Will anything kill the bill? –The APPG’s inquiry into police conduct and the Clapham Vigil and Bristol Protests

By Medico
image_pdfimage_print

Will anything kill the bill? –The APPG’s inquiry into police conduct and the Clapham Vigil and Bristol Protests

francesca-kirby

By Francesca Kirby
22 July 2021

The Police Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSC) has not had the smoothest course through Parliament. Plagued by criticism, including of the significant expansion of police powers,1 concern was only further entrenched by the police response to the Clapham Sarah Everard Vigil, occurring days before the bill was due to be debated, and the Kill the Bill protests, particularly in Bristol, that followed.2

Both of these events attracted widespread media attention and questions were raised as to the tactics deployed by police in managing the events.3 An inquiry was launched by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and the Constitution (APPGDC). 4 The report, published on 1 July 2021, has only added to the criticism of the policing response and highlighted concerns about the PCSC bill.

The APPGDC’s report

The report concluded that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the Avon and Somerset Constabulary (A&SC) did not understand the nature of the right to protest.5 The APPGDC found that the All Tiers Regulations gave the police the power to determine whether a protest was allowed or not. Armed with the ability to act as law maker and law enforcer, the police failed to provide clarity as to what they would regard as a reasonable excuse in the context of a protest, or how a protest could be organised to ensure individuals had a reasonable excuse to attend.6

The police’s subsequent attempts to suppress the Clapham vigil and the Bristol protest, through the use of coercive powers, exacerbated tensions, increased violence and may have increased the risk to public health.7 Regarding the Clapham vigil, the APPGDC’s report has taken a starkly different position to that of the Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services report (HMICFRS), which concluded that the MPS acted appropriately.8 The methodology of the HMICFRS report was heavily criticised by the APPGDC for not taking into account any evidence from individuals who participated in the event. 9

The APPGDC’s report recommends some significant changes to the PCSC bill, including removal of clauses 55-61, which it says would unnecessarily expand police powers in relation to peaceful protest.10 The report notes that “the flaws [in the bill] could not be cured by merely amending the relevant clauses.” 11

What is the bill proposing to change?

Under the provisions currently contained in the bill, the police would be able to impose conditions on public processions and static assemblies if they had a reasonable belief that noise generated may result in serious disruption.12 The knowledge requirement in relation to offences committed under the legislation relating to public processions and static assemblies (section 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986) will be amended so that it is only necessary to prove that a person ought to have known a condition on the protest was in place.13 The bill will limit protest activities around parliament and extend the geographical area within which those limitations apply.14 The police will also be able to impose conditions on one-person protests.15

A brand new offence of intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance is proposed, which, on indictment, would be punishable with up to 10 years in prison.16 The offence can be committed if a person does an act or omits to do an act, resulting in or risking serious harm to the public, or which obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right. Serious harm includes causing a person serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity. 17

The new offence is of particular concern, with groups such as Liberty highlighting the fact that “protests are, by their very nature, liable to cause serious annoyance and inconvenience”.18 Whilst there is a reasonable excuse defence, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has pointed out that what constitutes a reasonable excuse is “subjective and would give significant discretion to the police to decide when peaceful protest would amount to public nuisance.”19

Despite the criticisms, there have been no changes to the substance of the provisions on protest law as the bill has progressed through parliament.

francesca-kirby

Francesca Kirby

Francesca has a busy criminal practice defending and prosecuting a broad range of offences in the Crown Court and Magistrates Court. This has included appearing in cases involving violence, sexual offences, drugs, dishonesty and confiscation proceedings. She has experience in representing vulnerable clients, including youths and those with mental health issues.

Looking forward

On the 5th July 2021 the bill passed its third reading.20 Priti Patel maintained “The police will be able to take a more proactive approach to managing protests. That is not about stifling freedom of expression.”21 On one view this claim is at odds with the APPGDC’s finding that the events of Clapham and Bristol “demonstrate the dangers of broad and ambiguous coercive powers in relation to peaceful protest” and that “use of the public order powers proposed in the bill will be equally likely to increase the risk of disorder and violence as reduce it.”22

The bill is now currently in the House of Lords, having passed its first reading. If the dramatic events of the Clapham Vigil, the Bristol protests and the subsequent findings of the APPGDC were not enough to make members of parliament supporting the bill pause for thought, the question arises, will anything kill the bill?

Free and independent legal advice

You will never be penalised for asking for legal advice. It is your legal right and it is free of charge.

Remember: the law is complex and it never hurts to get expert advice, even if you are sure you have done nothing wrong.

Ask for Michael Herford and he, or one of his specialist team will provide you with a Legal LifeLine when you need it most.

  1. PM defends policing bill amid criticism it fails to protect women; BBC News; 15 March 2021; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56399860
  2. Ministers see of MP’s attempts to amend new crime bill; BBC News; 7 July 2021; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57680917
  3. Ministers see of MP’s attempts to amend new crime bill; BBC News; 7 July 2021; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57680917
  4. “This is Wrong; - Bristol protestors speak out after action turns to violence; ITV News; 27 March 2021; https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2021-03-27/this-is-wrong-bristol-protesters-speak-out-after-action-turns-to-violence; Minister resists calls for Met Chief to resign over policing of Sarah Everard vigil; The Guardian; 14 March 2021; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/14/minister-resists-calls-met-chief-cressida-dick-resign-sarah-everard-vigil
  5. Cross-party group to hold Clapham Common Inquiry; New Law Journal; 14. April 2021; https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/cross-party-group-to-hold-clapham-common-inquiry
  6. Police power and the right to peaceful protest ;APPG on Democracy and the Constitution; 1 July 2021; Pg 71
  7. Police power and the right to peaceful protest ;APPG on Democracy and the Constitution; 1 July 2021; Pg 71-72
  8. Police power and the right to peaceful protest ;APPG on Democracy and the Constitution; 1 July 2021;P.73
  9. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publication-html/inspection-metropolitan-police-services-policing-of-vigil-commemorating-sarah-everard-clapham-common/#our-conclusions
  10. Police power and the right to peaceful protest ;APPG on Democracy and the Constitution; 1 July 2021; p. 72
  11. Police power and the right to peaceful protest ;APPG on Democracy and the Constitution; 1 July 2021; p.76
  12. Police power and the right to peaceful protest ;APPG on Democracy and the Constitution; 1 July 2021; p.76
  1. Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill; HL Bill 40 (as introduced); 6 July 2021; Clauses 55-56
  2. Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill; HL Bill 40 (as introduced); 6 July 2021; Clause 57
  3. Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill; HL Bill 40 (as introduced); 6 July 2021; Clause 58- 59
  4. Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill; HL Bill 40 (as introduced); 6 July 2021; Clause 61
  5. Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill; HL Bill 40 (as introduced); 6 July 2021; Clause 60
  6. Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill; HL Bill 40 (as introduced); 6 July 2021; Clause 60
  7. Liberty’s Briefing on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill for Report stage in the House of Commons, July 2021 P.16-17
  8. Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order), Second Report of Session 2021–22, 16 June 2021, at p. 32
  9. Hansard Volume 698: debated on Monday 5 July 2021; https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-07-05/debates/24D0FCFD-C6AB-4854-A9A0-2629FA4AEE20/PoliceCrimeSentencingA#contribution-193A1E8C-449D-4700-991B-7BD6F4104B54
  10. Hansard Volume 698: debated on Monday 5 July 2021; https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-07-05/debates/24D0FCFD-C6AB-4854-A9A0-2629FA4AEE20/PoliceCrimeSentencingA#contribution-193A1E8C-449D-4700-991B-7BD6F4104B54
  11. Police power and the right to peaceful protest ;APPG on Democracy and the Constitution; 1 July 2021;p.73