header-logo header-logo

01 April 2020 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7881 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail

The Coronavirus Act 2020

18643
Neil Parpworth considers the Schedule 21 powers relating to potentially infectious individuals

The Coronavirus Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 19 March 2020. In its original form, the Bill consisted of 87 clauses and 27 schedules. Following an expedited passage through Parliament this had increased to 102 sections and 29 Schedules by the date of Royal Assent (25 March 2020).

The Act provides for a raft of powers and duties that are regarded as being necessary in order to tackle the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. They relate to matters such as the emergency registration of health professionals, the registration of deaths and still-births, as well as food supply and inquests.

For present purposes, however, attention will focus on the powers relating to people who are potentially infectious. These are to be found in s 51 and Schedule 21 to the Act. Section 51 rather innocuously provides that: ‘Schedule 21 confers powers relating to potentially infectious persons and makes related provision.’

Turn to Schedule 21, however, and the reader

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll