|
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill 2011
Sections 139 to 147 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill would repeal the controversial ban on unauthorised demonstration in the vicinity of Parliament but put in place new laws that look set to place unaccountable and disproportionate restrictions on protest in the most important place for protest in the country.
The measures are aimed at prohibiting protestors staying overnight in the Square as well as them using any amplification equipment. As such the they target the long-term demonstrations of Brian Haw and others in Parliament Square with the aim of removing them before the Royal Wedding at the end of April 2011.
Concerns
1. Any ‘authorised person’ can use ‘reasonable force’ against a member of the public
A police officer or any ‘authorised officer’ can ‘direct’ someone to stop a prohibited activity (having/using a tent/sleeping equipment/amplified noise). This includes employees of local authorities or anyone else who has been authorised. ‘Reasonable force’ will be allowed. This puts in place a system whereby private security officers could manhandle people to a considerable extent and this will be legitimised by the law. How will ‘authorised officers’ be accountable for their actions? This would bring into law an alarming development in the policing of protests.
2. Oral ‘directions’ would be effective immediately, can be long-standing and lead to a criminal conviction and a heavy fine if not complied with
A spoken ‘direction’ based on nothing but the judgement of a single officer can last up to 3 months. If someone fails to comply and is then convicted in court, an order can be made against them returning to the ‘controlled area’ for a period of any length determined by the court. Any member of the public who is unfamiliar with the law is at risk of a criminal conviction. Anyone who fails to comply with the ‘direction’ can be fined up to £5000. These are very severe punishments for potentially merely carrying a sleeping bag and then failing to comply with the word of an ‘officer’.
3. Questionable judgement?
As with SOCPA these proposals suggest that the police will end up making political judgements about applying the law. People turning up to see the Royal Wedding are unlikely to be ‘directed’ to move on but political protestors will be judged. Will each person be searched to check they are not carrying a sleeping bag? The judgement may be questionable but the person receiving the direction will have no opportunity to challenge what will in effect be an on-the-spot injunction.
4. Disproportionate restrictions on use of loudhailers etc.
Amplified noise is prohibited without permission from the local authority which will have to applied for at least 21 days in advance. Permission can then be withdrawn or varied at any time. Demonstrations responding to events that have just happened, or even those planned up to 3 weeks in advance, will be denied amplification. Being able to use a megaphone etc is an important element of effective demonstration both in terms of organising people and in getting the message of the protest across.
5. No justification
No justification has been provided for these news laws although they are clearly targeted at Brian Haw and other protesters who have been in Parliament Square for some time. There is no harm listed which the law is intended to deal with, no explanation as to why protestors, or anyone else, should not be able to stay in the Square overnight. Our hard-won right of protest should not be undermined by a Royal wedding and obsessional determination by the government to get rid of a protest that has long been an embarrassment.
Details of the clauses
note: the numbering of these clauses are different to the final Act
Clause 139
Section 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (which regulate demonstrations and use of loudspeakers in the vicinity of Parliament) will be repealed.
Section 14 of the Public Order Act which was suspended in the area covered by section 132 of SOCPA will come back into force.
Clause 140
Identifies a ‘controlled area’ which encompasses the central garden and pavements around it,
Clause 141
States that a ‘constable or authorised officer’ who has ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that a person is doing, or is about to do, a prohibited activity may ‘direct’ them to stop the activity or not start it.
Prohibited activities are:
- amplified noise
- erecting or using a tent or any structure for sleeping or “staying in a place for any period”
- having or using any sleeping equipment for use for sleeping overnight in the area
A person may be authorised to have amplification equipment under s145.
A person who fails ‘without reasonable excuse’ to comply with a ‘direction’ commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £5000.
Clause 142
The ‘direction’ can be in place for up to 90 days.
The ‘direction’ may be given orally, may be given to any person individually or to two or more persons together, and may be withdrawn or varied by the person who gave it.
Clause 143
Any ‘prohibited item’ can be seized.
Reasonable force may be used.
Clause 144
If someone is convicted under s141, the court can order items to be confiscated and make an “order as the court considers appropriate for the purpose of preventing (them) from engaging in any prohibited activity in the controlled area of Parliament Square.”
This order may prevent that person going into the controlled area “for such period as may be specified in the order”.
Clause 145
Permission to use amplified noise equipment will have to be sought from the authority responsible for the land, and a fee may have to be paid.
The decision of the authorities can be notified 21 days after the application was put in.
Conditions may be put on the permission, which can be changed at any time and the permission itself can be withdrawn at any time.
Clause 146
An ‘authorised officer’ an employee of the GLA or Westminster Council or “any other person who, under arrangements made with the responsible authority, is so authorised”.
|