Whether it’s the Barnard Castle row or Matt Hancock’s steamy office clinch, the phrase ‘one rule for them, another for us’ has been aimed at the Government countless times during the pandemic.

No. 10 is now under fire again after leaked footage showed senior aides appearing to joke about a festive gathering ‘which was held as the rest of the nation was separated from loved ones’. 

The Government continues to deny a party took place, saying ‘Covid rules have been followed at all times’.

But could preferential treatment actually be enshrined in law?

Some experts have suggested a little-known loophole could mean alleged Downing Street Christmas parties were actually exempt from lockdown rules.

Solicitor Joshua Rozenberg said there were ‘a number of options’ when asked what defence he would use in court if he was employed by Downing Street to defend the alleged incidents.

One theory suggested is that coronavirus regulations do not apply to Government departments and royal property – unless minsters specifically take steps to make them do so.

Speaking to the Radio 4, Mr Rozenberg said: ‘I’ll give you a really good theory which some people have been suggesting on Twitter – that it’s exempt from the rules because Downing Street counts as Crown property. 

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a webbrowser thatsupports HTML5video

‘If you look at Section 73 (2) of the Public Health Control of Diseases Act 1984, which is what the regulations were made under, it seems to me that they don’t apply to Government departments – that must include 10 Downing Street and other royal property, for example – unless ministers have taken the steps to say it does apply, which I don’t suppose they’ve done so that may be a get-out clause.’

He added: ‘You have some sympathy for them, they were trying to run the country and they couldn’t run the entire country from home, but I think it’s very embarrassing for them isn’t it?’

The same theory had been presented by Human Rights barrister Adam Wagner on Twitter – but he named the potential defence ‘obscure’.

He wrote: ‘By which I mean the meaning of section 73 is obscure. I am not convinced it is obvious the regulations wouldn’t apply to crown property and I think this would have to be resolved by a court unless a specific agreement applies’.

Discussing the theory on his blog, barrister Matthew Scott added: ‘If the party was confined to the Government rooms and offices in the “official” parts of No 10, it probably did not breach the criminal law, even though it was in flagrant breach of its spirit, as well as of the official advice and guidance, much of it emanating from the prime minister himself.’

Another potential defence put forward by Mr Rozenberg is that there are exceptions in the regulations for ‘permitted organised gatherings’ which cover meetings on the premises of a public body.

Downing Street could also argue the alleged events were gatherings that were ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes’.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a webbrowser thatsupports HTML5video

Mr Rozenberg added that he ‘didn’t blame the Government for not showing its hand at this stage’.

Boris Johnson told PMQs today he was ‘furious to see the clip’ and has asked a Cabinet Secretary to investigate what happened.

Doubt has been cast over how carefully the public will now follow new Covid rules, amid suggestions ministers are considering moving to Plan B measures as early as this week.

Metro.co.uk has contacted Downing Street for comment.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected].

For more stories like this, check our news page.

Source: Read Full Article