Penalty Notice for not wearing a mask

[Manxman in exile]

While I agree that many police officers have behaved like officious people during Covid, and that if the OP complained the police might well drop it, and even if it got to court the OP might win, I can't help but have some sympathy with Hammy's view.

 

Many people who may be vulnerable themselves (and it sounds like Hammy is one) probably suffer considerable anxiety when shopping in the presence of others who are unmasked - and who may or may not have a valid reason for not wearing one.

 

I can see - depending on how successful this lockdown and vaccination are in reducing deaths and infection over the next few weeks and months - that people who don't just cough up the fixed penalty might end up in court and might even find magistrates convicting them - even if the law says they shouldn't be.

 

The police trying to impose penalties in situations where they patently shouldn't be doing so (like the woman referred to above drinking coffee while out walking and many other well publicised ludicrous examples) is one thing, but it would appear that the wearing of masks while shopping has medical and other scientific evidence to strongly support it as a way of reducing the risk of infection and, presumably, some avoidable deaths.

 

And as somebody who received medical treatment for severe acne for about 20 years, I can't help but take a bit of a sceptical view of acne being put forward at all as a reason for being exempt from wearing a mask.  I know the OP mentions anxiety too, but honestly, the mere mention of acne too really weakens the whole argument.

 

I suspect few people here will agree with me, but I suspect most of the general public - and perhaps a few magistrates - will

 

[Manxman in exile]

I think a moment's reflection would probably show that a "good faith" argument based on the OP's having checked the guidance is not at all persuasive.  It's equally consistent with looking for a reason - any reason - for not wearing a mask when perhaps they should be. 

 

To illustrate.  A couple of weeks ago (before this thread) my wife announced - half in jest; half seriously - that she had probably been suffering from a hidden disability for all her working life.  I - most certainly in jest - said:  "OK, I'll send off for a sunflower lanyard for you and print off a government exemption card for you so you won't have to wear a mask shopping".  Because we are responsible citizens we did not do this, but if we had, my knowledge of the governement guidelines would definitely not indicate that we were acting in good faith - in fact it would indicate quite the opposite.

 

Whether the OP challenges the police penalty or sees if it goes to court, I would encourage them to get a letter of exemption from either their GP or the specialist whose care they are under.  Assuming the OP has medication prescribed for both their acne and anxiety (which I presume they must if both conditions are severe enough to prevent them from wearing a mask) this should be easy to ask for next time they request repeat medication. 

 

I am confident that if the OP adds that they have already received a fixed penalty or fine for not wearing a mask, that their GP or specialist will be more than happy to oblige - that is if they consider the OP has a valid medical exemption.  This would have the added advantage of preventing this from happening to the OP again and saving a lot of future anxiety.

 

The OP might consider themselves lucky that they don't live in the land of my birth where a surprisingly large number of people (including the jetski Romeo) have, apparently, been imprisoned for breaching Covid regulations.

[Manxman in exile]

Let's differ.

 

If the OP is unable to wear a mask, I'm sure they will be able to avoid future incidents like this by getting a letter from their GP confirming that they have a medical exemption.  Simply explaining to their GP that they have already fallen foul of the police and have already received a fixed penalty should see such a letter being provided.  I'm sure no GP would want to see one of their patients with a valid medical exemption being unfairly fined and would not consider such a letter an unjustified waste of time.

 

It would also have the advantage for the OP of removing any uncertainty and avoidable anxiety should it get to court.

[Manxman in exile]

Those are good points.

 

I agree that it is by no means clear that the OP would be convicted if it got to court - but neither is it clear to me that he would necessarily be acquitted.  A court might - or might not - decide that not wearing a mask due to his acne and anxiety was a reasonable excuse. I suspect some courts would decide it was not.

 

I also agee that this whole thing is a shambles.  It might be due to sloppy drafting but I also think it's intentional vagueness on the part of the governement.

 

The reason I became aware of this "sloppiness" was that I was listening to local BBC radio last month and there was a news item about local supermarkets saying they were  "cracking down on and enforcing" the wearing of masks.  After I read the government guidelines I wondered how this "crackdown" on mask wearing would be put into effect - so I emailed the head offices of those supermarkets and asked them.  Basically the answers boiled down to "we can't enforce the wearing of masks and we aren't going to attempt to do so".  Despite what they'd been telling the BBC.

 

I did consider getting a sunflower lanyard myself and printing off the government exemption cards to see if they worked*.  But I decided that would be irresponsible and not public-spirited.  Plus I don't want to be infected.

 

Unlike many people I'm not completely critical of everything this government has done regarding Covid, but they've completely bottled it around enforcing the wearing of masks - just as they did when they should have cancelled Christmas.

 

*Having admitted that I would have tried it myself - without having a reasonable excuse or medical exemption - if I were in the OP's position I probably would not pay the penalty and take my chances in court.  But I'd get a letter from my GP just in case, and I'd be prepared for the possibility that I might be convicted.

 

PS - I'm aware that some of my posts will come across as critical of the OP.  That is not intended.  My real purpose is to be critical of the ineffective measures put in place by government that cannot be enforced in practice.

 

I also have great sympathy with the views expressed by Hammy1962.

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

51 minutes ago, Man in the middle said:

 

...

 

Much of the Covid legislation which effects most people is peppered with exemptions, exceptions and "reasonable excuses". It's almost as if the legislators were reluctant to impose any restrictions and provided as many get-out clauses as they could think of. However, I digress. It would be nice if the OP were to come back and give us his thoughts now we have provided ours.

 

 

 

 

This is true.  Much of this government's response to Covid has been sub-optimal (not that many other countries have fared much better) at the best of times, but the rules and guidance around the wearing of masks is utterly shambolic.  I don't think it's inadvertant - I think it's deliberate as they do not want to be seen to be discriminating against or offending people who - for a good reason or not - think they should be exempt from wearing masks.

 

Having read the government guidance I would, if I were the OP, be happy not to pay and to let it go to court, if I thought I had a reasonable excuse for not wearing a mask.  But I'm retired, am quite willing to be awkward just to make a point, and a conviction would hold no fear for me.  The OP's circumstances may be different.

 

However, I would also be fully aware that the government guidelines may not be entirely reliable on this point (and government guidelines often do not accurately reflect the law) and that a magistrates court might very well decide that anxiety and acne do not provide a reasonable excuse not to wear a mask.  (And if I were the OP I think I'd drop the acne side of it - I don't think it strengthens their argument at all).

 

And this is not intended as a criticism of the OP but, before deciding how to handle this problem, they may want to consider themselves how reasonable their not wearing a mask is.  It is partly a question of having respect for others, as I'm sure that encountering unmasked shoppers is something that can add to the anxiety levels of other shoppers - particularly those who may be in a more vulnerable condition than the OP.  The OP may indeed find wearing a mask, difficult, uncomfortable or that it does indeed raise anxiety levels somewhat, but they need to be aware that despite what the guidelines seem to say, a court might find otherwise.

[Manxman in exile]

I don't want to pass judgement on the OP but I don't think that pointing out different potential outcomes is necessarily judging them.

 

Indeed, it's precisely because none...

 

5 hours ago, Ethel Street said:

... of us are qualified to judge OP's medical condition or degree of anxiety or determine whether OP's medical condition justifies not wearing a mask.

 

that none of us can reliably advise the OP as to whether they might succeed in challenging this penalty or might win in court if it gets that far.  All we know is that the OP believes that his anxiety and acne give him an excuse for not wearing a mask.  Whether his belief is reasonable or not, we don't know.

 

When I first read this thread, based on what I'd read of the government guidelines, I thought the OP was in a win win situation.  Now I'm not so sure.

 

The government guidelines are rubbish.  I'm not sure that following those guidelines would necessarily form a solid foundation for a defence.  So far as I'm aware saying "I read it in government guidance" or "my solicitor advised it was ok" does not usually provide a defence to a criminal charge if the accused has actually broken the law.

 

What also caused me to think again are the posts from Hammy and hightail.  While it might be the case that according to the letter of the law the OP has no charge to answer, I wonder if a magistrates court might just possibly convict on the grounds that not wearing a mask was against the spirit of the law, and not in the public interest.  In particular:

 

8 hours ago, hightail said:

... A court might find it isn't at all reasonable not to play your part in protecting yourself and others if you could wear a mask even though you have a condition which makes it slightly more difficult than for the person next to you.  It isn't easy or pleasant for anyone, it will all come down to a matter of degree.

 

 

I don't find it inconceivable that a bench, when faced with the question of deciding whether not wearing a mask was reasonable, might decide that, in the circumstances under consideration, it was not.  (And I'm not making any judgement on the OP's case here - I don't know the details of his circumstances.  I'm just saying it could happen.

 

5 hours ago, Ethel Street said:

...

CAG is here to help people, not to tell them  why, on no evidence, they are not meeting their social obligations (as defined by other posters)

 

 

Yes CAG is here to help people, but that might sometimes mean pointing out that there may be more than one way of looking at something - without necessarily passing judgement on any individual's point of view or sincerely held belief.

 

It might also mean pointing out sometimes that people have some social obligations and responsibilities as well as rights - particularly during the present Covid pandemic which seems at times to be approaching a national emergency.  The problem for the OP is that whilst you and he may not agree with some of the social obliations defined here by others (and I'm not 100% sure I do either to be honest) a bench of lay magistrates considering the reasonableness of his behaviour might agree with them and conclude his behaviour was not reasonable.

 

Now it's not my intention to criticise or judge the OP, and I actually think he's more likely that not either to challenge the penalty successfully or win in court, but I suspect there is a reasonably significant possibility that if the police do not drop the penalty and it goes to court, the OP could lose.

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

Just to add, consideration and respect for others is not a one-way street.  We need to remember that others who may be vulnerable themselves may be caused considerable alarm and distress when being confronted by other shoppers not wearing masks.

 

Now I'm not saying the OP does not have a valid reason not to wear a mask, but I don't think everybody who doesn't wear one necessarily does have a good reason.  And that's why I don't think a court can, or will, simply say "Oh well - the defendant says they have a reasonable excuse not to wear a mask, therefore we must believe him without further consideration".

[Manxman in exile]

On 22/02/2021 at 13:29, Man in the middle said:

 

 The OP says he suffers "anxiety". It will simply be for a court to decide whether such anxiety as explained by the OP is a reasonable excuse or not.

 

I don't disagree.

 

But I think the uncertainty will be how the court dertermines if it is reasonable or not.

 

If you assume the severity of someone's anxiety can be rated on a scale of 1 (least severe) to 10 (most severe), it's quite possible that one court might decide that relatively mild anxiety (say 2 - 4) would suffice as reasonable excuse whereas another might say that only severe or really severe anxiety (say 8 - 9) should qualify.  (And I assume this is what hightail was getting at with their digital/binary analogy).  And I suspect it would be possible for even an individual magistrate to arrive at different conclusions in different cases.

 

I can't help but think some magistrates may come to a decision about reasonableness based in part on weighing the distress/discomfort/even pain suffered by the person in question against the purpose of the regulations - reducing cases of infection, possible deaths and possible distress caused to others.

 

I don't see how any decision about reasonableness can be made without taking account of such considerations - indeed they go toward the meaning of "reasonable" in this context.

 

And I'm not saying this with the intention of criticising the OP.  I'm saying that without knowing the severity of the OP's condition(s) it is impossible to say with any certain what the likely outcome will be.  All we really know is that the police officers concerned did not think it a reasonable excuse (for what it's worth).

 

And as I've already said, if I was the OP and was happy that I had a reasonable excuse, I'd challenge it and/or let it go to court.

 

It would be good to know how it turns out if the OP decides not to pay.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Manxman in exile

[Manxman in exile]

The way I look at it is to ask the question "Is simply having a particular medical condition a reasonable excuse in itself for not wearing a mask?"  I don't see how it can be.

 

Obviously we don't know what was said, but presumably it may have been along the lines of:

 

Police:  "Excuse me sir, but I see you are not wearing a face covering.  Would you mind explaining to us what your reason for not doing so is?"

 

Now, the OP may have responded in one of at least two different ways.  For example, one way would be:  "No - I don't mind explaining at all officer.  I have a long-standing diagnosis of severe anxiety for which I receive regular treatment including medication.  Since the wearing of face coverings have become compulsory while shopping I have discovered that the wearing of a mask brings about really severe and disorienting panic attacks in me, and these attacks are so bad that they cause palpitations, my heart-rate to go through the roof and really severe dizziness.  If I had somebody else to do my shopping for me, I wouldn't be here, but I don't.  Also I've looked on the government website and that appears to state quite clearly that I don't need any documentation or anything to demonstrate that I have a reasonable excuse for not wearing a mask.  Have I got that wrong?  I'm terrible sorry if I have... "

 

Or the OP could possible have said:  "I suffer from anxiety and acne*.  The government website says that because of that I don't have to wear a mask".

 

We don't know what was actually said by either party (the OP hasn't really told us) but I can easily see if the OP's response was along the lines of the former example then the police might have said to themselves "OK - he seems legitimate - no further action".  But if the Op's response was more like the latter, the police might have thought "Hmmm.  Not sure about this.  Give him penalty to be on the safe side and tell him he can challenge it if he disagrees."

 

If we're agreed the police aren't really in a position to assess whether an excuse is or is not reasonable, I can easily see them issuing penalties in non-clear cut cases and deciding to allow the system to decide the reasonableness or otherwise of a particular excuse.  Simply tell the person being penailsed that they can complain about the penalty or let it go to court.

 

I don't necessarily see this as the police abdicating their responsibility or not doing their duty.  I can see their thought process as being - We're in the middle of a pandemic killing unprecedented numbers of people; emergency measures are in place to prevent the spread of infection and deaths by making shoppers wear masks, unless they have a reasonable excuse; this person isn't wearing a mask but I have no way of telling if their excuse is reasonable or not; I'm not the best person to decide that - court is.

 

Now that's far from ideal but it's the sort of place we end up when the government wants to have its cake and eat it as to whether it wants to make people wear masks - or not.  They don't seem to have decided.  (Actually, I suspect the OP's predicament is exactly what the government intended when they brought this is.  Opportunity for police to impose on the spot penalties but with the possibility of going to court for those with reasonable excuse).

 

*As mentioned in an earlier post, I might not have mentioned the acne as I'm not sure if would strengthen or weaken my reasonable excuse argument.

[Manxman in exile]

https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations

 

Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!

 

"Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...

 

"Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...

 

"Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...

 

Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."

 

Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

Nobody here can say for sure whether you should challenge this penalty or just pay it because nobody knows if a court would consider your reason(s) for not wearing a mask a reasonable excuse or not.

 

But... my view would be that if you can get a letter from your doctor saying that because of your medical conditions (acne and anxiety) that wearing a mask causes you such distress (and/or discomfort and/or pain) that you have a medically based reasonable excuse for not wearing a mask, then that should do it for you - in my view.

 

You can then use that letter to challenge the police as to the validity of the fixed penalty, and if they don't back down you can let it go to court - if you want to do that.  I would expect the court to accept your doctor's letter at face value and quash the penalty - but nothing is certain!

 

Have you given your doctor/your practice notice of what you want and why you need it?  Have you explained that you have already received a fixed penalty for not wearing a mask, that you want to challenge it and that you need a letter explaining your reasonable excuse for not wearing a mask so that this does not happen again?  At my GP surgery I could either have phoned them up to explain all this in advance, or emailed them explaining it.  It might not be a good idea just to turn up for an appointment without letting the GP know in advance why you are there.

 

If your GP won't give you a "reasonable excuse" letter - and they may refuse to do so - then you need to think again.

 

First thing to consider if they don't is that you need to decide if you really have a reasonable excuse or not.  If you still think you do, then you need to decide if you want to challenge the penalty further or if you just want to pay it.  But if you do that, what happens next time* you are caught without a mask?  If you don't think you have a reasonable excuse, then you'd better start wearing a mask.

 

*If you can't get a GP's letter I have a few other thoughts but will have to post those later - I'm just going out.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Manxman in exile

[Manxman in exile]

Speaking to CAB is a good idea as if the police in your area are "trigger-happy", then they may already have experience of advising on this sort of problem.

 

If you pay the £200 then it goes away - but doesn't address what you do in future if you can't wear a mask.

 

Your best bet might still be to do what Ethel Street first suggested which is to complain officially to the police (or whoever issued the penalty charge) and argue that they were wrong to issue it because you had a reasonable excuse not to wear a mask under the Covid Regulations because doing so causes you distress because of your acne and anxiety.  Also point out that the official government website says this: 

 

"If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:

• you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this
• you do not need show an exemption card

This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

 

Ask them to withdraw the penalty as you have a reasonable excuse not to wear a mask and you have complied with government guidance.

 

If the police won't withdraw it then you either pay it or you don't.  If you pay it then it goes away but you've lost £200.  If you don't pay it, you wait to see if they will take you to court.  If they take you to court and you win - great!   But if you lose you get a criminal record and probably have to pay some prosecution costs too.

 

Nobody here can tell you what you should do.  Only you really know if the extent of your acne and anxiety is such as to cause so much distress when wearing a mask as to give you a reasonable excuse not to wear one.

 

The probelm with the govt website (which may not accurately reflect the law) is that it appears to declare that you can simply say that you have reasonable excuse not to wear a mask without providing any evidence that you do - which seems daft to some people.

 

You need to read back through this thread and pay attention to the points made - particularly those by Ethel Street and Man in the middle.

 

At the end of the day nobody here can predict what a court would do - not least because the guidance provided by the government is of very little help.  See what CAB advise.

 

[EDIT:  The police have already decided on one occasion that you do not have an excuse for not wearing a mask.  You might want to consider why that may be and whether it should affect any decision you make now].

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Manxman in exile

[Manxman in exile]

It would be interesting to know what advice CAB give you...

[Manxman in exile]

Seems a reasonable challenge to me.  I might want to tweak it a little bit but I'm not sure I could improve it much, to be honest.  I think you could send that off as it is. 

 

See if anybody else has any comments.

 

One thing - I know that notification is from ACRO and I see that they are administered by Hampshire constabulary, but I also note that the decision to penalise you was actually made by "the undersigned of Merseyside Police".

 

If the decision was made by Merseyside, I'm wondering if you should be writing to them to complain about the penalty under their complaints procedure, with a copy of that to ACRO (and possibly Hampshire constabulary)?  I suppose if you write to all three of them you can't go wrong!

 

If I were you I might try to 'phone or email Merseyside police and ACRO (is there a 'phone number?) to say you want to challenge this penalty and what is the correct way to do it.  If you 'phone make a note of the time and date and person you speak to.

 

See what others here say, but if there's some sort of deadline for paying the charge, try ot to miss it.

[Manxman in exile]

In light of what Ethel Street has posted I would try to get that letter sent off today if I still could.  I'd go to a post office and get it sent first class and I would get a free certificate of posting at the same time.  My understanding is that if the certificate shows a posting date of today then it should be deemed delivered two working days later - ie 17 March.  (I must admit I don't know how that works if the certificate is timed after the last collection time of the day of postage?).

 

Even if the OP can't get to a post office in time today, it might be prudent just to get it sent first class today (before last collection if possible) and also post another one tomorrow from a post office.  Hopefully one, if not both of them, will be delivered no later than Wednesday.

 

Or if convenient they could deliver in person - and get a receipt.

 

The OP will need to read the ACRO FAQs himself to see who this challenge/complaint needs to go to.  Presumably Merseyside Constabulary?

 

If the OP's challenge is not successful, presumably he needs to decide whether to pay up or risk it being taken to court, and losing?

 

NB (1)  I'm assuming any challenge needs to be in writing and can't be by email?

 

NB (2) Even if the OP is technically late with their posted challenge, I hope it would not affect any decision to overturn the penalty.  That would seem very harsh.  I'd argue the challenge should be received within 28 days of service of the penalty notice, which I'd argue should be two days after its date.

[Manxman in exile]

The OP is caught between a rock and a hard place then...

 

Either pay up and it goes away, or "contest" it and risk losing in court.  (And I don't know if a conviction for a breach of Covid regs means a criminal record or if it means paying extra too)

 

Ftgab19 - nobody here can really advise you how to approach this because it's all new to us.

 

If it were me I think I'd be phoning Mersyside police and ACRO on Tuesday saying (as you've said above) that you consider the imposition of the penalty charge to be wholly unfair in that you followed govt guidelines in good faith and that you think the police officers who issued the charge were acting unfairly and unreasonably in not accepting you explanation for no mask.  Say you can't afford to pay the charge let alone afford to go to court.  Ask them if, in all the circumstances (eg following guidelines in good faith) they could exercise their discretion to cancel the charge so you do not have to fight it in court?

 

That's what I think I'd do, but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not qualified to give advice.

 

In the end you have to decide how to handle this.  If you can't speak to anyone helpful on the phone on Tuesday, come back to seeif anyone has a better idea.