Coronovirus Quarantine, voluntary or enforced |
Coronovirus Quarantine, voluntary or enforced |
Sun, 2 Feb 2020 - 18:15
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,535 Joined: 16 Jan 2009 From: Up north Member No.: 25,505 |
I appreciate that quarantine is required. With reference to this new coronovirus.
Yet. Having read the public health act, on legislation.gov, the Secretary of State, can only enforce a quarantine on people who HAVE a notifiable illness. Have I missed a bit? Can the Secretary of State legally enforce/forbid a person from walking out, if it is only a suspicion of a notifiable disease? If yes, what is the law behind it. PS. not disagreeing about the why. Curious about the law only. -------------------- Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 2 Feb 2020 - 18:15
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 10:31
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Phrase doesn't appear in that link, maybe it's been edited.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 11:12
Post
#22
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
Phrase doesn't appear in that link, maybe it's been edited. Yes, they're updating that article frequently now. Looks like they've got a grown-up in the office now who's explained the "legal language" of the announcement somewhat better . The article also suggests that the trigger was that one ungrateful evacuee in the Wirral facility was threatening to leave. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 11:37
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Indeed, which supports the hypothesis that the contract was going to be a weak detainment method and that NCV had to be specified so the quarantine could be enforced.
Form a moral standpoint though - dick. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 13:41
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
And this makes perfect sense, as long as it is scientifically established that a disease is infectious and dangerous to public health, what would be the point of getting a minister to make a disease-specific SI? Because we don't allow scientists to decide when people should be forcibly detained. And you're still ignoring the requirement in section 7. I never said the decision fell to scientists, the evidence given has to be accepted by a JP and only a JP can make a decision that an individual should be quarantined. Not sure how I'm ignoring subsection 7, which simply says: The appropriate Minister must by regulations make provision about the evidence that must be available to a justice of the peace before the justice can be satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) or (3). The 2010 order says in the introduction (my emphasis): The Secretary of State makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (2) and (3)(b), 45F(2)(a), 45G(7), 45L(4), 45M(3), (6) and (7), 45N(1) and (2)(b) and 45P(2) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 Regulation 4 goes on to say: A justice of the peace cannot be satisfied that the criteria in section 45G(1) or (3) of the Act (power to order health measures in relation to persons) are met unless the evidence listed in paragraph (2) is available to the justice. (2) That evidence is— ... No specifc diseases are mentioned in the list that follows. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 13:59
Post
#25
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
Perhaps you should advise Matt Hancock that he wasted his time making the regulation, then, because his understanding seems to be as faulty as mine.
-------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 17:00
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Perhaps you should advise Matt Hancock that he wasted his time making the regulation, then, because his understanding seems to be as faulty as mine. The regulations made today, i.e. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents/made create powers that allow the SoS to detain a person infected with coronavirus without the need to seek approval from a JP, subject to a right of appeal to the magistrates' court. That does not alter the fact that the section 45G powers were already there to be used. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 18:04
Post
#27
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
That does not alter the fact that the section 45G powers were already there to be used. So why didn't they? Do you imagine they thought that a flimsy contractual approach was likely to be easier and more effective than just getting a JP to make an order under existing legislation? -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 - 22:19
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
That does not alter the fact that the section 45G powers were already there to be used. So why didn't they? Do you imagine they thought that a flimsy contractual approach was likely to be easier and more effective than just getting a JP to make an order under existing legislation? Who is "they"? If you're referring to the SoS, well many reasons spring to mind (practicality, the fact that most people are unlikely to do a runner, very low numbers, the propensity of most people to obey authority) but if you really want to know, you could ask him. That's what the FOIA is there for. Personally, I can't be asked. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 12:53
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I would imagine part of the difficulty was practical and logistical. An order under s 45G can only be applied for by a local authority in respect of an individual. That leads to the question of “which local authority?” - which LA is going to pick up the time and expense of doing so? There would need to be an application in respect of each individual sought to be quarantined. Furthermore, each application has to be supported by sufficient evidence given by a suitably qualified person (The Health Protection (Part 2A Orders) Regulations 2010), which presents a further logistical difficulty in examining all of the people and producing the necessary evidence.
Historically, it seems, people cooperated with quarantines voluntarily - a Part 2A order is a legal stick and, presumably, if its deployment wasn’t necessary there seems little reason to deploy it. This post has been edited by southpaw82: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 12:53 -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 - 18:08
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I would imagine part of the difficulty was practical and logistical. An order under s 45G can only be applied for by a local authority in respect of an individual. That leads to the question of “which local authority?” - which LA is going to pick up the time and expense of doing so? There would need to be an application in respect of each individual sought to be quarantined. Furthermore, each application has to be supported by sufficient evidence given by a suitably qualified person (The Health Protection (Part 2A Orders) Regulations 2010), which presents a further logistical difficulty in examining all of the people and producing the necessary evidence. Historically, it seems, people cooperated with quarantines voluntarily - a Part 2A order is a legal stick and, presumably, if its deployment wasn’t necessary there seems little reason to deploy it. I agree with all of that. The emergency regulations will have been made for two reasons: 1) In the unlikely event that someone decides to be a dick (there's always a chance one of the people evacuated turns out to be a flat-earther FMOTL person who claims coronavirus is all an Illuminati conspiracy) it's a straightforward tool that doesn't involve all the faffing around with a section 45G order. 2) It gives the government an opportunity to be seen to be doing something, appearing competent and in control. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 16:47
Post
#31
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
There's a discussion with a barrister on this very subject in the latest edition of the BBC Law in Action programme.
Apparently the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 is the next weapon in the arsenal if more drastic restrictions are required. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:07 |