header-logo header-logo

Support for right to noisy protests

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll