Can I pick a family member up

452

Mercdriver said:

452 said:

Mercdriver said:

452 said:

Car_54 said:

sheramber said:

The only opinion that matters is that of the policeman who stops your car and asks what is your reasonable  excuse  for your journey.

I believe we still have a system where the opinion of a magistrate or jury matters more than that of a policeman.

If the policeman thinks its reasonable to make the journey then why would their opinion matter more?

In our criminal system, evidence of innocence is not required, whereas evidence of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt is.  

There will be no need to prove guilt if the police officer thinks it's reasonable. 

My point is that the ultimate decision to say it is reasonable is the policeman's whereas the ultimate decision unless the object of the decision accepts a FPN is a third party, and the test is stricter.  The policeman has quite a lot of discretion at his disposal he doesn't need to prove reasonableness beyond reasonable doubt whereas a court would have to prove UNresaonableness beyond reasonable doubt.  So the policeman's decision effectively carries more weight if he says it is reasonable.

My original point was the polices officers opinion is worth a lot more than Car54 thinks.

Who would the op turn to a 4am on an empty motorway should the nasty policeman want to lock him up and seize the car?

TooManyPoints

 The policeman has quite a lot of discretion at his disposal he doesn't need to prove reasonableness beyond reasonable doubt whereas a court would have to prove UNresaonableness beyond reasonable doubt.  So the policeman's decision effectively carries more weight if he says it is reasonable.

It's not quite like that. Whenever a matter of subjectivity goes to court it is not up to the prosecution to prove their view of that subjective question beyond reasonable doubt. It becomes a matter of opinion and as such cannot be proved to any standard of proof. In a case like this the prosecution (and incidentally it is the prosecution that has the burden, not the court) would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt what actually happened (i.e. that the OP left home to travel to London to pick somebody up). They should not have too much difficulty doing that (though of course if they fail then the prosecution as a whole will fail). After that the question of "reasonableness" comes into play. The decision for the court is almost identical to that faced by the police officer. The court must decide whether in their opinion, the excuse to leave home was reasonable. There is no legal definition of the word. The difference will be that whilst the officer had to make his decision in a few moments the court can ponder over it for so long as they like They will be guided to the wording of the legislation, they may study the guidelines issued to the police  and they may be presented with case law or precedent where the question of "reasonableness" was the issue. 

There are a number of offences where the opinion of the court (either a jury, a Bench of "Lay" Magistrates or a District Judge) determines the outcome. Careless/Dangerous driving (where the standard of driving is subjective and not specifically defined) and  possession of a bladed article in public (where a defence of "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse" is available) are two which spring to mind.

Car_54

The court would not have to decide whether leaving home was reasonable. Leaving home is not an offence. The likely offence would be failure to comply with the officer's "reasonable"(?) instruction to return home.

TooManyPoints

Car_54 said:

The court would not have to decide whether leaving home was reasonable. Leaving home is not an offence. The likely offence would be failure to comply with the officer's "reasonable"(?) instruction to return home.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
Section 6 - Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
Section 9 - Offences and penalties
9.—(1) A person who—

(b)contravenes a requirement in regulation 6,

commits an offence. 

------

If an officer believes a person to be out of their home without a reasonable excuse he may issue a fixed penalty. If the recipient wants to challenge his decision to do so he must take the matter  to court where the reasonableness of his excuse for leaving home would be the issue.

An officer may also direct such a person to return home (Under Section 8 of the same legislation). If he refuses to do so he commits a separate offence and the officer may use reasonable force to return him there if necessary. If he makes such a direction it does not have to be "reasonable". The reasonableness decision comes when examining his excuse for being away from home. If the officer decides he is out of his home without a reasonable excuse he can issue a direction for him to return.

dyhyboze

Yes, Ask him

arcon5

The rules allow a child to travel between parents. Ignore the morons making you feel bad for wanting to be with your kid

TooManyPoints

arcon5 said:

The rules allow a child to travel between parents. Ignore the morons making you feel bad for wanting to be with your kid

It may be more helpful if you read the question. The OP's proposals do not involve the child travelling anywhere and in any case the OP is not the child's parent. His proposal is to leave home to make a lengthy journey to collect an adult which, as some of the "morons" have pointed out, would probably foul of the regulations.