Unless all the bad news over the past year has merged into one vague living nightmare, you will be aware that the government has proposed a new clampdown on the right to protest. These changes come in the form of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. 

Current protest laws

It is not accurate to say that protests can currently take place in a state of lawless anarchy, the police can impose conditions on marches and demonstrations and can even ban a demonstration or march with the approval of the local authority and the Home Secretary. 

The police also already have a range of powers they can rely on to ensure a protest is kept under control. For example, it is already an offence to use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or to display any sign which is threatening or abusive under the Public Order Act 1986. 

Further, those who organise a march must give at least seven days’ notice to the police, unless it is “not reasonably practicable” to do so, although you should still give as much notice as possible. The notice should include the name and address of at least one of the organisers and the route and it is an offence not to provide this. 

For more information on current protest laws see here. 

What are the proposed changes? 

The proposed changes in the Bill are designed to amend the Public Order Act 1986.

Currently, if the police want to place restrictions on a protest, they normally have to show it may result in "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community". In addition, any restrictions on a static protest (as opposed to a march) are limited to location, duration, and limits on the number of people present. There is also no requirement to notify the police of a static protest.

The new law will allow the police to impose more conditions on static protests such as:

• Imposing a start and finish time;

• Setting noise limits;

• Applying to a demonstration by just one person.

Protests, both marches and static, will now be conditioned on whether they involve noise that could cause “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession” or if the noise has a “relevant” and “significant” impact on persons in the vicinity. 

The Bill explains that the noise generated by persons taking part could amount to a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity if it leads to “intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness…” or if such persons “suffer serious unease, alarm or distress”. 

Through the Home office, the Government is given the power to define what the phrases “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity” or “serious disruption to the life of the community” mean for the purposes of the Public Order Act. This can be done without parliamentary scrutiny.  

Nuisance

Further, the new proposal for nuisance should also be of concern and could have implications for those who protest in various ways against animal cruelty.  

The current law of nuisance is defined under the common law (ie judge-made law) and is understood as:

A person is guilty of a public nuisance who (a) does an act not warranted by law, or (b) omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty’s subjects.

The Bill aims to change the offence as follows:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person—

(i) does an act, or

(ii) omits to do an act that they are required to do by any enactment or rule of law,

(b) the person’s act or omission—

(i) causes serious harm to the public or a section of the public, or

(ii) obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large, and

(c) the person intends that their act or omission will have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (b) or is reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) an act or omission causes serious harm to a person if, as a result, the person—

(a) suffers death, personal injury or disease,

(b) suffers loss of, or damage to, property,

(c) suffers serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity, or

(d) is put at risk of suffering anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act or omission mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.

This is a vast broadening of the previous law. Firstly there no longer needs to be intention to commit a nuisance, just recklessness. It is also enough to prove an offence has been committed if you simply caused serious annoyance or inconvenience or damage to property that does not need to be serious. In addition, no one has to suffer anything, there just needs to be the risk of suffering it. This offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years. 

Conclusion

I am sure every animal activist can think of how their protest activities may lead to unease or distress; after all explaining what animals go through can be distressing to hear. It is also true that many activists' activities are seen as a serious inconvenience or annoyance, especially to those who wish to hide what is going on.

For these reasons, animal groups and activists should be concerned. For those of you who are aware of the North American Ag-Gag laws, where undercover investigations on farms are an offence, it is worth noting that the encroachment on civil liberties contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill could amount to the same or even go further, after all the terms are so vague; I imagine the farming industry is ‘seriously annoyed’ by an investigation. Not only that, even protesting about farming away from the farm could be seriously curtailed, particularly where the Home Secretary is given considerable powers to define what terms mean with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. However, it is worth noting that any misuse of terms or violations of The Human Rights Act could be challenged. 

It is advisable to write to your MP and to make it clear why this is an unacceptable encroachment on your rights.

Edie Bowles is a solicitor and the co-founder of Advocates for Animals, which is the first UK law firm dedicated to animal protection. Advocates for Animals works towards a world where animals are protected by philosophically consistent laws which are regulated and enforced effectively.

To get there it helps clients hold to account not only people who break the laws that protect animals, but also governments and other bodies charged with enforcing them.

Visit advocates-for-animals.com, or find them on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.

Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.

LATEST ARTICLES