The police will be given a public order power allowing them to clear the streets and tell the public to leave an area during a riot or other disorder, under proposals for curfews outlined by the Home Office.
The power entitles a police superintendent to declare a specific district a public "no go" area for a limited time – for the first time since the Riot Act was removed from the statute book for England and Wales in 1973.
A Home Office consultation paper published on Thursday stops short of making it a criminal offence to be outdoors in a curfew zone, but says it would be an offence to refuse a police instruction to leave the area. It leaves open the question of what penalty might be imposed.
The plan, which has the backing of the home secretary, Theresa May, is published alongside proposals to give the police stronger powers to order rioters and protesters to remove face masks, and for the police to impose curfews on individuals as part of a conditional caution.
The consultation paper also includes a proposal to remove the word "insulting" from section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, which makes it an offence for the public to use words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The measure has been used recently against Christian street-preachers who were arguing that homosexuality was sinful, against a teenager who claimed Scientology was a dangerous cult and against an Oxford University student who told a mounted police officer his horse was gay.
Liberal Democrat MPs have been pressing for section 5 to be repealed for undermining free speech, though the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, wants it retained to ensure that anyone who insults police officers can be prosecuted.
The crime and security minister, James Brokenshire, said it was essential to give the police all necessary legal powers to enable them to maintain public order, protect the streets and keep the public safe.
"But we must also make sure any new powers do not trample upon traditional British freedoms – that is why we are seeking public views on the powers the police really need to keep our communities safe," he said.
Civil liberties campaigners were appalled by the proposed curfew powers.
Isabella Sankey, the policy director of Liberty, said: "Whatever happened to the 'civil liberties' coalition that abolished ID cards and sought to restore rights and freedoms? It's all gone cat-flaps and curfews. As a result of Liberty's victory in the court of human rights, government is reforming blanket stop-and-search powers. How on earth will blanket powers to impose curfews on peacetime Britain cut the mustard against the same tests of legality and proportionality?"
The consultation paper says the aim of the proposed general curfew power would be to keep the public off the streets in a given location, for a given period of time, to prevent or address serious disorder.
The paper says: "This could be used instead of dispersal powers in situations that could potentially involve large numbers of people, or where the police need to empty an area of people quickly for safety and security reasons."
The Home Office envisages a senior police officer taking the decision to clear streets based on "credible intelligence of a serious threat of such disorder in that place and at that time".
The paper recognises that it would be necessary to give appropriate notice to people within the curfew zone and to make arrangements for those who need to be outside for justifiable reasons, such as emergency workers.
This move evokes a historical parallel with the 1714 Riot Act, which was last "read" in England in 1919 and was repealed in 1973.
The paper states that there would need to be independent oversight of the use of the power. But while prior judicial approval could be necessary, it acknowledges that there will be circumstances where that is not possible.
by Alan Travis taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/13/home-office-plans-public-riot-curfews
The power entitles a police superintendent to declare a specific district a public "no go" area for a limited time – for the first time since the Riot Act was removed from the statute book for England and Wales in 1973.
A Home Office consultation paper published on Thursday stops short of making it a criminal offence to be outdoors in a curfew zone, but says it would be an offence to refuse a police instruction to leave the area. It leaves open the question of what penalty might be imposed.
The plan, which has the backing of the home secretary, Theresa May, is published alongside proposals to give the police stronger powers to order rioters and protesters to remove face masks, and for the police to impose curfews on individuals as part of a conditional caution.
The consultation paper also includes a proposal to remove the word "insulting" from section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, which makes it an offence for the public to use words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The measure has been used recently against Christian street-preachers who were arguing that homosexuality was sinful, against a teenager who claimed Scientology was a dangerous cult and against an Oxford University student who told a mounted police officer his horse was gay.
Liberal Democrat MPs have been pressing for section 5 to be repealed for undermining free speech, though the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, wants it retained to ensure that anyone who insults police officers can be prosecuted.
The crime and security minister, James Brokenshire, said it was essential to give the police all necessary legal powers to enable them to maintain public order, protect the streets and keep the public safe.
"But we must also make sure any new powers do not trample upon traditional British freedoms – that is why we are seeking public views on the powers the police really need to keep our communities safe," he said.
Civil liberties campaigners were appalled by the proposed curfew powers.
Isabella Sankey, the policy director of Liberty, said: "Whatever happened to the 'civil liberties' coalition that abolished ID cards and sought to restore rights and freedoms? It's all gone cat-flaps and curfews. As a result of Liberty's victory in the court of human rights, government is reforming blanket stop-and-search powers. How on earth will blanket powers to impose curfews on peacetime Britain cut the mustard against the same tests of legality and proportionality?"
The consultation paper says the aim of the proposed general curfew power would be to keep the public off the streets in a given location, for a given period of time, to prevent or address serious disorder.
The paper says: "This could be used instead of dispersal powers in situations that could potentially involve large numbers of people, or where the police need to empty an area of people quickly for safety and security reasons."
The Home Office envisages a senior police officer taking the decision to clear streets based on "credible intelligence of a serious threat of such disorder in that place and at that time".
The paper recognises that it would be necessary to give appropriate notice to people within the curfew zone and to make arrangements for those who need to be outside for justifiable reasons, such as emergency workers.
This move evokes a historical parallel with the 1714 Riot Act, which was last "read" in England in 1919 and was repealed in 1973.
The paper states that there would need to be independent oversight of the use of the power. But while prior judicial approval could be necessary, it acknowledges that there will be circumstances where that is not possible.
by Alan Travis taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/13/home-office-plans-public-riot-curfews
No comments:
Post a Comment