Main Edition
US
FR
March 16, 2021 - 12:53pm
The “anti-protest bill,” as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has been nicknamed, stands accused of undermining the fundamental rights of citizens. But when a Government proposes illiberal new criminal legislation, they often invoke the same defence in response to the resulting outrage: that they’re simply modernising a pre-existing law — and making it fit-for-purpose in the twenty-first century.
The riposte is all the stronger when the law to be updated is part of the “Common Law” — the law that exists only by virtue of long use, never formally agreed to by parliament. These crimes are often said to be unfairly vague, even circular: a jury trying an allegation of Gross Negligence Manslaughter, for instance, will be told that the defendant is guilty if his conduct was so bad as to be, in their judgment, criminal. In other words: find him guilty if you think he should be found guilty.
Public Nuisance — often used to prosecute unruly protesters — is an offence of this kind. It’s not quite circular, but a definition must be cobbled together from a couple of centuries’ worth of inconsistent appeal court judgments. Textbooks make that task easier, but nevertheless, a jury is likely to be left with a far greater sense of “over to you” than when a judge is reading from a statute.
So in 2015 the Law Commission suggested putting Public Nuisance into an Act of Parliament. Only now — as they contemplate the imminent release of tens of millions of frustrated people— is the Government finally following that recommendation. That the first debate should take place immediately after the disgusting police violence against women at Clapham Common is a misfortune, to say the least.
Is the law of Public Nuisance being made stricter? On the surface, not really. According to the criminal practitioners’ textbook, the Common Law offence can be committed merely by “endangering the comfort” of the public; whereas the lowest threshold in the new Bill involves putting a person “at risk of suffering…serious annoyance” — and there’s a “reasonable excuse” defence on offer too.
But on a practical level, the position is different. For one thing, this is a statement of intent. Like a new exercise bike, a new law is more likely to be used, even if the old one wasn’t broken. But the way it is used will also change. To enshrine a vague old Common Law offence in statute is to revivify it. Common Law offences are treated with circumspection, discretion, and a sense of proportion. A judge is unlikely to rely too heavily on a phrase like “endanger the comfort” when directing a jury: rather, the twelve fact-finders will be encouraged to look at the thing in the round, and use their judgment. In contrast, brand new statutes are treated with clinical obeisance: a corpus of convention has not had time to develop around them. “Serious annoyance” — those words will stand starker, and do more.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePoliticians across the West are now full-on authoritarians, the latest excuse being Covid. They are just awful, awful people.
i am thankful for the 1st amendment right to assembly in the US constitution as I am sure that we too would be facing authoritarian moves to decide which protests may occur and which may not, with the decisions being wholly political.
I’m not sure that we could get the right to assembly if the BOR were being written today. Can you imagine the fight that would occur if someone were only today suggesting that this be considered a right? Thank you founders! You knew more about human nature than most of us ever will.
Today should US lawmakers propose an anti-protest bill, it would go all the way to SCOTUS where a plain reading of the bill of rights would prevent it from taking effect even if it were to be passed. Could the anti-protest bill be challenged in court?
they are not people they are cibermen running wmd machines and they want to run the entire world. ie the earth is the devils footstool not gods footstool
When Blunkett was Home Secretary he was notorious for his increasingly authoritarian attitudes. We have been living with governments that grant increasing powers to various agencies of the state for many decades. The notion that we live in a “free society” is sadly a delusion.
It is interesting to contrast Mary Harringtons article about symbolic action with this. Years of the appropriately named Steve Bray of stop Brexit fame, the months of Occupy, the weeks of ER at Oxford Circus, the prevention of trains from running and from newspaper being distributed: There are those that will not accept their lawful business being interrupted for any significant term by those who have some beef. It is not Ok for millions of pounds to be spent delicately removing swampy from some tunnel. There is a difference between protest and unlawful prevention. I can see how Adams article might have gravitas in Myanmar but here it is all a bit spoilt child syndrome, I cannot take him seriously because I do do my protesting at the ballot box.
“For one thing, this is a statement of intent.” Not to really usefully add to this, but I remember back in the 1970s Florida when picking Psilocybin mushrooms and nitrous oxide and such were going on and the law was at a bit of a dilemma as their illegality had not been clearly codified, but it seemed to law makers they should be illegal, so they made a law where possessing chemicals with the ‘Intent’ of using them to get high illegally, was illegal. (something like that, I was too stoned to remember it clearly).
My very favorite law ever is the one outlawing ‘Mopery’, or ‘wandering about aimlessly wile likely up to no good’. In ‘Dude Where’s My Car’ it is perfectly used as the name of the crime of ‘exposing yourself to a blind person’.
Good old ‘intent’, that legal necessity for a crime to have happened, but also such an inferred or imputed thing that till your phone (maybe 10 years off) can read and interpret, and save to the cloud, your brain waves, and the Police access that, it will always be a judgement call.
Mope goes all the way back to Shakespeare. It just means to be bored. But the legal term is loitering. The Vagrancy act would be similar in the UK.
btw, laws against loitering in the US have been challenged such that it is legal in most places. But there are still places you can’t loiter.
they dont want protests involving noise. perhaps they mean no singing which has lyrics mi6 dont like
Regarding the Vigil. It was unlawful as per schedule 22 of the Coronavirus Act and current lockdown restrictions. Or should ‘consent’ now extend to Inequality before the Law, with protestors giving themselves the authority of the Police and the Secretary of State and so decide as an autocracy if they are the approved Inequality or the disapproved Inequality.
The Rule of Law is foundational to the preservation of Democracy and Freedom with Equality before the Law foundational to Democracy and Freedom.
It seems the Left wants Anarchy and to make the rules up as they go along which is exactly why the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is necessary.
Left Radicalism has and is trying to shift the balance away from the Rule of Law and Democracy towards the Freedom to be a public nuisance whenever they like.
If the Left wants more Unrestrained Freedoms to disrupt the status quo and in the process give democratic minorities increased State powers to do as they like, then earn that right through Parliamentary Democratic Consent.
In other words, riding roughshod over the Rule of Law and Democracy in order to grant oneself extra Freedoms and Executive powers is Authoritarianism.
Quite an assumption that anyone who wishes to protest is a member of “the Left”. 😉
Sadly Lord Hoffmann’s credibility was destroyed some years ago by his disgraceful conduct in the Augusto Pinochet Affair, for which he went unpunished.
Lord Sumption’s credibility was similarly destroyed when he endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2019 Prorogation case.
Not sure that is true Dougie. As I understand Sumption accepted the courts right to make the decision (which he characterised as “new law”) but thought it both incorrect and misguided.
The British Trump is running amok across the political landscape. I’m not surprised he wants to limit protest as people will wake up eventually. Fortunately there are people whose ethical stance will make them protest whatever the limitations. 150 organisations signed a letter in opposition. I’m sure Quakers for one will not take this lying down (or maybe they will, literally).
Trump limited protest? That would be news to the 1st amendment, and many many, pink p*ssy hats.
What you really need is a right to protest, which you do not have. From there, you can argue about the size and place and peacefulness of the protest but first you must acquire a right to do it.