Policing Large Scale Disorder: Lessons from the disturbances of ...

Ev w38 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence
Police Handling of the Riots
In the days that followed the riots in London and other major cities in England, the police faced some public
criticism for failing to initially contain the disorder. Liberty can understand this frustration. As violence spread
across London on Monday 8 August images and reports indicated that there were simply not enough police
officers deployed to be able to contain the disorder. As a result, individuals were able to commit criminal acts
in public, sometimes in front of police officers and on TV cameras, without being arrested. With the benefit of
hindsight it is now clear that on that day, the Metropolitan police were overwhelmed in terms of numbers and
that Manchester police were similarly overwhelmed on the evening of the 9th. It is important to acknowledge
that police numbers cannot be routinely set at a level appropriate to policing large scale disorder—this is an
inescapable feature of tackling unexpected and far-reaching outbursts of criminality. However in London,
following the sudden and widespread escalation of violence on Monday night, thousands of additional officers
were drafted in and 16,000 officers were deployed on the following evening. Indeed, senior officers and the
Home Secretary have since acknowledged that it was these additional human resources which meant that
further disorder was prevented. In light of these frustrations, and with the benefit of hindsight, it is reasonable
to ask how in future the police could be better poised to react to sudden public disorder in order to deploy
sufficient numbers of officers to make arrests where appropriate and protect the public from harm and damage
to property.
Liberty is well aware of the challenges of public order policing. Whilst it is important to emphasise that
violent disorder has nothing to do with exercise of the right to peaceful protest, we have, throughout our
history, acted as Legal Observers of the policing of marches and demonstrations some of which have involved
disorder. We have consistently warned of the risks, inherent in the use of the blanket tools such as water cannon
and baton rounds, and it was heartening to hear senior officers consequently rejecting their use. Indiscriminate
use of such tools ends up targeting large numbers of people, regardless of their behaviour, punishing the
innocent along with the guilty and creating widespread panic. Where possible it is far preferable for the police
to make targeted arrests of those involved in committing criminal activities rather than imposing blanket
measures. The ability of the police to make arrests is obviously in part dependant on police numbers present
and the practical circumstances.
Since 1934, Liberty has been a critical friend to the police and has never shied away from holding the police
service to account. However, similarly we must give credit where it is due. The UK has a long and proud
history of policing by consent and despite huge provocation from the actions of a minority and pressure from
some politicians and sections of the media, senior officers responded to the riots in a proportionate manner in
word and deed. Police chiefs were robust in rejecting calls for military intervention, water cannon and plastic
bullet rounds. Instead they took the operational decision to redeploy and inflate the numbers of officers on the
streets with good effect. Tim Godwin, acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said that he would
rather be the last man left in Scotland Yard, with his entire management team on the streets, than call for the
army. Sir Hugh Orde, President, of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), dismissed the use of both
water cannon and baton rounds as inappropriate for the circumstances. Past use of plastic bullets in Northern
Ireland resulted in 14 deaths, including nine children. This time round in England, wise police leadership
resisted the temptation to resort to dangerous riot control weapons and focussed on tackling the problem rather
than fanning the flames. We urge the Committee when it assesses the events of last month in order to learn
lessons for the future, that it takes into account painful lessons from past tragedies.
Police and Community Relations
While nothing can excuse the violence displayed in our towns and cities over a number of days last month,
it would be short-sighted for the general state of police and community relations not to be examined in its wake.
Over the past decade, the police have been granted unprecedented powers, which have often been wide and
blanket in nature. Examples abound of the way in which such powers have scooped up the innocent with the
guilty and left minority ethnic groups dangerously exposed to discriminatory treatment. Section 44 of the
Terrorism Act 2000 is a key example of a divisive police power, over-used and highly susceptible to arbitrary
and discriminatory operational impact. While this provision no longer has operational effect following Liberty’s
successful challenge in the European Court of Human Rights, the use of the power has had a hugely negative
impact on community relations with police. Thousands of predominantly young Asian men have been stopped
and searched by police, sometimes on a daily basis. 39 Rifts in the relationship of police with their communities
following the disproportionate use of such powers will always take time to heal.
Despite the welcome repeal of section 44, similar powers remain on the statute book. Stop and search
without suspicion under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) has a similarly
alienating impact to section 44. Stops under section 60 have gone up dramatically over the last decade. In
2009–10 there were 118,446 section 60 stop and searches across England and Wales—a huge increase when
39 Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (Application no. 4158/05), European Court of Human Rights. The Terrorism Act 2000
(Remedial) Order provides that stop and search without suspicion under section 44 ceases to have effect, proposals in the
Protection of Freedoms Bill will replace the provision with a more tightly circumscribed power.