Ten-year jail sentences for travellers who conceal the fact they have come from a coronavirus hotspot have been branded “draconian” and “completely disproportionate” by a former Conservative attorney general.
The remarks from Dominic Grieve comes after Matt Hancock unveiled the tough new measures for tourists, including forcing those travelling from 33 “red list” countries to pay £1,750 to quarantine for 10 days in government-designated hotels.
But Mr Grieve, who was attorney general between 2010 and 2014 in David Cameron’s administration, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Ten years is entirely disproportionate.
“I was trying to work out why this figure had been plucked out of the air, but my impression is it’s suggesting that individuals who do this will be charged with forgery.
“But this is a regulatory offence and no regulatory offence I can think of this type attracts a 10-year maximum sentence. The reality is no-one would get such a sentence anyway. The courts are simply not going to impose it.”
He added: “I recognise the government has to put down strict rules and needs to have penalties to enforce them. But to suggest that a 10-year sentence is going to result from a false declaration on a form on landing at Heathrow airport is I think a mistake because it’s exaggerated, it’s not going to happen.
“My view is that good government is about proportionality and sounding off in this way with suggestions of draconian and completely disproportionate sentences for an offence is a mistake.”
Former Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption, also attacked the plans and described the government’s hotel quarantine plan in general as a “form of imprisonment in solitary confinement”.
In an article for The Daily Telegraph, Lord Sumption, who has been critical of the government’s approach to restrictions, added: “Does Mr Hancock really think that non-disclosure of a visit to Portugal is worse than the large number of violent firearms offences or sexual offences involving minors, for which the maximum is seven years?”
“Penal policy seeks to match the sentence to the gravity of the crime. When policymakers impose savage and disproportionate sentences, it is usually because the rule in question is not widely respected and breaches are hard to detect.”
