Enforcing the law

Criminal enforcement of coronavirus legislation

¶13.85. During the pandemic, numerous coronavirus restrictions were enforced through criminal sanctions (as the UK government and devolved administrations and their legislative bodies were entitled to so provide). The regulations for the first lockdown, for example, granted enforcement powers to police officers and designated local authority employees.¹⁵⁴¹⁵⁴ The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, regulation 8(12) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uksi/2020/350/regulation/8/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020, regulation 10(11) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/353/regulation/10/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020, regulation 7(12) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/103/regulation/7/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020, regulation 7(12) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2020/55/ regulation/7/made). In England and Wales enforcement could also be carried out by police community support officers. The UK Secretary of State, Welsh ministers and the Department of Health (Northern Ireland) could designate other people for enforcement duties (England: regulation 8(12); Wales: regulation 10(11); Northern Ireland: regulation 7(12)).Show full note Offences under these regulations were punishable by fines. Rather than resorting to arrests and prosecutions, police were authorised to issue fixed penalty notices (a fine issued for certain offences, allowing the recipient to avoid prosecution by paying a set amount) to anyone aged over 18 whom they reasonably believed had committed an offence.¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁵ The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, regulation 10 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uksi/2020/350/regulation/10/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020, regulation 13 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/353/regulation/13/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020, regulation 9 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/103/regulation/9/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020, regulation 9 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2020/55/regulation/9/made). In Scotland, fixed penalty notices could initially be issued to people aged 16 or over but, by 27 May 2020, this was raised to 18 years following pressure from the Children and Young People's Commissioner (INQ000224573_0016-0017 para 58).Show full note

¶13.86. Police forces were relied upon to ensure compliance with the legislation through a new approach of "public health policing".¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁶ Martin Hewitt 9 November 2023 11/17-12/4; INQ000216925_0008 para 31 Throughout the pandemic, police followed a four-step escalation policy: engage, explain, encourage and enforce (known as the 'four Es'). This approach prioritised addressing serious breaches while promoting compliance through dialogue rather than immediate enforcement, as outlined in guidance from the National Police Chiefs' Council.¹⁵⁷¹⁵⁷ INQ000188838_0025 para 124

217

¶13.87. The four Es strategy effectively managed public compliance by fostering cooperation and minimising punitive action. Professor McVie noted:

" [T]he policing approach adopted during the pandemic was appropriate, proportionate and aimed at minimising impact on the public. This is evidenced in the fact that less than 0.5% of the population of Scotland were subject to enforcement, and around 88% of all police-public encounters involved use of the first 3Es."¹⁵⁸¹⁵⁸ INQ000369767_0032 para 29.1

¶13.88. Professor Daniel Wincott, expert witness on Welsh Government core political and administrative decision-making, also noted a generally positive relationship between the Welsh Government and police services in Wales, with police implementing policies as deemed necessary.¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁹ INQ000411927_0074 para 251 As recommended by the National Police Chiefs' Council, public bodies should adopt this strategy to ensure compliance with safety legislation in future public health emergencies.¹⁶⁰¹⁶⁰ Martin Hewitt 9 November 2023 31/7-11

Proportionality and protest rights

¶13.89. The right to protest is protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee freedom of assembly and expression.¹⁶¹¹⁶¹ European Convention on Human Rights, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11, 14 and 15 (https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG; INQ000582412) While public health concerns can justify restrictions on protests, any such restrictions must be both necessary and proportionate. Blanket bans on protests are not allowed. Instead, public bodies must carefully balance the health risks against the right to protest before determining whether to allow or prevent a demonstration.¹⁶²¹⁶² Leigh & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2022] EWHC 527 (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/527.html; INQ000573853)

¶13.90. However, under lockdown regulations across all four nations, participating in gatherings without a "reasonable excuse" was an offence, subject to limited exceptions.¹⁶³¹⁶³ See, for example, the Explanatory Memorandum to The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, paras 6.9-6.10 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/pdfs/uksiem_20201374_en.pdf; INQ000234630) Whether participation in a protest constituted a "reasonable excuse" was subject to interpretation, depending on the public health risks posed by the event.

¶13.91. Police forces occasionally struggled to assess these risks, leading to inconsistent enforcement of protest restrictions. In some cases, protests were allowed to proceed despite breaching regulations, while in others, protests were dispersed or prevented in circumstances that raised concerns about proportionality and fairness. For example, in England, the Metropolitan Police Service faced allegations of an inconsistent approach to the policing of protests during the pandemic, notably in relation to the Black Lives Matters protests and the vigil for Sarah Everard.¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁴ The Sarah Everard Vigil: An Inspection of the Metropolitan Police Service's Policing of a Vigil Held in Commemoration of Sarah Everard on Clapham Common on Saturday, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, March 2021 (https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publications/an-inspection-of-the-metropolitan-police-services-policing-of-a-vigil-held-in- commemoration-of-sarah-everard; INQ000239656)Show full note This caused public discontent over perceived inconsistencies in the enforcement of regulations.¹⁶⁵¹⁶⁵ INQ000349910_0012; see also Statutory Report: Public Statement by the Police Ombudsman pursuant to Section 62 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 – An Investigation into Police Policy and Practice of Protests in Northern Ireland, 22 December 2020 (https://www.policeombudsman.org/getmedia/13974c58-70ff-4095-bb88-ab2b8c19f22e/PUBLIC-STATEMENT-BLACK-LIVES- MATTER-FINAL.aspx?ext=.pdf; INQ000272746_0014)Show full note

218

¶13.92. The challenge faced by police forces underscores the need for clearer guidelines and more consistent application of the law when human rights and public health imperatives intersect.

Enforcement challenges

¶13.93. The vagueness and lack of clarity of some coronavirus regulations left too much open to individual interpretation, increasing the likelihood of misunderstandings among members of the public and police.¹⁶⁶¹⁶⁶ See INQ000216925_0021 para 86 This issue was compounded by the complexity of local restrictions and the systems of 'tiers', 'levels' or 'alert levels' – which often varied within single policing areas – creating significant challenges for enforcement.¹⁶⁷¹⁶⁷ Martin Hewitt 9 November 2023 22/24-23/22

¶13.94. Practical difficulties in the legislation also emerged, particularly in determining whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect someone might be infected with Covid-19.¹⁶⁸¹⁶⁸ Martin Hewitt 9 November 2023 39/1-4 Dame Priti Patel acknowledged that some rules, such as those governing outdoor gatherings, were considered "practically unenforceable".¹⁶⁹¹⁶⁹ Priti Patel 9 November 2023 157/17-158/20 This was acknowledged internally by the UK government, especially following the controversial police response to the Sarah Everard vigil in March 2021.¹⁷⁰¹⁷⁰ Priti Patel 9 November 2023 157/17-158/20

¶13.95. Although the Crown Prosecution Service does not have responsibility for the issuing of fixed penalty notices, it conducted monthly reviews of cases where people contested fixed penalty notices. Data provided to the Inquiry showed that 2,607 cases were prosecuted under the various coronavirus regulations and 311 under the Coronavirus Act 2020. Of the cases prosecuted under the Act, all were wrongly charged, with 53 resulting in incorrect convictions that had to be overturned.¹⁷¹¹⁷¹ INQ000188838_0030 para 154 Under the coronavirus regulations, 532 cases were wrongly charged, 425 of which were identified and withdrawn at court.¹⁷²¹⁷² INQ000188838_0030 para 155 Errors included misapplying regulations across different jurisdictions (eg offences in England charged under Welsh regulations) and prosecuting under rules that had been repealed.¹⁷³¹⁷³ INQ000188838_0029 para 149

219

¶13.96. Despite these errors, most fixed penalty notices were not contested and thus were not reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service.¹⁷⁴¹⁷⁴ The Government Response to Covid-19: Fixed Penalty Notices, House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 14th Report of Session 2019-21, 27 April 2021, p21, para 51 (https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5621/documents/55581/default; INQ000512529) The significant number of mistakes identified in reviewed cases raises concerns about the fairness and accuracy of fixed penalty notices issued during the pandemic. The lack of a systematic review process, unclear regulations and inconsistent understanding of police powers contributed to a flawed enforcement mechanism. It was unacceptable that many people were fined under unclear and ambiguous regulations, with no established appeal process.¹⁷⁵¹⁷⁵ The Government Response to Covid-19: Fixed Penalty Notices, House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 14th Report of Session 2019-21, 27 April 2021, pp3-4 (https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5621/documents/55581/default; INQ000512529)

¶13.97. In Northern Ireland, the issues surrounding enforcement were deeper than purely practical challenges, as highlighted by the funeral of Bobby Storey on 30 June 2020, attended by prominent political figures and large crowds.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁶ The Police Service of Northern Ireland: An Inspection into the Police Service of Northern Ireland's Handling of the Bobby Storey Funeral on 30 June 2020, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, May 2021, p1 (https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publications/inspection-into-police-service-northern-irelands-handling-of-the-bobby- storey-funeral; INQ000203389) Hundreds lined the streets, raising questions about potential violations of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020.¹⁷⁷¹⁷⁷ The Police Service of Northern Ireland: An Inspection into the Police Service of Northern Ireland's Handling of the Bobby Storey Funeral on 30 June 2020, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, May 2021, p39 (https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publications/inspection-into-police-service-northern-irelands-handling-of-the-bobby- storey-funeral; INQ000203389) However, the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction, and this decision was upheld on review.¹⁷⁸¹⁷⁸ 'PPS upholds decision not to prosecute any individual in connection with Storey funeral', Public Prosecution Service, 10 June 2021 (https://www.ppsni.gov.uk/news/pps-upholds-decisions-not-prosecute-any-individual-connection-storey-funeral; INQ000472347) (This Inquiry cannot and does not determine whether any offences occurred.) Senior Counsel advised the Public Prosecution Service that the evidential test for prosecution was not met, due to unclear regulations and difficulties related to the policing approach, both before and during the funeral.¹⁷⁹¹⁷⁹ 'Public statement relating to decisions not to prosecute 24 individuals reported for breaches of the Coronavirus Regulations in connection with attendance at the funeral of Bobby Storey on 30 June 2020', Public Prosecution Service, 30 March 2021, p9, para 24 (https://www.ppsni.gov.uk/files/ppsni/publications/PPS%20Public%20Statement%20on%20Covid%20funeral%2030%20March%20 2021_0.pdf; INQ000409332) A report from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services stated that police found it "extremely challenging" to interpret the regulations.¹⁸⁰¹⁸⁰ The Police Service of Northern Ireland: An Inspection into the Police Service of Northern Ireland's Handling of the Bobby Storey Funeral on 30 June 2020, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, May 2021, p15 (https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publications/inspection-into-police-service-northern-irelands-handling-of-the-bobby- storey-funeral; INQ000272705) Key issues included a lack of definition for funerals, ambiguity in the regulations and sudden changes without new guidance from the Department of Health (Northern Ireland), leaving officers uncertain about the legal implications of these changes.¹⁸¹¹⁸¹ INQ000272705_0023 This underscored the challenges of enforcing the regulations in Northern Ireland.

220

¶13.98. The challenges of enforcing frequently changing and often ambiguous regulations highlight the need for clearer communication and coordination between governments, police forces and relevant bodies such as the National Police Chiefs' Council. Operation Talla, established by the National Police Chiefs' Council on 10 March 2020, sought to coordinate policing efforts and provide guidance.¹⁸²¹⁸² See INQ000216925_0009 para 34 However, the rapid pace of legislative changes, last-minute notifications and inconsistent regulations across the UK meant that, even with these efforts, police forces faced considerable difficulties in understanding, communicating and applying the law consistently. While the National Police Chiefs' Council and individual police forces worked to adapt to evolving regulations, the lack of timely, clear government guidance hindered enforcement.

Fixed penalty notices

¶13.99. Initially, the penalty for a fixed penalty notice was set at £60 across all four nations, with a 50% reduction if paid within a certain time.¹⁸³¹⁸³ The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, regulation 10 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uksi/2020/350/regulation/10/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020, regulation 13 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/353/regulation/13/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020, regulation 9 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/103/regulation/9/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020, regulation 9 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2020/55/regulation/9/2020-03-28)Show full note For repeat offences, fines doubled, reaching a maximum of £960 in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and £1,920 in Wales.¹⁸⁴¹⁸⁴ In Scotland, this was later reduced to £480 under guidelines issued by Scotland's Lord Advocate (see INQ000369767_0009- 0010 para 5.8). However, as the pandemic evolved, the use of fixed penalty notices varied across different UK regions and lockdown periods. By January 2021, the penalties for similar breaches of coronavirus restrictions varied significantly across the UK (see Table 5).¹⁸⁵¹⁸⁵ Police Use of Covid-19 Fixed Penalty Notices in Scotland: Trends in Enforcement from March 2020 to May 2021, Scottish Centre for Administrative Data Research, 4 August 2022, p7 (https://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-08/FPN%204th%20report%20 -%20FINAL.pdf; INQ000369770)

221

¶Table 5: Summary of penalties across the four jurisdictions at the start of lockdowns in March 2020 and January 2021

Scotland England Northern Ireland Wales Snapshot at March 2020

¶Value of first £60 £60 £60 £60 FPN§ Value of Doubled each Doubled each Doubled each £120 for subsequent time, from £120 time, from £120 time, from £120 subsequent FPNs to a maximum of to a maximum of to a maximum of offences*

¶£960† £960 £960 Payment Reduced by Reduced by Reduced by Reduced by discount for all 50% if paid 50% if paid 50% if paid 50% if paid FPNs within 28 days within 14 days within 28 days within 14 days

¶Snapshot at January 2021 Value of first £60 £200§§ £200†† £60 FPN Value of Doubled each Doubled each NA (single tariff Doubled each subsequent time, from £120 time to structure) time to FPNs to a maximum of maximum of maximum of

¶£960† £6,400 £1,920 Payment Reduced by Reduced by Reduced by Reduced by discount for all 50% if paid 50% if paid 50% if paid 50% if paid FPNs within 28 days within 14 days within 14 days within 14 days

¶§ Fixed penalty notices (FPNs) could be issued for a number of different offences, which changed during the pandemic. The value and payment structures described in the table are the minimum for breaches committed by individuals. It does not include minimum fines for those offences that applied to businesses or travel regulations, which were typically higher. † Note that, in accordance with Lord Advocate guidelines, no fines larger than £480 were issued in Scotland. * This was amended in May 2020** to doubling each time to a maximum of £1,920 for sixth offence. §§ FPNs in England and Northern Ireland could be issued for a number of different offences, which each had different starting costs and pay structures. For more information see: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/364/contents/made); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2021 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2021/93/made). †† The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 13) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 (https://www. legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2020/250/contents). ** The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ wsi/2020/1522/contents). Source: Police Use of Covid-19 Fixed Penalty Notices in Scotland: Trends in enforcement from March 2020 to May 2021, Scottish Centre for Administrative Data Research, 4 August 2022 (https://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-08/FPN 4th report%20-%20FINAL.pdf; INQ000369770_0012)

¶13.100. Fixed penalty notices were applied inconsistently across the UK. In Scotland,

between March 2020 and May 2021, the vast majority (91.2%) of fixed penalty notices were for the lowest amount of £60. The remaining 8.8% involved fines of £120 or more, with 6.9% for £120, 1.4% for £240 and only 0.5% of all fixed penalty notices issued for the maximum amount of £480.¹⁸⁶¹⁸⁶ INQ000369767_0017 para 12.1 This suggests that, in Scotland, fines remained relatively low in most cases. By contrast, in England, the use of higher fines

222

¶was more common. By January 2021, repeat offenders faced penalties of up to

¶£6,400 and breaches of gathering restrictions could result in fines of £10,000. Data from the National Police Chiefs' Council indicate that a greater proportion of fines in England were issued at escalating amounts, reflecting a stricter enforcement approach.¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁷ Policing the Pandemic in England and Wales: Police Use of Fixed Penalty Notices from 27 March 2020 to 31 May 2021, Edinburgh Law School, March 2023, p57, para 6.2 (https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/edinburghlawschool/wp-content/uploads/sites/8261/2023/03/ NPCC-Report-March-2023-final-1.pdf; INQ000187993) Wales also had a higher maximum fine of £1,920 and reports suggest that enforcement varied significantly across different police forces.¹⁸⁸¹⁸⁸ Policing the Pandemic in England and Wales: Police Use of Fixed Penalty Notices from 27 March 2020 to 31 May 2021, Edinburgh Law School, March 2023, p57, para 6.1 (https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/edinburghlawschool/wp-content/uploads/sites/8261/2023/03/NPCC- Report-March-2023-final-1.pdf; INQ000187993)

¶13.101. The Police Service of Northern Ireland raised concerns with the Northern Ireland Executive about the adequacy of fines.¹⁸⁹¹⁸⁹ Alan Todd 15 May 2024 190/17-21 On 8 October 2020, the Executive considered a proposal from the Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) to increase the level of fines, responding to concerns that the penalties in place were insufficient to deter breaches.¹⁹⁰¹⁹⁰ INQ000065570. By that time, the Police Service of Northern Ireland had issued 1,156 COV1s (the lowest category of Covid-19 fixed penalty notice, a £60+ fine for breaches of the public health regulations); 203 COV2s (prohibition notice for licensed premises or for restriction of gatherings in a private dwelling); and 27 COV3s (£1,000 fixed fine for failure to self-isolate following international travel).Show full note At the time, the most commonly imposed fixed penalty notice in Northern Ireland started at £60 (£30 if paid within 14 days). This was lower than fines for minor offences like littering or for parking violations. The Executive ultimately decided to impose higher fines to align with the other three nations.¹⁹¹¹⁹¹ INQ000048492_0004 para 14

¶13.102. Ordinarily, fixed penalty notices are intended for low-level penalties. However, during the pandemic, exceptionally high fines were introduced in certain circumstances, raising concerns about proportionality. For example:

In England, one of the most controversial measures was the £10,000 fixed penalty notice imposed on individuals facilitating or organising large gatherings. While the Department of Health and Social Care was responsible for drafting the regulations, Dame Priti Patel later expressed concerns that this flat fine was "disproportionate", particularly as it did not allow for discretion based on the circumstances of the event.¹⁹²¹⁹² Priti Patel 9 November 2023 102/6-22, 152/5-25 The lack of a sliding scale meant that individuals organising protests or gatherings with no financial incentive were penalised at the same level as those profiting from large-scale illegal events.
In Wales, similarly, the Welsh Government introduced severe penalties for certain breaches of regulations. Organising an unlicensed music event carried a penalty of £10,000, failing to provide passenger information incurred a fine of £4,000 and failing to isolate following specific international travel destinations resulted in a £1,000 fine.¹⁹³¹⁹³ Jeremy Miles 12 March 2024 192/22-193/19; INQ000349910_0001 While Mr Miles defended these fines, arguing that they were necessary to deter serious public health breaches, concerns were raised about whether such high penalties were consistently applied and proportionate to the risks posed.¹⁹⁴¹⁹⁴ Jeremy Miles 12 March 2024 190/21-191/4, 193/19-21

223

¶13.103. In rare cases where higher penalties are deemed necessary to manage serious public health risks, it is important that they remain proportionate, infrequent and subject to clear guidelines to ensure fairness in their application.

Disproportionate impact on different groups

¶13.104. An analysis commissioned by the National Police Chiefs' Council on fixed penalty notices issued between 28 March and 25 May 2020 found evidence of disproportionality.¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁵ See INQ000216925_0028-0031 para 116 According to the report, people from ethnic minorities were 1.6 times more likely to receive a fixed penalty notice than White people.¹⁹⁶¹⁹⁶ Policing the Pandemic: Detailed Analysis on Police Enforcement of the Public Health Regulations and an Assessment on Disproportionality across Ethnic Groups, National Police Chiefs' Council, no date, p3 (https://www.northyorkshire-pfcc.gov.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Policing-the-Pandemic-NPCC.pdf; INQ000099940) This disparity raises concerns about unequal enforcement of coronavirus regulations based on race. More recent data from the National Police Chiefs' Council, covering the period from 27 March 2020 to 27 February 2022, reaffirmed this pattern, showing that fixed penalty notices were disproportionately issued to young people, men and individuals from certain racial or ethnic minority groups.¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁷ Fixed Penalty Notices Issued under Covid-19 Emergency Health Regulations by Police Forces in England and Wales, National Police Chiefs' Council, 16 March 2022 (https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/d0f7e8f380ad402ea48e70a85bc389eb.pdf; INQ000055830)

¶13.105. In Scotland, people from ethnic minority groups were 1.4 times more likely to receive a fixed penalty notice from Police Scotland than White people.¹⁹⁸¹⁹⁸ INQ000369767_0018-0019 para 13.3 The disparity was most pronounced for people from African, Black or Caribbean backgrounds (1.8 times) and least for those from Asian backgrounds (1.3 times) or "Other/Mixed/ Multiple" (1.2 times) ethnic groups.¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁹ INQ000369767_0018-0019 para 13.3 Fixed penalty notices were disproportionately issued to younger people (particularly younger men) – nearly three-quarters (72.4%) were given to people aged 30 or under, despite this age group comprising only 18.9% of the population, with a median age of 23. Additionally, approximately two-thirds (67.4%) of recipients were men, while their population share was 48.7%.²⁰⁰²⁰⁰ INQ000369767_0018 para 13.1

¶13.106. A review of fixed penalty notices by the Welsh Government in November 2020 highlighted similar inequalities. Up to 22 September 2020, the review found that 10% of fixed penalty notices in Wales were issued to people identifying as Asian or Chinese, despite those groups making up only about 2% of the population. Furthermore, 61% were issued to people aged under 35 and 76% were issued to men.²⁰¹²⁰¹ INQ000350014_0003 para 12(b) These figures demonstrate that enforcement disproportionately affected younger men and ethnic minority groups in Wales.

224

¶13.107. The Inquiry did not receive evidence about whether there was disproportionate use of fixed penalty notices in Northern Ireland. However, there were concerns (as noted above) that the initial fines were inadequate.²⁰²²⁰² Alan Todd 15 May 2024 190/17-20 In response, on 8 October 2020, the Northern Ireland Executive introduced higher fines, in line with England, Wales and Scotland.²⁰³²⁰³ INQ000065570

¶13.108. The disproportionate impact on certain groups warrants further investigation, although the lack of clarity renders this a challenging exercise. The disparities suggest the need for a careful analysis of how regulations were applied across different demographics. It has previously been recommended that the UK government commission further research into the issuing of fixed penalty notices during the pandemic, specifically examining enforcement by age, sex, race and socio-economic status.²⁰⁴²⁰⁴ See The Government Response to Covid-19: Fixed Penalty Notices, House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 14th Report of Session 2019-21, 27 April 2021, p20, para 49 (https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5621/ documents/55581/default; INQ000512529) In the Inquiry's view, this research should investigate the root causes of these disparities and, if evidence of discrimination is found, should result in prompt corrective action being taken to ensure fair and equitable enforcement of regulations.

Legislative planning for future emergencies

¶13.109. The UK's legislative response to the Covid-19 pandemic relied on a combination of pre-existing public health laws and emergency legislation, most notably the Coronavirus Act 2020. The decision not to invoke the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 reflected concerns about its suitability, but contributed to a fragmented legal response across the four nations, which in turn affected public understanding and enforcement consistency.

¶13.110. The repeated use of secondary legislation, especially through the made affirmative procedure, enabled rapid implementation of major restrictions – including lockdowns, social distancing and quarantine requirements – but limited parliamentary scrutiny. This raised important concerns about transparency, accountability and executive dominance in the legislative process.

¶13.111. The complexity and frequency of legal changes deepened confusion among both the public and enforcement agencies. Unclear distinctions between law and guidance, ambiguous drafting and last-minute amendments contributed to misapplication of the law and inconsistent policing. The unequal impact on young people, ethnic minorities and protestors underscored broader concerns about fairness and proportionality.

225

¶13.112. The reliance on fixed penalty notices as a primary enforcement tool revealed systemic disparities. Certain groups were disproportionately affected and avenues for appeal were limited. The imposition of exceptionally high fines, including £10,000 penalties for unauthorised gatherings, raised further questions about the proportionality of enforcement measures.

¶13.113. Taken together, these challenges highlight the need for a more coherent legislative framework, stronger parliamentary scrutiny and fairer enforcement mechanisms in any future public health emergency. The Inquiry's recommendations emphasise the importance of legal clarity, proportionality in enforcement and enhanced democratic oversight, to ensure that public health imperatives are pursued in a way that protects fundamental rights and upholds the rule of law.

226