united-kingdom england-and-wales covid-19 scotland
How is &#39;severe distress&#39; defined in UK Coronavirus regulations?
<p>The The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/regulation/3/made" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Part 2, Regulation 3</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a
relevant place without wearing a face covering.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/regulation/4/made" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Regulation 4</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a
person (&quot;P&quot;) has a reasonable excuse include those where—</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>(i) because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or</p>
<p>(ii) without severe distress;</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>I am particularly interested in how 'severe distress' is defined. Is this a legal definition? How is 'severe' determined, and how would a court decide if a person's distress was 'severe'
enough? Is there any legal test to establish a threshold for this?</p>
<p>Have there been any cases in England/Wales/Scotland where this has been tested - if so, how would I go about finding information (as somebody who is interested in law, but has no legal training or background)?</p>

<h2>It’s for the defendant to prove they have a ‘reasonable excuse’</h2>
<p>This means that, if they were relying on (1)(a)(ii) that they suffered ‘severe distress’.</p>
<p>The onus falls on the defendant because this is an affirmative defence - they acknowledge that they committed the act that is prescribed but they have a lawful excuse. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, because they are not the government trying to prove the offence.</p>
<p>The magistrate will hear the evidence on the matter on both sides and decide on the basis of that evidence if the defendant would suffer ‘severe distress’. If there is case law on ‘severe distress’ under this or any other law, then that will inform the decision but I suspect that what qualifies as ‘severe distress’, like what qualifies as ‘reasonable doubt’, is a factual matter for the trier of fact, not a matter of law.</p>
