header-logo header-logo

23 June 2021
Issue: 7938 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Public
printer mail-detail

Support for right to noisy protests

A parliamentary committee has slammed government plans to curb non-violent protest as inconsistent with basic human rights
It warned the draft Bill could silence chanting and criminalise peaceful protest.

Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which deals with public order, creates an offence of ‘intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance’ (cl 59).

In its report published this week on the draft legislation, however, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said peaceful protests were, ‘by their nature liable to cause serious annoyance and inconvenience and criminalising such behaviour may dissuade individuals from participating’. It said existing laws already deal with public nuisance offences and the current drafting risks the new offence being broader than the common law offence it would replace.

Instead, the committee recommended ‘the introduction of express statutory protection for the right to protest, setting out the obligation on public authorities to refrain from interfering unlawfully with the right but also the duty to facilitate protest’.

The committee called for the complete removal of some clauses from the bill, including a trigger for imposing conditions based on noise. The committee said: ‘This  strikes at the very heart of why people gather together to protest―to have their voices heard.’

The committee said new powers to impose conditions on one-person protests in England and Wales should be dropped, and clauses that increase penalties for breaching conditions placed on protests should be removed.

Harriet Harman MP, chair of the committee, said: ‘The government proposals to allow police to restrict “noisy” protests are oppressive and wrong.

‘The government put forward new powers in areas where the police already have access to powers and offences which are perfectly adequate. Noisy protests are the exercises of the lungs of a healthy democracy.

‘We are calling for the right to protest peacefully to be given explicit statutory protection.’

Issue: 7938 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Public
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll