 |
| Barnard Castle |
This previous post looked at the Dominic Cummings situation on the basis of what was in the public domain on the morning of 25 May. The post looked at the law and the guidance as they stood in late March and early April when Mr Cummings, together with his wife and son, travelled from their London home to his father's farm in County Durham.
The question in law was whether, at the time he left the London home, Mr Cummings had a reasonable excuse to do so.
The guidance required people to stay at home if anyone in the household had symptoms of coronavirus but, if living with children, the guidance added that they had to do their best to follow the guidance.
Statement 25 May:
On the afternoon of 25 May, at the request of the Prime Minister, Mr Cummings
made a detailed statement from the garden of No.10 Downing Street and also answered questions put by representatives of the media. The event may be viewed at Sky News 25 May. or at BBC News 26 May. Mr Cummings emphasised that he was explaining his own actions and thinking and was not speaking for the government or the Prime Minister.
The statement appears to have been carefully crafted to seek to explain all his activities from 27 March to 13 April. Key points in the statement appear to be:
Friday 27 March - Mrs Cummings was taken ill - (she had vomited and felt she might pass out) - and Mr Cummings left work to see her at home where she was with their 4-year old child. Mrs Cummings improved and Mr Cummings returned to work. That evening he discussed the situation with his wife and they decided to drive to County Durham. They arrived at his father's farm around midnight. He said that he did not stop on the way.
Mr Cummings explained that he had been working near to others who had developed coronavirus synptoms and he thought that there was a "distinct probability" that he might have contracted the disease.
His reason for leaving the London home was that there was nobody in London they could reasonably ask to mind the child and expose themselves to Covid if he and his wife became unable to do so. Nieces (aged 17 and 20) in County Durham had offered to care for the child if necessary.
Discussions were on-going within government about testing of staff for Covid. It was not available to Advisers on 27 March but there was a possibility that it might be introduced. (Mr Cummings said that it was not introduced and that he had not been tested for Covid),
Mr Cummings also referred to media reports which had created a "bad atmosphere" around his home. The media reports included stories that he had opposed the lockdown (he said he had not) and that he did not care about the deaths caused by Covid (he said that was untrue). Mr Cummings said that he had warned of the dangers of pandemics and the need for planning to handle them.
Pictures of his London home had been shown on television, threats had been shouted outside his home, and posts on social media had encouraged attacks. He worried for the safety of his wife and child if he was out at work.
In these circumstances they thought it best to drive the 270 miles (approx) to County Durham and to stay in an isolated cottage on his father's farm.
On Saturday 28th March, both he and his wife were ill. Later, Mrs Cummings' health improved but he got worse.
On Thursday 2 April, the child was ill (sickness and fever) and was taken by ambulance to hospital. Mrs Cummings went with the child.
On 3 April, the child was fit to be discharged from hospital and return to the farm and so Mr Cummings drove to the hospital to pick him up. He made no contact with anyone else. The child did not have coronavirus. No taxis were available.
By 11 April, he felt exhausted but his health was improving and he sought medical advice about returning to work. He was told that it was safe to return and seek childcare. (Mr Cummings did not indicate whether the medical advice related in any way to eyesight).
On 12 April (Easter Sunday) - Mr Cummings said that he had decided to return to work but his wife was very worried given that his "eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease." She didn't want to "to risk a nearly 300-mile drive with our child, given how ill I had been." Cummings then said - "We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely. We drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town. We did not visit the castle. We did not walk around the town. We parked by a river. My wife and I discussed the situation. We agreed that I could drive safely, we should turn around, go home."
This is an interesting part of the statement because at no point did Cummings say "I drove". The phrasing is in terms of "We" decided" or "We agreed" etc.
On 13 April, he continued to improve and they returned to London that evening. He returned to work on 14 April.
Mr Cummings denied that he had made any further visits to the north-east and, in particular, denied that he was there on 19 April. He said that it could be proved that he was in London on that date.
Mr Cummings declined to make any apology for what he had done but he recognised the difficulties that many others had endured in the lockdown. He claimed to have acted reasonably and legally.
Leaving London:
The Regulations required a reasonable excuse to leave the London home. Mr Cummings explained his position - his own fear that he might have the disease, his wife being ill on 27 March, that there was nobody in London at that time who could reasonably be asked to care for the child, the offer from his nieces to do so. He described the threats and the atmosphere around his home.
The question for a court would be whether that amounted to a reasonable excuse to leave the London home on 27 March. The test is an objective one. It is not what Mr Cummings thought to be reasonable. A court would consider the resources and support available in London to the family. The assertion that there was nobody in London who could help would be examined. A court would also wish to know what arrangements could have been made by the Prime Minister's Office (where Mr Cummings worked) to help the families of staff members? It would also consider whether the Police or security had been contacted about the threats and, if so, what the response had been.
The guidance at the time was clear in requiring people to stay at home if someone in the household was infected. The account given by Mr Cummings indicates that it was Mrs Cummings who first showed symptoms. The guidance therefore was that he should stay at home for 14 days. However, the guidance also included the section "If you are living with children." This recognised that adhering to all the measures may not be possible but also stated that it is important that you do your best to follow this guidance.
Barnard Castle:
A question arises as to whether there was a "reasonable excuse" to leave the farm where Mr Cummings was living. At the time there were concerns within the family about his fitness to drive and his eyesight. They decided to see if he was fit to drive back to London and so, on 12 April, they went on a drive and reached Barnard Castle. This does not appear to fit within any of the reasonable excuses listed in Regulation 6 though that list is not exhaustive and so other excuses could be raised. You will no doubt form your own view about this. Update 28 May - Durham Police investigated the matter. The Police statement issued on 27 March sets out their conclusion that - "... there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention."
12 April was past the 14 days isolation period required by the guidance applicable to those who had symptoms. (They arrived at the farm on 27 March. By 11 April, 14 clear days had passed) - Covid-19: guidance for households with possible coronavirus infection.
The Stay at Home guidance at the time began - "The single most important action we can all take, in fighting coronavirus, is to stay at home in order to protect the NHS and save lives." The guidance continued to say - "You should only leave or be away from your home for very limited purposes" and then described the purposes. The drive to Barnard Castle does not appear to be permissible within this guidance.
Media:
It may be that the matter will disappear on the basis of "a week is a long time in politics" (Harold Wilson) but public anger at this matter has been considerable and, at the time of writing, one Minister has resigned from government (Mr Douglas Ross MP - who was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
Many families have endured true hardship during the lockdown including being unable to say a last goodbye to a dying relative or to attend a funeral. Others have lost their employment or are at risk of doing so. Many observed the "Stay at Home" guidance and did not travel to see relatives.
The Cummings story has also been a huge diversion from matters that ought to have received their own prominence such as the Sunday Times article of 24 May - Three weeks of dither and delay on coronavirus that cost thousands of British lives and other matters such as the deaths per million in the UK being among the highest in the world at 543.76 on 26 May - see Our World in Data - and the on-going problems with testing and tracing. Then there are the concerns about the impact to the infection rate of the return (for many) to work from 11 May and the plans to reopen schools and shops in June.
Such stories raise serious questions about the government's response to coronavirus. One day the questions must be answered and the questions about Mr Cummings' and his trip to the north-east are unlikely to disappear entirely.
Update 28 May 2020:
Durham Police Statement - "Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing." And later, "Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision."
No comments:
Post a Comment