Northamptonshire Police Chief Constable Nick Adderley threatens to ramp up police response to Coranavirus

[YangShanPo]

www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/coronavirus-police-could-start-searching-shopping-trolleys-as-people-continue-to-flout-lockdown/ar-BB12ns13

I realise this is an individual chief constable and he doesn't speak for the entire police policy but what is he on about with this 'grace period' and how can they plan to target shoppers rather than clamp down on what can be sold. He also says;

“So the nuances and the interpretation is really ambiguous – that’s why I’m saying to officers, use your common sense, use your discretion. I think the guidance could be even clearer, but it’s where do you draw the line

Speaking about the new approach, Adderley said: "These are not guidelines anymore. This is the law.”

So what does that mean the law is down to the common sense of the officer you happen to meet?

Have you seen the video about English common law ? Unless something is permitted it's allowed. So no law has been passed to list the essential items we are allowed to purchase so given the absence of such a list, we can shop for whatever we like. The definition of exercise has not been legally defined. Perhaps it needs to be.

• NOT permitted arghhh

This annoys the fuck out of me.

On day one of lockdown the local police were doing bag checks outside one of the supermarkets and proclaiming whether the contents met their unwritten definition of essential or not.

I have yet to see a list from the govt of acceptable foods and non acceptable foods so the police are making it up as they go along. So I don’t see how they can say “it’s the law”. Are they really going to fine someone for buying a cake? What if they’ve bought milk and a cake? Is that allowed?

If some food stuffs are illegal how come the supermarkets can still sell them?

And yes before anyone says I do agree it would be sensible if people didn’t pop to the shops frequently for bits and bobs of non essential stuff. So I’ve wanted chocolate for 2 days, haven’t even gone 20 second walk to the corner shop as I’m being sensible. Today I need bread so I will get bread and chocolate. But I’d be fuming if I was fined for doing so.

Wow Vive - hadn't heard of that. I had to get an urgent prescription from sainsburys yesterday. Whilst there I grabbed some card and easter eggs (oh and milk). Wonder what they would have thought of me!!

Give them an inch and they take a mile 🙄

I hope the policeman that searches my trolley is slim, if not I will berate them for eating non-essential quantities of food

Police haven’t covered themselves in glory throughout this. I’ve been a bit shocked by them.

Just saw this and was pretty horrified - surely if the shop is selling it, you can buy it? If the police have a problem with people buying an item, they should take it up with the shop itself. Buying from shops helps the economy, and little treats help people accept lockdown more easily.

@ChrissieKeller61

Your interpretation of the common law is wrong on every level.

Courts can and do interpret statute law (ie Acts of Parliament) day in day out. That is the very essence of the common law.

Here, it is the Court that we have the final word and it is ultimately a question of whether they agree with the interpretation adopted by the police.

All that said, I think the police are doing a truly exceptional job in awful circumstances.

I don't doubt it, I'm not a lawyer.
Clarification would be helpful though, agreed ?

Under English law you are free to do anything that is not against the law. Where the law is vague and uses words like 'essential' or 'reasonable,' it would ultimately be a matter for a jury to exercise circular logic: Something is reasonable if a reasonable person thinks it is, and a reasonable person is someone who thinks that something reasonable is not unreasonable.

Before it gets to a court, the police are entitled to make arbitrary interpretations, provided they make these clear and enforce them fairly and equally.

The news report I saw on twitter was accompanied by a photo of a beach. Northamptonshire is about as far as you can get from a beach in the UK.

@Balhammom,Glad you think the Police are doing a good job!! They certainly aren’t where I live!

I could write a book on their appalling handling of this situation.I have zero respect for them now,not that I had much in the first place.

Silly to police what people are buying once in the shops.
Far better to police the number of times people actually GO to the shops.
Who is posing the greater risk - the once a weeker who leaves with all their essentials plus a Cadbury creme egg a day, or the daily visitor buying a tiny carton of milk and a single creme egg, meaning a few visits a week?
If it's on the shelf and not roped off, then it should be available for once a week purchase. Maybe those things they deem as inessential should only be sold with 15 items from the essential list. Or some such formula.

Perhaps they'll set up ANPR outside Northants supermarkets, you ping the ANPR more than once a week, you're only allowed to buy porridge oats and Brussels sprouts. 😀

@MockersxxxxxxxSocialDistancing

That’s broadly right. However, none of these cases will go before a jury - they’ll be tried by Magistrates.

It is also only a question of reasonableness if the wording of the relevant Act identifies reasonableness as the appropriate test (ie if it expressly prohibits anyone leaving home without “reasonable” basis). Otherwise, the Court is effectively required to resolve any ambiguity by asking itself what the lawmaker (ie Parliament) would have intended. That’s not always an easy task. Hence, I’d expect a lot of the first round of convictions under this legislation to be taken to appeal.

The police can only legally enforce what the law says. Government guidelines are not law. The coronavirus law enacted a few weeks ago does not specify what is 'essential' when it comes to shopping. (It also does not specify one period of exercise a day, and only for a hour (in England)).
If a policeman asked to examine my bags he would be given short shrift as he has not been given that right by the law. I am horrified at how some police forces appear to be reacting with glee to their new found powers. I do wonder how much other crime is being ignored. I am a retired police officer btw, so I am not anti police, just anti unwanted officiousness.

Courts can and do interpret statute law (ie Acts of Parliament) day in day out. That is the very essence of the common law.

All legal systems interpret statute, it's just that common law regards (senior) judges' decisions in terms of ambiguities (which are present in all statutes) as binding on subsequent decisions, whereas that's absent or less important in other legal systems.

@longearedbat

Police do have a right to search your bags as a matter of law. So long as they have (eg) reasonable grounds to believe you may have committed an offence.

Also the Act does include examples of the circumstances in which it is likely to be lawful to leave your home. That allows a Court to interpret whether any other reasons for leaving home are lawful or unlawful. It is therefore entirely possible that a court could determine that leaving to exercise (eg) twice in one day is unlawful. The police are entitled to take legal advice and proceed on the basis of how they would expect the Courts to interpret the Act.

I'm very tired and have just finished a set of shifts where I'm working with only half a team and no back up and lots of other issues. Of our shift, 2 were attacked this set out of 9 of us while trying to do our job. Demand is increasing, domestics and mental health jobs are going up, deaths and death messages have to be attended and sorted.

I don't want to leave my children to go into work where we are dealing with no ppe, and no support from the management of the public.

No one on my team is fining anyone, we are asking the questions about what people are doing in the vain hope that people other than the utter saints on here are going to start using their common sense and abiding by the guidelines. The legislation such as it is written is a fucking mess, it is weak and contradictory.

I've had to update who my next of kin is, write a will and check my life insurance and death in service benefits for my kids.

But hey, all the police are is a bunch of bullies who get off on telling people what to do

@Fenellapitstop

Thank you. While the local criminals and other vocal minorities will moan, please have no doubt that the vast majority of law abiding people respect you guys and are grateful for you putting yourselves in harms way to protect us.

And yes... this legislation is absolutely dreadfully written! I have taught first year law undergrads who could probably have done better...

You're welcome, our morale is through the floor

So if the police make their own interpretation and end up arresting someone for a breach. If it ultimately goes to court and the court finds in favour of the individual I assume that person can sue for wrongful arrest?

of law. So long as they have (eg) reasonable grounds to believe you may have committed an offence.

But if the statute doesn’t say you’re only allowed to buy (eg) bread and milk how can the police think anyone coming out a supermarket which is legally selling stuff has committed an offence?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for breaking up picnics, parties, bbqs, etc and even fining the idiots. But carrying out bag searches is bonkers.

@Viva

No - the thresholds for an individual being found not guilty and for wrongful arrest are, quite rightly, distinct.

Many of those prosecuted will be found NG, simply because the law is ambiguous or due to a lack of evidence.

However, for wrongful arrest, the police must have acted completely unreasonably.