by Adam King
Tuesday, 16
March 2021
Explainer
12:53

No matter what they say, the crime bill is authoritarian

The usual arguments about formalising Common Law don't convince
by Adam King
Protestors hold placards and a banner outside the entrance to Downing Street. Credit: Getty

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.

But it’s in the surrounding changes to the law on protests that the Government’s intentions are most visible. Police have long been able to impose conditions on protestors (on pain of criminal conviction) if they foresee a risk of, among other things, “serious disruption”. But now the Government wants more: the power to use Regulations, whenever they fancy, to “change the meaning” of that expression.

Do the Conservatives think they’ll be in charge forever? They might want to consider the possibility that the other lot might be the ones making ad hoc redefinitions of “serious disruption” before long.  

And then there are the hasty, silly, unprecedented little try-it-ons we have come to expect from a post-millennial criminal statute. Not satisfied with existing powers to deal with serious disorder and disruption, they want to be able to ban protests that involve noise that might cause serious unease. But aren’t these the minimum standards for qualification as a protest? If noise and unease are proscribed, might violence and property damage become more attractive?

You could argue that what protesting needs is a bit more illegality. Where’s the civil disobedience in wandering around Hyde Park with your kids, waving cardboard cringe around for Instagram? As Lord Hoffman put it in 2006, it is by accepting criminal penalties that some protestors “vouch the sincerity of their beliefs”. But he also spoke approvingly of a traditional sense of proportion, on both sides of the barricade.

As that other advocate of judicial proportion, Lord Sumption, said in his Cambridge lecture in October last year, “The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country”. Perhaps, with the laying of this Bill, they can now make a start. After 12 months of governing by decree, banning the right to protest along the way, the Government seem to have developed a taste for it.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
15 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
1 year ago

Politicians across the West are now full-on authoritarians, the latest excuse being Covid. They are just awful, awful people.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

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?

Last edited 1 year ago by Annette Kralendijk
linda drew
linda drew
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

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

Warren Alexander
Warren Alexander
1 year ago

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.

Paul Goodman
Paul Goodman
1 year ago

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.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago

“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.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Annette Kralendijk
linda drew
linda drew
1 year ago

they dont want protests involving noise. perhaps they mean no singing which has lyrics mi6 dont like

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
1 year ago

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.

Phil Wieneke
Phil Wieneke
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Gwynne

Quite an assumption that anyone who wishes to protest is a member of “the Left”. 😉

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Sadly Lord Hoffmann’s credibility was destroyed some years ago by his disgraceful conduct in the Augusto Pinochet Affair, for which he went unpunished.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago

Lord Sumption’s credibility was similarly destroyed when he endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2019 Prorogation case.

Paul Goodman
Paul Goodman
1 year ago

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.

parishbooks49
parishbooks49
1 year ago

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).

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  parishbooks49

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.