Charles Holland

Was 10 Downing Street really a rule-free zone when it came to the coronavirus regulations, the laws which have governed our lives to varying extents since the pandemic first erupted? Steven Barrett writing on Coffee House, says that it was: 'the regulations almost certainly never applied to No. 10 anyway,' he argues. I'm not convinced. Why? Because the so-called 'restrictions on gatherings' were restrictions that applied to individuals wherever they were, including on Crown land. It's true that there is such a thing as a 'Crown exemption rule'. In short, an Act of Parliament doesn't bind the Crown unless there is an express provision saying so or an obvious implication that it applies.

When Boris Johnson rolled back the legal restrictions over summer as Britain emerged from the first lockdown, he was clear that enough was enough: 'Neither the police themselves, nor the public that they serve, want virtually every aspect of our behaviour to be the subject of the criminal law...After a long period of asking…the British public, to follow very strict and complex rules to bring coronavirus under control…we will be asking [people] to follow guidance on limiting their social contact, rather than forcing them to do so through legislation'. Alas (as Boris Johnson keeps saying), trust in people doing the right thing voluntarily, rather than under legal obligation, turned out to be short-lived.  Pressure from enforcement agencies played a part.