Is the liberal approach adopted in the UK now hindered?
Peaceful protest is an effective method to get public opinions heard, it is a reflection of public solidarity and concerns on topical issues. It is a longstanding action of activisim that has benefitted those in society - Suffragettes, Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matter.
In the recent events, 64 people were arrested during the coronation of King Charles III. The Chief Executive of Republic, Graham Smith was one of the 64 people arrested by the MET police. He had stated that he had spoken with the MET for four months about the groups plans and ensure that the protest was of peace. He had argued that in response to the MET conversations they had no concerns about the protest and would not disrupt the movement. He had furthered this due to being unlawfully arrested and detained for 16 hours. The MET had apologised to Smith, who is now considering legal action against the conduct of officers. Despite this, four of the protestors will appear in Westminister Magistrates Court later this month due to being charged for their involvement.
In considering the involvement of the MET, Police Commander Karen Findlay defended her officers stating that their duty to intervene becomes apparent "when protest becomes criminal and may cause serious disruptions". The consideration and assessment to arrest these protestors was made due to the amount of individuals in attendance as well as important figureheads who could be at risk. Response from human right charity Amnesty International UK (Sacha Deshmukh) raised alarms around the arrests, arguing the right to peaceful protests is protected under international law. However, a Human Rights Watch official (Yasmine Ahmed) slammed "scenes you'd expect to see in Russia not the UK"
Concerns were raised when it was found that three volunteers with Westminister women safety programme had been arrested whilst handing out rape alarms. However, the MET had responded to this in belief that protestors were planning to use these alarms to disrupt the coronation proceedings. It was argued by the MET that the arrests were made as a result of them committing public nuisance and being a potential risk to public safety. Under this arrest, it is legalised that the police can challenge the protestors where there is a 'noise trigger'. The criteria the police force have to consider upon arrest is if the noise would cause serious disruption to the activity in the area, and if it will have an significant impact by causing harassment, intimidation or alarm to people within the area.
The Law:
The Public Order Bill commenced the 3rd May 2023. The recent change in law had provided clarity to what the definition of serious disruption consists of. Disruption to the community includes a signficant delay to the delivery of time-sensitive product to consumers or prolonged disruption to access essential goods. Arguably, Liberty Human Rights have argued that this further limits the rights of individuals to use their freedom to protest. It was made illegal for protestors to use equipment to secure themselves to things like railings, interference with key national infrastructure and prohibiting trespassory assembly. The reasoning for the implementation of the law is to challenge the serious disruption of protestors and ensure there is a source protection for the general public.
The measure of the law implicates it will "improve the police's ability to manage such protests" and adopt a proactive approach to prevent disruption. It had criminalised the protest tactic of individuals attaching themselves to others to cause serious disruption with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It extends stop and search powers for the police to seize objects that may be used to protest (the ground to arrest protestors at the coronation). It enables the police to search for and seize items that is intended to be a use for illegal protest usage. The Stop and Search power can be found within Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994 to ensure consistency in police powers and safeguards.
The Metropolitan Police Response:
The defence proposed by the MET police was that the protestors were arrested under the new controversial law introduced prior to the coronation to detain protestors. It was argued that the there were items on the six protestors which implicated to officers that they would be used to lock onto other devices. MET police federation chairman Ken Marsh had stated "protesting can take place in this country, but it's to the level of which you perform that protesting that we have to balance and deal with". He had believed that the MET force were exceptional in policing the coronation but the general public will argue otherwise.
On Tuesday 9th May 2023 a statement was released from the MET police regarding their 'regret' in arresting six anti-monarchy protestors. Under review of the six protestors arrest it was decided that there were no evidence of a 'lock on' (protesting tactic which is banned). Criticism of the arrest comes as a result of challenging human rights groups and the tactics used by police officers at the scene. The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also commented that it was for the MET to make decisions on how to deal with protesting in operation. The circumstances of how many people attended the coronation it was important that a balance was met to ensure protestors can act legally and protect those within the public.
Your Rights to Protest:
The right to protest within England and Wales is to ensure that the protest conducted is peaceful and is protected under the European Convention of Human Rights. The right can be limited in circumstances, such as when the protest becomes a threat to the public. Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides freedom of assembly enabling the right to protest, march or demonstrate in a public space. Also, protections are sought under the European Convention of Human Rights concerning the right to freedom of expression. This gives the ability to speak opinions and information without inference from public authorities.
However, due to it being a limited right there are circumstances where this right can be challenged by authorities. These include: for the interest of national security or public safety, prevent disorder and crime, and to protect health or morals. As a result of COVID-19 there has been a limitation to assemble and protest due to the possible effects it would have had on public health. The police, under the Public Order Act 1986, have the power to impose conditions and restrictions to prevent serious disruptions and limiting the duration/amount of voluntary participations.
In deciding to plan a march or protest you must tell the police force within 6 days prior to the event occurring. It is rather specific details that you have to tell the police including the date, time, proposed route and organisers details. However, the police do have the authorative right to limit the conditions proposed by the organisation. Further conditions can be implemented whereby the police have intelligence of public disorder, damage to property and disruption to the life of the community. It is important that the protest organised does not involve threatening, abusive or insulting words / behaviour against authoritative bodies or general public.
Until the next Legal Thought,
Elicia Maxwell
Articles:
Comments