Home Office proposal: new power of arrest for ongoing protests

Summary: The police asked for new powers to arrest habitual protesters, the Home Office says: yes!

Details: The Home Office has been looking at streamlining and harmonising some of the provisions of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984; the primary legislation dealing with police powers, including searches, arrests and detention.

The aim of their review is supposedly to encourage "views and comments from the public, stakeholders and practitioners on PACE and its application to 21st century policing. This is the final phase of the consultation process and sets out specific recommendations for change aimed at reducing bureaucracy, freeing up officer time, whilst increasing accountability and raising public confidence and awareness."

Hidden within the government's many proposals is a promise to:

Expand the current necessity criteria to deal with so-called 'ongoing offences'

Which is elaborated as:

Clarifying the necessity criteria

7.13 The criteria in section 24(5) PACE, excluding the need to investigate, are similar to those in section 38 PACE (detention after charge). Both focus on the need to prevent harm or to protect other persons or property. The necessity criteria on arrest is not sufficiently clear when dealing with the prevention of injury and loss of/damage to property to deal with continuing offences; and certain types of antisocial behaviour and low-level disorder, including non-compliance with directions designed to prevent the consequences of such behaviour.

7.14 The relationship between the routine powers to take, check and retain fingerprints and DNA of arrested persons at the station and the necessity criteria would also benefit from clarification.

For example, the necessity criteria would be satisfied if the effective investigation of the offence requires taking and comparing fingerprints and DNA for evidence or where it is reasonably believed that fingerprints would resolve a properly founded doubt as to the arrested person's identity.

However, the criteria are not meant to support arrest solely for the purposes of routinely taking fingerprints and DNA to add to the national databases.

7.15 We propose to clarify the application of necessity criteria by:

* Providing a more straightforward connection between the effect of the suspect's behaviour on others and the need to arrest to prevent that effect. An example might be, where the constable reasonably believes that a person present is likely to fear for the safety of themselves and/or their property and that the suspect's arrest is necessary to allay that fear; and

* Making it clear that the taking of fingerprints and DNA to carry out a speculative search & collect biometric data is not sufficient grounds on its own to make an arrest.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2008-pace-review

But what do they mean by "low-level disorder"? Why SOCPA s132 of course!

Background, from the DCR Bill Joint Committee's First Report:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

73. The Metropolitan Police Service has stated that police powers of arrest in relation to SOCPA were inadequate:

"the MPS has dealt with a number of individuals who have chosen to deliberately commit offences under SOCPA. A power of arrest has existed in some of these cases, an example being where a protestor refused to provide any details. However, the MPS is increasingly having to deal with those who choose to protest in the SOCPA area in situations where a power of arrest does not exist and despite being formally reported for an offence, they continue to commit that offence. In those cases, the MPS is powerless to prevent a continuance of the offence and those committing the offence continue to break the law, so undermining it. The MPS believes that a power to arrest should exist to prevent individuals continuing to commit an offence after they have been formally reported for it. This could be achieved by an amendment to s24(5) PACE [the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984]."

[...]

76. We note the differences of opinion about the adequacy of police powers of arrest. We welcome the commitment by the Home Office Minister to remove any "confusion" as part of the review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that is being carried out by the Home Office. Had we been given further time for our inquiry, we might have obtained further evidence that would have enabled us to provide a more useful assessment of the adequacy of existing powers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtconren/166/16605.htm#a24

Related evidence to the committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtconren/166/166we12.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtconren/166/8061705.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtconren/166/8061706.htm

Now leafleting needs advance permission

A small example of how restrictions on freedom of assembly affect everybody:

"Two campaigners dressed as penguins were removed from Telford Town Park after being told they would need a criminal record check and risk assessment to hand out leaflets. [...] Telford & Wrekin Council, which manages the park, said anyone wanting to hand out information there had to give advance notice of who they were and what they were distributing. Spokesman David Morgan said: “They have to be CRB checked and risk assessed under the Child Protection Act. There are a lot of children playing in the park at this time of year and we have a duty of care to them and our adult visitors. “The people asked to leave had given no notice or information. We did not know who they were or what they were doing. Organisations and individuals should always plan ahead and get permission from the council before doing anything in the town park to avoid any problems or misunderstandings.”"
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/08/09/protesters-kicked-out-of-town-park/
"Environmental campaigners who had dressed as penguins today defied a ban on handing out leaflets without permission in Telford Town Park. [...] Telford & Wrekin Council, which owns and manages the park, today defended its rules for the site. David Morgan, council spokesman, said there were many children in the park during the summer months and the council had a duty of care to them and adult visitors. He said: “People wanting to participate in an activity or stage an event need permission. It is not the authority being heavy-handed, it’s a legal requirement.”"
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/08/13/protest-pair-defy-park-ban/
"Council staff on the lookout for paedophiles have been ordered to stop and quiz any adults found walking in Telford Town Park without a child, it was revealed today. [...] The policy came to light after two environmental campaigners dressed as penguins were thrown out of the park last month when caught handing out leaflets on climate change. [...] David Ottley, Telford & Wrekin’s sports and recreation manager, said in a letter seen by the Shropshire Star: "Our Town Park staff approach adults that are not associated with any children in the Town Park and request the reason for them being there.""
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/09/08/town-park-staff-to-quiz-adults/
"The Government has today attacked a controversial borough council policy to stop and quiz childless adults who were spotted in Telford Town Park. The Home Office said Telford & Wrekin Council had no right to accost anyone innocently enjoying the park. It also said the council could not demand Criminals Records Bureau checks on anyone not working with children or vulnerable adults. But Telford & Wrekin Council bosses today said it was not a blanket policy covering the park but anyone seen acting suspiciously would be quizzed."
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/09/09/home-office-attacks-park-policy/
"Telford & Wrekin Council is to review its policy of stopping and questioning people in Telford Town Park in the hunt for paedophiles, it was revealed today. The authority says the review will end confusion over its policy and make it clear it does not have a “blanket” approach to stopping childless adults in the park."
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/09/10/council-vows-to-review-park-policy/