Issued COVID FPN by a police officer

[CanAm]

Pit Pony said:

My wife has a pain in her foot. She's desperate to see the sea. If I drive 1 mile, she will have too far to walk through woods and sand dunes to get to the sea. If I drive 5 miles, I can park 20 yards from a sea wall with 100 iron statues on the beach, and she can get out and hobble to see the sea. It's barely exercise but is it local enough?

Don't drive to Southport then.

[FNG]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

There's so much legislation to know and it changes. You can't know everything and understand the points to prove. It's a nightmare. Just when a response officer 'knows' his/her legislation they move on/upwards or into a specialist role.

Think about it- would you know everything from traffic, offences against the man, drugs offences, various other PACE, common law AND Covid?

The officer isn't thick. Would you know it? Yes it's best to know covid legislation but when you might come across it once in a month and you have case files, everything else to manage wheres the time?

What else is there to manage? Crime must be through the floor. I would wager the majority of what's occupying the average officer's time at the moment (if they have time to stop 'offenders' and issue FPNs, at least) is Covid related - so they ought to be right on top of the legislation so that they can enforce it. Accurately.

[Funk]

Cold said:

Stop quoting the guidance. It means nothing. You need the legislation.

BV has a sticky: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

But as a 'normal member of the public' I would expect the guidance to be the 'idiot's guide' to the law; I wouldn't even begin to try and navigate my way through the legislation site (indeed, I wouldn't even think to look there as a NMoP).. To have the guidance not reflecting the legal requirement is just stupid; most regular folks will look to the Government's published guidance for....well, guidance.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 25th February 12:53

[Roger Irrelevant]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

There's so much legislation to know and it changes. You can't know everything and understand the points to prove. It's a nightmare. Just when a response officer 'knows' his/her legislation they move on/upwards or into a specialist role.

Think about it- would you know everything from traffic, offences against the man, drugs offences, various other PACE, common law AND Covid?

The officer isn't thick. Would you know it? Yes it's best to know covid legislation but when you might come across it once in a month and you have case files, everything else to manage wheres the time?

This is something that I really respect the police for actually. I am a lawyer but even I don't know every detail of the law as it relates to just my specialist area of practice, at least off the top of my head. For the police to know all the law relating to every offence that they might come across in a day's work...completely impossible. That being said, when it comes to interfering with somebody's liberty to the extent that you're booking them for undertaking an activity as mundane as going for a walk with a friend, I think it's fair to expect the police to be very sure of what they're doing.

[Gooly]

The_Nugget said:

From the OPs update it seems the issue here is not whether or not you are legally allowed to exercise with someone from another household (you are). Or even if you need to do that locally (you don’t, necessarily).

The issue is that the officer appears to not believe that the OP (at the time of the offence) was exercising with their ‘buddy.’

The OP hasn’t provided specifics but imagine this scenario:
Buddies arrive independently to meet for a walk.
Buddies have walk and arrive back at vehicles.
All legal.
Buddies spend half an hour in the car park discussing cars, taking photos of cars, etc - the half an hour is possibly illegal.

Office issues FPN - possibly correctly.

Ultimately OP, without exact details, which you said you won’t give, any opinion offered here is speculation.

This is fair - to be honest I'm not really seeking advice on whether or not to proceed as it would be speculation as you say, but more in terms of if there are relevant timeframes with the serving of the FPN and what my 'exposure' would be were I to lose in court. Another thing is how soon I'd even get a hearing? I still haven't received any FPN paperwork in the post either and I'm not sure if / when I should chase.

croyde said:

If the officer was so proud of ticketing a women who hadn't left the house in 6 weeks, it sounds like she's a bully and a .

OP, I take it you were in that Ghost Town formerly called central London.

I'm about 8 miles from central, I quite fancied a hike around there but it seems it's not a good idea.

I'll keep going to where the police don't like getting their shiny boots all muddy.

I was, and yes was a good day out and refreshing to see (and pleasantly pollution / crowd free compared to most areas of zone 2 / 3) but absolutely crawling with police presence. Not seen London like that even during periods of protest / riot / high terror threat. The officers who dealt with me were from a dedicated COVID taskforce.

The officer who issued my FPN was indeed quite unpleasant and deeply sanctimonious. I remained polite but doing so was a challenge.

Smiljan said:

When issued with one of these FPNs what kind of on the spot notice do you get? Do they fill out a form? Give you reference number? Text?

The OP is concerned the FPN may not get posted and doesn’t know if it’s been issued for sure or not, is there nothing you get on the spot?

Good luck with your case OP I’ll keep an eye on the thread and see how you get on.

Thanks for the well wishes - the officer took my details on a tablet and said I would get something in the post within 14 days. I did not sign anything or receive any sort of paperwork. No advice was given in terms of what happens if it didn't arrive (I should have asked) however she did advise that if I did not pay and did not respond to further communication I would run the risk of becoming wanted for non-payment, which I believe would only happen if it went to court and I did not pay any subsequent fines.

Durzel said:

I guess it speaks to the wider question of what is exercise?

For some super active people going for a walk isn't exercise, they need to be doing mini marathons. For clinically obese people just getting some fresh air and moving around a bit might be considered exercise, relative to their current mobility.

Who is anyone to define exactly what exercise is, when everyone is different? Can it be objectively defined? Dictionary.com defines it simply as "physical exertion". Just moving your limbs requires physical exertion.

When does "exercise" begin and end? if I'm out for a brisk walk and I briefly stop to take a photo, have I stopped "exercising"? I'd suggest not. Maybe I might do some deep breathing exercises while I'm taking photos, as is my want.

Common sense needs to prevail with this stuff, and on the face of it I would echo the comments above about the cop apparently gleefully pointing out that she ticketed someone who hadn't left the house for 6 weeks, like it was a merit badge or something.

Exactly my thoughts.

Hugo Stiglitz said:

There's so much legislation to know and it changes. You can't know everything and understand the points to prove. It's a nightmare. Just when a response officer 'knows' his/her legislation they move on/upwards or into a specialist role.

Think about it- would you know everything from traffic, offences against the man, drugs offences, various other PACE, common law AND Covid?

The officer isn't thick. Would you know it? Yes it's best to know covid legislation but when you might come across it once in a month and you have case files, everything else to manage wheres the time?

I'm sorry but if you have the time to learn guidance, you have the time to learn legislation, especially in times like these where it is one of the most likely offences you will encounter as a police officer. To argue that it is unreasonable for a Met police officer to not know the basic COVID legislation is like saying we shouldn't expect traffic officers to know what the legal tread depth limit is for tyres. I work with legislation and enforcing said legislation in my job, I know how it is, but the distinction between legislation and guidance is not a complex one. I'm not expected to know everything, but I am expected to have a reasonable understanding of the purpose of legislation in relation to my field and crucially, I'm expected to know the basics. COVID legislation, whether or not one can leave their house and under what conditions is basic stuff.

I disagree with your last paragraph too - there is not knowing, and then there is refusing to listen, learn or act in a way that is pragmatic or reasonable. She did not come across to me as competent or intelligent to be completely honest and she fell far short of my impression of the Met.

Edited by Gooly on Thursday 25th February 13:19

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Roger Irrelevant said:

Hugo Stiglitz said:

There's so much legislation to know and it changes. You can't know everything and understand the points to prove. It's a nightmare. Just when a response officer 'knows' his/her legislation they move on/upwards or into a specialist role.

Think about it- would you know everything from traffic, offences against the man, drugs offences, various other PACE, common law AND Covid?

The officer isn't thick. Would you know it? Yes it's best to know covid legislation but when you might come across it once in a month and you have case files, everything else to manage wheres the time?

This is something that I really respect the police for actually. I am a lawyer but even I don't know every detail of the law as it relates to just my specialist area of practice, at least off the top of my head. For the police to know all the law relating to every offence that they might come across in a day's work...completely impossible. That being said, when it comes to interfering with somebody's liberty to the extent that you're booking them for undertaking an activity as mundane as going for a walk with a friend, I think it's fair to expect the police to be very sure of what they're doing.

That's the problem as well, you can't refer to PNLD or gov etc in the moment!

[Hugo Stiglitz]

When officers can't remember the last time that they ate food in a 10+ shift or used the toilet with colleagues off self isolating there's always chance to keep back and get up to date isn't there.

[CanAm]

Gooly said:

I'm sorry but if you have the time to learn guidance, you have the time to learn legislation, especially in times like these where it is one of the most likely offences you will encounter as a police officer. To argue that it is unreasonable for a Met police officer to not know the basic COVID legislation is like saying we shouldn't expect traffic officers to know what the legal tread depth limit is for tyres. I work with legislation and enforcing said legislation in my job, I know how it is, but the distinction between legislation and guidance is not a complex one. I'm not expected to know everything, but I am expected to have a reasonable understanding of the purpose of legislation in relation to my field and crucially, I'm expected to know the basics. COVID legislation, whether or not one can leave their house and under what conditions is basic stuff.

I disagree with your last paragraph too - there is not knowing, and then there is refusing to listen, learn or act in a way that is pragmatic or reasonable. She did not come across to me as competent or intelligent to be completely honest and she fell far short of my impression of the Met.

PH'er Dibble recently posted a copy of "clarifications" that the National Police Chiefs' Council had issued to forces (following the Derbyshire debacle?) so there is no excuse for not knowing the legislation and how it is to be enforced. Unfortunately it was on the Covid thread that got deleted and I didn't keep a copy.

Good luck Gooly.

[Pumpkinz]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

There's so much legislation to know and it changes. You can't know everything and understand the points to prove. It's a nightmare. Just when a response officer 'knows' his/her legislation they move on/upwards or into a specialist role.

Think about it- would you know everything from traffic, offences against the man, drugs offences, various other PACE, common law AND Covid?

The officer isn't thick. Would you know it? Yes it's best to know covid legislation but when you might come across it once in a month and you have case files, everything else to manage wheres the time?

Nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

I expect someone in such a role to have just about enough grey cells to be aware of (reaching for my inner Donald Rumsfeld) their known unknowns. Smart people know what they don't know, and don't make assumptions.

I'm an ADI. I get asked many random and obscure questions by students about various road and traffic legalities. I know what I know and know what I don't. If I don't know the answer, I don't make it up. If I were to give a badly incorrect answer on my standards check, I would fail it. I expect the same standard and better from well paid public servants, whose very job it is to know about this stuff.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Pumpkinz said:

Nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

I expect someone in such a role to have just about enough grey cells to be aware of (reaching for my inner Donald Rumsfeld) their known unknowns. Smart people know what they don't know, and don't make assumptions.

I'm an ADI. I get asked many random and obscure questions by students about various road and traffic legalities. I know what I know and know what I don't. If I don't know the answer, I don't make it up. If I were to give a badly incorrect answer on my standards check, I would fail it. I expect the same standard and better from well paid public servants, whose very job it is to know about this stuff.

With respect your job is very narrow and specialised.

It's also disrespectful to say 'make it up' when in reality it's best intention and a mistake.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz on Thursday 25th February 13:53

[FNG]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pumpkinz said:

Nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

I expect someone in such a role to have just about enough grey cells to be aware of (reaching for my inner Donald Rumsfeld) their known unknowns. Smart people know what they don't know, and don't make assumptions.

I'm an ADI. I get asked many random and obscure questions by students about various road and traffic legalities. I know what I know and know what I don't. If I don't know the answer, I don't make it up. If I were to give a badly incorrect answer on my standards check, I would fail it. I expect the same standard and better from well paid public servants, whose very job it is to know about this stuff.

With respect your job is very narrow and specialised.

It's also disrespectful to say 'make it up' when in reality it's best intention and a mistake.

Trying to enforce a piece of legislation with best intention but getting it wrong is 'a mistake'.

Trying to enforce guidelines isn't 'a mistake', it's operating outside the police's remit and that shouldn't happen at all, let alone by mistake.

Moreover after the amount of coverage about this, it shouldn't still be happening.

Especially by, as the OP indicates, a dedicated Covid squad.

[Pegscratch]

aka_kerrly said:

Lockdown rules said you cannot mix with people not from your household.
The evidence , you 3 miles from your house with someone NOT from your house

Pretty dam simple isn't it.

Not exactly, ficko.

Government Guidance said:

Leaving home
You must not leave, or be outside of your home except where necessary. You may leave the home to:
...
exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person

Back to Mumsnet you go, Karen...

[Pegscratch]

aka_kerrly said:

Ilovejapcrap said:

aka_kerrly said:

Gooly said:

A police officer issued a COVID FPN to me 11 days ago whilst I was on a walk with someone not from my household 3 miles from my house.


What burden of proof or evidence would I require? Should I enlist a witness?

Edited by Gooly on Wednesday 24th February 19:03

Lockdown rules said you cannot mix with people not from your household.
The evidence , you 3 miles from your house with someone NOT from your house

Pretty dam simple isn't it.

Unless you live alone and they are your bubble

Exactly, if he explained that to the officer then he wouldn't have got a ticket so the likelihood is he doesn't live alone and the person he was with is not a support bubble hence he got a fine.

Stop digging, no matter how wrong you try to persuade yourself you aren't, the law makes no such statement - you can exercise with one other person with no restriction on whether you are in a household with others or not.

[Pegscratch]

aka_kerrly said:

FFS I'm approaching this from the point of view of the officer issuing the fine . If the police have been told to go out an enforce guidance/rules then it's highly likely that they asked the OP a few questions an the answers he gave fit within their GUIDEANCE OR LAW OR RULES to issue the ticket.

Are you the officer issuing the (incorrectly issued, at face value) fine?

[Ian Geary]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

When officers can't remember the last time that they ate food in a 10+ shift or used the toilet with colleagues off self isolating there's always chance to keep back and get up to date isn't there.

I don't think it's the OP's concern if the police feel too busy to feed themselves or use the toilet. With the power they have been given to wield, there's no excuse for them not to know fundamentals around the law. These aren't even good excuses.

And busy doing what? The dedicated covid taskforce described seems a complete non job, especially if the stats of covid prosecutions are anything to go by.

I do wonder to what extent the police will give up their new found powers...i think there's a percentage of them who will be sad to see them go. Much like the doctor's receptionist who "decides" who is ill enough to see a doctor.

[Pegscratch]

Bigends said:

This is a High profile offence which has been in place for some time now. Officers dont need to know / memorise the whole act - but should be up to speed on the parts theyre most likely to come across by now.
Unless they were sent to the OP's as a result of a call - then the officer initiated the contact here and should be familiar with the legislation before accusing him of committing the offence

Edited by Bigends on Thursday 25th February 12:46

This 100000%

If you're going to actively hunt someone down for an offence, when there have been several fairly high profile instances of this stuff NOT BEING an offence, you want to be bulletproof on your knowledge of why it is an offence.

[Pegscratch]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

It's also disrespectful to say 'make it up' when in reality it's best intention and a mistake.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz on Thursday 25th February 13:53

It was made up. No matter what your intentions, lies and bull are lies and bull.

[Pegscratch]

Ian Geary said:

I don't think it's the OP's concern if the police feel too busy to feed themselves or use the toilet. With the power they have been given to wield, there's no excuse for them not to know fundamentals around the law. These aren't even good excuses.

Nope. I have sympathy with anyone (not just public servants - shock, horror all of you, many people not just those in the police and the NHS have been asked extraordinary things!) who has been put under immense pressure through these challenging times. Making stuff up because it suits you isn't the way to deal with it.

"Hello there sir, can I ask what you're up to?"
"Certainly, but can I know why?"
"We're just trying to make sure that people are following the relevant laws during these challenging times"
"Fair enough; I'm just out for a walk with my mate, get some exercise in - we're just having a couple of seconds to stop for a moment and we'll be on our way"
"Excellent, thank you for being responsible and following the law"

Not rocket science, especially after at least two high profile cases of police officers overreaching.

[Chicken Chaser]

OP, are you going to contest it? It does sound like you have a reasonable defence given the circumstances that you have described.

[Pegscratch]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Then it was likely issued incorrectly and will be quashed before it gets to court, or at court. The law makes no mention of how far you can travel and 10 miles certainly isn't travelling the length of the country to do so.