Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Coronavirus law

including wills and probate
Sunnypad
Lemon Slice
Posts: 744
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Coronavirus law

#309900

Postby Sunnypad » May 19th, 2020, 11:37 am

Hi all
I haven’t been on for aaaages so apologies if this is covered, I did have a look.

I’m very unclear what’s law and what’s guidance at the moment.

Is it actually illegal to enter the home of a friend or relative?

Thank you.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309903

Postby Alaric » May 19th, 2020, 12:01 pm

Sunnypad wrote:Is it actually illegal to enter the home of a friend or relative?


It's mostly the other way around. Everyone is under house arrest unless they have a reasonable excuse to be out. Visiting non-vulnerable friends or relatives isn't on the list.

I wouldn't be clear on the legal position if such a visit was combined with exercise or shopping. For all the talk of confining over 70s to their homes, that was guidance. Had it not been, the press would have been full of stories of Police and others feeling authoritarian demanding proof of age from anyone looking a bit on the senior side.

Many or perhaps most people would accept the premise that if you are in close and fairly lengthy proximity to someone infected, you might get infected and it might become fatal. Also that you don't know who is infected and who isn't and you might unknowingly be infected yourself and spreading the virus.

Sunnypad
Lemon Slice
Posts: 744
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309913

Postby Sunnypad » May 19th, 2020, 12:18 pm

But after the restrictions were relaxed, is “reasonable excuse” still needed? I’m now allowed to read my book in the park, I think?

Is the stuff about meeting a friend for a walk but not at their home really the law?

It’s not at all my understanding that we’re still under house arrest.
Last edited by Sunnypad on May 19th, 2020, 12:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309914

Postby dealtn » May 19th, 2020, 12:19 pm

Alaric wrote:
Sunnypad wrote:Is it actually illegal to enter the home of a friend or relative?


It's mostly the other way around. Everyone is under house arrest unless they have a reasonable excuse to be out.


This is Legal Issues. As such I would expect factual responses to be considered the norm.

Citizens are not under house arrest.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309919

Postby Alaric » May 19th, 2020, 12:25 pm

Sunnypad wrote:But after the restrictions were relaxed, is “reasonable excuse” still needed? I’m now allowed to read my book in the park, I think?


It's still there. Hence the curious rule making it not a valid excuse for an entire household to leave home to meet another household for distanced recreation. So Singles Tennis is OK, but not it would seem Doubles. Nor a foursome in Golf from separate households.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309921

Postby Alaric » May 19th, 2020, 12:26 pm

dealtn wrote:Citizens are not under house arrest.


What would be your preferred term?

Sunnypad
Lemon Slice
Posts: 744
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309925

Postby Sunnypad » May 19th, 2020, 12:33 pm

So do any lawyers know, if I’m allowed to enter the home of a friend? Or is that illegal?

No one wants to risk a fine.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309928

Postby dealtn » May 19th, 2020, 12:38 pm

Alaric wrote:
dealtn wrote:Citizens are not under house arrest.


What would be your preferred term?


Well, actually that's an interesting thought. I'm not sure, but from a legal perspective I'm sure its not house arrest. A type of curfew is probably the easiest single word definition I suppose. It's not easy so perhaps I was a little hasty.

Whatever is the correct term it has the softest kind of restrictions compared to what I would consider to be real "house arrest".

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309943

Postby redsturgeon » May 19th, 2020, 12:57 pm

Alaric wrote:
dealtn wrote:Citizens are not under house arrest.


What would be your preferred term?


At the moment I could quite legally, in England, get into my car just after midnight and drive up to the Scottish border. Pop down to watch the sunrise over Lindisfarne. Drive down through the Yorkshire moors, picking up some fish and chips from Whitby on the way to eat outside.

I could get home at some time during the day, go shopping for some plants or DIY goods or perhaps some fine wine and smoked salmon. Go out for a game of tennis or golf, walk the dog, meet up with a friend or relative while doing those things and get back home for a sleep without breaking the law.

Funny sort of house arrest.

John

chas49
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1935
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:25 am
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309970

Postby chas49 » May 19th, 2020, 1:31 pm

The regulations (The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020) as amended by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 now state:

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

The listed excuses have been extended to say (inter alia) -

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

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(aa)to obtain money from or deposit money with any business listed in paragraphs 33 or 34 of Schedule 2;
(ab)to collect goods which have been ordered from a business in any way permitted under regulation 5(1)(a);
(b)to take exercise—
(i)alone,
(ii)with one or more members of their household, or
(iii)with one member of another household;
(ba)to visit a public open space for the purposes of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing—
(i)alone,
(ii)with one or more members of their household, or
(iii)with one member of another household;



So, going to someone else's private residence would not be a reasonable excuse and an offence would have been committed. Arguably, standing on the pavement outside the house and having a chat would fall within para 2ba.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#309971

Postby Lootman » May 19th, 2020, 1:33 pm

redsturgeon wrote:
Alaric wrote:
dealtn wrote:Citizens are not under house arrest.

What would be your preferred term?

At the moment I could quite legally, in England, get into my car just after midnight and drive up to the Scottish border. Pop down to watch the sunrise over Lindisfarne. Drive down through the Yorkshire moors, picking up some fish and chips from Whitby on the way to eat outside.

I could get home at some time during the day, go shopping for some plants or DIY goods or perhaps some fine wine and smoked salmon. Go out for a game of tennis or golf, walk the dog, meet up with a friend or relative while doing those things and get back home for a sleep without breaking the law.

Funny sort of house arrest.

Perhaps, but the idea that the police are entitled to ask you what you are doing and why you aren't home just for dong nothing more than strolling along a street still doesn't sit well with me.

And we haven't even started yet with the mandatory 14 days quarantine for arriving air passengers.

It seems to be getting better and worse at the same time.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310006

Postby redsturgeon » May 19th, 2020, 3:35 pm

Lootman wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:
Alaric wrote:What would be your preferred term?

At the moment I could quite legally, in England, get into my car just after midnight and drive up to the Scottish border. Pop down to watch the sunrise over Lindisfarne. Drive down through the Yorkshire moors, picking up some fish and chips from Whitby on the way to eat outside.

I could get home at some time during the day, go shopping for some plants or DIY goods or perhaps some fine wine and smoked salmon. Go out for a game of tennis or golf, walk the dog, meet up with a friend or relative while doing those things and get back home for a sleep without breaking the law.

Funny sort of house arrest.

Perhaps, but the idea that the police are entitled to ask you what you are doing and why you aren't home just for dong nothing more than strolling along a street still doesn't sit well with me.

And we haven't even started yet with the mandatory 14 days quarantine for arriving air passengers.

It seems to be getting better and worse at the same time.


I am not to happy with that idea either but I've passed plenty of policemen on my walks, cycle rides and drives in the past few weeks, none have bothered me. In the early days of the lockdown I watched a pair of them walk straight by two people sitting on a bench in the cathedral close and they were not asked to move on.

Perhaps you are just getting a hint of what some sectors of the community have felt about police powers of stop and search for a long while.

John

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2858
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1385 times
Been thanked: 3771 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310012

Postby Clitheroekid » May 19th, 2020, 3:54 pm

chas49 wrote:The regulations (The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020) as amended by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 now state:

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

The listed excuses have been extended to say (inter alia) -

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

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(aa)to obtain money from or deposit money with any business listed in paragraphs 33 or 34 of Schedule 2;
(ab)to collect goods which have been ordered from a business in any way permitted under regulation 5(1)(a);
(b)to take exercise—
(i)alone,
(ii)with one or more members of their household, or
(iii)with one member of another household;
(ba)to visit a public open space for the purposes of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing—
(i)alone,
(ii)with one or more members of their household, or
(iii)with one member of another household;


The wording is interesting - it says that "(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need — (etc)"

It does not say "a reasonable excuse is limited to the need - (etc) ..."

It's therefore arguable that the list of activities is merely illustrative of what constitutes a reasonable excuse, and that the definition is not limited to the described activities.

So, going to someone else's private residence would not be a reasonable excuse and an offence would have been committed.

Not necessarily. The list includes the need
(b) to take exercise—
(iii) with one member of another household;


So if you went to someone's private residence to (ahem!) `take exercise' with them you should be OK.

Arguably, standing on the pavement outside the house and having a chat would fall within para 2ba.

I don't think there could be any argument about it. If you look at paragraph (5) of the (amended) Regs it states:

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(ba), “public open space” includes—

(a) land laid out as a public garden or used for the purpose of recreation by members of the public;


I would say that a pavement would most definitely be included within that definition, as it's quite clearly used by walkers and joggers "for the purpose of recreation".

And if you were to stand on said pavement chatting to your next-door neighbour it would seem there's no reason why the other members of your household shouldn't join you and speak to the other members of your neighbour's household.

It would, of course, be strictly verboten for any of the assembled multitude to speak to anyone other than members of their own household or their chosen one from another household. But presumably, once one had run out of merry banter there would then be no legal objection to striking up a new conversation from someone from yet another household, and so ad infinitum.

The definition is extremely loose - "to visit a public open space for the purposes of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing". So there's no reason why you and the other `visitors' shouldn't take some food and drink with you, and maybe a musical instrument or two ...

And suddenly, before you know it, you're having a good old-fashioned street party, and it's all perfectly legal! :D

Sunnypad
Lemon Slice
Posts: 744
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 pm
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310016

Postby Sunnypad » May 19th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Thank you Chas and Clitheroe

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 986
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 226 times
Been thanked: 296 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310028

Postby 9873210 » May 19th, 2020, 5:03 pm

dealtn wrote:
Alaric wrote:
Sunnypad wrote:Is it actually illegal to enter the home of a friend or relative?


It's mostly the other way around. Everyone is under house arrest unless they have a reasonable excuse to be out.


This is Legal Issues. As such I would expect factual responses to be considered the norm.
in
Citizens are not under house arrest.


Is "house arrest" a well defined legal term? In general usage it is an umbrella term for a grab bag of arbitrary restriction, which would have more specific legal descriptions, or if the rule of law is weak, extra-legal descriptions.

If house arrest is not a legal term then either the general vague usage prevails or statements such as "citizens are not under house arrest" are as legally meaningless as "citizens are not bolgiar fliver".

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310040

Postby dealtn » May 19th, 2020, 6:01 pm

9873210 wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Alaric wrote:
It's mostly the other way around. Everyone is under house arrest unless they have a reasonable excuse to be out.


This is Legal Issues. As such I would expect factual responses to be considered the norm.
in
Citizens are not under house arrest.


Is "house arrest" a well defined legal term? In general usage it is an umbrella term for a grab bag of arbitrary restriction, which would have more specific legal descriptions, or if the rule of law is weak, extra-legal descriptions.

If house arrest is not a legal term then either the general vague usage prevails or statements such as "citizens are not under house arrest" are as legally meaningless as "citizens are not bolgiar fliver".


I'm not a lawyer, so wouldn't know, let's see if one turns up to clarify.

In the meantime Wiktionary suggests "Confinement of a person to his or her residence...ordered by a judge or other authority as a more lenient alternative to imprisonment." Again not conclusive, but at least implies it requires judicial intervention.

I don't know what your proposed alternative legally meaningless phrase is, however, so find it hard to compare how they would rank with respect to legal precision.

terminal7
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1917
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:26 pm
Has thanked: 225 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310056

Postby terminal7 » May 19th, 2020, 6:58 pm

Once we have exhausted the letter of the law maybe we non-legal types can move on to the spirit of the law?

T7

Chrysalis
Lemon Slice
Posts: 736
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:58 am
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 230 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310066

Postby Chrysalis » May 19th, 2020, 7:25 pm

I think you can go into someone else’s house for the purpose of providing care...

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5244
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3244 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310067

Postby didds » May 19th, 2020, 7:26 pm

Chrysalis wrote:I think you can go into someone else’s house for the purpose of providing care...



... or as a nanny or cleaner... (I believe?) ... or other emergency task eg Gas engineer for a leaking gas wotsit

didds

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5244
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3244 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Coronavirus law

#310068

Postby didds » May 19th, 2020, 7:28 pm

(b)to take exercise—
...
(iii)with one member of another household;
...



I live and learn.

didds


Return to “Legal Issues (Practical)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests