header-logo header-logo

10 September 2020 / Hannah Williams , Samantha Ball
Issue: 7901 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Criminal
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: Reckless transmission

27160
Hannah Williams & Samantha Ball look at the potential criminal offences that could be charged in respect of the deliberate or reckless transmission of the COVID-19 virus
  • In principle, transmitting COVID-19 either recklessly or intentionally could be charged as an offence against the person under s 18 or s 20. A person is more likely to face prosecution for transmitting COVID-19 if they know they have it.
  • Coughing recklessly and not abiding by government social distancing or lockdown guidance might constitute recklessness in some circumstances following the case of R v Dica. If a defendant can be shown to have taken steps to control the virus, it follows that they may be less likely to be prosecuted.
  • Two men have already been prosecuted for assaulting emergency workers after deliberately coughing and spitting at police officers, which indicates that the public interest would be best served by charging intentional assaults, particularly against key workers.

 


 

In these difficult and uncertain times, it is crucial that the law is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll