header-logo header-logo

Reading the Riot Act...

19 May 2016 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7699 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail
nlj_7699_dobson

Nicholas Dobson looks to the future of riot damage compensation

“If you carry on doing that I’ll read you the Riot Act!” So might a hapless parent or teacher plead to their unruly charges. But the real Riot Act 1714 (removed only in 1973 by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act of that year) meant business. For, if more than 12 people “unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together”, it allowed a justice of the peace (or other specified local official) to command the assembly to disperse and within an hour “peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business”. If not they were liable to “suffer death” as felons.

But the fundamentals of human nature remain unchanged. Riots can still erupt and afflict even a modern and supposedly civilised society. As Lord Hodge pointed out in the Supreme Court on 20 April 2016, for four days from 6 to 9 August 2011, “London suffered from serious rioting” with the rioters causing extensive damage to property: “Property owners and insurers suffered significant losses.”

The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The threat of section 21 ‘no fault’ eviction was banished this week, after the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 passed into law
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
back-to-top-scroll