#careforlife

The latest version of the Coronavirus regulations provides at Regulation 7(1)(b) a prohibition on what people can do in private.

They can't do anything, unless from the same household.

This new regulation has not been passed by parliament!

It has not been scrutinised!

It was not published in draft!

It was just imposed on Sunday afternoon without any announcement.

The new prohibition is counter to the cherished principle (ie polite fiction) of English law that a person's home is their castle.

It is practically unenforceable!

The police have effectively said they will not enforce it.

And it is manifestly daft law.

One of the exceptions is "work" - so a visit from an escort is permissible but not from a partner - even to one you are married or engaged - if they happen to live elsewhere!

But it is more than daft, badly drafted law.

It is fundamentally, dangerously illiberal.

And to explain why, let us go back to 1885.

In 1885 a Bill was going through parliament:

Late at night, without anyone especially noticing, this general criminal law bill was amended to criminalise gross indecency in public - and in private.

No real debate.

This was the notorious Labouchere Amendment - you can read about it here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboucher…

The "and private" part of the law law, in effect, criminalised all homosexual activity for men!

So slight, but so devastating for 80 years.

This was the law under which Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing were prosecuted, as well as thousands of less known men.

The point is that the change which prohibited "private" activity was done so easily and without announcement or even much notice at the time.

Laws which purport to criminalise activity in private - any activity - should not be lightly made.

They should have parliamentary scrutiny and safeguards.

But on Sunday last, it was done with a silent shrug.

If the Human Rights Act, which gives effect to Article 8 (privacy) of ECHR had an ounce of the effect its opponents say it has then such wholesale prohibitions for what happens in private would not be possible so easily.

So easily can fundamental rights be undermined

We are fortunate that this was done with a daft dud of a law which will not have much if any impact.

But we may not be so lucky next time!!!!

Casually made prohibitions can have lasting impacts!!!!