Undermining Loyalty to Legality?: An Empirical Analysis of Perceptions of 'Lockdown' Law and Guidance During COVID-19

Simon Halliday; Naomi Lisle Finch; Joe Tomlinson; Jed Meers; Mark Robson Wilberforce

doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12755

Undermining Loyalty to Legality? An Empirical Analysis of Perceptions of 'Lockdown' Law and Guidance During COVID-19

Simon Halliday, Naomi Lisle Finch, Joe Tomlinson, Jed Meers, Mark Robson Wilberforce

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This article substantially extends the existing constitutional and legal critiques of the use of soft law public health guidance in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing upon the findings of a national survey undertaken during the first wave of the pandemic in June 2020, it shows how the perceived legal status of lockdown rules made a significant difference as to whether the UK public complied with them and that this effect is a product of the legitimacy that law itself enjoys within UK society. Based on this analysis, it argues that the problems with the government’s approach to guidance, that have been subjected to criticism in constitutional and legal terms, may also be open to critique on the basis that they risk undermining the public’s loyalty to the law itself.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1419-1439
Number of pages	21
Journal	Modern Law Review
Volume	85
Issue number	6
Early online date	5 Jul 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12755
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 5 Jul 2022

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1111/1468-2230.12755Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Undermining loyalty to legality? An empirical analysisof perceptions of ‘lockdown’ law and guidance duringCOVID-19
© 2022 The Authors
Final published version, 412 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

1 Finished

ESRC IAA: Law and compliance during COVID-19: an evidence-based response to the second phase of the pandemic
Tomlinson, J.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (ESRC)
25/08/20 → 31/01/22
Project: Other project (funded) › Restricted grant

Cite this

@article{f57ebd6b5ab6410396ee79146f6b5030,

title = "Undermining Loyalty to Legality?: An Empirical Analysis of Perceptions of 'Lockdown' Law and Guidance During COVID-19",

abstract = "This article substantially extends the existing constitutional and legal critiques of the use of soft law public health guidance in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing upon the findings of a national survey undertaken during the first wave of the pandemic in June 2020, it shows how the perceived legal status of lockdown rules made a significant difference as to whether the UK public complied with them and that this effect is a product of the legitimacy that law itself enjoys within UK society. Based on this analysis, it argues that the problems with the government{\textquoteright}s approach to guidance, that have been subjected to criticism in constitutional and legal terms, may also be open to critique on the basis that they risk undermining the public{\textquoteright}s loyalty to the law itself.",

author = "Simon Halliday and Finch, {Naomi Lisle} and Joe Tomlinson and Jed Meers and Wilberforce, {Mark Robson}",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2022 The Authors",

year = "2022",

month = jul,

day = "5",

doi = "10.1111/1468-2230.12755",

language = "English",

volume = "85",

pages = "1419--1439",

journal = "Modern Law Review ",

issn = "0026-7961",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Undermining Loyalty to Legality?

T2 - An Empirical Analysis of Perceptions of 'Lockdown' Law and Guidance During COVID-19

AU - Halliday, Simon

AU - Finch, Naomi Lisle

AU - Tomlinson, Joe

AU - Meers, Jed

AU - Wilberforce, Mark Robson

PY - 2022/7/5

Y1 - 2022/7/5

N2 - This article substantially extends the existing constitutional and legal critiques of the use of soft law public health guidance in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing upon the findings of a national survey undertaken during the first wave of the pandemic in June 2020, it shows how the perceived legal status of lockdown rules made a significant difference as to whether the UK public complied with them and that this effect is a product of the legitimacy that law itself enjoys within UK society. Based on this analysis, it argues that the problems with the government’s approach to guidance, that have been subjected to criticism in constitutional and legal terms, may also be open to critique on the basis that they risk undermining the public’s loyalty to the law itself.

AB - This article substantially extends the existing constitutional and legal critiques of the use of soft law public health guidance in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing upon the findings of a national survey undertaken during the first wave of the pandemic in June 2020, it shows how the perceived legal status of lockdown rules made a significant difference as to whether the UK public complied with them and that this effect is a product of the legitimacy that law itself enjoys within UK society. Based on this analysis, it argues that the problems with the government’s approach to guidance, that have been subjected to criticism in constitutional and legal terms, may also be open to critique on the basis that they risk undermining the public’s loyalty to the law itself.

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2230.12755

DO - 10.1111/1468-2230.12755

M3 - Article

SN - 0026-7961

VL - 85

SP - 1419

EP - 1439

JO - Modern Law Review

JF - Modern Law Review

IS - 6

ER -

Undermining Loyalty to Legality? An Empirical Analysis of Perceptions of 'Lockdown' Law and Guidance During COVID-19

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Projects

ESRC IAA: Law and compliance during COVID-19: an evidence-based response to the second phase of the pandemic

Cite this