Thread by @libertyhq

#PublicOrderBill explainer🧵

When Gov says Parliament must have the final say on laws, apparently that's only if Gov likes the result.

One House of Parliament famously binned their worst anti-protest proposals in Jan.

Now Gov's brought them back.

(brace yourself, it’s long)

Gov's anti-protest Policing Bill saw the #KillTheBill movement develop as Gov faced a whole year of resistance.

In an attempt to hide from accountability for its actions, Gov wanted to give police more powers to shut down protests it doesn't like and criminalise demonstrators.

When Gov shoved new dangerous and discriminatory proposals into the Bill at the last minute to avoid scrutiny, the people and the House of Lords said 'no'.

Protest isn't a gift from the State. It's OUR RIGHT.

The Lords scrapped each and every one.

https://twitter.com/libertyhq/status/1483232521492049925

Now just a few weeks after the rest of the Bill passed, Gov is trying to get those same rejected proposals into law again.

Enter the #PublicOrderBill.

Okay, here goes…

Proposal completely rejected by the public, NGOs, academics and the House of Lords when Gov tried just a few months ago (not to mention the police don’t even want it) number 1

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 tying yourself to a tree.

And attaching an object to another object or land 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.

‘Locking on’ doesn’t need to actually cause ‘serious disruption’, but just be capable of it.

So different protests may be treated differently depending on the views of officers present.

And don't forget the Policing Bill gives the Home Sec power to define 'serious disruption'.

It's also completely unclear 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…

Proposal completely rejected by the public, NGOs, academics and the House of Lords when Gov tried just a few months ago number 2

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.

As Lord Paddick said last time this idea was binned, you could buy super glue to fix a chair, but get caught up in a protest after and have suddenly committed an offence.

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.

There is no reasonable excuse defence for 'being equipped to lock on'.

This one has actually been made even worse than it was the last time it was completely rejected

So-called 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 when someone is convicted 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 - and remember the Policing Bill gives the Home Sec power to define that) are extremely broad and vague.

And banning orders aren’t supported by the police, who have said they "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.

One of the requirements that can be imposed on an individual is electronic monitoring in relation to an SDPO condition.

For instance ankle tagging someone to monitor and record their compliance with a ban on seeing certain people or engaging in certain activities.

In 2018 the Ministry of Justice started using GPS tags that give the State 24/7 real-time location monitoring.

Electronic monitoring is highly intrusive and studies show it can cause psychological harm.

The Bill says electronic monitoring could be imposed for up to 12 months - and even longer of the banning order is renewed.

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.

A movement is about 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 and so on

THIS is what SDPOs are targeting: political community.

Return of an old favourite – you know, if you like nonsensical plans

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

This one’s back too

A person commits an offence if:

1⃣they interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales

and

2⃣they intending or are reckless as to whether the act will interfere with the use or operation.

Key national infrastructure = road transport, rail, air transport, harbour, downstream oil, downstream gas, onshore oil and gas exploration and production, electricity generating, and newspaper printing infrastructure.

The punishment is either:

1⃣up to 51 weeks in prison
2⃣fine
3⃣both

‘Interference’ = “preventing the infrastructure from being used or operated to any extent for any of its intended purposes”

Not only is this seriously wide ranging, but also goes against the Supreme Court’s ruling that the right to protest covers seriously disruptive protest.

And one of the key ways people make themselves heard is by protesting at sites of power. This aims to destroy that.

More attempts to expand stop and search

#PublicOrderBill will allow police 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
2⃣intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance
3⃣locking on...

4⃣obstruction of major transport works
5⃣interfering with key national infrastructure

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
🔘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 14 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white people.

These powers will worsen discriminatory policing of people of colour.

And more

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 last year Liberty’s lawyers represented independent Legal Observers who the police had actually arrested at protests.

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

It sounds bleak, but we'll fight these anti-democratic plans with everything we've got.

Together we've defeated them once.

We can defeat them again.

✊POWER TO THE PEOPLE✊