Police fine three Londoners for making a 250-mile trip

Three Londoners have been fined for driving more than 250 miles to camp at a Welsh beauty spot a week after police issued clarifying guidelines. 

Police said the group were caught at the picturesque beach in Mwnt, West Wales, where they were handed fines and sent packing.  

A spokeswoman for Dyfed Powys Police said: ‘Three men from the London area were located having set up camp at Mwnt. They had travelled a considerable distance only to be fined and sent straight back home.’ 

The guidance instructs officers that people can drive to the countryside for walks, when far more time is spent walking than driving.

It even allows for people to stop and rest to eat lunch while on a long walk.  The guidance also made clear it is ‘lawful’ to drive somewhere to exercise.

But the advice has been slammed by the National Rural Crime Network (NRCN), which warned it presents a ‘real risk’ of more people travelling to rural towns and villages and a possible spike in cases in Britain’s countryside.

Julia Mulligan, the police and crime commissioner for North Yorkshire and NRCN chairwoman, said the guidelines, produced by the National Police Chiefs Council and College of Policing, ‘go completely against’ Government advice to stay home.

She claimed the new guidelines ‘go completely against’ Government and scientific advice to stay at home to tackle the coronavirus.  

‘These new guidelines… are hugely unhelpful in the efforts we are making in rural Britain to stop people travelling to our communities,’ she added.

Ms Mulligan demanded an ‘urgent review’ of the new guidelines, which have the potential to ‘strain services in already struggling communities, stretches police resources and even adds strain to the NHS’.  

The document clarifies how officer should interpret the lockdown laws, known as the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.

When details emerged, the CoP insisted it was not ‘new national guidance and the messaging for the public hasn’t changed’.

Although described as a ‘really useful practical guide’, the examples given are not set out specifically in law under the regulations.

The document states that each case must be considered individually.  

‘Some public statements made soon after the adoption of the regulations suggested that members of the public could only leave their homes if “essential” to do so. However, this is not the test set out in the regulations and there is no legal basis for a requirement in those terms to be imposed,’ it says.

According to the document, incidents also likely to be reasonable include buying luxury items and alcohol; exercising more than once a day; moving to a friend’s address for several days to allow a ‘cooling-off’ following arguments at home; and buying tools and supplies for repairs and maintenance. 

Incidents not likely to be considered reasonable include someone who can work from home choosing to work in a nearby park; a short walk to a park bench when the person remains seated for a much longer period; buying paint and brushes simply to redecorate a kitchen; and driving for a prolonged period with only brief exercise.

An NPCC spokesman said: ‘While there is nothing in the legislation that prevents people from driving to exercise, police forces and the Government have rightly continued to advise the public not to travel long distances in the car to exercise.

‘Therefore forces who have advised this are not out of step with the CPS guidance.

‘Officers should continue to use discretion and judgment in deciding what is and what isn’t “necessary” and “reasonable” in the circumstances being mindful of the purpose of the regulations – to prevent transmission of infection.’