UKC

I have the opportunity to travel from the North of England to Scotland in my campervan for a bit of wild camping next week (at the side of the road, out of the way)....I'm just wondering how much that would break the law and potential fines etc etc.....

1/10 ...

The travelling bit is not illegal.

The one you may have problems with is overnight stays away from home unless on business or other (non exhaustive) exemptions. 

Its the possible hassle that worries me......

Don't forget to take your bolting kit for all those natural crags you can then top rope and abseil off using a double fisherman's...

If you’re legit I’d rather you didn’t -

I’m in a level 2 area, a couple of miles down the road are level 3. The FM is asking us not to travel out of Scotland at the moment. 
 

As the sayin goes if you need to ask the answer is likely a no. 
 

We have incredibly helpful police officers here in Scotland.  Just flag down a police car and explain the situation and they'll be very happy to tell you whether you have broken the law and what the fine is.

You should be ok so long as you remember to bury your shit outside.

...or inside

If you do get stopped by the polis just explain that you're looking for a castle to test your eyes.

As long as you engage your Van's cloaking device and wear your invisibility pants you should be ok

WTF

Fool. Since when was dossing by the road 'wild camping'?

You've been posting on UKC for over a decade, a great part of your posts suggest that you're actually fairly familar with Scotland, so even giving you the benefit of the doubt, it seems like a bit of a strange question to ask from one as experienced as yourself.

I believe that said chap now has some unexpected free time to join you. Maybe you could practice eyesight tests at potential belay stances or traffic junctions spotting police vans.

Not the global pandemic?

And never mind laws, it's rule 1 you need to apply.

Seems quite clear

1. Stay at home

You must not leave or be outside of your home unless where permitted by law. 

11 Travel

If you live in England, you must stay at home and avoid travel in the UK or overseas, unless for work, education or other legally permitted reasons. If you need to travel you should look to reduce the number of journeys if possible.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november#stay-...

As a straight answer: you wouldn't be breaking the law in Scotland - travel restrictions in that country are currently 'advisory' only.

Ethical considerations are a distinct matter of course.

That is not the law. That is guidance. For England.

The OP asked about the law and in Scotland...

So, not quite so clear after all.

The poison pixie tried to get the travel restrictions written into law but failed. Don't know exactly why. Does seem a huge step down the road to totalitarianism to me. Still doesn't mean you should be wandering around the country potentially spreading the virus. 

The earliest I remember it being called and calling it that was about 1969 when I was 5. It distinguishes it from campsite camping.

Yes, you would be breaking the law. In addition, you risk spreading a virus that's currently killing over 500 people per day in the UK.

Could you point out where, please?

I believe a bivvy near Barnard Castle might be permissible or as an alternative, staying in a converted swimming pool as long as no council tax has been paid

At least as far as Scotland is concerned, you are incorrect.

Sounds a great trip, can I come?

Is this the Scots way? I've done this for decades, both sides of the border and we called it car camping ( or dossing, particularly when I was a caver and often skint).

There is a practical reason for not calling it ‘wild camping’ in Scotland - the legislation allowing wild camping specifically excludes motor vehicles.

To be legal it should be described as ‘resting overnight’ as it is 1998 road legislation that allows vehicles to do this.

Now that the term "wild camping" has been hijacked to mean the sort of camping when you carry all your stuff away from the road, I tend to just say "roadside camping" to avoid misunderstanding. Car camping could just as easily be in a campsite as roadside. 

Talking of hijacked, 'backpacker' and 'backpacking' used to be heading into the hills to camp for me. When me and my ex were off around the world in the nineties we kept encountering these strange 'international backpackers' who wouldn't know a hill from their own ar*e. It soon became our favourite term for a prat.

The OP will be travelling from Northern England, so English law applies.  Clause 5 of the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 says:

5.—(1) No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

There are a number of examples of what is considered a "reasonable excuse" and it would be up to a court to decide, but I would bet against them finding that going away camping with a mate hundreds of miles from home was reasonable.

Scottish law will of course apply when he is in Scotland. I haven't checked the Scottish regulations, but if he were to break any laws there he could find himeself getting fined in both jurisdictions.

He is clearly going for exercise. 

And there is no distance stipulation.

Also, you're making things up. Where does the OP mention a mate and how to you get hundreds of miles from Northern England to Scotland? Could be less than a mile for all you know!

Note: The examples given are purely that. Examples. The list is non-exhaustive.

Generally i go with the theory that if you have to ask the question to justify your actions you already know what’s right and wrong.

The Scottish advice etc is quite complicated but if the OP is heading for the Highlands then they would inevitably be driving through a Level 3 area (given that it's impossible to pass through the Central Belt without doing so) to get to a Level 2 or 1 area, and the advice is very strongly that people shouldn't do that. For Scottish residents in Level 3 (eg me in Stirling) we're not allowed to travel out of the home council area apart from various exceptional circumstances, one of which is an extra five miles beyond for outdoor exercise. However if that takes you into a lower-level area then it's advised against. I'm thus able to drive five miles into Clackmannanshire for the Ochils (or five miles into Perth and Kinross beyond Killin if I wanted to travel that far), so long as Clacks and P+K are in Level 3 the same as Stirling. That's the case just now but until a couple of days ago P+K was in Level 2 so wasn't an option. Complicated as I say, but it does sort of make sense - and allows quite a lot of scope for people in certain council areas at least.

In the context of the initial question, the crux is that this is indeed all 'advice', and not 'law.'

I have been trying to point that out. It appears some people treat the two as interchangeable. Noticeably the more authoritarian lot. 

No he isn't . You might infer that from his posting history but as far as we know he might intend to spend his entire time watching birds through a window mounted pair of binoculars.

Fine. That's not against the law either!

I'm not exactly one of life's authoritarians, to put it mildly. Personally I'm just trying to follow (for the most part at least) the current advice where I live, and if I sound a bit forensic about it, it's mainly because the advice here is changing so often - every couple of weeks - that it needs a fairly high level of scrutiny to keep up. I have very little opinion on what other people should or shouldn't do re the advice - that's up to them. I'm just trying to steer my own path through all the complications.

They are proposing to go camping in a van.  Other than digging holes to shit in, no exercise involved.

With these kinds of discussion, the legislation in England depends on the word "reasonable". A police officer's thoughts on this may be different to yours and mine which might result in a fine. The choice then becomes pay up or contest the fine in court. Ultimately it's up to the courts to define what a "reasonable excuse" is.

Whilst travelling to achieve any of the "reasonable excuses" is ok - as you know, travel isn't mentioned in the legislation, I suspect the courts would take a dim view of unnecessary travel. As an obtuse example, it might be difficult to argue going to Stanage was "reasonable" if you had to drive past the Roaches to get there.

No idea what the Scottish legislation says but I wouldn't be surprised if it contained similar vagueness that needs to be be defined by a court.

And going from England into Scotland and back again, I see no reason why you couldn't be prosecuted in both on the same trip.

I agree that travel to open space for exercise is a permitted exception, and I have argued for this point on another thread.  But it still has to be "reasonably necessary".

Fair cop, I'd misread the original post about a mate, but that isn't material.  And I'd made an assumption on the distance, but if he's taking a campervan and stopping overnight that suggests to me it's probably going to be more than just nipping over the border.  

True. But the key word throughout is "reasonable". That is not for you, me or the OP to decide, it is for the police in the first instance and then the courts.  You have to ask yourself how likely it is that they would consider it reasonable. 

I'd be interested to know what my disliker is disliking - have I got a fact wrong? or just disagreeing with my opinion? or thinking that going past The Roaches to get to Stanage would be reasonable? - or maybe I've just got a stalker 😁

Just finished a three council area bogtrot. Of the three East Lothian has the lowest rate... but is tier three. Need to revert to Haddingtonshire perhaps?  

I know - there's a debatable amount of science in all this. Similar across here - the Stirling stats have for weeks been miles below Glasgow and the Lanarkshires, but we get put in level 3 all the same. Plenty of locals are pretty unimpressed, to put it mildly - and if Stirling goes into level 4 this week and points west don't, then the level of unimpressedness is likely to go off the scale.

Your bogtrot sounds good. Everywhere very squelchy just now. I'm just back in from King's Seat from Tilli - parking five miles from the council boundary, then doing the rest on foot. Wet on the way up - intended carrying on to Whitewisp but not in that weather, so cut back down the southern side and had an exploring session on the big Harviestoun slope - where almost no one ever goes - by when it had brightened up, very nice.

Thanks for mentioning that.  I hadn't noticed that the advice on the government web site had been updated since the five levels system was first announced, and I certainly hadn't seen it reported anywhere that the guidance was being tweaked.  They seem more than keen to publicise changes when the outcome is more restrictive - understandably - but it would seem only fair also to publicise when guidance that was initially a bit confusing has been clarified, or restrictions eased slightly.

It’s surprisingly featured isn’t it? All sorts of knolls and kame  channels. Did you find the White Stone of Tom Ballard?

When Fife, Perth and Kinross and Angus went to level 3 last week, it was explained that it was not so much about numbers of cases but rather about the "trajectory" of cases. The idea is when things increase exponentially they can get out of control very quickly and are best nipped in the bud. I think pressure on hospitals is also being considered - I saw something from a doctor at Ninewells in Dundee saying this probably had some bearing on Angus going to level 3.

The only time I've "explored" that slope was when I went up KIngseat in the snow in winter in the dark without a map or compass and got lost!

Not today - although funnily enough just a month ago I had a proper (but futile) look for it. Theory seems to be that it's more or less due south from the Spitfire memorial. Left the path at the memorial today but angled further right - ended up in the interesting little mini glen of the Blackhornduff Burn before stopping for a late lunch at the trees at the top end of the farm fields. Further west, do you ever use the Kirk Glen path? That's one of my favourite ways on/off (mostly off) but again is almost entirely deserted - everyone seems to go at King's Seat from either the Gannel end or the Castle Campbell end.

Yes, saw that - but the same methodology didn't seem to be applied to the Glasgow and Lanarkshire trajectories. There was a remarkable set of stats published at the end of Oct when the five-level system came in. There are five official "indicators" which are used to determine the level, and both Lanarkshire councils had 44444. Stirling had 22211, while FatBumbly2's patch in East Lothian had 23200. All four of these areas were put in level 3.

No, never been into Kirk Glen. I have descended a gully off Elistoun into Harvestoun Glen and followed the 425m contour back to Bank Hill. I passed a large, flat, white topped rock where the dot for the White Stone is on the 1:25000 map. I assumed that was It?

Sounds like it probably was. The Friends of the Ochils site has a picture of it:
https://www.facebook.com/233089656788447/posts/the-curious-white-stone-of-t...

Re the Kirk Glen, I once crossed to the east side and went up the obvious gully that exits on to the western flank of Elistoun Hill - it wasn't really a scramble apart from one short section, but it was quite steep. Elistoun must be one of the least-visited summits in the Ochils, certainly among the ones on the Hillfoots side - yet it's no more than half a km off the main Helen's Muir path.

The Kirk Glen is really good - an old grassy path all the way up the western side and these days there's also a decent connecting path across the moor to the main path. If coming off King's Seat, take the usual path to the Helen's Muir cairn then carry on for a few more minutes down the section of path with old fenceposts. Towards the end of this look for a small but definite path going off sharp left, shortly after a very old-looking wooden post. This takes you to the edge of the steep slope at an old dyke, and from there you can angle down rightwards in a couple of minutes to pick up the obvious path in Kirk Glen, which is in a sort of groove. It takes you all the way down to the street at the east end of Tillicoultry. Is a much drier and less eroded way off than the lower Gannel path.

In terms of the OP's original query, this report might be of interest:
https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/18863395.driver-passenger-told...

It concerns a driver and passenger being fined in South Lakes a few days ago after having travelled from West Yorkshire. However the police have since issued a clarification saying that the fines were for leaving home without good reason, and the distance itself was not a factor, contrary to the initial police report:
https://twitter.com/CumbriaRoadsPol/status/1326289215592796166

No... I'm not.

You need to read the guidance again. You're wrong. But, I'm not going to waste my time going over it with you, as though you were a child I'm teaching to read.

I'm the one that can't read? Did you manage to work out the long words in the OP.  You know, the complicated one spelt "L-A-W"?

If so you'd know the OP asked about the law. Much as our befuddled government might want it to be, guidance is NOT THE LAW!

You are persistent  - but,  nevertheless, still incorrect.

For example, read https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54812972

As I posted earlier, some of the more hard of thinking (including some MP's) have trouble differentiating between guidance and law.

It doesn't make them correct but they'll never admit it...

From the legislation (chopping the irrelevant parts)... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/part/2/made

Exceptions: leaving home

6.—(1) These are the exceptions referred to in regulation 5.

Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes

(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)—

(c)to take exercise outside—

(i)alone,

(ii)with—

(aa)one or more members of their household, their linked household, or

(bb)where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or

(iii)in a public outdoor place, with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household or their linked childcare household,

and paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph;

(d)to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation—

(i)alone,

(ii)with—

(aa)one or more members of their household, their linked household, or

(bb)where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or

(iii)with one other person who is not a member of their household or their linked household,

Please stop making up your own interpretations and passing them off as fact. 

No... You're wrong - provided we're talking about the OP, who is describing travelling from England to Scotland.

Under Travel:

"If you live in England, you must stay at home and avoid travel in the UK or overseas, unless for work, education or other legally permitted reasons. If you need to travel you should look to reduce the number of journeys if possible."

You can travel for exercise but:
"to spend time or exercise outdoors - this should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)"

Under Staying Away from Home Overnight:

"You cannot leave home for holidays or stays overnight away from your main home unless permitted by law. This means that holidays in the UK and abroad are not allowed. This includes staying in a second home or caravan, if you own one, or staying with anyone you do not live with or are in a support bubble with."

"If you were already on holiday, you should return to your home as soon as practical and comply with the ‘stay at home’ requirements in your holiday accommodation in the meantime."

It's clear as day that you are not allowed to travel from the north of England for a holiday in Scotland.

You need to reread the comments of mine in this thread with which you have been disagreeing: they entirely relate to Scotland ...

No... I really don't need to reread them... The laws may be different in Scotland, but that hardly matters given that the OP is travelling from England. Feel free to reply all you want, but I'm out. Ta!

The l-a-w, since you like things to be spelled out: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/contents

I think this thread has been derailed by the debate between what constitutes legally enforceable regulations, and strongly worded guidance. Just because you may be able to get away with it and not be prosecuted, doesn't mean its the right or sensible thing to do.

Many of us are in (Scottish) tier 3 which means we are not leaving our local authority area (+5 miles) except for essential reasons. The rest of the country is advised not to enter said tier 3 areas.

So can I speak for the residents of Scotland and just say - dinnae be a bampot.

We are trying our hardest up here to get the transmission rate back under control, so that we can ALL enjoy more freedoms e.g. to go into the hills over winter. Constantly pushing the boundaries of (and squabbling about) how far you can legally get away with things is both selfish and immature IMHO.  If enough people ignore the guidance, it wont work, and will inevitably become legally enforced (see bbc article Nov 4th previously linked). Nobody wants that situation, so please everyone just grow up.
Find the beautiful wild spots close to home that you have overlooked, and enjoy exploring them for a bit.

I'm not sure what you think I'm passing off as fact.  I quoted the same regulations as you have, although not in as much detail.  What you seem to have overlooked is that 6 (2) of the regulations says these exceptions apply where it is "reasonably necessary" - these are not absolute rights. I have also said throughout that the question whether this is reasonably necessary would ultimately be for a court to decide.  

Unfortunately for anyone seeking absolute clarity, the law is not black-and-white.  Anyone leaving home in England has to consider how likely it is that they would be able to persuade first the police and then a court that their journey was reasonably necessary.  Whilst travelling more than a certain distance is not in iteslf an offence, either in the legislation or the guidance, I think it is possible that it might be taken into consideration, especially as a long journey is more likely to require a stop which might involve contact with other people.  Similarly, whilst guidance is just that, it might be taken into consideration when deciding what is "reasonable" in the current circumstances.  All I said was I wouldn't bet on a court finding in the OP's favour. 

I would. Both outdoor exercise and visiting a public place for outdoor recreation are explicitly noted as exceptions to the rule. Doing something specifically noted in the exceptions list would be reasonable wouldn't it? Especially as there is no other clause to counter this.

It's threads like this that let us understand how places like East Germany lasted so long

C Witter (who has now apparently left the discussion) displays an illogical strawman style of argumentation: he appears wilfully to misread what other people write, in order that he can then aggressively argue against them. Quite strange.

Between 09:24 and 09:25 must be the shortest "I'm out" in history...

Too much common sense spoken in your post by far.

The exception applies where it is reasonably necessary to leave home in order to participate in one of the listed activities.  So having established that he was leaving home for one of these purposes, he might still have to show that it was reasonably necessary.  In some cases it seems pretty clear, for example leaving the house to take exercise (provided the reason is genuine and the conditions are complied with) probably doesn't require any further tests.  However "leaving home to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation" leaves a possible grey area - how far is it reasonable to travel ?

As I keep pointing out, that would be a decision for a court to make.  Is distance even a consideration?  If so, would the court consider it reasonable in the current situation for someone to drive past all the open space in the north of England in order to go to Scotland?  I don't know the answer and never claimed to, but I suspect they might take account of the guidance on remaining local and avoiding overnight stays. I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome, that's all I've been saying..  If you think differently that's up to you, but your view is just as much an interpretation of the legislation as mine is. 

But (as I put in a post) do you think driving past the Roaches to get to Stanage would be considered "reasonably necessary"? I think you might have to justify why you weren't going to the nearest (or thereabouts) place to do a particular type of exercise.

I didn't see that he was - merely saying that "reasonably necessary" is not defined and that different people - you & I - the Police, the Courts - could come to different conclusions on this.

This is the general way that the law in the UK operates. Legislation is passed and then interpreted by the courts, if necessary all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The English legislation (as opposed to the guidance) makes no mention of travel, nor does it ban staying away from home overnight. It does stop hotels, camp sites, etc, allowing people to stay there unless they're one of the specified exceptions - e.g. for work.

So travelling a long way and kipping in your van is not banned under the English legislation.

But, I imagine that it would be rather difficult to persuade a PC (and the courts) that this came under "reasonably necessary", so although your "It's clear as day" conclusion is effectively correct, it's not technically correct until/unless a court makes a relevant judgement.

It may be that the Scottish legislation (which I've not looked at - nor am I going to since I've no intent of going there at the moment) explicitly mentions travel & staying away, which might actually ban in the legislation the OP's original idea.

How about booking an eye test? That seems to be a card one can play with consummate ease :/

Would you have to justify walking past a Tesco to get to a Waitrose?

Look at the legislation, it states not just outdoor exercise (ala lockdown 1) but also outdoor recreation as an exception. This does not limit you to the nearest piece of dirt/grass to your house alone.

As of Friday travel into and out of level 3 and 4 areas in Scotland will be illegal (just announced), so you would be breaking the law if you go as far as the Central Belt.

Ok well lets go with your absolute worst case scenario, that you are caught doing something mentioned on the exemptions list, the police officer has had a particularly bad morning dealing with all these gobby citizens wanting to exercise their right to go outdoors alone and using every excuse in the book to do so. You're Mr. Unlucky and he's writing you up (despite assurances that police will be looking to engage with public rather than throwing fines out willy-nilly), first offence is 200 clams. That holding up in court, if it went that far, seems unlikely to me but as you say that's just my opinion vs anyone else's.

So in my estimation if you are generally unlucky in life and don't have a spare £200, it would be worth considering just walking around your local park. Once in Scotland where they do not have such rules currently, I can't see them policing the non-existent English lockdown guidance for outdoor recreation, can you? Do stop and searches on random people looking a bit English North of Hadrians wall sound likely?

They will be too busy with stopping people looking a wee bit too Weegie

I read the English legislation(not looked at Scotland) as soon as it came out and at least section 6 seems black and white to me.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/part/2/made

There is no 'reasonableness' test to be applied to the exceptions in section 6(2). 

The word 'reasonable' is used in a declarative sense and not as a clause. 

Subject to obeying of the other sub-clauses, 'Leaving home'.. '(c) to take exercise' .. and '(d)to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation'  is declared, by the legislation,  as reasonable and lawful. 

Read carefully;

"6(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)— ....  (c)to take exercise outside—"

The word 'reasonably' in that passage is not a clause. The passage is a declaration(in law) that being outside to exercise is reasonably necessary. No other opinion or test of reasonableness can be applied as this article of law has intrinsically defined being outside for exercise, so long as within the bounds of the other clauses, as 'reasonably necessary'.

Passage 6(2) is a definition of what exception is reasonably necessary, not an instruction to upholders of the law to test the unmentioned(in law) particulars of the exception against what they believe is reasonable.

Any other particulars of your trip, e.g. how far you have traveled, are irrelevant to the law. Since they are not mentioned in the legislation, they are lawful. 

Or that is my reading of it anyway. 

The government have had several attempts at this legislation so far and from my reading of it there are far fewer gaffs this time round. Remember the erroneous 'need to exercise' gaff in the initial March Legislation!

The declaration that it is reasonable to be outside for exercise, or open air recreation etc is clearly deliberate and not a gaff of drafting.  It is intended to preclude the option of law upholders using their own flawed judgement and embarrassing the establishment with tyrannical cases we saw last lock down. The previous spectacle of the police dragging vulnerable people from park benches because they had been out for an 'unreasonable amount of time', or had traveled an 'unreasonable distance' do not engender compliance in the rest of population! 
 

Let me see if I've got your understanding of it right, I'll try and be clear but this is a bit tricky...

You're reading it as basically a statement of fact that "it is reasonably necessary..."; i.e. this is an ok reason to be an exception to being cooped up at home. And you're saying that therefore there is no reasonableness test on the sub-paragraphs within each of those statements; e.g. any exercise is ok because exercise as a whole is seen as "reasonably necessary" and therefore any exercise is a valid exception.

If you're correct then that does put a different interpretation on it.

My question to you would be why is the word "reasonably" in there at all then? Why not just say "it is necessary..." because surely the "reasonably" would be superfluous.

I suspect this would be an argument for the courts to decide - if it ever gets contested along these lines.

Edit: in fact why is "necessary" in there either, why not just say "where the person concerned desires to..." 

Edit2: in a geeky sort of way, I find it fascinating how difficult it must be to draft legislation so that it is does exactly what is intended.

I wasn't restricting myself to exercise, it's just a lot less typing than "visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation" 😁 - which is a bit of a vague definition.

I suspect wanting to take open air recreation on the moors rather than a local bit of grass would be ok, but (similar) to what I've posted above, going to a distant moor rather than a near one would be harder to justify - I suspect the distant destination would need some kind of unique feature or something that made it unique to you - unless of course Grus's interpretation is correct, in which case any where's ok.

Or arguably the precise opposite: there will be a lot of people in Stirling and West Lothian right now who are feeling they're the collateral for the FM's relentless refusal to single out Greater Glasgow, even though that's where the highest rates have been for months.

For the case of the OP's question, its all rather moot because the OP is talking about camping in a van which is neither exercise nor outdoor recreation.

In England the legislation doesn't prohibit camping in a van. It explicitly prohibits hotels etc being able to offer overnight accommodation except for people who need to be away for work etc.

It's a question of whether one of the "reasonable excuses" for not being at home applies whilst you are camping in a van. I can't see many situations where that would be true without being a bit obtuse.

Yes, that is what I'm saying, subject also to the constraints in sub paragraph i,ii and iii, which are  related to who you are exercising with.

The word 'reasonably' is used in order to satisfy the requirements of Paragraph 5 to which the exclusions apply.
 

"5.—(1) No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."
 

I agree the word 'reasonably' is superfluous in the exclusions as it is a repetition of explanatory note to paragraph 1 in Paragraph 2(a) 

"the circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse include where one of the exceptions set out in regulation 6 applies;"
 

To make people think there is a law, but without the government  leaving themselves open to future accusations of introducing draconian laws.

There is bound to be an MP who will be criticized for  travelling excessively without an excuse. One of Johnson's minions(probably the Attorney General again and in breach of the law!) will then advise that travelling any distance isn't actually against the law. They did this with Cummings, and then promptly changed the law shortly after!

In passing this legislation, Johnson had to avoid the incurring further wrath from Lindsay Hoyle and properly(or almost properly) take the legislation through Parliament. There are a number of MPs who are a good deal more concerned about defending our freedoms than are the subjects on this forum. If the legislation had been any more restrictive, such as by allowing an explicit 'reasonableness test' by the police, there is every chance it would have failed the vote in Parliament. 

To be sure, best bivvy outside to be in compliance with exception 6(d), maybe keep the bivi unzipped to the 'open air'!

If I've read the list right Clackmannanshire, Perth & Kinross, Falkirk, and Fife are still at level 3. It's all very confusing.  

Yes. Not sure why that is confusing though!

I presume there must be some case law in the English courts that has ruled on this kind of terminology, phrasing, paragraphing, sub-clausing etc so that there is a defined way of interpreting the structure of written laws.

I'm not legally trained so I'd have no idea how to find any such rulings but it would be interesting to see (and probably good brain training 😁).

Having said all that, I'm not intending to travel many miles to do something outdoors - first requirement would be some good enough weather.

Look at Aberdeen now.

Yes so you also have to take into account all that the PM and other MPs were saying leading up to this lockdown to help guide your action. They went out of their way to point out that this lockdown wasn't looking to clamp down on outdoor recreation. 

I did hear that many areas are dropping fines as they are being considered unfair, unclear or even not legal

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/more-two-thirds-coronav...

I imagine a majority of these fines are not for being alone in the countryside. Pandemic, national emergency, end of the world or otherwise, making individual outdoor recreation illegal isn't right, just, moral or legal.

Why what’s happening? Was level 2 is still level 2. Aberdeenshire was level 2 is still level 2 - what have we in the NE missed? 

Sleeping in a van isn't outdoor recreation unless you take the doors off the van and play dominoes or something.

Of course it is. You're being silly now.

If campervanning/caravanning/camping is his hobby then it's clearly recreational. 

And he's hardly parking up inside a building is he!

If you are camping IN a van, you aren't outdoors.

Above I'm discussing a specific point with Howard about how reasonable/unreasonable/legal it is to travel out of your locality for outdoor exercise and recreation and haven't actually weighed in on the overnight stay topic at all.

But since I'm here, does sleeping alone or with anyone in your household, in a van, endanger lives? No, in short. However overnight stays are considered against the rules in England. However OP is staying overnight in Scotland, which doesn't have this rule. Also first line of the English lockdown rules states:

"You are allowed to stay overnight away from your home if you:

are unable to return to your main residence"

Quite what that entails in real life is questionable. In practical terms, will the Scottish authorities penalise you for doing something considered allowed in Scotland? I would suggest no.

However from Friday people in Scotland will be breaking the law if traveling in/out of tier 3 or 4 areas (assuming the legislation is passed, note I haven't bothered to read the draft) for non essential purposes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54978119

It remains to be seen if there is an 'or equivalent area' clause in the legislation to encompass travel from England (or elsewhere), and given the current lockdown in England, all English areas will most likely be deemed to be equivalent to Scots Tier 4 or 5. 

There was exactly that clause at the start of the Tier system which provided for English level 1 residents to holiday in Scots Tier 1 or 2 areas (and provided an exemption to allow people to 'transit' through Scots Tier 3).  Nicola then tried to unilaterally revoke the above system Holyrood had passed on the Thursday evening, by a twitter post (FFS) mid-day on the Saturday in response to Borris's announcement of the English lock-down, but her pronouncement had no legislative authority.

So while it might not have been illegal (ignoring breaking the spirit of the Scots Gov announcements) for the OP to come to the Highlands under COVID Scots law (obviously a Copper could try a 'reckless or culpable' charge, or 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace', or some other catch all), at the start of this thread, depending on the wording by this weekend it may very well become illegal; as holidaying won't be regarded as essential, and all England will be deemed to be equivalent to at least Scots Tier 4.  In short watch the Scot Gov website..................

The only reason I can see the new Scots legislation not to include this clause, is if the Scot Gov drafters are thinking its either superfluous as English residents shouldn't be making Holiday journeys under English regulations,  or they are assuming so few people will be coming up to Scotland its not worth the drafting hassel.

On that principle, neither is bird watching in a hide, camping in a tent or caving...

You could argue that at least these are activities.

I don't see sitting in a tent  fundamentally different to sitting in a campervan as far as activity goes. It's still camping...

Whoever is right, there is clearly scope for disagreement over the wording, which is how lawyers make their money.  Even if you were to ask a lawyer, you would still only get an opinion, not a definitive answer.  It would be a more knowledgeable and more reliable opinion than mine (and more expensive), but all they could tell you is how likely they think you would be to get away with it if it came to court. 

I haven't looked at the Scottish regulations.  However given the restrictions on travel imposed on Scots I can't help thinking the police there would take a dim view of visitors from England who think they can gad about as they please.  If there is a loophole in the Scottish regulations I suspect they'd just find a different book to throw at you, and while they're about it why not let your local force know that you've been away from home?

Guidance is not law, but it could possibly be seen by a court as a pointer to how the law should be interpreted.  Where a trip is clearly contrary to the guidance, do you think a court is likely to give you the benefit of the doubt?

I don't know if the OP would be breaking the law, but I am not at all confident he would not. I would be prepared to argue it would be reasonable for me to travel into  District from my home on the periphery, but a trip of the nature he proposes seems to be going too far, in both the literal and metaphorical sense.

Agreed there is ambiguity in the wording, no doubt. I see that as totally in favour of the individual citizen. If you want to enforce a law on someone you need to have a fairly iron clad argument, not wishy washy guidance that even law enforcement officials are unclear on. I suggest authorities have so many bigger fish to fry at this point that running into any problems with the law are effectively nil. Police can take a dim view all they want, if they have no law backing them up then what can they do?

Again though this is a discussion about the very worst case scenario. Are there police roving around the countryside looking for people camping alone? Are they pulling over cars to check home addresses and travel plans? In my experience so far this isn't the case.

Personally I hope he goes and posts his experience as a case study.

Re. Your third paragraph. Direct quote from a well respected barrister on a legal forum...

" It is an axiomatic principle that legislation that affects the liberty of the subject is interpreted in favour of liberty and against the State. That is something that every law student learns in week one."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/travel-ban-not-legally-enforceab...

It was hit by very harsh restrictions in August and Glasgow was not a short time later......

..... and now

Would have been a firsr rate troll if the first reply hadn't called it...

Point of information 1) In Scotland we have "protection levels", not "tiers".

Point of information 2) The protection levels only go up to 4, not 5.  (Maybe Nicola has an engineering background.  That would explain why it starts at level 0 - even though that's not "the old normal" e.g. even at level 0 there are still restrictions on the numbers of people who can meet indoors, and the number of households they can be from.)

Point of information 3) The current travel guidance says:

The current Scottish Government guidance, given the state of the epidemic across the UK is that people avoid any unnecessary travel between Scotland and England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.  

This applies to people who live in Scotland and to people who live elsewhere in the UK who are thinking of coming to Scotland.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-travel-a...

Whether the legislation due to come in to force on Friday will include that restriction I don't (yet) know.  Like you, I haven't read the draft.

Possibly not, but if they come across a campervan by the side of a road, at a time when people are being asked not to travel, they are probably going to ask questions.

There have been plenty of reports of police doing just that at both the Scottish and Welsh borders.

That's up to him.  All I am saying is that I don't think it can be said with certainty that what he is proposing falls within the permitted exceptions in English law, let alone whatever the situation in Scotland might be.  However if he recognises that and is willing to turn around if he is stopped by the police then he'll probably be OK.  If he persists, he could face a fixed penalty notice and would then have to consider whether or not to try to challenge that in court.  

I can't read that article without giving the Telegraph my personal details.  There is probably an equally eminent barrister who would give a different view.  The ECHR allows for some restrictions on liberty to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, atlthough this must be proportionate, which the Secretary of State claims the Regulations are.   I'm sure m'learned friends would welcome an opportunity to argue this in court.

Its a useful strawman to debate, irrespective, though.

sorry still not following, and now what? 

Yes I know about our past lockdown-I live in the shire and work in Aberdeen city but I still don’t get your point. ? 

Agreed. "Sorry officer I misunderstood the rules, I will go home as you suggest" is very unlikely to lead to a fine. Therefore the odds are almost entirely in the favour of the traveler.

Even a day in court challenging a fixed penalty notice is starting to sound fun at this point, anything to break up the monotony.

Hm. Interpretation of this point seems to be the crux of the matter. But, note that the law says:

"5.—(1) No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."

That is fairly comprehensive, with the only matter for interpretation being what constitutes reasonable excuse.

The law does say under exceptions to clause 5 that it is permissible "to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation". But, it does not say that it is permissible to go on holiday or stay out overnight. Given that these are not exceptions, interpretation would seem to fall on the side of this not counting as "reasonable excuse".

The guidance to interpreting the law says explicitly:

"You cannot leave home for holidays or stays overnight away from your main home unless permitted by law. This means that holidays in the UK and abroad are not allowed. This includes staying in a second home or caravan, if you own one, or staying with anyone you do not live with or are in a support bubble with.

You are allowed to stay overnight away from your home if you:

- are unable to return to your main residence
- need accommodation while moving house
- need accommodation to attend a funeral or related commemorative event
- require accommodation for work purposes or to provide voluntary services
- are a child requiring accommodation for school or care
- are homeless, seeking asylum or a vulnerable person seeking refuge
- are an elite athlete or their support staff or parent, if the athlete is under 18 and it is necessary to be outside of the home for training or competition

If you were already on holiday, you should return to your home as soon as practical and comply with the ‘stay at home’ requirements in your holiday accommodation in the meantime."

That seems fairly conclusive to me. But, in five minutes some buffoon will be along to call this a strawman argument, despite the fact that they're unable to distinguish between their arse and their elbow, nevermind to differentiate between those arguments that are logical and those that are fallacious.

All that this debate boils down to is that some people are so literal-minded that, upon seeing that the law doesn't explicitly say "NO HOLIDAYS, IT'S AGAINST THE L-A-W" and seeing the word "Guidance" at the top of the guidance to interpreting the law, they congratulate themselves, "A-ha! What a genius I am! I've outwitted the government, by finding the loop hole in their scheme!" Actually, they've done nothing of the sort: they're just professional morons. It only remains to say that this is completely against the spirit of what we're trying to do here, as a society, which is look after to each other by not risking spreading the disease.

I don't think most of the people arguing about the difference between the guidance and the legislation are suggesting we all mooch about on multi-day UK holidays, merely pointing out that they're not the same.

I would expect the guidance to be taken into consideration in a court judgement about the legislation in that it can be argued that it show's parliament's (or at least the government's) intent.

And although not following the guidance would be pretty anti-social in that we're trying to save society, it wouldn't be illegal (assuming it didn't explicitly contravene the legislation) until & unless case law had interpreted the legislation.

Headline this morning:

"Covid regulations will make it illegal to enter or leave Scotland

The Scottish government has published draft regulations that make it illegal to enter or leave the country without a reasonable excuse, as well as significantly restricting travel within Scotland."

Clearly there was ambiguity before today, so well worth discussing. Even with this announcement there seems to be debate about how legal this is. There are many exceptions to the rule but travelling for leisure does seem to be off the cards.

In fact it is one of the exceptions;

travel to transit through Level 3 and 4 areas by road or public transport if your journey begins and ends outside such an area

but advice is to not stop while in the areas.

It really is a minefield and you can understand people getting frustrated and confused.

It's useful that the five-miles-beyond thing for exercise does seem to be staying in the new Scottish legislation - it's particularly helpful (and has probably been drafted with this in mind) for people living on the edge of a council area with their nearest quiet bit of country being just across the boundary in another council. It's worth noting however that it says that in a Level 4 area "you should also keep journeys within the area to an absolute minimum". I take that to mean that if I fancied climbing a Munro during the next three weeks, I should go to one of the close-by things in the Stirling area - Stuc a' Chroin from Braeleny is my nearest option - and not scoot off to the far end of what is a very large council area and climb something near Tyndrum or Crianlarich (or even five miles beyond the council edge at that end of things).

I'm also reading it to mean that were I living in the middle of the Stirling council area - say in Callander or Strathyre - then I should take my exercise locally rather than travelling to the western edge of the area for the Tyndrum hills or to the eastern edge for the Ochils. As it is, I'm very close to the eastern edge and the Ochils are my nearest hills. The west edge of Tillicoultry (in Clackmannanshire) is exactly five miles from the Stirling/Clacks boundary, so I'll have plenty of scope to do things from Tilli/Alva/Menstrie these next three weeks (but I wouldn't drive to Dollar).

Here's the draft travel etc legislation - third of the three pdfs and see "Exceptions":
https://www.gov.scot/publications/health-protection-coronavirus-restriction...

The legislation as enacted is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/389/contents/made

Be aware that it's a series of amendments, so there's a lot of "insert after..." stuff which makes it a tad tricky to read.

In reply to Scott K:

The relevant part of the legislation reads:

Restrictions on entering Level 3 area

14.—(1) A person who does not live in a Level 3 area must not enter or remain in that area.

(2) But a person who does not live in a Level 3 area may travel through it in order to reach a place outwith the area.

And the same for Level 4.

And with permitted exceptions as noted above.

Note that someone who lives in a level 3 area can leave their area in order to travel to another part of the same area.  Which will be a relief to all those drivers who use the Edinburgh City Bypass and the A1 to get from the east side of town to the west (or vice versa) without going through the centre (those roads go through the Midlothian council area for part of that journey).

In reply to TomD89:

Not sure why travel restrictions in to & out of Scotland are causing a fuss - AFAICR nobody seemed to mind when similar restrictions were put in place for the Welsh lockdown.  One might almost think that there are factions out there who will grasp at the flimsiest opportunity to criticise Nicola's government...

There were similar objections: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-54363059