Dear Constituent,
Thank you for contacting me about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill.
This Bill seeks to equip the police with the powers and tools they need to protect themselves and the public, while overhauling sentencing laws to keep serious sexual and violent offenders behind bars for longer, and placing greater emphasis on rehabilitation to better help offenders to turn their lives around and prevent further crimes.
I understand concerns about the proposed new powers regarding protests in part 3 of the Bill. Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are vital rights that I absolutely support. The right of a person to express their opinion and protest is a cornerstone to our democratic society.
I spoke during the debate in the second reading in March 2021 and although speeches were time limited, I was able to make a brief contribution - Richard speaks in second reading of Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill | Richard Fuller
During the debate on the 28th February 2022, I spoke in the debate in relation to one specific issue - the proposals in relation to noise during public protests and my speech can be viewed here: Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill - YouTube
I have been very sensitive to the representations made to me about demonstrations and the right to protest. I recognise these changes have been debated extensively and have not yet been put into practice. I also recognise that they could prove to be unnecessary or too restrictive on the right to protest. In view of my concerns on the specific point about noisy protest, I will continue to monitor this and the Home Affairs Select Committee will I am sure conduct a review of these measures when enacted.
You may find the following information helpful, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021: protest powers factsheet - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) as there have been some misunderstandings regarding the proposed new powers.
The confirmation provided today (28th March 2022), that in the context of noise during protests, the term "serious unease" would be removed from the Bill is welcome. The Home Secretary has recognised that there has been some concern about the terminology used in the Bill to describe the trigger for the power to attach noise-related conditions to a protest. As the Home Secretary has pointed out, most of the terms used, such as “alarm” and “distress”, are well understood by the police and the courts, but the term “serious unease” is novel and an amendment to the Bill has been tabled to remove the “serious unease” trigger.
The issue at hand relates to the balance between the rights of a protestor and the rights of citizens to go about their daily business. There have been examples where protests have caused unjustifiable disruption and distress to other citizens. For example, some of the scenes we saw from the Extinction Rebellion protests, where ambulances were stopped from reaching hospitals and efforts to prevent the printing of newspapers, were deeply troubling and concerning.
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.
It is the case that when using these powers, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law. Importantly, the police must be able to demonstrate that their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. It is also clear that the police must act compatibly with human rights, in particular Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association).
I am aware that much has been said regarding the proposed public nuisance offence. As you may be aware, Clause 59 gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission in their July 2015 Report on 'Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency'. The report stated that the common law offence of public nuisance should be replaced by a statutory offence covering any conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of a section of the public or obstructs them in the exercise of their rights. You can find the Law Commission report on this issue at the following link - https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/06/lc358_public_nuisance.pdf
Importantly, the new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance.
The 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. In London, these powers are given to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Commissioner of the City of London Police, with the consent of the Home Secretary. These powers are unchanged by this Bill.
The majority of protests in England and Wales do not cause serious disruption to the activities of an organisation or a significant impact on the people in the vicinity of the protest so will be unaffected by this legislation. This power will only limit the most extreme cases where the noise from protests is unjustifiable.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill does not introduce a new power to ban protests that are annoying, as has been suggested by some. Whilst the public nuisance offence can capture behaviour that causes the public or a section of the public to suffer serious annoyance, this is consistent with the existing common law offence of public nuisance and does not connote merely feeling annoyed.
The term “annoyance” has been applied to:
- allowing a field to be used for holding an all-night rave;
- conspiring to switch off the floodlights at a football match so as to cause it to be abandoned; and
- noise, dirt, fumes, noxious smells and vibrations.
The public nuisance offence is not a new offence, but an existing, centuries old, common law offence which currently has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The Home Secretary will not be able to decide what constitutes serious disruption. Deciding whether to place conditions on an assembly or procession to prevent serious disruption is an operational matter for the police. In the event of a challenge, ultimately it would be for the courts to decide whether the threshold of serious disruption had been met.
Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of British democracy. The majority of protests in the England and Wales will be unaffected by these changes. These measures will balance the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered. They will achieve this by enabling the police to better manage highly disruptive protests.
This is a long-awaited Bill with many measures previously announced or discussed before the Bill itself was published, most notably those within the Sentencing White Paper, published in September last year. The broader provisions of this Bill will ensure that sexual and violent offenders are kept behind bars for longer, that victims of crime are better supported, that the police have the powers to protect themselves and the public and that there is a focus on rehabilitation. Further details are set out here: Justice overhaul to better protect the public and back our police | Richard Fuller
Regarding unauthorised traveller sites, the setting up of illegal traveller sites can be a nuisance for local communities and an inappropriate development of open space. I know that many local residents across the country are concerned about anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, and noise related to unauthorised sites.
After two consultations on this issue, I welcome the fact that as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill, new laws will be introduced to increase the powers available to the police in England and Wales. The Bill will introduce a new criminal offence where a person resides or intends to reside on any public or private land without permission and has caused, or is likely to cause, significant harm, obstruction, or harassment or distress. In addition, the Bill amends the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to broaden the list of harms that can be considered by the police when directing people away from land; and increase the period in which persons directed away from land must not return from three months to 12 months. Amendments to the 1994 Act will in addition allow police to direct trespassers away from land that forms part of a highway.
I can reassure you that the Government has taken steps to ensure that those exercising their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted by these measures.
I believe these new measures are a proportionate and necessary increase in powers for the police. The Government has made it clear that only a minority of travellers are causing problems, such as through abusive behaviour and extensive litter and waste at illegal sites. The vast majority of the travelling community are law-abiding and we must ensure that there are legal sites available for travellers. I welcome the fact that as of January 2020, the number of lawful traveller sites increased by 41 per cent from January 2010.
I am confident that Government action will help to reduce the number of illegal sites across the country, while respecting people’s right to a nomadic way of life.
With regard to the Bill’s focus on domestic abuse and specifically on time limits for prosecution, in England and Wales there is no time limit for starting a prosecution for indictable offences, these are offences that can be tried in the Crown Court. However, a prosecution for a summary offence, those which can only be tried in a magistrates’ court, must begin within six months of the day when the offence was committed, unless there is specific statutory provision for a different time limit.
I understand there are two opposing considerations to balance, on the one hand the need for justice to be done; and on the other hand, the right of suspects to finality and certainty.
This amendment will change how the six-month time limit to commence a prosecution for common assault or battery involving domestic abuse is applied in England and Wales to run from the date of an offence being reported to the police through a formal witness statement or video recording given with a view to its use as evidence, rather than the date of the offence, subject to an overall limit of two years from the offence. I am encouraged that this would give victims more time in which to seek justice given that domestic abuse is often reported late relative to other crimes, but with a two-year backstop to prevent the police from being inundated with historical reports.
Finally, some concerns have been raised with me regarding stop and search powers. Clearly, there must be a balance between deploying tactics to help fight crime and ensuring no one feels unduly threatened. I want to be absolutely clear though that no one should be targeted because of their race.
Recent protests by groups including Insulate Britain have demonstrated the need to ensure that public order legislation strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of protesters and those of the wider public adversely affected by protest activity. The irresponsible actions we have seen in recent months around the M25 and elsewhere have put police officers and the travelling public (and indeed the protesters themselves) at serious risk of harm, as well as bringing unacceptable disruption to those simply wanting to get to work or otherwise go about their daily lives.
Under the proposals, existing stop and search powers would be extended to allow for the search and seizure of objects made, adapted, or indented for use in the course of specified protest related offences. This would include both a suspicion-led power and a suspicion-less power. The police need to be able to respond to a seriously disruptive protest – for example, one blocking a motorway. Furthermore, I believe the public would far rather the police take preventive action, such as seizing locking on equipment, to avoid the disruption happening in the first place, so that they can get to work on time and ambulances can quickly get patients to hospital.
So far as scrutiny of the Bill is concerned, this Bill followed an extensive public consultation and is going through its parliamentary stages in the usual way. It has been debated in full sittings of the House of Commons and the House of Lords over the course of many days and has undergone many additional days of line by line scrutiny at the committee stage of the Bill. There has certainly been no lack of scrutiny, as some have suggested.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Fuller MP
