Recommendation 23

HM Government · verbatim extract Not Addressed

The British policing model is one of policing by consent and that has not changed. Throughout the pandemic the police have used the 4Es approach: engaging with individuals who are not following the rules, explaining the rules to them and encouraging them to comply before moving on to enforce the law. The Government did not rely on enforcement as the primary driver of behaviour, but as complementary to other measures to encourage compliance. This included clearer and more consistent communications on the rules. The Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) scheme was put into law in order to reduce transmission of the virus, and has been an important part of enforcement measures, which allow for quick and appropriate action to be taken against people that are not following the rules. Evidence suggests that the success of measures to date has been founded on broad public support and understanding of the need for adopting safer behaviours to reduce the spread of the virus. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has routinely published data on Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs). The main legislative vehicle used by the Government to introduce restrictions, the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, limits the range of offences that can be deployed: regulations made under section 45B and C (under which Ministers may introduce regulations relating to international travel and domestically) may not create offences punishable with imprisonment. In general, FPNs provide a readily available sanction which avoids the need for prosecutions, provided those affected pay the FPN. When restrictions were introduced in March 2020, swift action was needed to respond to extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances. Most people were happy to comply, but FPNs provided an effective sanction to encourage others. That’s why the Government regarded this to be an important tool for responding to the pandemic allowing for quick and appropriate action to be taken to protect public health and save lives. However, examining how the regime has operated since its implementation, we are conscious of the concerns raised about the FPN regime, its proportionality and process, and recognise that it presented challenges for enforcement and compliance. We will take this into consideration alongside the issues raised in the Cabinet Office report from the Second Permanent Secretary and any findings from the public inquiry into COVID-19 as we develop our planning and preparedness for any future pandemics. The Government did consider a range of measures to provide legal sanctions for potentially risky behaviour. This included: reviewing the extent to which behaviours and/or settings were, at a given moment in the course of the pandemic, a significant source of transmission risk assessing whether offences and potential penalties were both proportionate to that risk, and likely to have the desired deterrent impact considering the potential impact that a new offence could have on the public, including on different sectors of the population. This included consultation with relevant Government Departments to understand the impact that the offence would have on different stakeholders engagement with police and local authorities to gauge how new rules could be enforced effectively, and whether they could be communicated clearly to the public to deliver high levels of compliance. We used this information to determine whether an offence was needed, the appropriate size of any penalty, and how any negative impacts were to be mitigated. The £10k FPNs were introduced for people who organised a gathering contrary to the regulations, that is for those who were committing a more egregious breach of the rules, thereby causing a significant risk to the public’s health. At the time these measures were introduced it was considered important that the penalty for this offence communicated the public health risk known to be associated with the activity, and also acted as an appropriate deterrent. The vast majority of forces will undertake a discretionary initial force-level review before referring to the Association of Chief Police Criminal Records Office, ACRO, (the body that administers the FPN regime) where it is reviewed, ensuring compliance with regulations before the formal FPN is issued. An individual can decide to not pay an FPN, if, for example, they did not consider that they had in fact committed an offence, or felt that the penalty was not appropriate. An individual can ask the issuing police force to review the case and it is at the discretion of the relevant force to consider whether to withdraw the FPN. If the force does not withdraw the FPN and the recipient opts not to pay it, the force will then consider whether to pursue a prosecution. It is made clear in the letter issued to those who receive an FPN that they can contest the penalty. If the police prosecute the case, the defendant’s rights remain untouched. Where a request to review an FPN is made, the police hav