15,576,107 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 546,165 a second dose) up to and including 15 February 202118 February - Government data reported that up to 17 February there had been 118,933 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 12,718 new positive tests reported on 17 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 15,940,972 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 558,577 a second dose) up to and including 16 February 2021 19 February - Government data reported that up to 18 February there had been 119,387 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 12,057 new positive tests reported on 18 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 16,423,082 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 573,724 a second dose) up to and including 17 February 202119 February - BBC News - Covid vaccines: Johnson pledges surplus to poorer countries at G7 19 February - The Guardian - Government's hasty Covid law-making cannot become a template for the future 19 February - The Guardian - Shining a light on rotten Covid contract process 20 February - BBC News - Whitty at odds with Johnson over 'big bang' reopening of schools in England20 February - Government data reported that up to 19 February there had been 119,920 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 12,027 new positive tests reported on 19 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 16,875,536 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 589,591 a second dose) up to and including 18 February 202121 February - Government data reported that up to 20 February there had been 120,365 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 10,406 new positive tests reported on 20 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 17,247,442 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 604,885 a second dose) up to and including 19 February 2021 22 February - Government data reported that up to 21 February there had been 120,580 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 9,834 new positive tests reported on 21 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 17,582,121 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 615,148 a second dose) up to and including 20 February 2021 23 February - Government data reported that up to 22 February there had been 120,757 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 10,641 new positive tests reported on 22 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 17,723,840 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 624,325 a second dose) up to and including 21 February 202123 February - The Guardian - Number of UK Covid vaccinations falls by a third as vaccine supply dips On 22 February the Prime Minister announced a "roadmap" to easing restrictions - see Statement to House of Commons and Government Roadmap.  The Guardian 22 February - Science behind plans to ease England's lockdown and The Guardian 22 February - Teaching unions warn against big bang return to school. Wales decided to take a more cautious approach to the return to schools - BBC News 23 February.24 February - Government data reported that up to 23 February there had been 121,305 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 8,489 new positive tests reported on 23 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 17,916,181 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 642,788 a second dose) up to and including 22 February 202124 February - Sky News - When every lockdown rule is set to lift in England24 February - The Guardian - NHS Covid app could be used to prove status and access venues in England25 February - Government data reported that up to 24 February there had been 121,747 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 9,938 new positive tests reported on 24 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 18,243,873 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 669,105 a second dose) up to and including 23 February 202126 February - Government data reported that up to 25 February there had been 122,070  deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 9,985 new positive tests reported on 25 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 18,591,835 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 700,718 a second dose) up to and including 24 February 202127 February - Government data reported that up to 26 February there had been 122,415 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 8523 new positive tests reported on 26 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 19,177,555 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 736,037 a second dose) up to and including 25 February 2021 28 February - Government data reported that up to 27 February there had been 122,705 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 7434 new positive tests reported on 27 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 19,682,048 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 738,810 a second dose) up to and including 26 February 2021 (Monday) 1 March 20211 March  - Government data reported that up to 28 February there had been 122,849 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6035 new positive tests reported on 28 February. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 20,089,551 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 796,132 a second dose) up to and including 27 February 2021 2 March  - Government data reported that up to 1 March there had been 122,953 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5455 new positive tests reported on 1 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 20,275,451 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 815,816 a second dose) up to and including 28 February 2021 3 March  - Government data reported that up to 2 March there had been 123,296 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6391 new positive tests reported on 2 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 20,478,619 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 844,098 a second dose) up to and including 1 March 2021  4 March  - Government data reported that up to 3 March there had been 123,783 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6385 new positive tests reported on 3 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 20,703,615 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 895,412 a second dose) up to and including 2 March 20215 March  - Government data reported that up to 4 March there had been 124,025 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6573 new positive tests reported on 4 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 20,982,571 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 963,862 a second dose) up to and including 3 March 20216 March - TIME - Europe is considering COVID-19 passports. Should the rest of the world catch up?6 March  - Government data reported that up to 5 March there had been 124,261 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5947 new positive tests reported on 5 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 21,358,815 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,034,068 a second dose) up to and including 4 March 2021 6 March - Law and Lawyers - Coronavirus Restrictions England - Changes from 8 March 20217 March - BBC News - Nurses condemn 'fundamentally flawed' PPE rules7 March - BBC News - PM urges caution as England schools to reopen7 March  - Government data reported that up to 6 March there had been 124,419 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6040 new positive tests reported on 6 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 21,796,278 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,090,840 a second dose) up to and including 5 March 2021  (Monday) 8 March  - Government data reported that up to 7 March there had been 124,501 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5177 new positive tests reported on 6 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 22,213,112 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,122,402 a second dose) up to and including 6 March 2021  9 March - BBC News - Nightingale hospitals to close from April9 March  - Government data reported that up to 8 March there had been 124,566 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 4712 new positive tests reported on 8 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 22,377,255 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,142,643 a second dose) up to and including 7 March 2021   10 March  - Government data reported that up to 9 March there had been 124,797 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5766 new positive tests reported on 9 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 22,592,528 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,181,431 a second dose) up to and including 8 March 2021   11 March  - Government data reported that up to 10 March there had been 124,987 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5926 new positive tests reported on 10 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 22,809,829 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,254,353 a second dose) up to and including 9 March 2021    12 March - Nature - Where did Covid come from? Five mysteries that remain. 12 March - The Guardian - Covid and civil liberties: keeping a close watch on government12 March  - Government data reported that up to 11 March there had been 125,168 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6753 new positive tests reported on 11 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 23,053,716 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,351,515 a second dose) up to and including 10 March 2021    13 March - Government data reported that up to 12 March there had been 125,343 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6609 new positive tests reported on 12 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 23,314,525 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,445,078 a second dose) up to and including 11 March 2021   13 March - BBC News - EU struggles with vaccine delays and new Covid surge14 March - Government data reported that up to 13 March there had been 125,464 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5534 new positive tests reported on 13 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 23,684,103 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,532,754 a second dose) up to and including 12 March 2021   (Monday) 15 March - Government data reported that up to 14 March there had been 125,516 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 4618 new positive tests reported on 14 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 24,196,211 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,584,909 a second dose) up to and including 13 March 2021   16 March - BBC News - The inside story of the government's battle against the virus16 March - BBC News - UK defends Oford jab .... - (a look at the media headlines).16 March - Government data reported that up to 15 March there had been 125,580 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5089 new positive tests reported on 15 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 24,453,221 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,610,280 a second dose) up to and including 14 March 2021    16 March - The Guardian - Public support for Covid inquiry more than twice as high as opposition - poll17 March - Government data reported that up to 16 March there had been 125,690 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5294 new positive tests reported on 16 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 24,839,906 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,663,646 a second dose) up to and including 15 March 2021  18 March - BBC News - Covid vaccine: Government facing questions over supply to UK18 March - BBC News - Covid-19: EU warns UK over vaccine exports18 March - The Guardian - EU threatens to halt Covid vaccine exports to UK unless it gets 'fair share'18 March - The Guardian - Labour calls for full Covid public inquiry starting in June18 March - The Conversation - How well does the Astrazeneca vaccine work?  18 March - Government data reported that up to 17 March there had been 125,831 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5758 new positive tests reported on 17 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 25,273,226 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,759,445 a second dose) up to and including 16 March 2021  19 March - Government data reported that up to 18 March there had been 125,926 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6303 new positive tests reported on 18 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 25,735,472 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 1,879,054 a second dose) up to and including 17 March 202120 March - Government data reported that up to 19 March there had been 126,026 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 4802 new positive tests reported on 19 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 26,263,732 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 2,011,070 a second dose) up to and including 18 March 2021 21 March - Government data reported that up to 20 March there had been 126,122 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5587 new positive tests reported on 20 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 26,853,407 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 2,132,551 a second dose) up to and including 19 March 2021 (Monday) 22 March - The Guardian - Dozens of arrests as thousands march in London against Covid lockdown22 March - Government data reported that up to 21 March there had been 126,155 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5312 new positive tests reported on 21 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 27,630,970 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 2,228,772 a second dose) up to and including 20 March 2021 23 March - Government data reported that up to 22 March there had been 126,172 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5342 new positive tests reported on 22 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 27,997,976 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 2,281,384 a second dose) up to and including 21 March 2021 23 March - BBC News -  UK marks one year since the first lockdown - (the 1 year is from the Prime Minister's announcement on 23 March 2020). 23 March - BBC News - Boris Johnson's address to the nation in full - (what the PM said on 23 March 2020). 23 March - The Guardian - Dozens of arrests as thousands march in London against Covid lockdown23 March - The Guardian - Boris Johnson: vaccine cooperation vital to help combat third Covid wave24 March - Government data reported that up to 23 March there had been 126,284 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5379 new positive tests reported on 23 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 28,327,873 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 2,363,684 a second dose) up to and including 22 March 2021 24 March - The Guardian - Boris Johnson admits regrets over handling of first Covid wave24 March - Joint Statement from HMG and the European Commission on cooperation in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic 25 March - BBC News - EU leaders to discuss boosting vaccine supplies25 March - Government data reported that up to 24 March there had been 126,382 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 5605 new positive tests reported on 24 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 28,653,523 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 2,532,839 a second dose) up to and including 23 March 2021 25 March - One year since the Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal Assent. Parliament to debate the Act and vote on its renewal. See House of Lords Library - Debate on the Coronavirus Act 2020 and health protection regulations.26 March - The Guardian - Coronavirus Act 2020 extended another six months26 March - Government data reported that up to 25 March there had been 126,445 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6397 new positive tests reported on 25 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 28,991,188 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 2,775,481 a second dose) up to and including 24 March 2021 26 March - EU Commission - Safe COVID-19 vaccines for Europeans26 March - EU Council Statement of 25 March 202127 March - Government data reported that up to 26 March there had been 126,515 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 6187 new positive tests reported on 26 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 29,316,130 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 3,009,863 a second dose) up to and including 25 March 202128 March - Government data reported that up to 27 March there had been 126,573 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 4715 new positive tests reported on 27 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 29,727,435 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 3,293,517 a second dose) up to and including 26 March 202128 March - BBC News - Rapid home test kits to be available for workers(Monday) 29 March - Government data reported that up to 28 March there had been 126,592 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 3862 new positive tests reported on 28 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 30,151,287 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 3,527,481 a second dose) up to and including 27 March 202129 March - Coronavirus Restrictions - the law changes from 29 March 2021. 30 March - BBC News - World leaders call for international pandemic treaty30 March - Government data reported that up to 29 March there had been 126,615 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 4654 new positive tests reported on 29 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 30,444,829 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 3,674,266 a second dose) up to and including 28 March 202131 March -  Government data reported that up to 30 March there had been 126,670 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 4040 new positive tests reported on 30 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 30,680,948 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 3,838,010 a second dose) up to and including 29 March 202131 March - BBC News - AstraZenca vaccine: was it worth it?1 April -  Government data reported that up to 31 March there had been 126,713 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 4052 new positive tests reported on 31 March. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 30,905,538 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 4,108,536 a second dose) up to and including 30 March 2021 2 April - BBC News - Dozens of MPs criticise 'divisive' Covid passports2 April -  Government data reported that up to 1 April there had been 126,764 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 4479 new positive tests reported on 1 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,147,444 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 4,513,458 a second dose) up to and including 31 March 2021 3 April - BBC News - Seven UK blood clot deaths after AstraZeneca vaccine3 April -  Government data reported that up to 2 April there had been 126,816 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 3402 new positive tests reported on 2 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,301,267 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 4,948,635 a second dose) up to and including 1 April 2021 4 April - Bloomberg - Vaccinated Britain is about to face its biggest Covid test yet - (very definitely a "bucket of cold water" article). 4 April -  Government data reported that up to 3 April there had been 126,826 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 3423 new positive tests reported on 3 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,425,682 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 5,205,505 a second dose) up to and including 2 April 2021 (Monday) 5 April -  Government data reported that up to 4 April there had been 126,836 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 2297 new positive tests reported on 4 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,523,010 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 5,381,745 a second dose) up to and including 3 April 2021 5 April - National Geographic - Here's what the WHO report found on the origins of COVID-195 April - BBC News - Tests to be offered twice-weekly to all in England  6 April -  Government data reported that up to 5 April there had been 126,862 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 2762 new positive tests reported on 5 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,581,623 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 5,432,126 a second dose) up to and including 4 April 2021 6 April - BBC News - Covid passports: Plans criticised by MPs amid fears of 'two-tier Britain'6 April - The Guardian - Labour says reports of up to 8,000 tourists arriving a day are 'staggering'6 April - Gov.uk Press release - Further easing of Covid restrictions confirmed for 12 April7 April -  Government data reported that up to 6 April there had been 126,882 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 2379 new positive tests reported on 6 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,622,367 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 5,496,716 a second dose) up to and including 5 April 2021 7 April - BBC News - Moderna vaccine UK rollout to begin in Wales7 April - The Guardian - Oxford.AstraZeneca jab could have causal link to rare blood clots, say UK experts8 April -  Government data reported that up to 7 April there had been 126,927 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 2763 new positive tests reported on 7 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,707,594 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 5,683,509 a second dose) up to and including 6 April 2021 8 April - BBC News - UK vaccine rollout 'breaking link' between infections and death9 April - BBC News - Cost of tests 'is  too much for people to travel on holiday'9 April - The Guardian - UK ministers silent on AstraZeneca shipment to Australia9 April -  Government data reported that up to 8 April there had been 126,980 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 3030 new positive tests reported on 8 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,807,124 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 6,091,905 a second dose) up to and including 7 April 2021 10 April -  Government data reported that up to 9 April there had been 127,040 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 3150 new positive tests reported on 9 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 31,903,366 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 6,541,174 a second dose) up to and including 8 April 2021 11 April - The Guardian - Virus hotspots could lead to third Covid wave in UK, scientists warn.11 April - Government data reported that up to 10 April there had been 127,080 deaths (within 28 days of first positive test) due to Covid-19. There were 2589 new positive tests reported on 10 April. See also Worldometers - Coronavirus - UK .  The data also reported that 32,010,244 people had received a first dose of vaccine (and 6,991,310 a second dose) up to and including 9 April 2021

Mesothelioma Patient

There's various options of care for a mesothelioma patient. It is dependant on you what type of care you require to deliver to your loved three. There's a quantity of considerable factors in this case such as your finances, your needs, the patient’s needs & finances & lots of more. It gets very hard to deal with a mesothelioma patient but you require to face the fact that he is no longer going be there for long.Taking care of all the medical issues of a mesothelioma patient is not . It is important to take care of some other factors pertaining to the patient. Care & importance should also be given to his spiritual, emotional & financial well being. There's a quantity of changes that are expected to occur in a mesothelioma patient. Therefore it gets imperative to alter your scope towards him as well. Usually a mesothelioma patient gets frustrated easily & sometimes feels lazy. Another great factor which has a large effect on the mesothelioma patient is the place where he will be given the treatment whether it would be his house or the hospital.Hospital care:Hospital care is ofcourse ideal because the nurses, doctors & the care equipments are always there. If the patient is at severe stage of mesothelioma then it is better to keep him or her in the hospitalCaring for a mesothelioma patient at home:Usually people tend to take care of their loved three who is suffering from mesothelioma at home. They get their medical requirements at home so that the patient is not out of touch with his relatives & doesn’t miss anything. It is an important part for his recovery. You can avail the services of home nurses or professional home care services.

UK Supreme Court - Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5

The Queen's Speech in December 2019 envisaged an Employment Bill aimed at protecting and enhancing wokers' rights as the UK left the EU. The Bill would also build on existing employment law with measures to protect those in low-paid work and the gig economy - a labour market characterised by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work, as opposed to permanent jobs. 14 months after the 2019 general election. the promised Bill has yet to presented by the government to Parliament.A Dutch Company - Uber BV - owns the technology behind a smartphone app which linkes those wishing to book a private hire vehicle (PHV) with a driver.  A number of drivers, including Mr Aslam and Mr Farrar, brought a claim in the employment tribunal in order to establish their employment status. Legal proceedings: The claim was heard in 2016 with the tribunal finding that Mr Aslam and Mr Farrar worked under workers' contracts for Uber London Ltd - Tribunal Judgment October 2016In November 2017, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (HHJ Jennifer Eady QC) handed down a reserved judgment dismissing Uber's appeal - see the judgment.  The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed Uber's appeals.  See the Court of Appeal's judgment of 19 December 2018 - [2018] EWCA Civ 2748 (Sir Terence Etherton MR and Bean LJ with Underhill LJ dissenting).  (Judge Eady's judgment is discussed by the Court of Appeal at paras 33 to 37).In July 2020 the Supreme Court heard a further appeal by Uber and, on 19 February 2021, handed down a unanimous judgment dismissing the appeal - [2021] UKSC 5.  Initially, the Supreme Court's panel had seven justices but the illness of Lord Kitchin required that the panel be reconstituted as a panel of six justices.The Supreme Court's judgment:Essentially, Uber argued that the drivers were independent contractors. The Supreme Court disagreed.Judgment (PDF)Press summary (PDF)Press summary (HTML version) Judgment on BAILII (HTML version) The Court held that the transportation service performed by drivers and offered to passengers through the Uber app is very tightly defined and controlled by Uber. Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill. In practice the only way in which they can increase their earnings is by working longer hours while constantly meeting Uber’s measures of performance. The Supreme Court considered that comparisons made by Uber with digital platforms which act as booking agents for hotels and other accommodation and with minicab drivers did not advance its case. The drivers were rightly found to be “workers”.The Supreme Court also held that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that time spent by the claimants working for Uber was not limited (as Uber argued) to periods when they were actually driving passengers to their destinations, but included any period when the driver was logged into the Uber app within the territory in which the driver was licensed to operate and was ready and willing to accept trips.The result is that, as workers, the claimants are entitled to the rights and protections in the Employment Rights Act 1996, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Working Time Regulations 1998. Next?The drivers were successful in this protracted litigation. The government ought to bring forward the employment legislation included in the Queen's Speech 2019.  The position of workers for companies such as Uber is well-described in an article published by the TUC - Asif's story - "Uber has long claimed that drivers like me are self-employed and should be treated like business owners – responsible for their own income, outgoings and everything else about being a driver. Now we know for a fact that this is not the case.In reality, Uber control just about everything I do when working for them. They decide where I go, how much I can charge and which jobs I get. And yet this company does not take any responsibility for my employment.Up till now, Uber drivers have not been guaranteed a minimum wage – and not every driver always makes the legal minimum. We’re also not entitled to holiday pay and as a result, any time off means a loss of earnings, which can mean a lot when you have bills to pay.This isn’t just about the drivers, it’s about all the workers in this country that these companies wish to exploit using new smartphones and apps as an excuse."Media:The Guardian 20 February and The Guardian 21 February.

R (Good Law Project and others) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 346 (Admin)

The government and coronavirus:The actions of the UK government in relation to the Coronavirus pandemic may, one day, be the subject of some form of inquiry and the Prime Minister is on parliamentary record to that effect - Hansard 15 July 2020.  In answer to a question from Sir Edward Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton), Mr Johnson said - " ... but of course we will seek to learn the lessons of the pandemic in the future, and certainly we will have an independent inquiry into what happened."That answer left open the question of the type of inquiry even if there was perhaps an assumption that it would be an inquiry held under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005.  Needless to say, such inquiries operate under terms of reference set by the government and are usually lengthy, legalistic, and expensive.  As an example, the Grenfell Tower fire occurred on the night of 14 June 2017. The Grenfell Fire Inquiry was formally set up in August 2017. Phase 1 ran from 21 May 2028 to 12 December 2018 and the Chairman issued a report on 30 October 2019. The inquiry is now in Phase 2 which is examining causes including how Grenfell Tower came to be in a condition which allowed the fire to spread in the way identified by Phase 1. Costs for this inquiry amounted to £40.2m for the period 1 August 2017 to 31 March 2019 - see here.Accountability: Whatever the future holds regarding an inquiry, the government's actions during the coronavirus pandemic have not entirely escaped official scrutiny. There is the work of the Health and Social Care Committee and other parliamentary committees. Further, on 26 November 2020, the National Audit Office issued a report into government procurement during the Covid-19 pandemic. The NAO noted insufficient documentation in some cases regarding "key decisions, or how risks such as perceived or actual conflicts of interest have been identified or managed. In addition, a number of contracts were awarded retrospectively, or have not been published in a timely manner. The lack of adequate documentation meant that the NAO could not give an assurance that the government has adequately mitigated the increased risks arising from emergency procurement or applied appropriate commercial practices in all cases. While we recognise that these were exceptional circumstances, there are standards that the public sector will always need to apply if it is to maintain public trust."Good Law Project's judicial review: The Good Law Project instigated judicial review of some aspects of the government's procurement processes and judgment has been given - R (Good Law Project and others) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 346 (Admin) Chamberlain J.The claimants in the judicial review were Good Law Project and three Members of Parliament. They alleged that the Secretary of State had failed to comply with -  A) Regulation 50 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 which requires the Secretary of State to send for publication a contract award notice (a "CAN") not later than 30 days after the award of a contract with a value exceeding the applicable limit. B) "transparency priciples" as set out in Publication of Central Government Tenders and Contracts: Central Government Transparency Guidance Note (November 2017) ("the Transparency Policy") and Procurement Policy Note – Update to Transparency Principles (PPN 01/17, February 2017) ("the Transparency Principles"), which require publication of the provisions of any contract with a value over £10,000.The claimants also argued that it was "apparent" that the Secretary of State, whether personally or though his officials, had "made and approved a conscious decision to de-prioritise compliance with regulation 50 and with the Transparency Policy and Principles". They referred to this as the "de-prioritisation policy". Chamberlain J chose to address the issues in the case in a certain order (para 7 of the judgment) and, in the following list,  his findings are shown in bold blue -(a) Do the Claimants or any of them have standing to bring this challenge? Judgment paras 77-108. Only Good Law Project had standing.(b) Should the Claimants be permitted to amend the Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds to plead the breach of reg. 108? Judgment paras 109-119. The Claimants' application to amend the Claim Form and pleadings was refused. (c) Did the Secretary of State have a policy of de-prioritising compliance with his transparency obligations? Judgment paras 120-124. Essentially, the claimant's case was not made out.  (d) Did the Secretary of State act unlawfully by failing to comply with:(i) the Transparency Policy and Transparency Principles; and/or(ii) reg. 108 (if permission to amend is granted – see (b) above)?Judgmet paras 124-136. Regarding (i) the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy. Item d(ii) - permission had not been granted. (e) Should the Court grant declaratory and/or mandatory relief in respect of the Secretary of State's failure to comply with:(i) reg. 50 (where breach is now admitted); and/or (ii) the Transparency Policy and Transparency Principles (if the failure was unlawful – see (d)(i) above); and/or (iii) reg. 108 (if permission to amend is granted – see (b) above – and the failure was unlawful – see (d)(ii) above)?Judgment para 137-160. Declaratory relief only. The judge to consider further written submissions from the parties on the precise terms of the Order and on consequential matters. It was noted by the judge that, by the time of the hearing, compliance with Regulation 50 was more substantial and the Secretary of State accepted that there had been breaches of Regulation 50. Such breaches were not merely "technical" and, although there had been a need to acquire goods and services within short timescales, the obligations imposed by Regulation 50 and the Transparency Policy and Principles serve a vital public fuinction of no less importance during a pandemic. The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded.  This was important not only so that competitors of those awarded contracts could understand whether the obligations owed to them under the PCR 2015 had been breached, but also so that oversight bodies such as the NAO, as well as Parliament and the public, could scrutinise and ask questions about this expenditure. By answering such questions, the Government "builds public trust and public confidence in public services": see §1 of the Transparency Principles. One unfortunate consequence of non-compliance with the transparency obligations (both for the public and for the Government) is that people can start to harbour suspicions of improper conduct, which may turn out to be unfounded. The reader will hopefully note that the case was not about allegations of "cronyism" - i.e. favouring certain types of bidders over others. The Secretary of State acted unlawfully due to late publication of contract awarded notices and it was clear that efforts had been made (or were in progress) to address the failures. In all fairness, this was not a resignation matter. The case is however significant in that high standards of public administration, as set out in the Regulations and Policy documents, were upheld. It is a pity that the government chose to contest this case when the fact of breaches was clear. Public money and court time could have been saved by a different and better response. The judge described the history of the proceedings as "unedifying" (para 153).Note: Since the end of transition period on 31 December 2020, the 2015 Regulations continue to apply as "retained EU" law within the meaning of s. 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, with modifications. For "retained EU law" please see my earlier post 30 January 2021.

Five risk factor associated with mesothelioma

Exposure to asbestos could have occurred to people who were actually mining asbestos, people who worked in plants that manufactured goods containing asbestos, workers who were installing asbestos-laden materials in buildings, or those who lived or worked in buildings or homes containing asbestos or products made of asbestos. People who were hired to remove asbestos from a building are also at an increased risk of developing mesothelioma. People who worked with asbestos are more likely to create mesothelioma than people who were basically around asbestos materials during their every day life.The number five risk factor associated with mesotheliomais the unprotected exposure to asbestos materials. Most people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma have knowledge of prior exposure to asbestos, possibly up to 30 or 40 years prior to their diagnosis.Another apparent risk factor for developing mesothelioma is living with a person who has been exposed to asbestos. It is believed that individuals who worked with asbestos materials several decades ago may have unknowingly come home with asbestos particles on their clothing. Because protective coverings were not necessary on asbestos workers, the possibility of asbestos particles on clothing was a true possibility.The level of exposure as well as the amount of time a person was exposed to asbestos also seems to correlate to the risk of developing mesothelioma. For example, someone who worked with asbestos every day for 20 years is much more likely to be diagnosed with mesothelioma than a person who was exposed to it for only five month. However, both categories of exposure contain risk and both can lead to the same cancer. In addition, the younger the person who was exposed, the greater the risk of developing mesothelioma later in life.When the particles were taken home on clothing, and the clothes were taken off, the asbestos may have flown in to the air inside of the home, and in turn, inhaled by all members of the relatives. Hence, plenty of relatives members of past asbestos workers have been diagnosed with mesothelioma. (Today, there's regulations that won't permit a person working with asbestos to leave a facility before showering and changing their clothes.)It is a mystery as to why some people who had long-term exposure to asbestos in their past seldom create mesothelioma, and others who were exposed for only a brief period of time create the cancer.Researchers believe that there may be other reasons that five person is more susceptible to mesothelioma than others. There is a hypothesis that people who create mesothelioma were born with a gene that makes them more predisposed to cancer. In addition, it's been determined that people who smoke are at a much higher risk of developing mesothelioma if they were also exposed to asbestos at any time in their lives.Another theory regarding mesothelioma's risk factors is related to radiation. Between the 1920s and the 1950s, x-rays, which were used for all sorts of purposes including diagnosing various medical problems, used to contain a substance that was finally linked to plenty of kinds of cancer. It is believed that there may be a link between those individuals who received x-rays between the 1920s and the 1950s may be at a greater risk of developing mesothelioma than those who were not exposed to x-rays during this period of timeThere's other mesothelioma risk factors as well. There seems to be a link between mesothelioma and the vaccine that millions of individuals received during the 1950s and 1960s for polio. The connection between mesothelioma and the polio vaccine is only a theory, and there is no scientific proof of this claim.

Shamima Begum's appeal to UKSC dismissed

The Supreme Court of the UK has handed down judgment in the Shamima Begum case - see judgment dated 26 February 2021 - [2021] UKSC 7. - Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Sales. The judgment is unanimous.The Supreme Court's webpage about the case is HERE and a Press Summary is available.Press summary (PDF)Press summary (HTML version)Earlier court decisions:The main SIAC judgment is Shamima Begum (Preliminary Issue : Substansive) [2020] UKSIAC SC_163_2019, while there is also a brief High Court judgment refusing a linked application for judicial review: [2020] EWHC 74 (Admin).  Commentary: FreeMovement 7 February 2020Court of Appeal (July 2020) - [2020] EWCA Civ 918 - King, Flaux and Singh LJJ.  Commentary: Free Movement 16 July 2020.Previous posts:23 February 2019 - Shamima Begum and the law31 October 2020 - Shamima Begum - a submission by JUSTICE to the Supreme Court 26 February 2021

Shamima Begum loses in the Supreme Court

R (Shamima Begum) v Secretary of State for the Home Department - [2021] UKSC 7 - (26 February 2021). National security - constitutional arrangements:The judgment of the Supreme Court in Shamima Begum's case reminds us (again) of the fact that national security within the UK is very much entrusted to the executive - see the court's judgment at para 56 where Lord Reed cites the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47 at para 50.Lord Hoffmann said - "Under the  constitution of the United Kingdom and most other countries, decisions as to whether something is or is not in the interests of national security are not a matter for judicial discretion. They are entrusted to the executive."  Within government, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are at the apex of the UK's national security arrangements. The Security Service operates under the authority of the Home Secretary- Security Service Act 1989 section 1. Further, the Home Secretary is empowered by Parliament to make decisions of crucial importance to individuals including decisions relating to citizenship and who may enter the UK. The Home Secretary is advised by officials and by the security service but, constitutionally, it is the Home Secretary who is accountable to Parliament for decisions. Ultimately, the government has to answer to the electorate at general elections.In practice, the executive has acquired the ability to control much of the business of parliament with the result that the role of Parliament in the scrutiny of executive action is not as strong as it could be. This is not to say that Parliament is ineffective as evidenced by the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee and other committees. As for general elections, they do not necessarily return a House of Commons for which the majority of voters have actually voted! In any event, the outcome of a general election rarely (if ever) turns on the actions of the government toward a particular individual such as Ms Begum.The judicial role: In relation to national security, the courts do not have a central role but the judicial role is nonetheless important. The process of judicial review developed at common law and exists to keep official decision-makers (including Ministers) within the law but this process does not replace the decision-maker by a judge. Then there are appeals from the decision of Ministers to the courts. Such appeals are possible because Parliament has legislated for them. An important question is what a court may do when deciding an appeal from a Ministerial decision. Can the court make any decision that the Minister could have made or is the role of the court more limited? The answer depends largely on the Act of Parliament creating the right to appeal but, if the Act is silent on the matter, it will be for the judges to decide what to do. All of this is background to the Supreme Court's judgment in Shamima Begum's case. The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous with a single judgment extending to 47 pages of not particularly easy reading. A lot of the judgment is concerned with explaining the roles of the various courts with involvement in Ms Begum's case and also with a detailed analysis of the different approaches which developed in recent years regarding the handling by the courts of appeals from decisions of the Home Secretary.  Much of the focus in the judgment is on the role of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) which was created by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 . The Act has been extensively amended with an impact on the powers of SIAC when deciding appeals.Ms Begum: Home Secretary's decisions:As is well known, Ms Begum aligned herself with ISIL albeit she did so as a 15 year old. On 19 February 2019, the Home Secretary (then Sajid Javid) made an order depriving Ms Begum of her British citizenship. The order was made under the British Nationality Act 1981 section 40(2) - "The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good."Section 40(4) provides that - "The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless."  Mr Javid was satisfied that making the order would not make Ms Begum stateless.In May 2019, Ms Begum applied for leave to enter the UK - see Immigration Act 1971 section 3. Leave to enter may be given under the Immigration Rules but there is also a process for applications outside the Immigration Rules. Essentially, this is asking the Home Secretary to exercise a residual discretion to permit entry. The process is explained by Free Movement - HERE. Mr Begum's application for leave to enter was outside the Immigration Rules. It was refused by Mr Javid on 13 June 2019.Mr Javid gave reasons for refusing leave to enter. (a) Ms Begum had failed to comply with a requirement to provide fingerprints and a photograph of her face, and (b) the European Convention on Human Rights either had no application to her or, if it did apply, there was no evidence that refusal of leave to enter would breach her convention rights.Appeal and judicial review: Ms Begum appealed to SIAC against the order depriving her of citizenship. Regarding Mr Javid's leave to enter decision, Ms Begum both appealed to SIAC and, in relation to certain aspects of the decision, applied for judicial review in the Administrative Court (part of the High Court). See the judgments:Shamima Begum (Preliminary Issue : Substansive) [2020] UKSIAC SC_163_2019, . Here it is to be noted that SIAC decided that the Home Secretary had not made Ms Begum stateless.The application for judicial review on the human rights aspects was also dismissed - [2020] EWHC 74 (Admin).  Further appeals: The next step was that Ms Begum decided to appeal those decisions other than the question of whether the Home Secretary's decision had made her stateless. An appeal against SIAC's decisions was to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). An appeal against the judicial review decision was to the Divisional Court (an appellate aspect of the High Court's jurisdiction). In the event, three judges formed a combined Court of Appeal / Divisional Court and heard all the appeals together. Judgment was given on 16 July 2020 - [2020] EWCA Civ 918 - King, Flaux and Singh LJJ.  Ms Begum's appeals were successful apart from one issue - whether the appeal should automatically be allowed if she could not enter the UK.Supreme Court: Further appeals by both Ms Begum and the Home Secretary then followed to the Supreme Court which unanimously dismissed Ms Begum's appeals and allowed those of the Home Secretary - R (Shamima Begum) v Secretary of State for the Home Department - [2021] UKSC 7 - (26 February 2021).The Supreme Court's judgment commences with three important court orders shown in red. It is clear from the third of the orders that the government took some steps to facilitate Ms Begum's involvement in the deprivation appeal but the details are confidential and may not be disclosed. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had erred in four respects.1. It misunderstood the role of SIAC and the courts on an appeal against the Home Secretary's decision to refuse a person entry to the UK. The scope of an appeal in such cases was confined to the question of whether the decision was in accordance with section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.2. The Court of Appeal also erred in its approach to the appeal against the dismissal of Ms Begum;s application for judicial review of the leave to enter decision. It made its own assessment of the requirements of national security and preferred it to that of the Home Secretary, despite the  absence of any relevant evidence before it, or any relevant findings of fact by the court below.  It is the Home Secretary who is charged by Parliament with responsibility for making such assessments and he is democratically accountable to Parliament.3. The Court of Appeal mistakenly believed that, when an individual's right to have a fair hearing of an appeal came into conflict with the requirements of national security, the right to a fair hearing must prevail. Noting that there was "no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind" the Supreme Court stated that the appropriate response was for the appeal to be stayed until Ms Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised.4. The Court of Appeal mistakenly treated the Home Secretary's policy, intended for his own guidance, as if were a rule of law which he must obey. As a result, it applied the wrong approach to considering whether the Home Secretary had acted lawfully.The Supreme Court's judgment does not make appeals / judicial review pointless exercises in this area but certainly places limitations on what may be achieved. SIAC may determine whether the Secretary of State has acted in a way which no reasonable Secretary of State could have acted, or has taken into account some irrelevant matter, or has disregaded something to which he should have given weight. The courts may also determine whether the Home Secretary erred in law.The courts may also determine compliance with section 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (the question of whether a decision has made an individual stateless).The court may also determine whether the Secretary of State has acted in breach of an other legal principles applicable to the decision, such as the obligation arising under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.A difficult and controversial area:National security questions have long been a difficult area and one where the courts have traditionally been wary of entering as evidenced by cases decided as long ago as Liversidge v Anderson  [1942] AC 206.Mr Javid was faced by his officials with security service information about Ms Begum - a young woman who, with others, went abroad. She married an ISIL fighter and had lived within the ISIL culture for some four years. All too often we have seen the impact of terrorism within the UK - for example, Salman and Hasheem Abedi and the Manchester Arena bombing - previous post 21 August 2020  and 27 May 2017. The Manchester Arena Inquiry was established in October 2019 and is on-going. The outcome for Ms Begum is bleak and her personal situation has attracted considerable sympathy but the essential fact remains that it is the Home Secretary who is entrusted with making decisions in these difficult matters. The Minister is advised by the security services and has full access to all known information. The Minister is accountable to Parliament.Whether SIAC's powers are adequate when deciding appeals is another question. When it was created, SIAC was required to allow an appeal if it considered - (i) that the decision or action against which the appeal is brought was not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case, or (ii) where the decision or action involved the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State or an officer, that the discretion should have been exercised differently - see Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 section 4.Section 4 was repealed from 1 April 2003 by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This left the approach to be taken on appeals uncertain and case law - examined extensively by Lord Reed - filled the gap. The Begum case clarifies the position for the future and appears to balance the constitutional roles of the Home Secretary and the courts of law. It is open to Parliament to amend the legislation to give the courts more extensive powers when deciding appeals from the Minister but, given such a decisive win for the Home Secretary, it is obviously unlikely that the present government will seek amending legislation.As for Ms Begum, she remains in a camp in Syria. Her appeal against deprivation of citizenship is stayed until there is a change in her circumstances enabling her to participate, from outside the UK, in a hearing. Whether and how those circumstances ever come about remains to be seen. It is unclear whether the government is able to take further steps to facilitate her involvement in the case even though steps were taken to facilitate her involvement in the deprivation appeal. Those steps are confidential and it would be a contempt of court for any party or other person to disclose the same.One final note. The Supreme Court received interventions from (a) the United Nations Special Rappoteur on Counter-Terrrorism, (b) Liberty, and (c) Justice. Lord Reed said that these had received "careful consideration."  Little more is said in the judgment about the interventions. This is a pity. It would have been good to have seen some analysis of the interventions and would have been more respectful to those who helpfully intervened.The Special Rapporteur welcomed the Court of Appeal decision bccause of  “the severe and irreparable consequences” of depriving of citizenship a woman who was a minor when she travelled to Syria.  The Rapporteur described Shamima as “a child who may have been groomed online, and who had no meaningful capacity to participate in the legal proceedings depriving her of citizenship”.Liberty sees the Supreme Court's decision as a threat to the rule of law - see their article 26 February 2021.  I looked at the interesting submission by JUSTICE in a previous post 31 October 2020. 2 March 2021Other commentaries / articles:It will be no surprise to readers to find that opinion about this case varies considerably. There are those who think that the Supreme Court "failed" Shamima Begum - Human Rights Watch 2 March 2021Others - such as Landmark Chambers - have offered more matter of fact commentary where thejudgment is seen as "an enormously important analysis of the role of the courts, and their relationship to the Secretary of State, in cases raising national security issues. It deals with significant constitutional issues about the balance to be struck between the protection of procedural rights and the protection of the public from terrorism. It is an important restatement of the approach to be taken, and the constitutional balance, in such cases."UK Human Rights Blog 1 March 2021 - Supreme Court: Shamima Begum may be barred from UK - Marina Wheeler QC - "The Supreme Court’s Judgment is a useful reminder of how the system tries to balance the vital interests involved. But it is by no means the end of Shamima Begum’s fight to come home."Freemovement - Shamima Begum loses case in Supreme Court - "What seems to me to be missing from the reasoning here is recognition that the reason Ms Begum cannot effectively participate in her appeal is because of the actions by the other party to the appeal in depriving her of citizenship while she was outside the country and then refusing her re-entry."Links to further commentaries - ICLR 1 March 2021. UK Constitutional Law Association Blog - Daniella Lock: The Shamima Begum Case: Difficulties with 'democratic accountability' as a justification for judicial deference in the national security context Law and Lawyers - 23 February 2019 - Shamima Begum and the law - where the focus was on the powers of the Secretary of State to deprive an individual of citizenship. 31 October 2020 - Shamima Begum - a submission by JUSTICE to the Supreme Court . 

Coronavirus Restrictions England ~ Changes from 8 March 2021

On 22 February the Prime Minister announced a "roadmap" to easing restrictions imposed due to coronavirus - see Statement to House of Commons and Government Roadmap.  11 days later, on 5 March 2021, the government made amendments to the statutory instruments imposing the restrictions. The amendments take effect from 8 March 2021.The latest amendments are in The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and Restrictions: All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 - (SI: 2021/247). It is explained that the amendments amend the law relating to outdoor recreation. Gatherings related to electoral activities will be possible and, when travelling outside the UK, a requirements is introduced to declare the reason for leaving or being outside the place where a person is living. There are other minor amendments. The Regulations amended are:The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020andThe Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020Schools will resume on 8 March 2021. A testing system has been introduced - UK Government 22 February.The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 section 45R continues to be used by Ministers to justify making Regulations. Section 45R requires the Secretary of State to be of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make regulations without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. UK Government - Coronavirus notes that - You must complete a travel declaration form if you are travelling abroad from England. You must state the reason for your travel on the form. Step 1 of the roadmap out of lockdown begins. In England, all pupils return to school and students return to Further Education. Some students on practical courses will return to university. After-school clubs and breakfast clubs begin again. Outdoor recreation or exercise with your household or 1 other person is allowed.Covid Passports? In a separate development, it is reported that the European Union is considering the introduction of "Covid Passports" or a "Digital Health Pass" - see TIME Europe is considering COVID-19 passports. Should the rest of the world catch up?This development has a certain inevitability about it despite it raising considerable practical problems as well as serious ethical and legal issues (e.g. , human rights, discrimination, data protections etc).

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

The government has published the Police. Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - see:government announcement 9 March 2021Parliament - the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts BillPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: overarching documents  Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: factsheetsThe Bill seeks to make provisions about:the police and other emergency workers; collaboration between authorities to prevent and reduce serious violence; offensive weapons homicide reviews; new offences and for the modification of existing offences; the powers of the police and other authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime or investigating other matters; the maintenance of public order; the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles;driving offences; cautions; bail and remand; sentencing, detention, release, management and rehabilitation of offenders; secure 16 to 19 Academies; procedures before courts and tribunals.The Bill (as intoduced) comprises 176 clauses divided into 13 Parts. There are 20 Schedules. Amongst other matters, the Bill seeks to increase the maximum penalty for assault on emergency workers (Cluase 2), amend the law about imposing conditions on processions and assemblies (Clauses 54-60), amend the law relating to cautions (Clauses 76-96), amend the law relating to life sentences (Clauses 101-114), amend the law about juries (Clause 164).The Bill will bring about amendments to the recently introduced sentencing code.More to follow ...

Security Service ~ agents who participate in criminality

In March 2011, the Security Service (MI5) issue a document entitled "Guidelines on the Use of Agents who participate in criminality - Official Guidance."  The document was reviewed but not changed in January 2014.  In March 2018, the Prime Minister (Theresa May MP) acknowledged the existence of the policy.Privacy International and others challenged this policy in an action before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT).  The claimants submitted that the policy was unlawful, both as a matter of domestic public law and also as contrary to Convention Rights (set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998). In December 2019 the Tribunal gave judgment dismissing the claim. The claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) which gave judgment on 9 March 2021 - Privacy International and others v Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and others [2021] EWCA Civ 330 (Davis, Haddon-Cave, Dingemans LJJ). Central to the appeal were the provisions of the Security Service Act 1989 ("the 1989 Act"). The appeal was dismissed.At para.8 of the judgment the court noted - "In order to fulfil its task, the Security Service necessarily has had to run undercover agents. Such agents, who will usually not themselves be members of the Security Service, may need to participate in conduct which may or would be criminal or tortious in order to maintain their cover and in order better to ascertain the activities and intentions of the organisations in which they operate. Failure to do so might render their intended role ineffective and indeed might expose them to suspicion and personal danger. In modern jargon, such agents are styled "Covert Human Intelligence Sources" (CHIS); we will continue to style them "agents" in this judgment. There can be no dispute (and the Tribunal found as a fact) that such agents are indispensable to the work of the Security Service. They play a vital role in gathering intelligence with a view to protecting the State and the public from serious harm."The first 54 paragraphs of the judgment set out the background to the case (5-10) and examine the Guidance (11-22), the relevant legislation (23-33) and the Tribunal judgment (34-54). The court then turned to the grounds of the appeal:1] Whether the Security Service has the legal power (vires) to run agents who participate in criminality. That, as we assess matters, is really the critical issue on this appeal. This ground is addressed at paras 55 to 101. The court concluded that - "before 1989 the Security Service had the vires to run agents who participate in criminality in order to protect national security, in the sense which we have described; and that power continued under the 1989 Act, on its true interpretation. Given that there was and is no immunity from prosecution, such a conclusion does not place the Security Service above the law" (para 99). Ground 1 therefore failed.2] Did the Guidance creates a de facto immunity from prosecution. The court found that it did not do this.  The guidance did not undermine the independence of the prosecution (or police) authorities. "On the contrary, the Guidance respects it. What it does do is to indicate what the Security Service would intend to say by way of making representations to the prosecution authorities when those authorities are considering, where they are required to do so, whether a prosecution would be in the public interest" - para. 1113] Whether the Guidance was "in accordance with" the domestic law. Given the court's findings on Issue 1 and 2 it followed that the guidance was in accordance with domestic law. Three further issues were raised regarding Convention rights. These are discussed at paras 122-129. The issues were dismissed on the basis that the claimants were not "victims" for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 section 7 which provides -"A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may -(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act. Consequently, the court expressed no views on the substance of the points sought to be raised on these grounds.It remains to be seen whether this case is appealed to the Supreme Court. Permission to appeal will be required. 12 March 2021.

Protest and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (1) ~ Public Nuisance

A previous post sets out links to the Parliament - the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The Bill covers numerous areas of law and its Second Reading debate will take place in the House of Commons on Monday 15 and Tuesday 16 March 2021. This is the first of two posts looking at Part 3 of the Bill - Public Order.Taken as a whole, the reforms in Part 3 will make further and considerable inroads into the ability of the citizen to protest without actually breaking the law in some way. Parliament - the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill General:Part 3 comprises Clauses 54 to 60.Public Nuisance:This post considers Clause 59 - Public Nuisance. It is now almost 6 years since the Law Commission made recommendations about public nuisance - see the report published 25 June 2015.At present, public nuisance is an offence at common law. It has been trundled out on several occasions in recent years in order to bring criminal charges against various protesters. Notable examples are the Preston Fracking Protesters - posts 29 September 2018 and 27 October 2018 - and the Trenton Oldfield case (post 27 October 2012).The fracking case saw three anti-fracking activists (Simon Roscoe Blevins, Richard Roberts, and Rich Loizou) jailed for public nuisance.  Blevins and Roberts were each imprisoned for 16 months and Loizou was jailed for 15 months.  The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) allowed appeals against the sentences - [2018] EWCA Crim 2739.According to the government, Clause 59 of the Bill implements the Law Commission recommendation and will "provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden." - see Factsheet on Protest Powers. As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail of Clause 59.Clause 59:A wide range of conduct potentially falls within the offence and the offence will extend to causing serious "annoyance" or serious "inconvenience" or serious "loss of amenity." Therefore, even though the word "serious" appears, the threshold for the harm caused is not particularly high and it will hardly be too difficult for those affected by a protest against some activity to claim that serious annoyance or inconvenience has been caused. Further, there need not even be actual serious annoyance etc.but only a risk of it arising.The proposed offence will require proof of intention that the act or omission will have a consequence mentioned in clause 59(1)(b) or the individual must have been reckless as to whether it should have such a consequence. There is a defence of "reasonable excuse" - Clause 59(1)(3).On one level, reforming public nuisance addresses a 6 year old Law Commission report but it is disingenuous to claim that this reform will "give clear notice of what conduct is forbidden." It will do no such thing. The reform appears to be capable of criminalising any protest against an activity no matter how controversial the activity might be.Members of Parliament ought to consider very carefully whether this particular reform should proceed to the statute book.Reforming public nuisance is not the only public order matter considered by Part 3 of the Bill. A subsequent post will look at further clauses in Part 3. 15 March 2021.Parliament - the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts BillPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: overarching documents  Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: factsheets House of Commons Library - Briefings on the Bill   Parliament: Hansard 15 March - Second Reading Debate - Day 1Hansard 16 March - Second Reading Debate - Day 2 - the Bill passed second reading 359 votes to 263. Other links: Spiked online 18 March - Andrew Tettenborn - The government v Freedom of Speech - (link added 6 April 2021).

Protest and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (2) ~ Public Order

This is the second of my posts looking at how the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will alter the law relating to protests. The bill contains considerable extensions to police powers and marks an increasingly authoritarian stance by government toward protest.The following is an overview of the key provisions affecting public order. A previous post looked at how the Bill will alter the law on Public Nuisance - here.Criminal Damage to Memorials:The offence of criminal damage is defined by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 Schedule 2 deals with "mode of trial" by which the "either-way" offence of criminal damage is to be tried - i.e. whether by summary trial in the Magistrates' Court or on indictment in the Crown Court. Schedule 2 has to be read together with section 22.  The result is that, currently, cases of criminal damage where the damage involved is £5,000 or less are to be tried summarily (unless the damage was caused by fire).The Bill will change this and make criminal damage to a "memorial" (even if the value involved is £5,000 or less) triable either-way.The word "memorial" will be defined as - (a) a building or other structure, or any other thing, erected or installed on land (or in or on any building or other structure on land), or (b) a garden or any other thing planted or grown on land,which has a commemorative purpose.Even a moveable thing such as a bunch of flowers left in, on or at a memorial  may also be regarded as a memorial. The maximum sentence for criminal damage when tried by the Crown Court is 10 years imprisonment. If the damage is committed by fire (arson) then the maximum is life imprisonment.The Bill therefore opens the way for any criminal damage to a memorial to attract a considerable term of imprisonment. The change has been brought about following the protests in the summer of 2020 - see previous post 16 June 2020. See also the government's factsheet - Criminal Damage to Memorials - which claims that there has been "widespread upset about the damage and desecration of memorials ... It has long been considered that the law is not sufficiently robust in this area. Incidences of damage and desecration of memorials are typically of low monetary value, but very often carry a high sentimental and emotional impact."Part 3 of the Bill:Processions:The Public Order Act 1986 section 12 enables the Police to impose conditions on processions where the "senior police officer", having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is being held or is intended to be held and to its route or proposed route, reasonably believes that - (a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or (b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,The Bill (Clause 54) will amend this section so that, for processions in England and Wales, the officer may impose restrictions where EITHER the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the processions OR the noise generated by person taking part in the procession may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the processions and that impact may be significant.The Bill goes on to define what may be a relevant impact. For example, where the noise generated may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity or where the noise may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.The Bill also sets out some factors for the Police to consider - e.g. the likely number of persons who may experience an impact from the noise and the likely intensity of that impact on such persons.The Secretary of State (here the Home Secretary) will be able to make regulations about the meaning of phrases such as "serious disruption to the activities of an organisation or serious disruption to the life of the community. The Regulations will have to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliamen It seems particularly problematic for Ministers to be allowed to define the meaning of terms. The use of secondary legislation in this way will, in practice, reduce parliamentary scrutiny of the material produced by the Home Secretary. Votes for the approval of delegated legislation usually takes place at the end of a poorly attended and quite short debate.The government seeks to justify giving the Home Secretary this power by a statement in the Delegated Powers Memorandum -At this point it is also worth remembering that under section 13 the Police have power to prohibit processions. Public Assemblies:The Public Order Act 1986 section 14 enables the Police to impose conditions on assemblies. The amendments in the Bill (Clause 55) follow a similar pattern to those relating to processions and there will be a similar Regulation-making powerThe government's rationale for these changes is set out in the factsheet - Protest Powers.  Part of the background to the changes is the Extinction Rebellion - see previous post 15 October 2019.Other amendments to the Public Order Act 1986:At present, a person guilty of an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 section 4 is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both. Clause 56 will alter this so that longer terms of imprisonment may be imposed.  There is similar provision for offences under sections 5 and 6 of the 1986 Act.Clauses 57 and 58 - Obstruction of access to parliamentary estate:Part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 will be amended. This is concerned with Parliament Square garden and surrounding area.  The government's factsheet notes - "This measure will enable the police to direct an individual to cease obstructing vehicular entrances to Parliament and make it an offence not to comply with such a direction. This will protect the right of access to the Parliamentary Estate for MPs, Peers and others with business there as recommended in the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their 2020 report on Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs."Clause 59 - Public Nuisance:Clause 59 is the subject of a previous post - HERE. Clause 60 - Conditions on one-person protests:At present, the police cannot issue conditions on one-person protests because they do not meet the definition of “static protest” provided for in the 1986 Act. Under the 1986 Act “static protests” must involve at least two people. The bill will insert a new section into the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions on any one-person protest in England and Wales.  Clause 60 would insert a new a new section 14ZA into the 1986 Act. This would allow the police to impose conditions on a one-person protest which they “reasonably believe” may be noisy enough to cause “intimidation or harassment” or “serious unease, alarm or distress” to bystanders. The police would have to follow similar rules when issuing conditions on a one-person protest under section 14ZA as they will have to under the amended section 12 and 14.  Delegated powers:The Bill confers a considerable number of legal powers on Ministers (mainly the Home Secretary) to make delegated legislation - see the Delegated Powers Memorandum - pdf 85 pages.Other materials:Parliament - the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts BillPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: overarching documents  Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: factsheetsHouse of Commons Library - Research Briefing - Parts 3 and 4 of the BillHouse of Commons Library - Briefings on the Bill  Politics.co.uk Comment - Silencing Black Lives Matter: Priti Patel's anti-protest law  The Guardian 14 March - New anti-protest bill raises profound concern and alarm, human rights groups sayThe Guardian 14 March - If you thought the right to protest was inalienable, then think againThe Guardian 5 April - article by Kirsty Brimelow QC - If the government cares about freedom of expression, why is it pasing the police and crime bill? Parliament: Hansard 15 March - Second Reading Debate - Day 1Hansard 16 March - Second Reading Debate - Day 2 - the Bill passed second reading 359 votes to 263.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill ~ Sentencing

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will make important changes to the Sentencing Code (previous post) which came into force as recently as 1 December 2020.The Sentencing Code is actually Parts 2 to 13 of the Sentencing Act 2020.  See also Sentencing Council - Sentencing Code.This post is an overview of (a) amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (b) Clauses 100-105 which deal with the minimum term in murder and other serious cases and (c) the post notes the bill's provisions for early release of some categories of offenders.The provisions are rather complicated but are likely to be generally welcomed within the population. For example, a future offender such as Hashem Abedi (Manchester Arena bombing) could receive a whole life term even if under age 21 at the time of the offence(s). Under present law, Hashem Abedi, being under age 21, received 22 life sentences each with a minimum term of 55 years. The public is also likely to welcome the fact that some offenders will be less likely to avoid a minimum term of imprisonment - e.g. the third (or subsequent) time burglar. Furthermore, more prisoners will have to serve two-thirds of their sentences before being eligible for parole.*** Amendments to Sexual Offences Act 2003***The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA) will be amended by Clauses 44 and 45 of the Bill. Clause 44 will amend section 14 of the SOA (Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence). Currently a charge under section 14 only applies to the arranging or facilitation of offences under sections 9 to 13. The amendment will widen this to embrace sections 5 to 13. It will be noticed that sections 5 to 8 are particularly serious offences against children under age 13 - e.g. rape of a child under 13. Sections 16 to 19 of the SOA are concerned with abuse of positions of trust. Section 21 defines who is in a position of trust and section 22 deals with interpretation. Clause 45 will insert a new section 22A into the SOA. The new section will be headed "Further positions of trust" and will bring individuals such as sports coaches and religious teachers within the term "position of trust".See the Positions of Trust Factsheet.*** Sentencing and Release ***Part 7 of the Bill (Sentencing and Release) is divided into 2 Chapters - Chapter 1 (Custodial sentences) and Chapter 2 (Community Sentences).My focus in this post will be on changes made by Part 7 Chapter 1 of the Bill to sentence length for serious offenders. This topic is subject to its own factsheet - HERE.Clause 100 (Minimum sentences for particular offences). Currently the sentencing code provides for a minimum sentence to be imposed in relation to certain offences. Clause 100 seeks to ensure that the specified minimum will be applied unless there are EXCEPTIONAL circumstances which (a) relate to the offender and (b) justify not doing so. This is a stricter test than at present.  The sections in the sentencing code to be amended in this way are:Section 312 (Threatening with a weapon or bladed article)Section 313 (7 year minimum for third Class A drug trafficking offSection 314 (3 years for third domestic burglary)Section 315 (Repeat offence involving weapon or bladed article)Clause 101 (Whole life order as starting point for premeditated child murder)Clause 101 will amend Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Code. Schedule 21 deals with determination of the minimum term in relation to the mandatory life sentence for murder. In a number of murder cases, whole life orders are possible as a starting point for sentencing. Those include the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation. Clause 101 will add to the list cases where the murder of a child involved a substantial degree of premeditation or planning.Clause 102 Whole Life Orders for some young adults:Clause 102 will amend Section 321 to the Sentencing Code so that in some exceptional cases a young adult (i.e. aged 18 to uder 21) may receive a whole life order.  This particular change is said by the Factsheet to arise from the fact that - "the judge presiding over the trial of Hashem Abedi, the brother of the Manchester Arena bomber was unable to give him a WLO due to the defendant’s age but stated that it would have been a ‘just sentence’ in that case. We believe it is right that judges should be able to exercise this power in exceptional circumstances such as this."The Abedi case is discussed in a previous post.  Abedi was actually sentenced to life imprisonment on each of 22 counts of murder with minimum terms of 55 years on each count. Clause 103 Starting points for murder committed when under 18:Clause 103 will amend Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Code with the aim of increasing the mnimum terms to be served for those aged under 18 at the time they commit a murder. Clause 104 Reviww of minimum term for offenders serving Detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure:The appropriate sentence for an offence of murder committed by an offender under age 18 is Detention during Her Majetsy's Pleasure (DHMP) - see Sentencing Code section 259. A minimum term is still determined by the court.Clause 104 will allow the offender to apply to the Secretary of State for review of a DHMP minimum term once the offender has served half the term imposed. The Secretary of State will normally have to refer the application to the High Court and the court will have power to reduce the minimum term.Clause 105 Life sentence not fixed by law: minimum term:Clause 105 deals with fixing the minimum term to be served by an offender who has been sentence to LIFE imprisonment where the life sentence is NOT fixed by law.This is a complicated provision. The starting point in determining the minimum term will be what is called "the relevant portion of the notional determinate sentence".Clause 105 then goes on to define "notional determinate sentence"*** Early release ***There can be little doubt that public concern exists regarding the fact that some serious offenders sentenced to imprisonment for a determinate period (e.g. 6 years) will usually be released on licence after serving half. The Bill will end this in some cases.See factsheet on Release of Serious OffendersMore offenders to serve two-thirds: In April 2020 the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020 came into law. This ensured that serious violent or sexual offenders who receive a Standard Determinate Sentence (SDS) of 7 years or more (for an offence for which the maximum penalty is life) are required to serve two-thirds of their sentence in custody instead of half. The Bill puts this into primary legislation and applies the two-thirds release point to certain serious violent and sexual offenders given a Standard Determinate Sentence of between 4 and 7 years. Offenders of Particular Concern: A further provision in the Bill relates to offenders who receive a Sentence for Offenders of Particular Concern (SOPC) Order. The Bill will require them to serve at least two-thirds of the term imposed. After the 2/3 point they may be release at the discretion of the Parole Board. SOPC sentences apply to specified terrorist offences and the two most serious child sex offences (rape of a child under 13 and sexual assault of a child under 13). See Sentencing Code section 265 and section 278.Power to prevent automatic early release of prisoners who become a public protection concern:The Government introduced emergency legislation after the terrorist attack in Streatham in February 2020 (BBC 3 February 2020 and previous post) to ensure that those convicted of terrorist or terrorist-connected offences serving a Standard Determinate Sentence are not released before the end of their sentence without the approval of the Parole Board. The government considers that it is necessary to capture those offenders who are not convicted of a terrorism offence but where it later emerges that they pose a credible public protection concern. Those individuals should be reviewed by the Parole Board, to ensure that release at the halfway point is appropriate and safe.The factsheet comments that - "The new power is intended to be used in rare cases where there is strong evidence which shows that the public may be at risk of serious harm or there may be a national security threat if the offender were to be released at their automatic release date. Instead, they can be referred to the Parole Board who can consider whether they are safe to release or whether they should continue to be detained until the end of their custodial sentence."What might be done to reduce the risks posed by such individuals whilst they spend the additional time in prison is not mentioned. Amendments to driving disqualification provisions:The Bill makes changes to how courts impose driving disqualifications (when imposed with a custodial sentence) so that any longer period served in prison doesn’t reduce the driving disqualification period that should be served in the community. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the Sentencing Act 2020 are to be updated to reflect the new later release points for affected prisoners. Materials:Parliament - the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts BillPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: overarching documents  Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: factsheetsHouse of Commons Library - Briefings on the Bill

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill ~ Adult Cautions

The law has available to it a number of ways of dealing with offenders which fall short of prosecution in the courts. Cautions are one of the alternatives. Part 6 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill contains detailed clauses which amount to major amendments to the law about cautions for ADULTS.  The various factsheets which accompany the Bill say very little about this significant reform and it is probable that this aspect of the Bill may receive less parliamentary attention than its importance actually merits.According to Criminal Justice Statistics, in the period October 2018 to September 2019 some 63,700 cautions were issued - mainly for drug offences, criminal damage (including arson).Cautions are often perceived to be a "let off" for the offender. This is in the same vein as saying that the defendant who has received a suspended sentence order has "walked free" from court. This form of tabloid journalism is seriously misleading. In all such cases the guilt of the offender will have been established and the offender will have a criminal record which may sometimes be disclosable under the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). Furthermore, either a caution or suspended sentence can be accompanied by requirements such as to pay compensation, attend some form of community programme for rehabiltation purposes, pay a financial penalty etc.Cautions for those under age 18:The Bill does not alter the law about cautions for youth offenders. See CPS Youth Offenders. : Part 6 of the Bill :Overview: The reforms to cautioning take up Clauses 76 to 99 and Schedule 3. Together these constitute a comprehensive reform of the law about adult cautioning and it is a reform which merits detailed scrutiny by parliament. A considerable amount of detail is to be put into either Regulations or a Code of Practice.Two forms of caution: Part 6 makes provision for two forms of caution - Diversionary and Community. All other forms of caution for adults are abolished (Clause 96).  The Bill (Clause 96) will also abolish "On the Spot Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour" - Chapter 1 Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.Either form of caution must have one or more conditions attached.Diversionary cautions may be given by an "authorised person" to a person aged 18 or over in respect of an offence.A community caution may be given by an "authorised person" to a person aged 18 or over in respect of an offence other than an "excluded offence".Breach of conditions attached to a caution may result in (a) prosecution for the offence (in the case of a diversionary caution) or (b) a financial penalty in the case of a community caution.The term "excluded offence" is defined as (a) an indictable-only offence (e.g. murder, manslaughter, rape etc), (b) an offence triable either-way which is prescribed in regulations, or (c) a summary offence which is prescribed in regulations.An "authorised person" in relation to a diversionary or community caution is - (a) a constable, (b) an investigating officer, or (c) a person authorised by a prosecution authority for purposes relating to cautions of that kind.Diversionary Cautions:The details relating to Diversionary cautions are set out in Clauses 77 to 85. An authorised person may give a diversionary caution to a person aged 18 or over if certain conditions are met (Clause 77). A prosecution authority has to decide that (i) there is sufficient evidence to charge the offender with the offence, and (ii) that a diversionary caution should be given to the offender. The offender must admit the offence and consent to a caution. The authorised person is required to explain  to the offender the effect of the caution and warn the offender regarding the consequences of failing to comply with conditions attached. The offender must sign a document containing details of the offence, the admission, and consent to receiving a caution. The same document will set out details of the conditions.Use of diversionary cautions will also be subject to Regulations to be made under Clause 95. When deciding what conditions to attach to a diversionary caution, the authorised person or prosecuting authority is required to make reasonable efforts to ascertain the views of victims and to take those views into account. Where it is the view of the victim or all of the victims that the offender should carry out a particular action listed in the "community remedy document" then this action must be attached as a condition unless it seems to the authorised person or prosecuting authority that (a) the action is not one that can be attached as a condition to a diversionary caution or (b) it would be inappropriate to do so.The objects of a diversionary caution are rehabilitation and reparation but a financial penalty can also be added by way of punishment.The maximum amount for financial penalties is to be specified in Regulations.Criminal proceedings can be started for failure without reasonable excuse to comply with conditions. The document signed by the offender at the time of accepting the caution will then be admissible in evidence in the criminal proceedings - Cl 77(2)(e).Community Cautions:Details of Community Cautions are set out in Clauses 86 to 93. Broadly-speaking the provisions follow a similar pattern to those for diversionary cautions BUT where a community caution is given, criminal proceedings may not be instituted against the offender for the offence for which the caution was given BUT a financial penalty can be imposed.A condition requiring upaid work may be attached but it limited to 10 hours. This can be altered by regulations - Cl 88(5). A financial penalty may be attached to a community caution and the maximum amount is to be set in Regulations. This penalty must be paid within 28 days of the caution and, if unpaid, will increase by 50%. If it then remains unpaid it can be registered for enforcement as a fine.The Bill contains detailed clauses about enforcing any financial penalties.Other matters:There will be a Code of Practice made under Clause 94.Clause 95 contains restrictions on the use of multiple cautions.Regulations under Part 6 will be made by the Secretary of State and will have to be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.Schedule 10 to the Bill contains details of amendments to a considerable number of Acts including the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. To be welcomed?Overall the reforms to cautioning should perhaps be welcomed. Out of court disposals are not the 'soft touch' too often portrayed by the media and their use has reduced the risk of some people being drawn into the criminal justice system when their behaviour is better addressed by a less formal intervention than prosecution. There is considerable evidence that diverting people from the criminal justice system reduces their likelihood of reoffending. The proposed measures allow greater powers to divert offenders to support pathways, such as engagement with mental health or substance abuse services. This new power provides an opportunity for early intervention to address the underlying issues that contribute to offending behaviour.Materials: Parliament - the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts BillPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: overarching documents  Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: factsheets House of Commons Library - Briefings on the Bill