a twitter thread by the lawyer the Times asked to look into the Newcastle case is at
https://mobile.twitter.com/Kirsty_Brimelow/status/1245678069781798912
text follows:
Kirsty Brimelow QC
@Kirsty_Brimelow
THREAD: A humble attempt to explain why I say there was no power to arrest or charge or prosecute or convict Ms. Dinou under Schedule 21 para 23(1)(a) and (2) of the Coronavirus Act 2020.
1. details of the charge: "you failed to provide BTP officers with your identity or
12:42 PM · Apr 2, 2020·Twitter Web App
73
Retweets
107
Likes
Kirsty Brimelow QC
@Kirsty_Brimelow
·
Apr 2
Replying to
@Kirsty_Brimelow
reasons for your journey; you failed to comply with a requirement imposed under Sch 21
2. "Schedule 21 contains powers relating to "potentially infectious persons" i.e. person who is or may be infected/ contaminated with coronavirus or has been in an infected area 14 days before
Kirsty Brimelow QC
@Kirsty_Brimelow
·
Apr 2
3. Ms Dinou was not considered to be potentially infectious. This is key.
4. Plus powers re. a potentially infectious person incl:
i. where a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect person is potentially infectious s/he can direct or remove a person to a place
Kirsty Brimelow QC
@Kirsty_Brimelow
·
Apr 2
for assessment/screening;
ii. or request police to remove the person to a place suitable for screening/assessment (s.6(2)(c)).
iii.Safeguards (s.6(3): "only if necessary and proportionate to do so".
5.If police have reasonable grounds to suspect a person
Kirsty Brimelow QC
@Kirsty_Brimelow
·
Apr 2
is potentially infectious (s.7) they may direct or remove the person to place for assessment/screening.
6. Same safeguards (s.7(3)).
7.Police must inform person reason removing them & is offence if refuse to comply.
8.Powers to detain in place of assessment/screening (s.8-13).
Kirsty Brimelow QC
@Kirsty_Brimelow
·
Apr 2
9.Powers exercisable after assessment (s. 14 -17).
10. s. 23 (para which is the charge): an offence if fails without reasonable excuse to comply with directions, reasonable instruction, requirement or restriction imposed under this Part of the Schedule i.e. above. None applies.
Kirsty Brimelow QC
@Kirsty_Brimelow
·
Apr 2
If you're still with me - the Health Protection (Coronavirus, restrictions) Regulations 2020 are the emergency regulations. They are made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. The main prohibition on freedom of movement is reg. 6. This wasn't used in this case.
can't follow the entire argument myself, but case has been quashed, as mentioned by others.
the Times article at
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...a-single-word-to-police-or-in-court-0kjq9zrhj
begins
A woman who was wrongly convicted of loitering under new coronavirus laws was tried and punished in her absence after not speaking or making a sound for three days.
The Times revealed on Thursday how Marie Dinou, 41, had been prosecuted and fined under the wrong legislation after she was arrested by British Transport Police (BTP) at Newcastle Central station on Saturday morning.
The force admitted that its actions had been incorrect. The case was relisted and set aside at Tyneside magistrates’ court yesterday, meaning that Ms Dinou has effectively had the conviction quashed.
BTP, which has apologised for the error, had initially said that she was detained and charged because she “refused to speak” to officers after being seen “loitering between platforms”.