Case Explained:This article breaks down the legal background, charges, and implications of Case Explained: Lords warned Crime and Policing Bill must not restrict right to peaceful protest | Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – Legal Perspective
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has provided peers with advice ahead of the committee stage reading of the Crime and Policing Bill.
The briefing from the human rights regulator sets out its concerns relating to the UK government’s proposals affecting the right to peaceful protest.
The specific clauses the EHRC raises concerns over are:
- Clause 118–120, which would ban concealing identity at protests
- Clause 124, which would place restrictions on protests in the vicinity of places of worship
- Amendment 372, which would place a duty on public processions and assemblies to take account of cumulative disruption
The EHRC highlights the risk that the effect of these and other changes will be to restrict the right to peaceful protest and create a “chilling effect” on the ability of people to exercise their democratic rights.
The National Human Rights Institution for England and Wales draws peers’ attention to the significant discretion the proposals would allow police forces to restrict protests and place conditions on protestors. The regulator is particularly concerned by the broad drafting of these proposals.
“The right to peaceful protest is critical to a functioning democracy. As a National Human Rights Institution, it’s our job to champion our human rights protections. That’s why we’re highlighting to Parliament our concerns regarding the wide discretion these proposals grant police.
“The provision banning concealing one’s identity at a peaceful protest risks capturing people wearing a mask for legitimate reasons not immediately apparent to the police. This could include anything from respiratory health conditions to victims of domestic abuse who do not want to be identified by their abusers.
“Meanwhile, the proposed clause which would allow conditions to be placed on any protests in the vicinity of a place of worship is extremely broad. It would be applicable to the majority of central London, for example.
“Everyone has the right to hold those in power to account and make their voice heard through peaceful protest. When considering these clauses, peers should ensure any changes to the law do not infringe on our fundamental right to freedom of assembly and expression.”
Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
Clause 118–120 would allow senior police officers to designate a time and place, in an area a protest is likely to take place, where it would be an offence to wear a face covering. Officers would be able to do so under suspicion of “offences”, however there is no definition of the types of offences that should trigger this action from the police. There is also no requirement for the offences to be connected to any public order or other serious offences.
Clause 124 would allow police to impose conditions on any protest in the vicinity of a place of worship. The EHRC advises the term ‘vicinity’ to be more clearly defined and notes that this clause is highly subjective, with no requirement for evidence of intent or actual intimidation.
The cumulative disruption amendment (New Clause 372) would allow police forces to impose conditions on repeated public processions, even when there is no connection in organisers, attendees or subject matter. This has the potential to unduly restrict the right to peaceful protest.
Highlighting existing legal protections and limitations on the right to protest, the EHRC questions whether the UK government’s proposals are necessary and whether they introduce unnecessary ambiguity. Under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986, senior police officers may already impose conditions on any protest they believe ‘may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or where the purpose of organisers is the intimidation of others.’ It has also highlighted Lord MacDonald’s independent review into public order and hate crime. This comprehensive review may have further implications for the law on protests which should be considered before additional proposals are approved.