LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO CORONAVIRUS
As the Coronavirus continues to disrupt the global economy, and impact the lives of 93% of the world’s population, governments are enacting laws to tackle the problem. England has recently enacted some new laws, which would see the government being able to lawfully detain anyone that they reasonably suspect of posing a risk of infection to others with COVID-19. These laws have been called draconian and unacceptably invasive, being the most severe the UK has had in place since World War 2. However, they are not the only country to adopt a legislative response; Australia, Canada, and the US, amongst many other nations, have all followed suit to a relative extent.
INTERFERENCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
It is worth noting that all of these nations have experienced issues with their citizens directly ignoring the government’s public health guidance. In England, metropolitan police had to shut down over 600 teenage parties over the Easter weekend, and there has been an increase in people ignoring social distancing rules to visit local bars in London. Across the Atlantic, ongoing protests in the US against lockdown in certain states are thought to be the cause of spikes in infection rates. Further, social media was ablaze with pictures of packs of people on Bondi beach not long ago also, indicating similar disregard in Australia. These occurrences seem to validate government intervention to ensure public safety. However, these new laws have been met with widespread criticism.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees basic human rights including that of liberty and privacy. Empowering public authorities to detain people who are reasonably suspected of posing a risk of viral transmission, creates a grey area whereby such human rights can be encroached for the greater good. Troubling as that may be, these ECHR rights aren’t absolute. In fact, they are qualified rights meaning that they are guaranteed so long as certain conditions aren’t present. Namely, if the restriction of liberty or privacy is down to the prevention of disease or infection then it is permissible without recourse for the detainee.
LONG-LASTING RESTRICTIONS
Specifically in England, these new powers are to be used only when “reasonable” and “proportional”, but given the Crown Prosecution Service’s recent apologies for a spate of wrongful arrests and detainments under the new Coronavirus legislation, it is clear that the powers that be are confused about the remit of their new powers, leaving room for concern. Certain publications forecast that travel restrictions could stay in place until at least 2021, and social distancing until 2022, which could mean that these changes in our human rights could be a long-lasting response to the pandemic, as opposed to a short-term reaction to contain the outbreak worsening. In this case, how the government exercises these new powers will be of vital importance, as they will need to do sensitively; balancing the interests of the many with that of the few.
Justin is a Business Law and Business Management graduate from Heriot-Watt University and current GDL student with the University of Law. He lives in Hong Kong.