Now online. Coronavirus police powers and duties talks. 20 March.

Written by: Elliot Gold
Published: 13 March 2020

The Coronavirus Bill was published on Thursday 19 March 2020: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0122/20122.pdf. It is likely to become law on Monday 23 March 2020.

The Bill, at sch 20, pt 2, para 24(1), revokes (and replaces) the very recent Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/129).

On 20 March 2020, Dijen Basu QC, David Lawson and Elliot Gold recorded video seminars on new and existing police powers, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, police organisation and collaboration and the duty of care to officers, police staff and members of the public arising from the Coronavirus emergency.

Below are links to the seminars:-

Dijen Basu QC speaks about the police powers in the Coronavirus Bill 2020 – schedules 20 and 21.

Elliot Gold speaks about the police collaboration, mutual aid, increasing police numbers and resilience.

Dijen Basu QC speaks about the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

David Lawson gives an overview of the Coronavirus Bill 2020.

There is also a private link for the questions and answers sessions that we recorded, dealing with questions that people emailed to us. Please contact events@serjeantsinn.com for further details.

Police Regulations 2003. Annexes C, F, I, J, L, R, S, UU. 31.1.12

Written by: Elliot Gold
Published: 11 March 2020

Home Office circular 005/2012. Amendments to determinations under the Police Regulations 2003.

Annex C

Reckoning service during maternity leave: this substitution shall have effect from 5 October 2008.

Annex F

Pay on promotion: this substitution shall have effect from 1 February 2012.

Annex I

Temporary salary: this substitution shall have effect from 1 February 2012.

Annex J

Temporary promotion: this substitution shall have effect from 1 February 2012.

Annex L

Maternity pay: this substitution shall have effect from 1 February 2012.

Annex R

Maternity leave and adoption leave: part 1 of the new annex R shall have effect from 5 October 2008, part 2 of the new annex R shall have effect from 1 September 2006 and part 3 of the new annex R shall have effect from 1 January 2011.

Annex S

Maternity support leave, adoption support leave and parental leave: this substitution shall have effect from 1 September 2006.

Annex UU

Acting up allowance: this substitution shall have effect from 1 February 2012.

Forced Marriage Protection Orders – the approach to take

Written by: Elizabeth Fox
Published: 5 March 2020

Applications for forced marriage protection orders (“FMPO”s) made pursuant to s.63A of the Family Law Act 1996 are on the rise: in 2018, the government’s Forced Marriage Unit provided advice or support in 1,764 possible forced marriage cases; a significant increase from the following 1200-1400 cases in 2017. Also in 2018, Family Court statistics indicate that 322 applications were made and 324 orders granted. Despite applications being made by police, who must seek leave to make such an application under s.63C(3) of the Family Law Act 1996, and local authorities, the legislation itself does not provide clear guidance as to how the court should deal with such applications. The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has now done so in Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order)[2020] EWCA Civ 190.

Police liability for damage caused by a third party: act or omission?

Written by: Cecily White
Published: 2 March 2020

In Chief Constable of Essex Police v Transport Arendonk Bvba [2020] EWHC 212 (QB), the High Court (Laing J) refused to strike out a claim in negligence, against the police, where the driver of a lorry carrying cargo had been arrested for drink-driving, and the cargo had been stolen during the driver’s detention at the police station. It demonstrates the continued difficulty to identify what is a police “act” or “omission” – and what amounts to the police causing a state of danger, giving rise to liability.

No bright line between private and public tweeting for professional misconduct

Written by: Elliot Gold
Published: 29 February 2020

It is possible for the social media activity of professionals to amount to professional misconduct, even if seemingly made in a personal capacity and where freedom of speech is claimed. The case of Diggins v Bar Standards Board [2020] EWHC 467 (Admin), holds that there is no “bright line” between conduct that falls within the private realm as opposed to that which is sufficiently public to engage a professional disciplinary jurisdiction. It is sometimes argued in police misconduct hearings that private social-media behaviour of officers falls outwith professional misconduct – that might be the case on particular facts but the instant case shows that this is not necessarily so.