The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (Modified)

[Nicholas43]

Modified regulations for England are now published: SI 2020/350
Regulation 6 now includes, as examples of 'reasonable excuses' for being away from home, that a person may "take exercise ... with one member of another household", and "visit a public open space for the purposes of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing ... with one member of another household".
I agree that these are reasonable excuses. Moreover, they must always have been reasonable excuses, because the threat from the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not (yet) significantly diminished. So, on this aspect, the talk of relaxation of the regulations is misleading; they have merely been made more explicit. (On the other hand, presumably the government would argue that new protocols agreed with estate agents now make it reasonable to view a house you are thinking of buying, when previously it wasn't.)
In my view the verbiage about "physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing" is most odd, and I wonder what PC Plod is supposed to make of it. "Hullo hullo, may I enquire for what purpose you two are sitting on this here park bench?" (a) "We are promoting our emotional wellbeing." "That's all right then." (b) "We are both having a massive sulk." "You're nicked."
Note that, as ever, the regulations (as opposed to the non-binding, and rather incoherent, guidance) say nothing about 2 metres.

 

[Mag_seven]

Note that, as ever, the regulations (as opposed to the non-binding, and rather incoherent, guidance) say nothing about 2 metres.

Indeed - here is a link to the English "Guidance" which of course is not "the law"!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-guidance-on-spending-time-outdoors

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As a freedom lover I generally prefer guidance to "Thou Shalt not" but I realize that is a very simplistic view.

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Modified regulations for England are now published: SI 2020/350
Regulation 6 now includes, as examples of 'reasonable excuses' for being away from home, that a person may "take exercise ... with one member of another household", and "visit a public open space for the purposes of open-air recreation to promote their physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing ... with one member of another household".
I agree that these are reasonable excuses. Moreover, they must always have been reasonable excuses, because the threat from the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not (yet) significantly diminished. So, on this aspect, the talk of relaxation of the regulations is misleading; they have merely been made more explicit. (On the other hand, presumably the government would argue that new protocols agreed with estate agents now make it reasonable to view a house you are thinking of buying, when previously it wasn't.)
In my view the verbiage about "physical or mental health or emotional wellbeing" is most odd, and I wonder what PC Plod is supposed to make of it. "Hullo hullo, may I enquire for what purpose you two are sitting on this here park bench?" (a) "We are promoting our emotional wellbeing." "That's all right then." (b) "We are both having a massive sulk." "You're nicked."
Note that, as ever, the regulations (as opposed to the non-binding, and rather incoherent, guidance) say nothing about 2 metres.

Thanks for this information and interpretation. It's interesting that, as you highlight, Regulation 6 gives examples of reasonable excuses; and I wonder if this means that some other actions could be allowable, that are not explicitly given as reasonable excuses, but could yet be construed as such if they ever had to be justified.

I have seen one or two stories about people being fined or cautioned for picking up dogs or taking a beehive to a field. But I wonder if a dog had been somehow left alone in a house, would that be reason enough, to rescue it? (Then what about a gerbil? A pet lizard? Where do you draw the line, etc.) Or if you had something perishable left in a building somewhere, that was not only going to waste but could end up damaging property? would saving that from happening be a necessary journey? If it's OK to sell or view property does that mean you could travel to the end of the country to view a property?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Were these after the change? I had heard in a few places that the Police in England are going to stop enforcing against purpose of travel any more as it's too complicated and fraught with problems, and will now stick to enforcing against groups of people who evidently aren't from the same household.

 

[Enthusiast]

Regulation 6 gives examples of reasonable excuses; and I wonder if this means that some other actions could be allowable, that are not explicitly given as reasonable excuses, but could yet be construed as such if they ever had to be justified.

Regulation 6 says "For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—…" This indicates that the list is not exhaustive.

 

[Nicholas43]

...If it's OK to sell or view property does that mean you could travel to the end of the country to view a property?

In the (as far as I know, few) cases that have come before a magistrate, it's up to the magistrate to decide what the traditional man (or woman) in the street would think reasonable, in the light (or, some might say, fog) of the examples given in the Regulations. Since it is now explicitly legal to view a house you are thinking of buying, I think that a magistrate would decide it is legal to drive to it, any distance (within England, of course).
There is nothing whatever in the Regulations that requires your journey to be necessary (whatever that might mean).

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Regulation 6 says "For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—…" This indicates that the list is not exhaustive.

You'd think so. In principle. But in practice I'm not sure how this will be interpreted.
On the thread What exactly is "essential travel only"? someone interpreted it to mean those were the (only) reasonable excuses, leaving no room for others.
"So by the letter of the above legislation, you're only allowed to leave home for a number of specified reasons. Maintaining another property is not one of those specified reasons."
(Unfortunately that thread was locked before that could be discussed!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect if the Police stopped you that they would accept any of the listed reasons, but for an unlisted one it might well have to go to Court.

 

[Nicholas43]

I suspect if the Police stopped you that they would accept any of the listed reasons, but for an unlisted one it might well have to go to Court.

Not so. The Guidance from the College of Policing notes that regulation 6 gives a list of examples [my italics] of reasonable excuses, and urges officers to use their discretion if excuses not in the list are proffered. A criminal charge, and a decision by a magistrate about what the man (or woman) in the street would think reasonable, are a last resort.

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Not so. The Guidance from the College of Policing notes that regulation 6 gives a list of examples [my italics] of reasonable excuses, and urges officers to use their discretion if excuses not in the list are proffered. A criminal charge, and a decision by a magistrate about what the man (or woman) in the street would think reasonable, are a last resort.

Thanks, that's interesting.