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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll