advertisement


Stop the government criminalising protest

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Perhaps we need to find other ways of protest and civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

Cyber warfare. The electronic assassin strikes:
4927922255_153688a5ea_b.jpg
 
wylton said:
So, as I said, I wrote to our MP and this is the reply that I received:

Thank you for raising your concerns about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSC Bill) with Mr Bacon. He understands your concerns about the proposals and thanks you for outlining your views on these issues.

In respect of Part 3 of the Bill, and as Mr Bacon has previously made very clear, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are vital rights that he wholeheartedly supports and can reassure you that the Government is clear that the right of an individual to express their opinion and protest is a cornerstone to our democratic society.

The issue at hand relates to the balance between the rights of a protestor and the rights of individuals to go about their daily business. There have been examples where protests have caused unjustifiable disruption and distress to other citizens. For example, demonstrations on roads are currently disrupting thousands of people's journeys and putting the lives of road users and police officers in danger.

Mr Bacon is aware of the increasing of superglue by protesters, which can frustrate and delay the police response. He welcomes the work of the police to remove the glue and make arrests and will continue to follow this issue closely and support the efforts of the police to clear our roads and make appropriate arrests.

He is encouraged that Ministers will take action to protect the hard-working majority by tabling amendments to introduce new measures to the PCSC Bill, including increasing the maximum penalties for disrupting a motorway, criminalising interference with key infrastructure and new powers for the police and courts to deal with a small minority of prolific offenders.

Mr Bacon would also like to make clear that under no circumstances does he believe that protests should become violent. The rights to a peaceful protest do not extend to harassment, intimidating behaviour or serious disruption to public order. However, this is not an unqualified right and cannot be at the expense of public safety.

Therefore, the measures in the Bill are not about stopping or clamping down on the right to protest but ensuring the police can better manage highly disruptive protests and maintain the balance Mr Bacon has outlined.

You may be concerned how protesters’ rights will be protected. It is the case that when using these powers, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law. Importantly, the police must be able to demonstrate that their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. It is also clear that the police must act compatibly with human rights, in particular Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association).

The ECHR is explicit in stating that public authorities may temporarily restrict these rights in extreme circumstances if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in preventing disorder or crime [among other reasons]. For example, an authority may be allowed to restrict the freedom of expression, given by article 10, if the protest in question expresses views that encourage racial or religious hatred. This in turn protects the rights of the public at large, including the protestors.

Mr Bacon is aware that much has been said regarding the proposed public nuisance offence. As you may be aware, Clause 59 gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission in their July 2015 Report on 'Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency'.

The report stated that the common law offence of public nuisance should be replaced by a statutory offence covering any conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of a section of the public or obstructs them in the exercise of their rights. You can find the Law Commission report on this issue at the following link - https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/...y7q/uploads/2015/06/lc358_public_nuisance.pdf
Importantly, the new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance.

In respect of Part 4 of the PCSC Bill, Mr Bacon is aware of that the setting up of illegal traveller sites can be a nuisance for local communities and an inappropriate development of open space. He knows that many local residents across the country are concerned about anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, and noise related to unauthorised sites.

After two consultations on this issue, Mr Bacon welcomes the fact that as part of the PCSC Bill, new laws will be introduced to increase the powers available to the police in England and Wales. The Bill will introduce a new criminal offence where a person resides or intends to reside on any public or private land without permission and has caused, or is likely to cause, significant harm, obstruction, or harassment or distress.

In addition, the Bill amends the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to broaden the list of harms that can be considered by the police when directing people away from land; and increase the period in which persons directed away from land must not return from three months to 12 months. Amendments to the 1994 Act will in addition allow police to direct trespassers away from land that forms part of a highway. In doing so, Mr Bacon can reassure you that the Government has taken steps to ensure that those exercising their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted by these measures.

Mr Bacon believes these new measures are a proportionate and necessary increase in powers for the police. The Government has made it clear that only a minority of travellers are causing problems, such as through abusive behaviour and extensive litter and waste at illegal sites. The vast majority of the travelling community are decent law-abiding people, and we must ensure that there are legal sites available for travellers.

He also welcomes the fact that, as of January 2020, the number of lawful traveller sites had increased by 41% from January 2010. The Government has also given £200,000 to support projects working with Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities to tackle discrimination, improve integration, healthcare and education. He is confident that Government action will help to reduce the number of illegal caravan sites across the country, while respecting people’s right to a nomadic way of life.

The majority of protests in the England and Wales will be unaffected by these changes. These measures will balance the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered. They will achieve this by enabling the police to better manage highly disruptive protests.

Mr Bacon is also aware that much has been said regarding the proposed public nuisance offence. As you may be aware, Clause 59 gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission in their July 2015 Report on 'Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency'.

The report stated that the common law offence of public nuisance should be replaced by a statutory offence covering any conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of a section of the public or obstructs them in the exercise of their rights. You can find the Law Commission report on this issue at the following link - https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/...y7q/uploads/2015/06/lc358_public_nuisance.pdf.

Importantly, the new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance.

Mr Bacon also understands your concerns regarding stop and search. There has to be a balance between deploying tactics to help fight crime and ensuring no one feels unduly threatened. However, he wants to be absolutely clear, no one should be targeted because of their race.

It is also true that front line police have told Ministers that stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on violent crime. Mr Bacon was very interested to learn that in the last year, stop and search removed over 11,000 weapons from the streets and resulted in over 74,000 arrests. He believes the police must be empowered to keep communities safe and tackle the most dangerous offenders in communities across the country.

The Beating Crime Plan shows that the Government is taking a twin-track approach which combines tough enforcement to get knives off our streets together with early intervention programmes that steer young people onto better paths for the future. Mr Bacon welcomes the fact that an assessment of the pilot relaxing conditions on the use of section 60 stop and search showed it gave police officers greater confidence to make use of the power, better reflected the realities and uncertainties officers face on the ground around predicting serious violence and acted as a deterrent.

Mr Bacon is also clear that there is a particular issue that too many people who carry knives and weapons offend again and again. In 2019 for example, 29% of offenders had previous convictions.

The Government has listened to the front line and the recommendations from the Centre of Social Justice to propose a new court order to tackle offenders. He was pleased to stand on a manifesto in December 2019 committed to introducing Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs). It is good news that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will introduce these orders and the ensure this manifesto commitment is fulfilled. SVROs will provide police officers personalised powers to target those already convicted of certain knife offences, meaning that known criminals who pose the greatest risk could be stopped at any time.

Mr Bacon understands that Ministers intend these orders to complement existing stop and search powers and the orders will allow the court to impose them following a conviction for a relevant offence. If an offender is then caught, they would be brought back before the court where they could expect to be handed a custodial sentence under the 'two strikes' legislation introduced in 2015. Mr Bacon supports the Government’s approach on this important issue, Ministers are providing police with these powers but ultimately it is an operational decision to use them and we expect officers to use their discretion.

Mr Bacon hopes you will be reassured that these provisions in the PCSC Bill will provide clarity, ensure consistency in processes and increase public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to Mr Bacon
Click to expand...
Mr Bacon...a generic, John Doe term for the Gammonreich?
 
Thankfully it sounds like the Tories are struggling to get their extreme authoritarianism through the HoL (iNews).

PS PR would obviously be like this but far more so. No political extremism like this bill would ever get through the checks and balances of a true consensus government.
 
It’s a double whammy, first they make it illegal to protest peacefully, then they give the last vestige of independent tv/radio journalism to the private sector.
The bbc has been defanged for years, we have sexed up Iraq reports and Blair’s attack dogs to thank for that, but I will miss channel 4 news. When John Snow retired I felt a similar pang to when Tony Benn died, one of the countries moral treasures was gone.

Just wait for GB News to get contract to be national news broadcaster. Now with added Portillo, omg just when I thought I couldn’t hate him any more!
 
Johnson’s extreme-right authoritarian police powers bill was actually defeated 14 times in the HoL last night (London Economic). It has basically been ripped up. It is not over yet though. We have seen countless times over the past few years the extent to which this government will break the law for power-grabs and its own self-interest so I expect some very dirty and underhanded tricks ahead.
 
I understand those last minute amendments that were introduced by the government after it had passed the Commons stage are now toast, and can't be reintroduced by the Commons. Tactical blunder by the government.

Which is nice.
 
Dave***t said:
AIUI that’s for things which were manifesto commitments. Is that right/the case here?
Click to expand...

That's the Salisbury Convention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention

"...a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords will not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. "

Which AIUI means that the HOL won't block a manifesto commitment but not that the Government can't apply the Parliament Act for non-manifesto bills.
 
Seeker_UK said:
That's the Salisbury Convention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention

"...a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords will not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. "

Which AIUI means that the HOL won't block a manifesto commitment but not that the Government can't apply the Parliament Act for non-manifesto bills.
Click to expand...

On a bit of further reading (thanks for the link), it seems that given the very small number of times the Parliament Act has been used in that way, it would be an exceedingly controversial step for the government to take.

Much as I would prefer that the legislation in question (and the government which spawned it) were cast aflame into the sea, I can't resist feeling curious how things would play out if the PA were invoked here.
 
Boris just needs a few more to shell out a nice bung in exchange for £300 per day and a title and HOL demographics will work for him.
 
I’m amazed Labour opposed any of it at all. They have a history of authoritarianism almost as bad as the Tories.
 
Got this update from the Greens today:

The House of Lords inflicted a staggering 14 defeats on the government in one historic evening, with a further 5 government amendments being withdrawn.

The Lords seized their chance to reject most of the 18 pages of late government amendments to the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill. This forces Ministers to either drop these proposals or bring them back in completely separate legislation at a later date. The Lords only have this power on very rare occasions because the government introduced the amendments late and by-passed scrutiny in the commons.

The impact of these votes is significant as the Lords have stopped people from being given 51 week prison sentences for the offence of locking on, or for obstruction of major transport works. The Lords also stopped suspicion less stop and search of anyone in the vicinity of a protest and banning orders which would have allowed the police to stop named people attending protests even if they had committed no crime.
 
Public Order Bill Factsheet: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...arching-documents/public-order-bill-factsheet

Introducing Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, a new preventative court order targeting protestors who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public.
This measure will allow courts to place prohibitions or requirements they consider necessary to prevent someone from causing serious disruption. These may include prohibiting an individual from being in a particular place, being with particular people, having particular articles in their possession and using the internet to facilitate or encourage person to commit a protest-related offence. The court may also require a person subject to a SDPO to wear an electronic tag. Breach of a SDPO is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

What’s the threshold for imposing an SDPO?
A court will be able to impose an SDPO where someone has, on at least two occasions been:
a. convicted of a protest-related offence;
b. been found in contempt of court for a protest-related breach of an injunction;
c. carried out activities related to a protest that resulted or could have resulted in serious disruption;
d. caused or contributed to other persons committing protest-related offences or breaching protest-related injunction; or
e. caused or contributed to another person carrying out protest-related activities which resulted or could have resulted in serious disruption.

The proposed legislation appears to be so vague that pretty much anyone attending a protest can be made to wear an electronic tag.

This is being dressed up as only relating to 'extreme' cases but as we know, once powers are introduced they tend to be used indiscriminately.
 
paulfromcamden said:
Public Order Bill Factsheet: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...arching-documents/public-order-bill-factsheet

Introducing Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, a new preventative court order targeting protestors who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public.
This measure will allow courts to place prohibitions or requirements they consider necessary to prevent someone from causing serious disruption. These may include prohibiting an individual from being in a particular place, being with particular people, having particular articles in their possession and using the internet to facilitate or encourage person to commit a protest-related offence. The court may also require a person subject to a SDPO to wear an electronic tag. Breach of a SDPO is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

What’s the threshold for imposing an SDPO?
A court will be able to impose an SDPO where someone has, on at least two occasions been:
a. convicted of a protest-related offence;
b. been found in contempt of court for a protest-related breach of an injunction;
c. carried out activities related to a protest that resulted or could have resulted in serious disruption;
d. caused or contributed to other persons committing protest-related offences or breaching protest-related injunction; or
e. caused or contributed to another person carrying out protest-related activities which resulted or could have resulted in serious disruption.

The proposed legislation appears to be so vague that pretty much anyone attending a protest can be made to wear an electronic tag.

This is being dressed up as only relating to 'extreme' cases but as we know, once powers are introduced they tend to be used indiscriminately.
Click to expand...

According to that wording (point e), if you tell someone that disruptive protestors are idiots, and in a spirit of ‘screw you, I’ll show you!’ (meaning you contributed to their actions) they go on to help out with someone glueing themselves to a road - but do not do so themselves - by, say giving them a lift (meaning they carried out protest-related activities), and then the glue-based protest actually ends up happening on a road no-one realised would be closed that day, so causing no disruption at all (but could have resulted in serious disruption on any other day)… You could be tagged, banged up for six months and fined a million quid.

Seems legit.

Regardless of how likely that chain of events is, this is… Really well written legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top