Thread by @libertyhq

From bad to worse:

Let's take a look at Gov's amendments to the dangerous and discriminatory #PolicingBill

🧵(brace yourself, it's long – dw it’ll be available in more manageable chunks soon)

You probably know all about the #PolicingBill's attack on protest rights by now. But if you're new to it, here's an explainer covering what the Bill looked like until very recently

https://twitter.com/libertyhq/status/1371483061871853570

Now the Government has added 'amendments' to the #PolicingBill.

They're not good.

Here we go...

First up is a brand new criminal offence:

The offence will be committed by people who:

1⃣attach themselves to another person, an object, or land
2⃣attach someone else to another person, an object, or land
3⃣attach an object to another object or to land...

... and doing so causes, or is capable of causing, "serious disruption" to 2 or more people or to an organisation in a public place

AND

they intend this consequence or are reckless about it.

The punishment for locking could be:

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣a fine
3⃣both

There is a defence of 'reasonable excuse'.

There are some serious issues with this proposal.

What does 'attach' mean? It's not defined, so it's unclear how ‘permanent’ the attachment has to be.

Could linking arms count as attaching yourself to another person, for example?

Either way it looks set to criminalise a wide range of acts, like chaining wheelchairs to traffic lights as disabled rights activists did in 2012, or chaining yourself to a tree.

And attaching an object to another object or land could could criminalise the use of some props at protests.

Not to mention it goes against established caselaw that people have a right to choose how to protest.

And let's not forget that the Home Secretary will be given the power to define (and re-define) what "serious disruption" means.

It's also completely unclear (shocker with this Bill, we know) what would count as a 'reasonable excuse'.

Exercising your fundamental right to protest, anyone?

So this new offence is likely to be a serious deterrent for people who need to make their voice heard through protest

And police don't even want a 'locking on' offence.

Source: page 125 of this justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-con…

Let's move on because there's lots more...

Another brand new offence:

An offence is committed if a person has an object with them in a public place with the intention that it will be used "in the course of or in connection with" any person 'locking on'.

The punishment is a (potentially unlimited) fine.

So an item which is fine to carry anywhere else could suddenly be prohibited because you're near a protest.

This offence could capture a lot of people - especially as the item doesn’t have to be related to the protest at all (the person just needs to intend for it to be used in a certain way), and it doesn't need to be used by the person carrying it, but by "any person".

And what does "in the course of or in connection with" mean?

Talk about vague. It presumably covers anything at all that could relate to the locking on offence.

This could either deter people from protesting, or drag them into the criminal justice system for doing so.

Increased sentence for an existing offence here:

The current punishment for a person who "without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway" is a fine.

That's changing to either:
1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣fine
3⃣both

Such heavy punishments will stop people from taking to the streets to stand up to power.

And there's no evidence backing up increasing sentencing powers. @PRTuk has reported that recent sentencing changes haven't been driven by an increase in incidences.

This change is also likely to add to existing pressures on courts, prisons, and the probation service.

Back to brand new offences:

A person commits an offence:

1⃣if they obstruct an undertaker (eg construction worker) taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for facilitating, or in connection with, the construction or maintenance of any major transport works...

OR

2⃣if they interfere with, move, or remove any apparatus relating to the construction or maintenance of any major transport works and belonging to an undertaker.

The punishment is either:

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣fine
3⃣both

There is a defence of reasonable excuse – but again, what that means is anyone’s guess.

This potentially criminalises A LOT of actions because the offence doesn't just cover obstructing the actual construction.

It also covers obstructing *any steps in connection with* the construction or maintenance of any major transport works.

How will that work? Well, inconsistently at best probably. At worst it’s so vaguely worded that it could essentially be a catch-all offence.

It could even cover picketing.

It will deter so many from exercising their right to protest – and then heavily punish those who do.

Expanding stop and search powers:

Officers will now also be able to stop and search a person or vehicle if they reasonably suspect they’ll find an item intended for use in connection with:

1⃣wilful obstruction of the highway that’s capable of causing serious disruption to 2 or more people or an organisation...

2⃣intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance
3⃣locking on
4⃣obstruction of major transport works

The list of objects that could be "made, adapted, or intended for use in the course of or in connection with" the listed offences is potentially endless and could include placards, fliers and banners.

The police can seize any prohibited item – and can therefore derail a protest before it even gets going.

This is a huge expansion of stop and search powers which are already used disproportionately against people of colour.

Latest stats show Black people are 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. Expanding these powers will further entrench discrimination

There's no consensus among police that these powers are necessary or desirable.

When asked about the proposal by @HMICFRS, one police officer stated that "a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state". HMICFRS agreed.

Stop and search without the need for 'suspicion':

A police officer of or above the rank of inspector can authorise police officers to stop and search a vehicle of person without suspicion in particular place for a specified period of time.

They can do this under the following conditions...

1⃣They reasonably believe

🔘wilful obstruction of the highway that's capable of causing serious disruption to 2 or more ppl or an organisation
🔘intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance
🔘locking on
🔘obstruction of major transport works

may be committed in that area

OR

2⃣if the senior officer reasonably believes that people are carrying prohibited objects.

AND

3⃣the officer reasonably believes:

🔘the authorisation is necessary to prevent the above offences, or the carrying of prohibited items
🔘the specified locality is no greater than is necessary, and
🔘the specific period is no longer than is necessary

A prohibited item is an object which:

🔘is made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence related to the listed offences

OR

🔘is intended by the person who has it in their possession for such use by them or someone else

The suspicion-less stop and search powers can be in force for up to 24 hours

(and can be extended by a further 24 hours if authorised by an officer of the rank of superintendent or above)

Woah.

All protests risk causing public nuisance, so in reality this allows police to whack suspicion-less stop and search measures onto any demo.

And then seize any ‘prohibited’ items – which mentioned above could incl placards, banners, basically anything used during a protest

And when the need for suspicion is removed, Black people are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white people.

These powers will worsen discriminatory policing of people of colour.

Another new offence:

Obstructing a suspicion-less, protest-specific stop and search will be punishable by either:

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣a fine
3⃣both

The existing offence of 'wilful obstruction' carries the possibility of 1 month in prison.

This new offence - where it wouldn't be illegal to otherwise have the items being searched for - carries up to 11 months in prison.

A major concern here is what effect this offence might have on Legal Observers.

Legal Observers are independent witnesses to police behaviour at protests and offer legal advice and support. They are identifiable by their hi-vis tabards.

An LO might be stopped and searched, and the police might seize legal advice bust cards.

Should an independent (not part of the protest) LO not cooperate, they could commit an obstruction offence.

This isn’t hard to envisage considering earlier this year Liberty’s lawyers represented independent Legal Observers who the police had actually arrested at protests.

Possible targeting on Legal Observers will have a disempowering effect on protests and on people's ability to hold the police and the State to account.

A new ASBO-type civil order:

Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) can be imposed on people who have taken part in 2 or more protests in a 5 year period.

They can be imposed either on conviction of an offence OR NOT.

People given an SDPO will be subject to a set of conditions including

🔘not associating with certain people
🔘not going to certain places
🔘not carrying certain items
🔘not using the internet in a certain way

Breach of an SDPO can be punished by either:

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣fine
3⃣both

The court has to be satisfied the SDPO is
necessary for a listed reason, incl:

🔘stopping them committing protest-related offences
🔘stopping acts that could cause serious disruption
🔘stopping them contributing to someone else committing an offence or causing serious disruption

ON CONVICTION

SDPOs on conviction can be given by a court to an adult who's committed a protest-related offence in the last 5years.

The current offence and earlier offence must relate to different protests or have been committed on different days.

NOT ON CONVICTION

SDPOs can also be given by a magistrate when applied for by a listed police officer.

List includes a chief police officer in the area where the person lives, and a chief officer who simply believes the person is in, or is intending to come to, their area.

Before the Mags Ct can impose an SDPO, it has to be satisfied that on at least 2 occasions in the last 5years, the person has either:
🔘been convicted of a protest-related offence
🔘carried out protest acts likely to cause serious disruption
🔘contributed to someone else doing so

Protest is a fundamental right.

But SDPOs are effectively protest bans.

And the conditions for imposing them (eg contributing to someone else causing serious disruption - remember serious disruption will be defined by the Home Secretary) are extremely broad and vague.

And measures like SDPOs aren't supported by the police or *even the Home Office*

When consulted on similar protest banning orders, they said:

"Such orders would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent"

And police said banning orders "unnecessarily curtail people’s democratic right to protest".

SDPOs also mark a significant expansion of state surveillance on protesters.

The original proposal was based on football banning orders (FBOs) which rely on intrusive surveillance of people’s activities and behaviour.

Research into the use of FBOs in Scotland noted the use of extensive surveillance methods like body-worn video, increased CCTV and plain-clothed police officers.

The use of even more secretive tactics such as informants in the policing of football fans adds to concerns.

SDPOs appear to be based on a model of preventative justice - particularly concerning because someone might be prevented from attending future protests because they twice 'contributed to another person's protest-related activities that were likely to result in serious disruption'

So didn't do anything themselves, and the activities were only *likely* to cause serious disruption.

The terms for SDPOs are so broad they can catch any and all protest activities.

And don't forget the Home Sec defines 'serious disruption' and can move the goalposts as and when

SDPOs last for between a week and 2 years, but there is no limit to the number of times an SDPO can be renewed by the court.

SDPOs are a wild violation of human rights, breaching
🔘protest rights, obvs
🔘right to liberty - reporting requirements, told where to go and when
🔘privacy - police surveillance measures
🔘association - can't interact with certain people
🔘free expression - internet use limits

SDPOs aren't just about stopping people protesting.

If we think about what makes up a movement, it's the community, the relationships people have with their friends, the regular meetings in places of safety, the safety that comes from carrying legal advice cards at demos.

THIS is what SDPOs are targeting: political community.

Things aren't looking great.

But we know one thing: this Government buckles under public pressure and u-turns time and again.

Sign the petition to stop the #PolicingBill here action.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/page/78339/pet…

And email your MP today to tell them get the dangerous and discriminatory #PolicingBill scrapped action.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/page/92606/act…