Dominic Cummings. Photo: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

Barristers have taken to social media and the national newspapers to offer their views on whether the U.K. Prime Minister's most senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, broke lockdown rules by travelling to Durham with his family while his wife had COVID-19.

In a press conference on Monday, Cummings said that he had driven his wife and young son from London to County Durham on the evening of March 27 in order to stay at a cottage on his parents' farm, with the reasoning that his parents could look after his son should he also fall ill.

He also said that he had driven 30 minutes from the family's farm to the town of Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday, 15 days after he had first displayed symptoms, in order to test his eyesight and his fitness to drive. He said that he believed he behaved "reasonably" and did not regret his actions.

Despite calls for Cummings to resign, the Prime Minister is standing by his adviser, arguing that he at all times acted "reasonably". However, the question as to whether he acted legally has divided opinion among lawyers.

George Peretz QC of Monckton Chambers tweeted: "Cummings' *view* that he had acted reasonably and so hadn't broken the rules doesn't matter much. So — without in any way questioning his honesty here — his assurance that he didn't break them is not worth the paper it's written on."

In a blog post published on the Doughty Street Chambers website, Kirsty Brimelow QC said it was "completely clear" that Cummings breached government guidance on leaving his home.

"It is wrong in law for the Prime Minister to suggest that acting on instinct equates to lawfulness; in the same way that any excuse (that is not "reasonable") does not suffice," she wrote. "Obviously, reaching for 'instinct' also was contrary to all guidance at the time which was directing people to suppress their instincts to travel and to go to family.

"Whilst the strategy of attempting to argue that Mr. Cummings' conduct was within government guidelines is insulting and distressing to those who have made terrible sacrifices by staying indoors away from family, it also clears the 'we're all in this together' smokescreen to reveal a political plane where different rules apply."

However, not all share this opinion. One barrister suggests the regulations provide that one can leave their house where there was a "reasonable excuse" to do so, indicating that whether it is reasonable or not falls to a judge, and not to Parliament.

Writing in the Spectator on Sunday, Radcliffe Chambers barrister Steven Barrett said: "Ultimately, if pursued, the question [as to whether Cummings broke the law] would be one for a judge.

"I would be very surprised if a judge concluded that two parents leaving their home with a vulnerable young child, in order to guarantee childcare in the foreseeable likelihood of both parents being ill with the virus (which went on to hospitalise the boss of the man in question) acted unreasonably."

However, Brimelow QC counters this by suggesting that the justifications offered by government so far do not fulfil the 'reasonable' requirement. She says a claim by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps that it "is up to individuals to make their own decisions" runs "contrary to the law and to all guidance".

She argues that, whether there is a reasonable excuse "is an objective test; to be decided by the court".

Cummings is not the only party to the scandal. The country's Attorney General is also facing calls to resign after she voiced her support for Cummings. On Saturday, Suella Braverman took to Twitter to defend the adviser, saying: "Protecting one's family is what any good parent does. The @10DowningStreet statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it."

In response, Gerard McDermott QC of Outer Temple Chambers tweeted: "As nominal leader of the Bar and as [Attorney General], it might have been better to not express an opinion on this?"

Essex Court Chambers' Jeffrey Gruder QC is similarly dubious, tweeting: "Suella Braverman, as Attorney General and principal law officer what investigations did you conduct as to the reasons for Cummings journey to Durham before you accepted No 10's statement that the motive was childcare."

The U.K. government imposed a lockdown on March 23 when the Prime Minister asked the British public to stay at home to stop the spread of the coronavirus. It had been widely reported that Cummings was one of the main architects of the lockdown rules.

On May 10, restrictions in England were eased slightly.

Read more

Lord Sumption: A Response To My Critics On Lockdown

Brazil Supreme Court President in Hospital with Possible COVID-19 Infection