header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 September 2020
Issue: 7904 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Constitutional law , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Row brewing over Coronavirus Act

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Coalition of civil rights groups call for Act to be scrapped
Human rights group Liberty has called on MPs to repeal the Coronavirus Act as it endangers civil liberties, ahead of a parliamentary vote on renewal.

The Act, which was passed in March, gives the government sweeping powers to respond to the pandemic. However, these powers were time-limited, and require the approval of MPs this week to be renewed.

Up to 80 Conservative MPs reportedly supported Sir Graham Brady MP’s attempt to table an amendment this week that would have given the Commons a vote on further pandemic restrictions. 

Labour were considering whether to support the amendment or table their own. Martha Spurrier, barrister and director of Liberty, writing in The Guardian this week, called the Act ‘the biggest restriction on civil liberties in a generation’. She highlighted the power given by the Act to the police to detain any suspected infectious person, which was ‘so broad it invites misuse’. Monthly Crown Prosecution Service reviews of the power had concluded all 44 suspected infectious people detained between March and May were wrongly charged.

Spurrier warned the Act allows government to postpone elections and close borders and, while it has been reported that it will lapse after two years, ‘read it carefully and you’ll see that any part of it can be extended for a further six months—with indefinite renewals possible, without prior parliamentary approval’.

Liberty was part of a coalition of 20 human rights groups, including Justice, Big Brother Watch and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, urging MPs to scrap the Act. In a joint statement, they said the Act ‘weakens social care safeguards, leaving people without vital support. It removes protections for people experiencing mental health crises. It has created unworkable police powers that have been disproportionately used against people of colour. It threatens our fundamental right to protest’.

The 329-page Act contains a wide range of powers to stem the pandemic, including powers to restrict or prohibit public gatherings, including political protests. It suspends local authorities’ legal duty to meet people’s care needs, and removes the requirement for two doctors to sign off detention of a patient under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Issue: 7904 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Constitutional law , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll