The Prime Minister has asked you to prepare a memorandum of advice for him personally detailing:(i)  the legal implications of the proposed measures

Law Project
Format: The format for the project should be a memorandum of advice preceded by a statement on your research methodology.
The research methodology statement should (i) identify the research sources selected to assist you in preparing your memorandum; (ii) explain what each of the sources was intended to be used for (eg to identify and access cases etc); (iii) explain how each of the research sources was accessed (with particular reference to what search terms were used); and (iv) evaluate the usefulness of each of the resources used in accomplishing your objective(s).
Marks: The project (memorandum of advice and research methodology statement) will account for 20% of the total marks available for Paper 3.
The memorandum of advice contributes 80% and the research methodology statement 20% of the overall mark for the project.
Part (i) of the memorandum of advice (legal implications – see below) contributes 80% and part (ii) (political implications – see below) 20% of the overall mark for the memorandum of advice.
Word Limits: Maximum 2000 words for the memorandum of advice and 500 words for the research methodology statement.
Footnotes: The use of detailed footnotes is not appropriate for a memorandum of advice. However, sources should be attributed in brackets in the body of the text by author surname and year only. Attributions WILL count towards the word limit.
Bibliography: A full bibliography must be included at the end of the memorandum of advice. This should be alphabetical by author. The bibliography WILL NOT count towards the word limit.
Objectives: The objectives of the project are (i) to test your ability to identify potential legal issues on a given scenario, to identify and apply the relevant law to the issues and to formulate reasoned conclusions in an advisory format; and (ii) to identify the potential political implications of a proposed course of conduct and to formulate advice in the best interests of the person seeking your advice.
Scenario
It is October 2021 and the world is in the throes of a pandemic labelled C19. The virus originated in China in December 2019 and no country has been left unscathed by its spread. To date, the virus has been responsible for some 5 million deaths worldwide. In the United Kingdom the spread of the virus was so devastating that the country was “locked down” in March 2020 and then on two further occasions since then, creating enormous damage to
certain sections of the economy, in particular the travel, hospitality and entertainment industries. After the development and administration of a vaccine to counter the spread of the virus, the UK has recently been opened up to travel, entertainment and commerce subject to limited restrictions in the hope that the general population would demonstrate a high level of responsibility in their behaviour to minimise further transmission of the virus. Such restraint, however, has not been manifested by the majority of the population, most of whom no longer wear face masks in public places or social distance, as previously required. Consequently, variants of the virus are spreading rapidly among certain sections of the population.
The Prime Minister, BJ, easily won a general election in December 2019 on the promise to “get Brexit (the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union) done, to “level up” the north of England with the economically advantaged south and to address the provision of care for the elderly and in need. Brexit has now been achieved but the pandemic continues to divert the Prime Minister from addressing his other manifesto commitments.
In June 2021 the Secretary of State for Health, MH, resigned for breaching the social distancing rules (remaining two metres apart) when he was caught on camera in his office in the House of Commons kissing and fondling one of his Parliamentary assistants. He was replaced as Health Secretary by SJ, who has known aspirations to succeed BJ as Prime Minister. SJ has shown himself to be much less inclined than his predecessor, MH, to impose limitations on individual freedoms in order to control the spread of the virus. He is operating on the assumption that so many people in the UK have now contracted the virus that “herd immunity” is close to being achieved. Should this assumption be mistaken then he will be ready to shift blame onto the Prime Minister for not having acted accordingly.
The Prime Minister has, in the past, been slow to introduce restrictions on freedoms to combat the spread of the virus but has been strongly criticised for his slowness to act decisively which, some argue, would have stemmed the spread of the virus. With winter approaching, when it is generally considered that the virus is likely to spread more quickly, and with the general population not engaging in the hoped-for restraint in their behaviour, the Prime Minister is keen to be seen to take decisive action to avoid a fourth period of lock-down and is considering the imminent introduction of a number of measures. The government has already introduced compulsory vaccination for workers in care homes and those who do not comply will be subject to dismissal. Statistics indicate that the implementation of this scheme will lead to shortages of workers in the care sector. The new proposals for compulsory vaccination extend to everyone over the age of 16, subject to very limited exceptions based on individual health. NHS employees, including all nurses, doctors and consultants who refuse the vaccine (other than on health grounds) will be dismissed with due notice from their NHS employment. Students who refuse the vaccine (other than on health grounds) will be prohibited from attending in-person classes. The wearing of face masks in public places will become compulsory, again subject to evidenced medical exceptions. Failure to comply will be a criminal offence punishable on first offence with an on-the-spot fine of £100. Face mask wardens will be empowered to patrol places open to the public and enforce the fines. Subsequent offences will be punishable with fines of up to £1000. The Prime Minister would like to impose equivalent measures in Scotland and Wales, but does not wish to do so in respect of Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister is concerned that these proposals will be challenged in the courts by civil liberties groups, in particular the newly-established pressure group, AntiVax, by way of judicial review and through the Human Rights Act 1998. AntiVax also promotes civil disobedience in its campaign against the vaccination programme and there has been an increasing number of noisy public demonstrations spearheaded by AntiVax. The Prime Minister is also concerned about the activity of conspiracy theorists who deny the existence of C19. He would like to curtail their activities but does not want to be perceived as denying freedom of speech.

The Prime Minister has asked you to prepare a memorandum of advice for him personally detailing:
(i)  the legal implications of the proposed measures;
(ii)  the political implications of the proposed measures within the Conservative
parliamentary party, the membership of the Conservative party, the regions of Scotland and Wales and in the general population.
This scenario, being beyond anyone’s wildest imagination, is to be treated as fictitious.
You should assume that any public order legislation in force at the time of writing your memorandum was actually in force as at 1 October 2021.