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

Ev w40 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence
police faced over the duration of the riots. Current dispersal powers are already broadly defined—the reality is
that someone who is prepared to commit violence, theft and criminal damage is unlikely to take notice of a
police request to leave the area. 47 Similarly, in a riot situation, the ability of the police to enforce a general
curfew or the usefulness of a general power to require the removal of face coverings is highly questionable.
As to the latter, section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) enables an officer of or
above the rank of inspector to authorise searches for weapons or dangerous instruments without reasonable
suspicion. Criteria relating to serious violence must be met and the authorisation can only be given within a
specified area for a specified period of time. Once a section 60 authorisation is in place, section 60AA CJPOA
enables a similar authorisation to be given permitting constables to require the removal of face coverings if
the constable reasonably believes these are worn wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing identity. A
person refusing to remove his or her face covering when requested to do so risks imprisonment for up to a
month or a fine. Unless the Government is of the view that the riots did not meet the necessary criteria for a
section 60 authorisation, it is difficult to see how further powers to require the removal of face coverings could
be needed. In any event, as noted above, the usefulness of such a power in riot circumstances is questionable.
Social networking
Plans to grant new powers to close social networking sights such as Facebook and Twitter now appear to
have been abandoned. This is to be welcomed and the Government congratulated for not continuing down this
wrong-headed path. In the wake of the Government’s initial suggestion, parallels with preventative censorship
often adopted or attempted to be adopted by the authorities in China, Iran and other authoritarian regimes were,
quite rightly, not lost on the public. Supporting the realisation of human rights overseas while threatening to
close Facebook at home is an uncomfortable position for any Government.
Principle aside, shutting down entire phone and social media networks—punishing innocent users and those
warning others of violence—is as useless as it is disproportionate. After all, the current legislative framework
provides the police with a number of relevant and intrusive powers to monitor and bring to justice those
committing criminal acts online. As post-riot convictions have shown, inciting violence whether from your
computer or a megaphone has long been a serious criminal offence. Closing networks could therefore easily
interfere with the police’s ability to gather intelligence and information on those inciting or organising violence,
hampering efforts to investigate, prosecute and convict those responsible for wrongdoing. In any event, the
effectiveness of stalling communications between potential rioters by shutting down networks should not be
overestimated. There will always be another way to communicate. At the same time, the role of social media
in the riots must not be overplayed. Even if social media played its part in the shocking spread of violence
earlier this month, what about the rolling news channels with their constant images of where and how the
disorder was spreading? Unsurprisingly the Government did not suggest that we should have routine news
blackouts as well and there may well be a generational explanation for this. Fears about new forms of
communication are, of course, not new. The printing press, the wireless and the creation of the internet itself
all brought fears about the possibilities of greater communication in their day. Following the events of last
month, it was perhaps not unexpected that the newest type of innovation—social networking—was the focus
of concern. However, Liberty urges parliamentarians to remember that while many people indulge in social
media for light PR and light relief, to a younger generation such communications are as fundamental as
newspapers and radio. Shutting down these networks for anything short of a national emergency or invasion
by an enemy power, is the modern equivalent of blocking TV signals and interfering with the postal system.
Eviction of council tenants
Much has been made, including by the Housing Minister, of the possibility of evicting those involved in
looting and disorder from social housing. Councils have long had powers to remove tenants where they are
implicated in, for example, anti-social behaviour or damage to property in their locality, however a decision to
evict lies ultimately with the courts. Liberty believes that evictions based on the criminality, or alleged antisocial
behaviour of council tenants, are counter-productive when applied even to those genuinely involved in
misconduct and have a devastating impact on family members, including children, who are in no way
implicated in offending behaviour.
Where criminality is serious enough, the courts already have the power to remove somebody from their
home by imprisoning them. For less serious offending it is difficult to see how making people homeless and
placing responsibility on local authorities to find alternative accommodation will have any positive impact.
Further, whilst the criminality we witnessed across the UK last month is attributable to a complex array of
factors, on any common sense analysis, removing housing and other forms of basic support from those already
at the margins in our society will increase social exclusion, exacerbating the problems that accompany it.
Increased use of Gang injunctions
“Gangbos” were created in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and brought into force in February this year.
They are civil orders that can be granted by the civil courts if the local council or the police can show there is
a 50/50 chance that a person has engaged in, encouraged or assisted gang-related violence and is the injunction
47 See the general dispersal powers at s.30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 in addition to more specific powers such as
those at s.27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.