Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns over the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the right to protest.
I believe this is a sensible and proportionate piece of legislation which introduces a number of reasonable measures. These include changing sentencing rules so serious criminals can spend more time in jail before they can be conditionally released; allowing judges to consider jailing child murderers for their entire lives and doubling maximum sentences for low-level assaults against emergency service workers.
However, I understand your concerns about the right to protest; I do not believe this is affected by the Bill. Much of the legislative framework on managing protests in currently under the Public Order Act 1986. This is no longer fit for managing the types of protests we experience today.
When using powers in the Bill, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law and be able to demonstrate their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. They must still act compatibly with human rights, principally Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Measures in the Bill extend the ability of the police to place conditions on static protests which are already in place for marches. These include start/finish times and noise limits.
These measures will not grant the police, local authorities, or any other body powers to ban protests. However, the Public Order Act 1986 already contains exceptional powers for a local authority, on an application by the Chief Constable and with the consent of the Home Secretary, to prohibit a public procession or trespassory assembly. These powers are unchanged by this Bill.
The police will only be able to impose conditions on unjustifiably noisy protests that cause harm to others or prevent an organisation from operating. The threshold for being able to impose conditions on noisy protests will be appropriately high. Police will only use it in cases where it is deemed necessary and proportionate.
For an upcoming protest, the Chief Constable of the relevant force will be responsible for making the decision of whether the threshold is likely to be met. For a protest already taking place, the most senior officer at the scene will decide if the threshold is likely to be met.
In recent years we have seen some protesters use egregious noise not as a method of legitimately expressing themselves, but to antagonise and disrupt others from the enjoyment of their own liberties and rights.
This power can only be used when the police reasonably believe that the noise from the protest may cause serious disruption to the activities of an organisation or cause a significant impact on people in the vicinity of the protest. “Impact” is defined as intimidation, harassment, serious unease, serious alarm, or serious distress with the police then having to consider whether the impact is significant.
The proposed law includes an offence of "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance". This is designed to stop people blocking the path of ambulances, chaining themselves to trains, or blockading printing presses, or employing other protest tactics that restrict the freedoms of others. The move to introduce such legislation is not solely a Government a decision but also a recommendation by the Law Commission to introduce a statutory offence of public nuisance, and repeal and restate the existing common law offence.
Therefore, the measures in the Bill are not about stopping or clamping down on right to protest but ensuring the police can better manage highly disruptive protests and maintain the balance between protestors and surrounding communities.
It is my hope that where further clarification and specificity is required, it will reassure the public that this is not a restriction on civil liberties but a Bill that enhances faith and understanding in the justice system and police force.