UK law risks criminalising the innocent

Arguably the most draconian piece of legislation out of the UK in decades, the Public Order Bill has no justification and could tear the fabric of British democratic life, says DANNY SHAW

AT MY LOCAL doctors’ surgery in London, a receptionist walked in, late for work. A journey which should have taken her an hour had lasted twice as long, she said, because climate change protesters had climbed the gantries on the M25, the capital’s orbital motorway.

For the safety of the activists and those driving beneath them, traffic had been diverted onto other roads, causing miles of tailbacks. “It was a right pain,” she said.

She is not the only one to have been inconvenienced by Just Stop Oil, a group which is campaigning to stop new fossil fuel licensing and production. Job interviews have been missed, children have been late for school and hospital visits have been postponed.

And worse, Tony Bambury, from Buckinghamshire, was stuck in a jam

She is attempting to sow division between her supporters and the “woke” critics of her Public Order Bill when he should have been at his father’s funeral. “I will never, ever forgive these people for what they’ve done to me,” he told the BBC.

The controversy around the protests came to a head in the second week of November when a police motorcyclist was struck by a lorry as he attempted to marshal the congested traffic. Politicians urged police to take a firmer line. “That is your duty,” home secretary Suella Braverman told officers at a policing conference, describing the environmentalists as “extremists” and the disruption as a “threat to our way of life”.

Why was Braverman using such emotive language? Part of the reason, I suggest, is that she is attempting to sow division between her supporters and the “woke” critics of her Public Order Bill – government legislation that would significantly and dangerously extend the reach of law enforcement over protest groups.

The explanation for the bill on the Home Office website makes it sound benign – it is anything but. According to the department, the new laws will tackle “guerrilla” protest tactics which halt public transport networks, disrupt fuel supplies and prevent people (such as my doctor’s receptionist) getting to work. If the measures are passed by parliament, it will be a crime for people to cause “serious disruption” by attaching themselves to objects, buildings or other people. Tunnelling will be criminalised and interference with major rail projects and key national infrastructure outlawed, too.

A Just Stop Oil protester is arrested in London during a demonstration on 29 October this year. New legislation would not only criminalise environmental protesters on the UK’s streets, it would criminalise potential protesters

CREDIT: Andrea Domeniconi/Alamy

The measures are unnecessary. Police already have a panoply of powers to control events that cause serious disruption – and they have been used extensively during the Just Stop Oil action over the last year. Since October, London’s Metropolitan Police alone have made well over 700 arrests and brought charges against 150 people.

There are other legal options as well. Organisations which are affected by protests can apply for civil injunctions to prevent disruptive activity, with those in breach facing imprisonment for contempt of court. National Highways (which is responsible for major roads in England), councils in Essex, Transport for London and Shell are among those to have taken advantage.

And if that wasn’t enough, consider the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act which became law in England and Wales only this year. The legislation gives police greater powers to place conditions on protests if the noise they generate could result in serious disruption, creates a statutory office of “public nuisance”, and increases penalties for obstructing roads. In fact, the ink had barely dried on the act when the government introduced the Public Order Bill.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which comprises parliamentarians from the Conservative, Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat parties, has articulated the concerns many of us have about the bill. It is not merely unnecessary, they say, but poses an “unacceptable threat to the fundamental right to engage in peaceful protest” and risks “criminalising” the innocent.

They are alarmed about plans to extend the police’s ability to stop and search people for items used in protests such as glue, paint and locks. Stop-and-search is a highly contentious police tactic which is disproportionately deployed against those from Black and mixed ethnic communities. The committee believes that there is a risk the new expanded powers will be misused, including in a “discriminatory” manner that will have a “chilling effect” on the right to protest.

Its strongest criticism, however, is correctly directed at the proposed introduction of Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, which would allow the courts to ban people from going to specific places and meeting named individuals in order to prevent protest-related offences. Those subject to an SDPO might be required to wear an electronic tag and could be jailed if they breach the terms of an order.

The new court orders bear a troubling resemblance to terrorism prevention and investigation measures – known as T-Pims – which are designed to restrict and monitor the activities of terror suspects. Where national security is concerned, that is an appropriate and proportional response. Where protests are simply annoying, disruptive and cause people to be late for work, it is not.

If anything is a “threat to our way of life” it is the Public Order Bill itself. X