header-logo header-logo

Row brewing over Coronavirus Act

29 September 2020
Issue: 7904 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Constitutional law , Human rights
printer mail-detail
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.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll