Beergate is the third high-profile police investigation into gatherings involving politicians during the Covid restrictions.
Each of the investigations, in Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham, Partygate and then Beergate, ended up with dramatically different results.
The variation is a consequence of changing Covid laws that have been in place at different times, the application of exceptions to the restrictions and changing police positions on whether to penalize offenses retroactively.
How did the law work?
A set of laws called the Health Protection Regulations were changed during the pandemic to impose various restrictions, including national lockdowns.
They set legal limits on collections, but also provide protections and exceptions.
Throughout, the defense of “reasonable excuse” was built into the law and the lists of examples given in the legislation were not exhaustive.
The wording of the laws in force at the time of both Beergate and Partygate read: “A person commits an offense if, without reasonable excuse . . . [they] violate a restriction.’
This means that the police had the discretion to decide whether someone had broken the law or had legal protection for doing what appeared on the face of it to be a Covid offence.
Investigators accepted that the gathering attended by Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner in Durham was covered by statutory exemption from work, while the impromptu birthday party that led to fines for Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak was not.
What laws were in place at the time of Beergate?
At the time, “step two” health protection rules were in place, making indoor gatherings of more than two people illegal unless subject to one of numerous exemptions.
These include “reasonably necessary for the purposes of the work”.
Durham Police found the exemption applied to the Labor gathering at Miners’ Hall in Durham on 30 April 2021.
This happened during the campaign for the Hartlepool by-election and the upcoming local elections.
Asked why he was filmed drinking beer with a takeaway curry, Sir Keir said: “I just had a bite to eat while working late at night, as any politician would do in the days leading up to an election.”
The standard fine for attending a gathering or committing other offenses was £200, although much larger fines could be imposed for large events or organisers.
The police did not describe their findings in full, but said in a statement: “There is no case to be found in breach of the regulations due to the application of the reasonably necessary work exception.
“Accordingly, Durham Police will not issue any Fixed Penalty Notices in relation to the collection and no further action will be taken.”
Pictures have emerged of the Labor leader drinking beer and dining with colleagues in Durham
(provided)
What laws were in place during Partygate?
As different gatherings took place at different stages of the restrictions, the Metropolitan Police fined people for breaking six different offences.
For the “bring your own alcohol” garden party on 20 May 2020, which the Prime Minister said he attended for 25 minutes thinking it was a “work event”, attendees were fined for “being outside the place where they live without reasonable excuse’. .
As Downing Street is the official residence of the Prime Minister, he was not within the scope of the offence, but officials and all other non-residents were.
The events held on the other seven dates on which fines were handed out contravened various Covid laws that restrict different types of gatherings.
The flexible “reasonable excuse” defense is in place, meaning police must consider the individual reasons for apparent offenses on a case-by-case basis.
There was also a broad exemption for gatherings that were “reasonably necessary for work purposes” during events attended by Boris Johnson and the Beergate gathering on April 30, 2021 in Durham.
This is likely to be the main defense argued by many attending the Downing Street gatherings, many of which followed the end of the working day.
Downing Street attendees given chance to present ‘reasonable apology’
(PA cable)
What did the police say about their motives?
Scotland Yard declined to comment on individual cases, but confirmed it gave any person considered fined the opportunity to provide a reasonable excuse for attending gatherings in written questionnaires.
A statement said officers looked into both the circumstances of the event and the “actions of the individual concerned”.
“Each line of inquiry looks at the date, the circumstances behind each event and the person’s actions against the law at the time to determine whether their conduct meets the criminal threshold for referral to FPN,” a statement said.
“We have taken great care to ensure that for every referral we have the evidence we need to pursue FPN in court if it was not paid.”
The police first gather evidence of an event, then carry out separate assessments for each person present.
To fine them, police said they needed a “reasonable belief that the person had committed an offense under the regulations”.
They looked at whether the gathering itself qualifies for an exemption under the Covid laws and, if not, “whether the person has a reasonable excuse for taking part in that gathering”.
Durham Police has released less information about its process but is known to have sent a questionnaire, most likely along the lines of Metropolitan Police documents, to those present.
The force said it had produced “a significant amount of documentary and witness evidence which identified the 17 participants and their activities”.
Did the police treat the gatherings of politicians differently from those of the public?
Police across the country had a policy against retrospective Covid investigations during the pandemic, meaning the majority of fines were handed out on the spot by police officers.
This meant that people were often given sentences without formal evidence-gathering or interviews, and had to risk prosecution to challenge them.
Because the Partygate and Beergate investigations were rare retrospective investigations, the process was much more formal and potentially gave people a better chance to present a defense before being fined.
Kirsty Brimelow QC, a human rights barrister who has represented people fighting against Covid fines, told The Independent: “What I’ve seen in cases up and down this country is that the ‘reasonable excuse’ part ‘ has never been enforced – the police will only look at exceptions around the gathering itself.
“In the cases I’ve looked at, it’s been ‘well, if you think you’ve got a defence, you can take your chances in the magistrates’ court.’
Durham Police previously investigated Dominic Cummings, then a chief adviser to the prime minister, for taking his family from London to the north-east while he was infected with coronavirus during the first national lockdown.
The Prime Minister’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings was forced to issue a statement defending his trip to the North East in May 2020.
(AFP/Getty)
Officers concluded he may have committed a “minor breach” of the law by driving to Barnard Castle, but to issue a fine months later “would be to treat Mr Cummings differently to other members of the public “.
The force added: “Durham Police has not taken retrospective action against any other individual.”
After Partygate, there is now a precedent for issuing retrospective fines for Covid offences.
The Metropolitan Police initially resisted the move itself before making a U-turn amid widespread outrage at reports of numerous illegal parties in Downing Street.
Following the Cummings scandal in 2020, commanders in charge of the policing response to Covid issued guidance to all forces saying that retrospective investigations could be carried out into gross misconduct if they were merited, proportionate and in the public interest.
But the decision as to what meets these criteria is still up to the individual forces
Durham Police initially decided not to act on images of Sir Keir drinking beer in Labor MP Mary Foy’s constituency office, which resurfaced while being widely shared by the Conservatives during the Partygate scandal.
He said he changed his position in May “after receiving important new information.”
Add Comment