Over the past year, the coronavirus pandemic has exposed injustices around the world. From Black Lives Matter to the protests after the murder of Sarah Everard, citizens have taken to the streets to voice their anger at pervasive failures to keep people safe. However, a new government-backed bill in the United Kingdom, puts the right to protest that has been vital over the past year under threat. The bill not only curtails the right to protest, but may have dangerous repercussions for minority communities and introduces unduly harsh sentences for crimes against memorials while ignoring real issues within the criminal justice system.

THE POLICE, CRIME, SENTENCING AND COURTS BILL

One of the most controversial proposals put forward in the bill has been described as "a clampdown on the right to protest". The bill allows police to impose restrictions on protests that cause "serious unease, alarm or distress’ to the general public". Protests usually involve large crowds and a fair amount of noise. Few protests will not fall within the ambit of the bill. Effectively, police are being given the power to restrict any kind of protest, anywhere, and at any time, whether it be violent or not. While article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to protest, the right is qualified. This means that when restrictions are thought to be necessary, they can be lawfully imposed on protests. However, whether such restrictions would be "necessary” when it comes to non-violent protests is questionable. The infringement on this right is even more concerning when considering that protests causing “serious disruption” could be restricted. This is problematic given that the meaning of “serious disruption” is in the judgment of the Home Secretary. The current Home Secretary Priti Patel is authorised to decide when a protest has caused “serious disruption”. There is little opportunity for parliamentary debate and scrutiny.

Worryingly, the bill applies to single-person protests and applies regardless of whether the protester knew their actions were prohibited or not. That they “ought” to have known is enough for them to be charged. This ability to punish those who were not even intending to act in a criminal way is highly questionable, as it undermines the fundamental principle of law that criminal intent must be shown before a person can be convicted of a crime.

DEATH OF SARAH EVERARD, AND BLM

The death of Sarah Everard has brought greater attention to the bill. The man charged with her murder  is a police officer, which prompted widespread protests against state and gender-based violence. Tensions reached a high at a vigil for Sarah Everard when police used force to break up the vigil, ostensibly to enforce the coronavirus restrictions then in place. Photos from the vigil went viral on social media and sparked outrage at the use of police force. As a result, more attention was drawn to the proposals in this bill to restrict our right to protest, which has resulted in further unrest in the country. The government’s actions have been criticised further given their priorities in this bill. They have been criticised for failing to introduce initiatives targeting inequalities between the genders or ethnicities, nor have they tackled the issue of worryingly low rape convictions. Instead, they have focused on introducing a new 10-year sentence for damaging a monument or statue. This specific change is believed to be in response to last year’s Black Lives Matter protests which saw statues graffitied, damaged, and toppled. However, it is deeply disturbing that the government failed to consider the impact of those protests on ethnic minority individuals and chose instead to protect statues and monuments.

The restrictions on protests are not the only controversial proposals put forward in this bill. It also includes increased stop and search powers for the police. Given the disproportionate use of such powers against those from ethnic minority backgrounds, it has been suggested that this will "deepen existing racial inequalities" within the criminal justice system. In response to this, a total of around 70 campaign groups focusing on justice and reform have signed an open letter to MPs hoping to prevent this provision from coming into force. However, this is not the only provision which would negatively impact minority communities. The new bill also criminalises trespass on private land, which puts Roma and Irish Traveller communities at risk of facing fines and potential prison sentences up to three months.

LOOKING FORWARD

Some argue that the 307 page bill has not been given enough time to be properly scrutinised by Parliament, having only been debated on 15-16 March before being put to a vote in its second reading in the House of Commons. Currently, the bill has passed this stage. However, there are still multiple hurdles for the bill to overcome, as it faces opposition in the House of Lords. Human rights advocates will no doubt be hoping that this draconian bill will fail at some point in the legislative process, but this is not certain.

Tanya is a Law student heading into the final year of her degree at the University of Manchester. She is interested in bringing attention to human rights issues arising from her Pro-Bono work at University (volunteering at the Legal Advice Centre and taking part in volunteering projects). Her main goal is to become a Barrister practising in either Criminal or Family Law.

LinkedIn