Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Thank you to all the constituents who have recently got in touch with me regarding the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.  

 I am disappointed, as ever, that some feel it necessary to send abusive messages. As everyone should, I have a zero tolerance policy to such remarks and any that constitute an offence will be followed up with the authorities.  

I want to first comment on the extremely distressing murder of Sarah Everard. My thoughts are very much with Sarah's family and loved ones, who are clearly going through a very painful time. This shocking case has sparked a national conversation which is vital to the future of our society. 

Sadly, for many women, this news story will bring back memories of threatening situations they found themselves in through no fault of their own, sexually harassed on the streets when walking home from meeting friends, receiving anonymous threats of physical violence on social media, or sexually assaulted in plain sight in rush hour on public transport on the way to work. Many choose not to talk about this and not to report it for fear of not being believed or being taken seriously. Research shows that these sorts of events are, depressingly, a part of women’s everyday lives, and that is why what happened to Sarah Everard feels so very close to home. 

The response to the reopened call for evidence on the Home Office’s violence against women and girls strategy, which I first shared some weeks ago, has now received more than 130,000 submissions. 

If you would like to contribute you can on the link below: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/violence-against-women-and-girls-vawg-call-for-evidence 

Please feel free to let me know if you choose to do this, I would be extremely interested to see your contribution.  

Specifically, I want to briefly address the action taken by the Metropolitan Police at the vigil held in Clapham on 13th March. I do have concerns around the scenes/images we saw round the policing of this, and this should have been handled a lot better. It is a shame that an agreement for the vigil to go ahead could not be made despite the efforts.  

Ultimately however due to the pandemic we are still fighting against an agreement for the event to go ahead safely was not agreed by the relevant parties. The action taken here by police was because of the national lockdown/restrictions we are in which are in place to prevent the spread of Covid-19. With people packed tightly together there was a genuine risk of transmission. 

It is a shame that there has been a deliberate conflation by the Labour party and others with the Covid regulations and their effect on the right to protest.  The Labour party did not oppose these regulations but voted in favour of them. They have conflated those arguments with measures in the Bill that long predate what happened on the weekend.  

We are still firmly in the middle of a national lockdown and it is so important that everyone continues to do everything we can to stop the spread of Covid-19 in order to protect the NHS. The UK vaccination programme is making wonderful progress and, all being well, we can start to ease the restrictions very soon.

My apologies for the long start to this post but as many mentioned the above in their emails, I wanted to express my thoughts and clarity around this.  

Now, relating to the Bill itself, the main concerns relayed to me are around the right to protest.

Specific points of concern relate to the below: 

-Clauses 54 to 56 and 60 would amend police powers in the Public Order Act 1986 so police can impose conditions on protests that are noisy enough to cause “intimidation or harassment” or “serious unease, alarm or distress” to bystanders.  

-Clauses 57 and 58 would amend provisions in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to expand the “controlled area” around Parliament where certain protest activities are prohibited. It would also add obstructing access to the Parliamentary Estate to the activities prohibited in the “controlled area”.  

-Clause 59 would abolish the common law offence of public nuisance and replace it with a new statutory offence of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance” 

I very much support the right to protest and it is such an important part of a functioning and healthy democracy.  

The Bill will not undermine freedom to protest. Instead, the 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.  

The changes are needed because existing public order legislation was passed in 1986 and is no longer fit for managing the types of protests that are experienced today. The highly disruptive tactics used by some protesters cause a disproportionate impact on the surrounding communities and are a drain on public funds. The Metropolitan Police Service’s cost for policing Extinction Rebellion’s 2019 April protests in London was over £16 million.  

Changes will improve the police’s ability to manage such protests enabling them to dedicate resources to keeping the public safe. When using these, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law and be able to demonstrate that their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. They must act compatibly with human rights, principally Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association). 

The new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance. 

Further, the offence captures conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to the public.  

I take issue with the suggestion that the new measures around policing protests are dangerous and draconian. Ensuring that a protest cannot prevent an ambulance from reaching a hospital in an emergency is the exact opposite of dangerous. Ensuring that police can impose conditions on protests that are noisy enough to cause intimidation, alarm and distress to innocent bystanders is the exact opposite of draconian. 

The below article from full fact objectively looks at the levels of support for violence and serious disruption in protesting: 

https://fullfact.org/crime/telegraph-protests-disruption/ 

Unfortunately, all the misinformation around the Bill has caused some important democratically elected manifesto promises to be missed.  

There will be new protections and powers for the police while reforming sentencing. Measures include: 

-Whole Life Orders for child killers, with judges also allowed to impose this punishment on 18 to 20 year olds in exceptional cases. 

-New powers to halt the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public. The Bill also ends the halfway release of offenders sentenced for serious violent and sexual offences. 

-Introducing life sentences for killer drivers. 

-Serious Violence Reduction Orders – new stop and search powers against convicted knife offensive weapons offenders. We will also enshrine the police covenant in law. 

-Doubling the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to 2 years. 

-Ensuring community sentences are stricter and better target underlying causes of crime such as mental health issues, alcohol or drug addiction. 

The Bill also delivers on the promise/progress to deliver 20,000 more police officers and delivers on the government’s pledge to restore confidence in the criminal justice system, giving full support to the police and courts to cut crime and make our streets safer.  

I am proud to vote for this Bill at second reading and very much hope that cross party consensus around some of the disagreements can be ironed out in its committee stage, as has happened very successfully with the Domestic Abuse Bill which is also progressing through Parliament.  It fulfils several manifesto promises, which I was elected by the people of Truro & Falmouth to help deliver. 

If you would like to discuss this further or any other matter, then please do not hesitate to contact me. 

cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk