I think the layman's interpretation of Regulation 6d (to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation) is probably what the Government intended and the Lawyer is relying on the fact that it is badly drafted and open to a different interpretation in a Court of Law.
That's assuming the Government legal team who write the regulations are a bunch of useless duffers
More likely that now Andrew has spelled it out in words a child could understand, even people with reading difficulties can grasp it.