Protests, Legislation, and a Descension to Authoritarianism

This article as you may guess from its title covers many topics. But this is also one of my most opinionated articles.

Context

Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, introduced a bill which seems to be in retaliation to the many protests occurring within the past year, a topic this bill covers which is usually not mentioned is its attack on the gypsy and Roma traveller groups.

Protests

First off I feel it is necessary to point out for those that have not yet taken this into consideration that the entire reason people protest is to highlight an issue they feel needs to be fixed.  And instead of an attempt to fix these issues and problems in order to prevent the protests, the government has decided to try and tackle the protests head on through a show of force.

When the Black Lives Matter protests occurred in the summer of 2020, what did the government do? The Secret Barrister wrote in an article for the Guardian “Step 1: A flurry of headlines promising: “Violent protesters face jail within 24 hours”, optimism unencumbered by any understanding of the law, procedural fairness or how Covid-19-struck criminal courts are operating in practice. Step 2: Announce longer prison sentences for something.” While it may have been a bit delayed, the promised longer sentences could now be here. Along with this, the government commented an appallingly low amount of times. One key quote is from Matt Hancock, who tried to defend the UK’s racism by denying that the UK was racist but admitted that there is “more that can be done”. This, I believe, to be evidently a display of ignorance.

It is believed that one considerable factor in the motivation to implement this new bill is the Extinction Rebellion protests that it is safe to say have been on the more dramatic and eye-catching side of protests seen recently. The reason for saying they are a “considerable factor” is that they have been the most disruptive, from the occupation of bridges to the disruption of the Docklands Light Railway in London. And for me, the simple fact protesters go to these great extents in order to raise awareness shows their passion and exemplifies the desperation of the issue at hand. And now the government’s ridiculous response to this movement under the disguise of “robust policing” and no action on the critical matter at hand.

And now quite recently, a few vigils have been held in memory of the tragic death of Sarah Everard. Highlighting most importantly the continuous urgency to combat tragic issues  faced by women but also demonstrating that the police can in no way be trusted and can not be used in the combat of these issues. And in this circumstance like many others it was in fact the police who decided, most likely, in the name of “robust policing” to take completely unnecessary force against the attendants. Which as a result permitted the media to circulate the distorted view that the attendees had been aggressive, when this was in no way the facts of the matter.

Kill the Bill protests have been the latest flurry of protests. They have been protesting in opposition to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill,  this is the main focus of the legislation section later. The protestors believe that the implementation of this bill will result in the infringement of their right to protest. 

I must note that during lockdown there were many anti-lockdown protests, which while I respect their right to believe what they want, I believe that their message of no lockdown restrictions is ridiculous and so will not give the protests a platform.

One problem I find with Priti Patel during the Sarah Everard vigils and the unreasonable use of force by the police is that she came out thoroughly condemning the police’s actions while  earlier Patel had made her views well known to Police Chiefs, that she wanted the COVID-19 regulations to be abided by and enforced. And now that tensions are running high between the police chiefs and ministers due to Patel’s complete hypocrisy, the ministers have attempted to defend themselves by saying the excessive force used was an independent police decision.  I can assure you that this won’t be the last time Priti Patel is mentioned.

Legislation

The legislation of discussion is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which was introduced to parliament on the 9th of March 2021 and has so far attracted widespread attention. The bill would make significant changes to the criminal justice system, amending police powers and how they are supported, significantly changing how offenders are dealt with by changes to the minefield which is sentencing law and how offenders are managed within the community.  But often forgotten is the bill’s attack on the Gypsy Roma traveller groups.

This bill is incredibly long and encompasses a huge array of topics, unfortunately I will not talk about every single topic in detail, but cover the few I value to be most important in chunks that I will attempt to make digestible.

The initial change outlined in Clause 2, part 1 is the evidently reasonable increase in sentence for assault against an emergency worker from 12 months to 2 years. But it has been pointed out that emergency workers aren’t the only group suffering from frequent violent attacks, suggesting that the provision should extend to include all NHS and social care workers. But also shop workers as research by Usdaw found that 88% of shop workers were victims of verbal abuse in 2020.

The next topic is clauses 54-60 of part 3 of the bill which concerns public order. Clause 54-56 and 60 permit the police to place restrictions on protests in response to “the noise generated by persons taking part”. And then place penalties on those breaching the restrictions if they “ought to have known” the restrictions were in place. But the police can also rely on Priti Patel as she is given the power to create laws defining “serious disruption” to organisations and communities. As a result, the police can rely on these in order to impose restrictions on protests.

It also amends the Public order Act 1986 and creates a new statutory offence of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”. This includes causing “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience” or even causing the risk that this “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience” will occur. For those found guilty of this new offence, if convicted summarily (in a magistrates’ court) then they could be looking at a maximum of a 12-month sentence. However, if convicted on indictment then the maximum sentence is 10 years.

I have two main problems with this section. Firstly, that there are already laws imposing restrictions on protests, section 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Therefore, is the argument that apparently too many protests get out of hand and the police are in need of extra powers so they can ensure “robust policing” of the protests simply irrelevant? Secondly, a big concern not just for me but as I understand many more legal experts and academics is the vagueness of the language included in defining the newly established offences and the description of the new considerations the police are required to make. My mind is flooded with questions asking what actually would constitute an “annoyance” or “inconvenience” and what is the difference between a regular “annoyance”/”inconvenience” and a “serious annoyance/inconvenience”.

One key talking point in opposition to this bill is that it apparently increases the maximum sentence to 10 years for damaging a statue, but it doesn’t necessarily increase as I’ll explain. During the BLM protests 125 MPs decided that  low value criminal damage to memorial statues was not being punished  enough as they saw it as the dismantling of our democracy, I can’t see why they would think some spray paint on a statue is equal to the dismantling of the UK’s democracy. And because of their view they demanded a maximum of 10 years’ custody sentence for a new offence. But this demand for a “new specific offence” to combat the damaging of statues displays evidently the MPs ignorance of the current law around criminal damage. Currently, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides a 10-year maximum custodial sentence for criminal damage, which is applicable to all property. And if the statue is a listed building then criminal damage against that would result in a further offence with a maximum of a 2 years custodial sentence provided by section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.  But the catch to the current law is that if the damage caused is valued under £5,000 then it becomes a summary offence where it can only be tried in a magistrates’ court and the maximum sentence is 3 months.

A Descension to Authoritarianism

You may think that this title is slightly extreme, I can see why you may think that, but let me explain why there is some truth to it. This legislation aside, the Tory government has been involved in a plethora of scandals, has proven to the public many times before its incompetency to govern and has displayed a general disregard of the nation’s welfare. Even admitting to breaking international law, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. But back to the legislation at hand, I am in strong agreement with the many that say this bill will be an evident encroachment on the right to protest. While I believe the contents of the bill do not violate the right to protest directly, I believe that the implications of the bill will lead to the encroachment of our right to protest as a consequence.

It is quite publicly established, I’d say, that the police are renowned for using unreasonable force when it comes to protests. And with these shiny, new powers I wouldn’t be very surprised if they are taken advantage of. I must point out and recognise that the freedom of assembly (the right to protest) is not an absolute right, and therefore it can be limited in certain circumstances. But, by allowing the police to place more restrictions upon protests I believe will take away from the very essence of a protest which is to cause disruption in order to try and raise awareness of and solve a problem. And if the essence of protests is removed, can we continue to consider them protests?

We now return to Priti Patel, the home secretary. This bill gives her the power to define terminology, which the police can then act on. Effectively meaning the police could act upon her instruction. Acting upon the instruction of a woman whose asylum plans were warned to “risk breaking international law” by the UN. She is also the woman whose budget is affected by policing protests as pointed out by Jules Carey, the head of actions against the police and state team at Bindmans Solicitors. How does that not constitute a conflict of interest? Lastly, the same government that has been found to and admitted to breaking the law (with the Internal Market Bill and the NHS Covid-19 PPE contracts) is now in the position to allow the police to impose restrictions on protests at their pleasure effectively, which surprise, surprise will most likely be anything that points out any of their plethora of failures. To me and I’m sure many others, this just looks like the beginning. Who knows when the police will be at the full disposal of those who govern, but it’s probably closer than we’d like to believe as demonstrated by this bill currently sat in front of parliament.