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

Ev w70 Home Affairs Committee: Evidence
Riot (Damages) Act 1886
The APA endorses the recommendation of the HASC in 2002 that the Riot (Damages) Act should be repealed
because it is out of date.
20. The APA’s view is that if the Government wishes to retain provision for reimbursement of those impacted
by riotous disorder, then the Act should be reviewed and clarified to ensure central Government and not local
public services meet liabilities incurred under the act.
“To provide cover to insured parties seems an inappropriate adoption of risk by the public sector
and to provide support to those who are not insured without any excess or premium seems a perverse
incentive to people not to insure. If the Government feels for political reasons that now is not the
time to change the allocation of risk away from the public sector we (Avon and Somerset) would
urge them to adopt the risk within Central Government—it is disproportionate and risks severely
affecting the local delivery of vital public services if this risk remains at a local police authority
level.”
21. The HASC may reflect that the Act has serious flaws (it does not include cover for motor vehicles parked
on the street as there were no motor vehicles in 1886), and it was introduced at a time of much lower levels
of insurance provision by the private sector. Today, the RDA only really compensates insurance companies and
those who do not pay their insurance premiums. This cannot be right.
22. In terms of the current disturbances, the APA has worked closely and constructively with HMG, both in
introducing the central claims bureau for uninsured claims and in the ongoing engagement and liaison with
police authorities regarding insured R(D)A claims and operational costs.
23. However, whilst the APA is committed to rapid resolution of all claims under the Riot Damage Act
(RDA), in the fullest spirit of the Act, HMG must be aware that if it does not honour the commitment of the
Prime Minister to meet the costs of the disturbances, friction may develop and authorities may have to resort
to the letter of the law.
24. Police authorities cannot meet the costs of these disturbances alone, and if HO help is not forthcoming,
authorities may have no choice but to meet only those claims which are strictly eligible under the terms of the
Act, in order to protect their local policing budget. For example the R(D)A 1886 makes clear that to meet the
legal definition of a “riot”, a disturbance must involve at least 12 people.
“It remains Leicestershire’s position that there is some difficulty in applying the definition of ‘riot’
as determined under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. There were a series of disturbances involving
damage to property and where property was stolen.”
25. Such a regrettable but unavoidable step (to limit claims to those within the strict definition of the act)
would only be taken reluctantly not least as such a decision would have an obvious impact on public perceptions
of HMG and other agencies’ response to these awful events.
September 2011
Home Secretary,
LETTER FROM THE APA TO THE HOME SECRETARY, 17 AUGUST 2011
Annex A
Your speech yesterday (“The urgent need for Police Reform”) included quite extraordinary allegations about
the work of Police Authority Chairs up and down the country:
“In London, the Mayor was on the streets of his city, working with the Acting Commissioner and
representing Londoners to central government. The contrast with unaccountable, unelected and
invisible police authority chairmen in other parts of the country could not have been clearer.”
This un-evidenced, London-centric assertion was either regretfully ill-informed or wilfully inaccurate. In
either case we believe it to be unbecoming of a Secretary of State. It has caused not only bemusement but
anger amongst police authorities and our partners across the country.
Quite simply, your allegations are completely untrue and a cursory conversation with the relevant Chief
Constables, Council Leaders or representatives of local media could have confounded it.
The facts are that not only Chairs, but the full range of diverse police authority members were out listening
to communities and reflecting their concerns to the police at the highest levels in GOLD meetings across the
country. Authorities provided both support and appropriate challenge to forces. We worked closely with Chief
Constables to ensure that they had all that they needed to police confidently, with full operational independence
in defence of the public. Both in public and in private, we simply got on with the job. Police Authority Chairs
were out on the front foot; convening meetings with the leaders of other emergency services, local councils,
local media and community leaders, as well as visiting affected areas.
It is a matter of record that a number of Police Authority Chairs actually cancelled their leave to ensure that
the police could respond to public concerns. Before any politicians could tour the streets of London with TV