header-logo header-logo

Concerns rise over Police Bill

17 March 2021
Issue: 7925 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Human rights at risk under Bill proposals, warn campaigners

MPs and peers have issued a call for evidence on the wide-ranging and controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

The Bill, which was debated in Parliament this week only six days after being published, would give the police greater powers to limit the right to protest―a sensitive subject, given public uproar over the policing of the London vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common. Under the proposals, police would be able to set a start and finish time, limit noise levels and apply protest curbs to a demonstration by one single person.

The Bill also includes a new trespass offence for unauthorised encampments, which could have a detrimental impact on Gypsy and Traveller communities. It increases powers for police to extract information from electronic devices, extends the use of ‘whole life orders’ and alters sentencing for children and young people.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights said a proposal in the Bill to extend the sexual offence of abusing trust to cover sports and religious settings could enhance human rights. However, it raised concerns about the impact on human rights of most of the other proposals.

The committee is seeking evidence of no more than 1,500 words to be submitted through the online portal by 14 May.

Meanwhile, an extraordinary coalition of hundreds of charities and campaign groups―ranging from the Ramblers and RSPB to Rights of Women―urged MPs this week to block the legislation. They warned MPs have been given too little time to scrutinise the Bill.

Gracie Bradley, Liberty’s interim director, said: ‘Not only does this Bill hand police the choice on where, when and how people can protest, it also threatens to criminalise the entire way of life of nomadic Gypsy and Traveller communities and creates new stop and search powers that will exacerbate discriminatory over-policing of people of colour, subjecting people to profiling and State harassment.

‘The dangerous policing of the Sarah Everard vigil follows a growing crackdown on protest throughout this pandemic, including the issuing of exorbitant fines to protest organisers in the summer and the aggressive kettling of Black Lives Matter protesters during a pandemic.’

Issue: 7925 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll