THE BRITISH government has always been at the forefront of defending the right to peaceful protest across the world. We have lauded and supported peaceful demonstrators in Tiananmen square, in Hong Kong; we supported the Arab Spring uprisings  across Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, and Tunisia. The government has now set its face against peaceful protests in England and Wales.

On March 16 2021 the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill passed its second reading 359 votes to 263 in the House of Commons. The bill states that it seeks to curb the right to protest “…where people are not primarily violent or seriously disorderly…”

Those who attended Black Lives Matter marches, or Extinction Rebellion demonstrations may be forgiven for being cynical as they will testify that the police were very proactive and did not shy away from taking proactive measures to manage protests and protestors.

Dr Floyd Millen

Following the Extinction Rebellion and the Black Lives Matter protests the Home Secretary Priti Patel, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, concluded that the Public Order Act 1986 is old and they have proposed changes to the legislation which will give the police greater powers to prevent and control public processions and public assembly.

Whilst I agree with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that the Public Order Act 1986 is old, any student of history would gladly retort that old doesn’t necessarily mean outdated, ineffective or irrelevant, particularly when the solution offered results in a direct erosion of rights enshrined in other laws.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is illiberal in its intention; authoritarian in its implementation and overtly politicises policing in a partisan and adversarial way.

Dr Floyd Millen

The Met Commissioner states that “… the Bill will allow the police to take a more proactive approach in managing highly disruptive protests [which] cause serious disruption to the public”. Those who attended Black Lives Matter marches, or Extinction Rebellion demonstrations may be forgiven for being cynical as they will testify that the police were very proactive and did not shy away from taking proactive measures to manage protests and protestors.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is illiberal in its intention; authoritarian in its implementation and overtly politicises policing in a partisan and adversarial way. If the police are the citizen and the citizen are the police, this bill will further stretch the sinews of trust between the police and the citizen. In effect, as it stands, this bill will stifle the right to protest whilst simultaneously criminalising fair-minded law-abiding citizens.

Serendipity played a big part here, as the progress of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill coincided with the vigil at the weekend which again, raised the spectrum of police discretion; or lack thereof. As a direct result the Labour party changed its initial position of abstaining to voting against it. Nonetheless, the bill passed its second reading on March 16 by 359 votes to 263. Amendments will be tabled so it’s important to continue lobbying your MP.

The Bill

The right to gather, whether for a vigil, protest, or demonstration whilst fundamental to our democracy, it is not an absolute right and understandably the police need to strike the correct balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of others, but by definition, protests, demonstrations are inconvenient as they are a way to get the attention of those who hitherto failed to listen or acknowledge the contentious issues at hand.

The bill broadens the range of circumstances under which the police can impose conditions on protests, such as “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one- person protest”. Most shockingly however, is that the bill’s primary purpose is “…to deal with protests where people are not primarily violent or seriously disorderly…”; this is the height of sophistry.

Police forces in England and Wales have never been shrinking violets when it came to employing tactics to against marches, protests, demonstrations.

Dr Floyd Millen

Data Protection & Privacy concerns

Apart from being poorly drafted, the bill, in its current state strengthens powers of the police to ban assemblies, which they deem to be ‘too noisy and disruptive’ and expands surveillance on protesters and protest movements. We welcome new measures to keep women, children and men safe; but the bill needs to be properly scrutinised to protect privacy and prevent mission creep.

For example, there are privacy concerns that the doubling of funding (£45m) for new measures to protect women and girls will see a huge increase in surveillance cameras. The expansion of trials that puts plainclothes police officers in and around bars and night clubs needs careful independent regulation and oversight given the police’s track record. A central component of the bill is the increased use of facial recognition software to identify and track protestors. These measures, along with existing concerns from citizens and the ICO about police Mobile Phone Extraction (MPE) makes this bill a minefield.

It isn’t greater powers that are needed: it is an understanding and an awareness by the Home Secretary and the Met Commissioner that in a democratic society, the right to peaceably protest, hold vigils and marches are hard won freedoms

Dr Floyd Millen

Conclusion

Police forces in England and Wales have never been shrinking violets when it came to employing tactics to against marches, protests, demonstrations. Our history is replete with examples from the miners’ strikes 1984; the 1981 Brixton, Toxteth and Handsworth disturbances, Mayday and G-20 protests in London.

The death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson who died after being struck by a police officer during the 2009 G-20 summit protests, riot officers de-badging during the demonstrations, undercover officers having relationships and fathering children are salutary reminders that the police are not immune from acting unethically using disproportionate force, before, during and after demonstrations.

It isn’t greater powers that are needed, it is an understanding and an awareness by the Home Secretary and the Met Commissioner that in a democratic society, the right to peaceably protest, hold vigils and marches are hard won freedoms; the erosion of which we would only expect from a totalitarian government not from the government of the United Kingdom.

Dr Floyd Millen is a political scientist and a former special adviser to the Metropolitan Police Authority. He was mentored by the former Home Secretary, The Rt Hon Charles Clarke and studied under the Conservative Peer, Professor, the Lord Norton of Louth. He is the author of Police Reform and Political Accountability; The Ties that Bind Policing in England and Wales & the United States of America.